Universalism Renewed: Habermas' Theory of International Order in Light of Competing Paradigms

Bogdandy, Armin von; Dellavalle, Sergio

doi:10.1017/s2071832200000900

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other GlobCon scholars have taken a more radical ontological departure from traditional international legal theory with their application of Habermasian Communicative Theory. This approach posits a universalism ‘beyond the Kantian paradigm of universalistic individualism’ based on notions of intersubjectivities and communication (Bogdandy and Dellavalle 2009: 5–6). In this view, GlobCon is understood to be (potentially) deliberative or communicative processes that, despite the plurality of cultures and rationalities at the global level, are bound by a universal communicative rationality (ibid).…”

Section: Global Constitutionalism and Global Public–private Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global public–private partnerships and the new constitutionalism of the refugee regime

Machacek

2018

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Since the early 2000s, regimes and institutions of global governance have undergone a paradigmatic shift in their relations with multinational corporations. The United Nations, in particular, has increasingly embraced big business as ‘partner’ in humanitarian response and development with the establishment of ‘global public–private partnerships’ (GP3s). This article situates this emerging mode of global governance within the recent academic discussions on Global Constitutionalism from a critical political economy perspective, focusing on the case of the UN Refugee Agency’s GP3s in refugee protection and assistance. Critically inquiring into GP3s not only as informal global constitutional arrangements but also as a set of political relations, this article asks: what is the constitutional and political nature of UNHCR–business partnerships? What impacts, if any, do they have on the agency? And, what does this mean for understanding global constitutionalism? The article argues that UNHCR partnerships are constituted as asymmetrical political relations in terms of their distributions of power, benefits, risks and commitments, that they are having neoliberal-oriented constitutive effects on the agency and that these constitutional dynamics challenge the more mainstream and liberal-based conceptualisations, analyses and promotion of current global constitutionalism processes.

show abstract

Section: Global Constitutionalism and Global Public–private Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global public–private partnerships and the new constitutionalism of the refugee regime

Machacek

2018

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This divide relates to the perception that specific democratic norms have universal value versus the perception that democratic values are inseparably related to certain institutions or territorial spaces. 110 From a universalistic point of view, individuals, rather than peoples, states, or societies, constitute the basic ground for morality, regardless of the institutional character of an organisation that makes the laws. Any social construction needs to be justified with regard to individuals, irrespective of whether it consists of a small group of individuals or a large and institutionalised one.…”

Section: Universalism Versus Particularismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual confusions in debating the role of NGOs for the democratic legitimacy of international law

Beijerman

2018

Transnational Legal Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article revisits the debate on the contribution of NGOs to the democratic legitimacy of international law. While the primary focus of this debate seems to be on the question of whether or not NGOs are a justifiable source for the democratic legitimacy of international law, there is little consensus on the meaning, interpretation, and scope of democratic legitimacy. This is troublesome as their different-often-implicit-interpretations of democratic legitimacy influence the ways scholars validate NGOs. In this article I offer a threefold classification of the conceptions of democratic legitimacy that seem to underlie the debate: universalistic versus particularistic approaches, institutionalist versus non-institutionalist approaches, and uniform versus multiform approaches. The classification of these different approaches aims to invite scholars to first engage in the fundamental debate on how democratic legitimacy should be theorised in the context of international law in order to address each other's arguments at the same conceptual level.

show abstract

“…90 In this tradition, activists of various peace movements shared a belief in the possibilities of universal order and provided important impulses for the development of modern international judicial institutions towards the end of the nineteenth century. 90 In this tradition, activists of various peace movements shared a belief in the possibilities of universal order and provided important impulses for the development of modern international judicial institutions towards the end of the nineteenth century.…”

Section: International Courts As Organs Of a Value-based Internationamentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority

Bogdandy¹,

Venzke²

2013

Leiden Journal of International Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution presents international judicial institutions as multifunctional actors against the background of a traditional understanding, which sees just one function: settling disputes. The traditional, one-dimensional understanding eclipses other important functions that many international courts do actually perform in contexts of global governance and it underrates problems in their legitimation. In order to appreciate international adjudications' manifold contributions to social interaction, the paper first identifies three more functions beyond dispute settlement: the stabilization of normative expectations, law-making, and the control as well as legitimation of authority exercised by others. It then places these functions within broader basic understandings of international courts, which respectively picture them as instruments of the parties in a state-centred world order, as organs of a value-based international community, and as institutions of specific legal regimes. The distinct problems that each of these basic understanding faces lead to the contours of a new paradigm for the study of international courts as actors exercising public authority. The present functional analysis ultimately helps to refine both the phenomenon and normative questions.

show abstract

Universalism Renewed: Habermas' Theory of International Order in Light of Competing Paradigms

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Global public–private partnerships and the new constitutionalism of the refugee regime

Global public–private partnerships and the new constitutionalism of the refugee regime

Conceptual confusions in debating the role of NGOs for the democratic legitimacy of international law

On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About