Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-k78ct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T13:02:59.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The World State: A Forbidding Nightmare of Tyranny? Habermas on the Institutional Implications of Moral Cosmopolitanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“The world truly shares a common fate.” These words seem to resonate with Immanuel Kant's famous statement that “a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all.” Yet, they are not from his Toward Perpetual Peace but from the UN Millennium Project report. What makes our world one of “overlapping communities of fate” are first and foremost the “interconnected threats and challenges” we face in our globalizing age. During the last fifty years we witnessed an enormous growth of transboundary problems – climate change, migration, terrorism, infectious diseases, violent conflicts etc.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy 330 (Gregor, Mary J. ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997) (1795).Google Scholar

2 U.N.D. P., Investing in Development – A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals (2005: iv).Google Scholar

3 David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus, 115 (Cambridge: Polity Press 2004).Google Scholar

4 Report of the Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, ¶ 18, U.N. Doc. A/59/2005, (Mar. 21, 2005).Google Scholar

5 U.N.D.P., supra note 2, at 1.Google Scholar

6 See generally Hauke Brunkhorst, How Much Democracy does Global Constitutionalism Need?, in Between Cosmopolitan Ideals and State Sovereignty: Studies in Global Justice (Tinnevelt, R. & Verschraegen, G. eds., Houndmills, Palgrave. 2006).Google Scholar

7 See Charles Beiti, Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism, 75(3) Int'l Aff. 519 (1999a).Google Scholar

8 Schmalz-Bruns makes a similar claim. Habermas’ proposal for a democratization of transnational politics only makes sense if he reverts to certain elements of the idea of a state. See Rainer Schmalz-Bruns, An den Grenzen der Entstaatlichung: Bemerkungen zu Jürgen Habermas’ Modell einer “Weltinnenpolitik ohne Weltregierung”, in Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit: Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik 292 (Niesen, P. & Herborth, B. eds., Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2007). We would like to emphasize, however, that our argument is primarily based on an internal criticism of Habermas’ model of a world domestic polity without a world state. We are not presenting an independent argument for the inevitability and desirability of a minimal world state. For an interesting teleological explanation of why the world state is inevitable – based on the logic of anarchy and the struggle for recognition – see Alexander Wendt, Why a World State is Inevitable, 9(4) Eur. J. Int'l Rel. 491–542 (2003).Google Scholar

9 See Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights 169 (Cambridge: Polity Press 2002).Google Scholar

10 Beitz, Charles, Cosmopolitan Liberalism and the States System, in Political restructuring in Europe: ethical perspectives 124 (Brown, C. ed., London: Routledge 1994).Google Scholar

11 Beitz, Charles, International Liberalism and Distributive Justice: A Survey of Recent Thought, 51(2) World Pol. 287 (1999b).Google Scholar

12 See Greiff, Pablo De, Habermas on Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism, 15(4) Ratio Juris 434 (2002).Google Scholar

13 Beitz, supra note 10, at 127.Google Scholar

14 Beitz, Charles, Human Rights as a Common Concern, 95 (2) Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 269 (2001).Google Scholar

15 Jürgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory 121 (Cronin, C. & Greiff, P. De eds., Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press 1998).Google Scholar

16 See Pogge, supra note 9, at 184.Google Scholar

17 Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of law and democracy 134 (Cambridge: Polity Press 1996).Google Scholar

18 Id. at 135.Google Scholar

19 See Habermas, supra note 17, 448449.Google Scholar

20 Id. at 448.Google Scholar

21 See Id. at 39.Google Scholar

22 Id. at 83.Google Scholar

23 See Id. at 10.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 458.Google Scholar

25 See Pogge, supra note 9, at 181–184.Google Scholar

26 Here we follow Höffe's distinction between “Friedensbereitschaft” and “Friedenssicherung.” See Otfried Höffe, Demokratie im Zeitalter der Globalisierung 291 (München: Beck 1999).Google Scholar

