Introduction

Archibugi, Daniele; Koenig‐Archibugi, Mathias; Marchetti, Raffaele

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977992.001

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main reason for this is that nothing necessitates the particular path the above argument suggests. 109 Another possibility, and one backed by a more sustained investigation, is suggested by Daniel Deudney. Deudney argues that the risks associated with violence-interdependence under anarchy have regularly pushed different communities to come together under a higher-order system of government.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique

Valentini¹

2014

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A globalized world, some argue, needs a global democracy. But there is considerable disagreement about whether global democracy is an ideal worth pursuing. One of the main grounds for scepticism is captured by the slogan: "No global demos, no global democracy." The fact that a key precondition of democracy-a demos-is absent at the global level, some argue, speaks against the pursuit of global democracy. The paper discusses four interpretations of the skeptical slogan-each based on a specific account of the notion of "the demos"-and concludes that none of them establishes that the global democratic ideal must be abandoned. In so doing, the paper (i) systematizes different types of objections against global democracy, thus bringing some clarity to an otherwise intricate debate and (ii) offers a robust but qualified defense of the global democratic ideal.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique

Valentini¹

2014

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Needless to say, there is more than one account of global democracy, and hence it is useful to say something more specific about what we mean by a democratic account of the legitimacy of global governance institutions. One characteristic way of classifying different models of global democracy is to analyse the different conceptions of the demoi upon which such models are built (Archibugi et al, 2011;Held, 1995Held, , 2006; see also Marchetti, 2008). The first model of global democracy is based on intergovernmentalism and views global democracy as an international form of association based on the membership of democratic states.…”

Section: The Democratic Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Cosmopolitanism and Democratic Values

Held

Maffettone

2017

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past four decades topics related to the moral evaluation of global politics have occupied a central part of the philosophical debate. The first three sections of this essay provide a reconstruction of the defining features of the globalization of politics and of the ways in which the latter have contributed to the increased philosophical attention on the moral aspects of global affairs. In sections four to six, we move to the current debate in global political theory. Moral cosmopolitanism has come to articulate the boundaries of reasonable disagreement in global political theory and has implied a deep form of commitment to basic human rights. However, we argue in section six, agreement on basic human rights has not evolved into widespread convergence on a range of central political concepts such as distributive justice and legitimacy. Against this backdrop, in sections 7 to 10, we move on to consider the role of democracy in global politics. The main conclusion that the essay will put forward is that the complexity of the institutional landscape beyond traditional state borders does not automatically lend itself to the mechanical application of democratic institutional forms, but that democratic values can still play an important role.From Hobbes to the international lawyers Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel, and of course Kant, modern philosophy has always attempted to define the nature and shape of a just international order. A just international order, broadly defined, is one in which right and justice prevail over political power and economic interests as the main criteria for evaluating the conduct of states, individuals, and other types of agents. Put differently, a just international order gives priority to normative evaluations of global political life -it is a moral order. While seeing global politics as a moral order is something that political thinkers have been doing for a long time, it is fair to say that, in the past four decades in particular, topics related to the moral evaluation of global politics have occupied a central part of the philosophical debate.Providing a detailed history of this relatively recent intellectual shift is beyond the remit of this essay. Yet we believe that at least one part of the story pertains to the globalization of political relations. The first three sections of this article provide a reconstruction of what we see as the defining features of the globalization of politics and of the ways in which the latter have contributed to the increased philosophical attention on the moral aspects of global affairs. The deep forms of social, economic and political interdependence that characterize globalization have pushed the disciplines of moral and political philosophy to find a central place for the normative aspects of world politics.In sections 4 to 6, we move to the current debate in global political theory. This debate has reached what we call a cosmopolitan plateau. Moral cosmopolitanism has come to articulate the boundaries of reasonable disagreement in glob...

show abstract

“…They offer three different rationales for why NSAs should be involved in international affairs and highlight tensions between NSAs as apolitical, political, or democratic actors. These normative arguments in turn are linked to various models to enhance democratic legitimacy of global governance, such as notions of democratic intergovernmentalism or polycentrism (Archibugi et al, 2011), stakeholder democracy (Macdonald, 2008) and deliberative democracy (Dryzek, 2006). As theoretical rationales, they offer different views on the roles of states and NSAs in international policy-making processes and therefore have implications for our understanding of contemporary global governance arrangements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism?

Nasiritousi

Hjerpe

Bäckstrand

2016

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The participation of non-state actors (NSA) in multilateral institutions is often portrayed as one way of decreasing the perceived legitimacy deficit in global governance. The literature on NSAs has identified several ways in which these actors can enhance the legitimacy of inter-governmental organisations and global governance arrangements. Three partially-competing normative arguments, or rationales, for the inclusion of nonstate actors in international policy-making -functionalism, neocorporatism and democratic pluralism -have been identified (Willetts, 2006). Whereas functionalism highlights the contribution of NSAs to output legitimacy in terms of expertise, neocorporatism emphasises the inclusion of affected interests, and democratic pluralism claims that NSAs increase input legitimacy through procedural values. These three normative arguments thus offer different understandings of the motives for inclusion and representation of NSAs in international negotiations and diplomacy. Through a single case study of UN climate diplomacy, we analyse the extent to which the three rationales for NSA inclusion are found in views held by state and non-state actors participating in the annual UN climate change conferences. Our results show that different actor groups place varying degrees of emphasis on the different rationales for NSA inclusion, even though the neocorporatist rationale remains most favoured overall. We discuss the implications of our findings for the democratic legitimacy of increasing participation of NSAs in intergovernmental affairs and recent trends in the participation of NSAs in the international climate change policy-making process.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique

No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique

Moral Cosmopolitanism and Democratic Values

Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About