Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T10:21:18.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The legitimacy of the global order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Haye Hazenberg
Haye Hazenberg*
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven/ FWO-Flanders, Leuven, Belgium
*
E-mail: haye.hazenberg@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a framework within which to understand the legitimacy of the global order called ‘cosmopolitan sovereign equality’. It is Kant inspired and consists of three formal and three political duties. The formal duties are those of structural coherence, innate right and publicity, and the political duties those of legitimate enforcement within states, non-intervention between states, and free communication between entities within different states. These duties are constructed from a reading of Kant’s Doctrine of Right and are defended in current International political theory debates on human rights, the role of the state and international law. The framework enables conceptualization of legitimate international relations between a world state and a system of autarkic states, and places a premium on states as legitimators of force, while working from the premises of moral cosmopolitanism.

Keywords

cosmopolitanismKantlegitimacyhuman rightssovereigntyinternational law
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 294 - 329
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders.” Political Theory 36(1):37–65.Google Scholar
Allison, Henry E. 1986. “Morality and Freedom: Kant’s Reciprocity Thesis.” The Philosophical Review 95(3):393–425.Google Scholar
Beitz, Charles R. 2011. The Idea of Human Rights. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beitz, Charles R. 1999. Political Theory and Interna tional Relations, 2nd revised ed.Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Besson, Samantha, and Tasioulas, John. 2010. The Philosophy of International Law. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 1997. “Theories of Secession.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 26(1):31–61.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen 2008. “Human Rights and the Legitimacy of the International Order.” Legal Theory 14(1):39–70.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen, and Keohane, Robert O.. 2006. “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions.” Ethics & International Affairs 20(4):405–437.Google Scholar
Cavallar, Georg. 2002. The Rights of Strangers: Theories of International Hospitality, the Global Community, and Political Justice Since Vitoria, 321–349. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 2004a. Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For?” Journal of Political Philosophy 12:190–213.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 2004b. Whose Sovereignty? Empire versus International Law.” Ethics & International Affairs 18(3):1–24.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin. 2000. Kant and Modern Political Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin 2010. “Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma: A Contemporary Analysis.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18(4):469–493.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 1999. “The Basic Right to Justification: Towards a Constructivist Conception of Human Rights.” Constellations 6(1):35–60.Google Scholar
Franceschet, Antonio. 2002. Kant and Liberal Internationalism: Sovereignty, Justice, and Global Reform. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Griffin, James. 2009. On Human Rights. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Dick. 1996. “Just Democracy.” Constellations 2(3):333–353.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1999a. “What is Enlightenment.” In Practical Philosophy, edited by Mary J. Gregor, 17–22. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1999b. Practical Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 1993. “The Problematic Status of Gender-Neutral Language in the History of Philosophy: The Case of Kant.” Philosophical Forum 25:134–150.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline 2000. “Kantian Patriotism.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29(4):313–341.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline 2007. “Kant’s Second Thoughts on Race.” The Philosophical Quarterly 57(229):573–592.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline 2011. Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2011. “Fuzzy Citizenship in Global Society.” Journal of Political Philosophy 1–25, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2011.00405.x.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2007. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David 2010. “Why Immigration Controls Are Not Coercive: A Reply to Arash Abizadeh.” Political Theory 38(1):111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyn, Samuel. 2012. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, reprint ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Muthu, Sankar. 2003. Enlightenment against Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 2005. “The Problem of Global Justice.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 33:113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niesen, Peter. 2007. “Colonialism and Hospitality.” Politics and Ethics Review 3(1):90–108.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1997. “Capabilities and Human Rights.” Fordham Law Review 66:273.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. 1989. Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas W. 1994. “An Egalitarian Law of Peoples.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 23(3):195–224.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas W. 2007. World Poverty and Human Rights, 2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. The Law of Peoples, new ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2007. “Human Rights without Foundations.” In The Philosophy of International Law, edited by Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas, pp. 321–338. USA: Oxford University Press. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14/2007.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur. 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques and Victor, Gourevitch. 1997. Rousseau: “The Social Contract” and Other Later Political Writings: v. 2. pp. 157-158, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1988. “Mediating Duties.” Ethics 98(4):687–704.Google Scholar
Stilz, Anna. 2009. Liberal Loyalty: Freedom, Obligation, and the State. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tasioulas, John. 2010. “The Legitimacy of International Law.” In The Philosophy of International Law, edited by John Tasioulas and Samantha Besson, 97–119. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1999. “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights.” The Politics of Human Rights 101–119.Google Scholar
Valentini, Laura 2011. “Coercion and (Global) Justice.” American Political Science Review 105(1):205–220.Google Scholar
Walker, Rob B. J. 2009. After the Globe, Before the World, 1st ed.London, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weinrib, Ernest J. 1992. “Law as an Idea of Reason.” In Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy, edited by Howard L. Williams, 15–50. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wenar, Leif. 2008. “Property Rights and the Resource Curse.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 36(1):2–32.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea. 2012. Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar