Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics:
A Theory
By
Jorge E. Núñez
Chapter 3
Cosmopolitanism
The overarching theme of this monograph is to illustrate how sovereignty and cosmopolitanism can work together. While on the surface, sovereignty appears to be absolute and, therefore, imply otherhood and exclusionary relationships between agents, cosmopolitanism seems to embrace diversity and bring different agents together. In order to achieve a theoretical change in the existing paradigm that may result in legal and political evolution, it is crucial to acknowledge the different options sovereignty and cosmopolitanism offer. The previous chapter demonstrates that an absolute understanding of sovereignty is one of several choices. Normatively and factually, sovereignty always includes limitations and it is because of these limitations that sovereignty may be enhanced. In a similar fashion, there are various kinds of cosmopolitanism. Moral cosmopolitanism can influence law and politics, and conversely, legal cosmopolitanism centers on the legal rights and obligations of the individual as a subject of a global legal order. By accepting the fact that states will not give up their sovereignty and by acknowledging that individuals should have a minimum set of guarantees protected by law, regardless of their particular circumstances and the different jurisdictions at play, the author proposes to embrace a coordination between the different national legal orders and international law.
[…]
Cosmopolitanism assumes a plurality of agents; however, it is crucial to differentiate between the various types of cosmopolitanism, such as legal and moral cosmopolitanism and focus on the former if the aim is to offer a set of legal guarantees recognized beyond jurisdictional differences. While moral cosmopolitanism may have a degree of influence in law and politics, legal cosmopolitanism is where individuals are acknowledged as legal subjects of a global legal order, and consequently, it is possible to discuss their legal rights and obligations. More precisely, although relevant for theoretical argumentation, one problem associated with moral cosmopolitanism is the tension between ideal and non-ideal or realist theory in the conception of cosmopolitanism as applied to the rights and obligations associated with sovereignty.
[…]
Any notion of legal cosmopolitanism should, therefore, facilitate the means to incorporate this plurality of concepts and characterizations if it intends to have binding force or efficacy in addition to legal validity. Consider democratic regimes versus others in which individual liberties may be curtailed by the legal and political order. Furthermore, consider only democratic regimes and their many differences despite the recognition of individual liberties.
[…]
Practically, any version of legal cosmopolitanism should make room for these differences and somehow accommodate them. Compromise may be required, but the result could be counterintuitive, i.e. domination, because strong democratic regimes may and can overpower their weaker peers. Obviously, there is another option: legal cosmopolitanism may claim to define globally key legal concepts and their characterizations.
[…]
Evidently, it may prove impossible to accommodate all legal regimes (even if they were all democratic) under one sole strict arrangement of legal cosmopolitanism. To gain complete acceptance by all involved agents, any arrangement should incorporate pluralism.
[…]
The author suggests that a theoretical change of the paradigm would facilitate an acknowledgment of (limited) sovereignty and (legal) cosmopolitanism as compatible, despite the prima facie tension between the two concepts. In practice, this would mean that states could retain their sovereignty, and at the same time, individuals would enjoy a minimum set of legal guarantees recognized beyond jurisdictional differences. According to the author, moving from the absolute sovereignty versus moral cosmopolitanism dichotomy and accepting the notion that limited sovereignty and legal cosmopolitanism can (and should) work together, would make it possible to embrace the different national orders and international law. The most important consequence is that it might be conceivable to combine state sovereignty with a minimum set of enforceable legal guarantees for each and every individual, in addition to a level of coordination between national legal orders and international law.
[1] By strong democratic regimes, the author applies the adjective “strong” in an ample sense including financial, legal, political, social and any other comparative circumstance.
PRE-ORDERS
PRE-ORDER VIA AMAZON: AMAZON LINK
PRE-ORDER VIA ROUTLEDGE: ROUTLEDGE LINK
PREVIOUS POST
Chapter 2: Sovereignty
NEXT POST
Chapter 4: Agents and players
Friday 02nd June 2023
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment