What is a Free State? Republican Internationalism and Globalisation

Laborde, Cécile; Ronzoni, Miriam

doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12190

Cited by 95 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Think, e.g. of Pettit's (2000) proposals regarding contestatory democracy or Laborde and Ronzoni (2016) provisions for preventing domination in international relations. 47 For the classical version of this argument, see Shue (1996).…”

Section: Challenging the Emphasis On Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Zellentin

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practitioners occasionally demure that the current academic literature on climate justice is overly abstract and unhelpful in their attempt to promote more effective and equitable climate policies. This paper analyses the claim that one reason for this might be that the debate is currently shaped by a particular narrow understanding of justice as impartiality and neglects other important approaches to justice. I first introduce my interpretation of Erik O. Eriksen's three conceptions of global political justice focusing on impartiality, non-domination, and mutual recognition. Then, I present the key concerns and positions that shape the debates on climate justice in the field of political theory and show why (and in how far) I think current climate justice is predominantly shaped by 'justice as impartiality'. I argue that this explains the emphasis on substantive justice over procedural questions. Furthermore, I show that looking at key questions in climate justice from the perspectives of theories emphasising non-domination and mutual recognition helps to identify some blind-spots in the current debate. Among the issues that are currently somewhat neglected are questions relating to the nature of the relationships of the relevant parties negotiating climate policy. This concerns on the one hand power inequalities and dependencies that shape the interactions between different parties. On the other hand, this relates to the question of how agents perceive these relationships with regard to dimensions of recognition, respect, and concern. It seems likely that less powerful agents have good reasons to feel that the global political regime as it currently works does not treat their interests and demands with the same urgency and importance as is shown for those of some more powerful players. Furthermore, their concerns regarding the normatively significant features of the situation at large are not always respected as equally valid contributions to the debate. I conclude by arguing that climate justice nonetheless cannot do without a rights-based framework typical for justice as impartiality that protects fundamental interests and the pre-conditions for free and equal participation.

show abstract

Section: Challenging the Emphasis On Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Zellentin

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Demoicrats usually think that in order to form a ‘self‐ascriptive and self‐recognising demos’ (Laborde and Ronzoni, , p. 285) of this kind a group of persons must have (i) important issues in common that require collective decisions, (ii) agree on some basic (institutional and moral) principles, and (iii) share a basic sense of solidarity and trust, which is usually thought to derive from certain commonalities of history, language, culture and ethnicity (Bellamy, , pp. 502–504; Bellamy and Castiglione, , p. 215; Cheneval and Schimmelfennig, , pp.…”

Section: Demoicracy Peoples and Non‐dominationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Demoicrats typically assume that in order to ensure the non‐domination of individuals, the states whose laws they are subject to must be democratic in the sense that those who regard themselves as a demos must make their own laws, exercising sovereign democratic authority. However, to be truly effective against domination, a state must itself not be dominated by other states or transnational forces that constrain domestic popular sovereignty (Bellamy, ; Laborde and Ronzoni, ; Nicolaïdis, , pp. 358–359).…”

Section: Demoicracy Peoples and Non‐dominationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demoicracy, Transnational Partisanship and the EU

Wolkenstein

2017

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates of demoicracy dismiss the proposal to transform the EU into a supranational democracy on the grounds that there is no pan-European demos. This article examines several arguments that have been advanced to that effect and, noting some problems left outstanding, goes on to suggest that demoicrats who endorse the no-demos thesis fail to consider the possibility that citizens themselves may seek to europeanize the identities of Europeans. If we take this possibility seriously, it not only follows that the no-demos thesis is not a knockdown objection to supranational democracy. We are also provided with an alternative normative vision for transforming the EU into a legitimate supranational democratic order, one that turns upon the transformative potential of citizens who associate across borders in pursuit of shared political goals. The article concludes by examining this vision under the heading of 'transnational partisanship'.

show abstract

“…Yet for a sovereign state to secure the context for free persons through a non-dominating form of popular sovereignty it must be a free state, not dominated by other states, agents or agencies (Laborde and Ronzoni, 2015). Many scholars believe such conditions no longer hold because global interdependence has challenged the external sovereignty of states and with it their internal sovereignty.…”

Section: External Sovereignty and Free Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, non-domination captures a central concern of the sovereignty debate relating to the capacity for citizens to be free from alien control and influence (Laborde and Ronzoni, 2015). Like sovereignty, non-domination is a quality realised through a certain configuration of political institutions (Pettit, 2012: 22).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A European Republic of Sovereign States: Sovereignty, republicanism and the European Union

Bellamy

2016

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article defends state sovereignty as necessary for a form of popular sovereignty capable of realising the republican value of non-domination and argues it remains achievable and normatively warranted in an interconnected world. Many scholars, including certain republicans, contend that the external sovereignty of states can no longer be maintained or justified in such circumstances. Consequently, we must abandon the sovereignty of states and reconceive popular sovereignty on a different basis. Some argue sovereignty must be displaced upwards to a more global state, while others advocate it be vertically and horizontally dispersed to units below, across and above the state. Each group offers a related vision of the European Union to illustrate their proposals. Both these arguments are criticised as more likely to produce than reduce domination because neither can sustain a form of popular sovereignty capable of instantiating relations of non-domination. This article proposes the alternative of a republican association of sovereign states that allows sovereign states and their peoples to mutually regulate their external sovereignty in non-dominating ways. This alternative proposal provides a more plausible and defensible means for sustaining the requisite kind of popular sovereignty in contemporary conditions and a more appropriate vision of the European Union.The issue of state sovereignty lies at the heart of many debates about the democratic legitimacy of European integration. On the one hand, critics of the European Union (EU) frequently complain it erodes state sovereignty and thereby weakens the capacity of domestic electorates to control and influence how they are governed

show abstract

What is a Free State? Republican Internationalism and Globalisation

Cited by 95 publications

References 60 publications

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Mutual Recognition

Demoicracy, Transnational Partisanship and the EU

A European Republic of Sovereign States: Sovereignty, republicanism and the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About