Cosmopolitanism and the world state

Scheuerman, William E.

doi:10.1017/s0260210513000417

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A potentially significant further claim has been offered by Bernard Yack, that both forms of cosmopolitan arrogance are reinforced by the global institutional implications of the approach (2012, Ch.11). That is, Yack, with some other critics (Miller 2002, 976;Kamminga 2006;Scheuerman 2014), and numerous cosmopolitan theorists (Pogge 1992;Held 1995;Caney 2005, Ch.5;Cabrera 2010, Chs. 2-3;Ypi 2013;Lu 2018), holds that a theoretically consistent cosmopolitanism will prescribe an integrated framework of global political institutions to back its global moral aims.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

On cosmopolitan humility and the arrogance of states

Cabrera

2018

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the potentially most significant recent objections to a cosmopolitan moral approach charges an essential arrogance: cosmopolitanism disdains particularist moral insights even while -in what is said to be its most coherent form --it seeks to bind all persons within global political institutions. It is argued here that adopting a form of institutional cosmopolitanism actually helps to meet this sort of objection. An appropriately configured such approach will have a conception of equal global citizenship at its core. This will seek to place individuals in relations of political humility, understood not as plain deference to competing moral claims but as concrete recognition of the equal moral status of others. It will seek to progressively empower as actual citizen equals those whose interests are often 'arrogantly' neglected in the current system, and to multiply mechanisms of input and challenge for them over time.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

On cosmopolitan humility and the arrogance of states

Cabrera

2018

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…De ahí que la mayoría de especialistas comparta la visión de que una futura democracia global no debe articularse a través de un federalismo mundial o cosmo-federalismo que incluya unos poderes legislativo, ejecutivo y judicial mundiales, sino que debe ser concebida como una gobernanza mundial postsoberana, multilateral, policéntrica, sustentada en una dispersión y fragmentación de la soberanía en diferentes agencias con diversos tamaños que dan lugar a un sistema de autoridades superpuestas. Un Estado mundial equipado con la parafernalia convencional de estado moderno, en particular con la monopolización del uso de la fuerza, no es ni necesaria, ni deseable (Scheuerman 2013;Bayón 2014).…”

Section: Entre La Teoría Ideal Y No Idealunclassified

¿Primero los nuestros? Apertura controlada de fronteras y cosmopolitismo moderado

Ramírez

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Un argumento recurrente en las tesis de quienes abogan por el mantenimiento del actual modelo de fronteras cerradas es el que se conoce como favoritismo o prioridad de los conciudadanos. Según este argumento, los Estados tendrían derecho a controlar y limitar la entrada de extranjeros en su territorio porque, de lo contrario, no podrían mantener un sistema socioeconómico que requiere una atención especial a las necesidades de sus miembros menos favorecidos. Este artículo desarrolla una crítica de ese argumento sin negar el conflicto práctico entre las lealtades patrióticas y las responsabilidades distributivas globales analizando si éstas son lo suficientemente fuertes como para soportar el peso del valor intrínseco de todos los seres humanos y sus necesidades más básicas y urgentes.

show abstract

“…They also do not argue for establishing a world government or world state in general, probably owing to the Kantian skepticism that it might lead to a tyrannical system (Doyle 1983; Kant 2006; Thompson 1992). Instead, ‘a system of multilayered global governance’ based on a great degree of ‘dispersion of decision making authority’ is envisaged (Scheuerman 2014).…”

Section: Morality and Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Justice, Morality, and International Relations: A Critical–Theoretical Reading

Choudhary

2018

Jadavpur Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article argues in favor of the concept of justice as a foundational norm of global politics. It looks at the puzzle that why order is preferred over justice. The disregard toward justice is seen as a tool of convenience for fulfilling hegemonic aspirations and avoiding any normative commitment. The order versus justice debate has been in the discipline for long, where different theoretical tradition has offered differing preferences. The article takes a critical–theoretical viewpoint and argues for a more active involvement with the notion of justice to have a humane understanding of international politics. It challenges the cosmopolitan idea of global justice as being a mere reflection of hegemony. The theories of justice rooted in liberalism end up providing another set of meta-narrative. The prescription, thus, is against the creation of a world government. Instead, it argues for installing an ethical and emancipatory dimension to the project.

show abstract

Cosmopolitanism and the world state

Abstract: Political cosmopolitanism comes in many different shapes and sizes. Despite its intel-

Cited by 29 publications

References 38 publications

On cosmopolitan humility and the arrogance of states

On cosmopolitan humility and the arrogance of states

¿Primero los nuestros? Apertura controlada de fronteras y cosmopolitismo moderado

Justice, Morality, and International Relations: A Critical–Theoretical Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About