27 Kant, supra note 1, at 322.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 326.Google Scholar

29 Beitz, Charles, International Relations, Philosophy of, in 4 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy 831 (Craig, E. ed., London: Routledge 1998).Google Scholar

30 See Payne, Anthony, Globalization and Modes of Regionalist Governance, in Debating Governance. Authority, Steering and Democracy 203 (Pierre, J. ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000).Google Scholar

31 For a more extensive comparison between Kant and Habermas, see Mertens, Thomas, Cosmopolitanism and citizenship: Kant against Habermas, 4(3) Eur. J. Phil. 328–347 (1996).Google Scholar

32 Habermas, supra note 15, at 179.Google Scholar

33 Id. at 180–181.Google Scholar

34 See Id. at 127.Google Scholar

35 See Id. at 251. See also Erik Oddvar Eriksen & Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas: Communicating Action and Deliberative Democracy 252 (London: Continuum 2003).Google Scholar

36 See Habermas, supra note 17, at 104.Google Scholar

37 See Habermas, supra note 15, at 373.Google Scholar

38 Arendt, Hannah, Karl Jaspers: Citizen of the World, in The philosophy of Karl Jaspers 539 (Schilpp, P. ed., New York: Tudor 1957).Google Scholar

39 Jürgen Habermas, The Divided West 132 (Maiden (Mass.): Polity 2006).Google Scholar

40 Habermas, supra note 37, at 135.Google Scholar

41 See Höffe, supra note 26, at 299.Google Scholar

42 See Id. at 317.Google Scholar

43 Habermas, supra note 15, at 108–109.Google Scholar

44 See Jürgen Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays 63 (Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press 2001a).Google Scholar

45 See Habermas, supra note 15, at 118.Google Scholar

46 Habermas, supra note 43, at 107.Google Scholar

47 Seyla Benhabib, The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens 45 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004).Google Scholar

48 That the liberal nationalist's argument for bounded political communities is not incompatible with a multilevel ethical and political view, is argued in Ronald Tinnevelt & Helder De Schutter, Global Justice as Justice for a World of largely independent nations? From Dualism to a Multi-level Ethical Position, 11(4) Critical Rev. Int'l Soc. & Pol. Phil. 519–538 (2008).Google Scholar

49 Abizadeh, Arash, Does collective identity presuppose an other? On the alleged incoherence of global solidarity, 99(1) Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 58 (2005).Google Scholar

50 Id. at 58.Google Scholar

51 Habermas, supra note 43, at 184.Google Scholar

52 See Id. at 106–107.Google Scholar

53 Cf. Carol Gould, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights 174–180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004).Google Scholar

54 See Held, supra note 3.Google Scholar

55 See Fine, Robert & Smith, Will, Habermas's Theory of Cosmopolitanism, in 10(4) Constellations: an International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory 478 (2003).Google Scholar

56 Habermas, supra note 37, at 138.Google Scholar

57 Habermas, supra note 43, at 109.Google Scholar

58 See Id. at 109 and Jürgen Habermas, Solidarität jenseits des Nationalstaats: Notizen zu einer Diskussion, in Transnationale Soudarität: Chancen und Grenzen 235 (J. Beckert et al eds., Frankfurt am Main: Campus 2004).Google Scholar

59 See Fine, & Smith, , supra note 55, at 477–478.Google Scholar

60 See Eriksen, & Weigard, , supra note 35, at 239.Google Scholar

61 Id. at 240.Google Scholar

62 Cf. Eriksen, & Weigard, , supra note 35, at 247ff.Google Scholar

63 See Habermas, supra note 15, at 337.Google Scholar

64 See Habermas, supra note 55, at 234; see also Habermas, supra note 42, at 107 and Jürgen Habermas, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion: Philosophische Aufsätze 350 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2005).Google Scholar

65 See Habermas, supra note 37, at 109.Google Scholar