No cosmopolitan morality without state sovereignty

Abstract

This article takes issue with the common view that cosmopolitan normative commitments are incompatible with recognition of state sovereignty as a basic principle of international law. Against influential cosmopolitans, who at best ascribe a derivative significance to the sovereignty of states, the article argues that state sovereignty is not only compatible with, but also essential to the recognition of individuals as units of ultimate concern. The argument challenges a problematic distributive conception of justice underlying many cosmopolitans’ support for reforms of the international legal order towards a system where respect for basic human rights is the only criterion for political legitimacy. An alternative relational conception of justice makes it possible to see why there is an internal connection between the rights of individuals and the rights of states. The argument adds up to a novel defence of the so-called domestic analogy, which regards the territorial integrity of states as an international parallel to the bodily integrity of individuals.

A cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession

“…Extreme cosmopolitans like Richard Arneson hold that there are no special‐tie moral duties at all, or no special‐tie moral duties at the level of states (even if there are special‐tie moral duties at the level of families and friends) (Arneson, 2016). For the purposes of this article all the relevant cosmopolitanisms are statist cosmopolitanisms, which hold that cosmopolitanism is compatible with the state system, because secession is only a relevant topic insofar as states exist (Beitz, 1994; Mikalsen, 2017; Ypi, 2008).…”

Statism and Cosmopolitanism on Global Justice and Universal Fundamental Rights

“…Cosmopolitanism is founded on the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, are (or can and should be) citizens in a single community basing on universal moral norms [14]. According to cosmopolitanism, principles of justice regulating the fair distribution of rights and duties hold also at the global level and global justice should be conceived in terms of an institutional cosmopolitanism based on universal human rights [3] which leads to assess the global order as unjust insofar as it is unable to globally ensure the overall protection of fundamental rights.…”