Sistema Operativo Android

The next form of cosmopolitanism I wish to address here is political

cosmopolitanism. For my purposes I will use the term ‘political cosmopolitanism’ to represent a variety of positions that address the role and scope of governing institutions. Political cosmopolitans argue for a diverse set of globalized and international institutions of governance that augment or otherwise move authority above the state. Many political cosmopolitans are motivated by a claim about justice or moral cosmopolitanism that leads to a dissatisfaction with contemporary forms of governance. Although there are some arguments for world government, and those would be political cosmopolitan arguments, political cosmopolitanism does not necessarily imply a claim about world government. Kant’s Perpetual Peace, for example, highlights the fact that world government would have the propensity to descend into global tyranny. Thus, my focus here is on looking at a variety of positions that support global governance.

Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace is one of the foremost political cosmopolitan arguments. He argues that the only way to attain peace among nations is to intertwine national institutions. As opposed to many of the other political cosmopolitans under study here, Kant does not advocate for changing state sovereignty, but rather establishing a situation in which the costs of war with other states far outweigh the benefits.48 Much of his argument is fairly radical and includes calls to remove all standing armies, demands that no state can interfere with another, and demand that all states ought to be republican. Although many of these proclamations may not be currently attainable, Kant’s argument

48

is still relevant today for the reasons discussed above. Nonetheless, we should recall that he is anti-world government due to the tendency towards tyranny; a federation of states economically intertwined is preferable as they can act as a check on each other.

The question of democratic governance seems to be of central importance to political cosmopolitans, and David Held provides substantial arguments for global democracy.49 As political cosmopolitans are concerned with governing institutions at the international and global level, the question of democratic global governance is often debated. Many argue that legitimate global governance must necessarily be democratic, but attaining the necessary legitimacy beyond the nation-state is highly problematic. Additionally, political cosmopolitanism is not represented by one set of arguments, or by defence of a particular set of institutions. Daniele Archibugi, for example, looks at the possibilities for increasing the legitimacy and political strength of already existing institutions, such as the United Nations.50 Instead of having to establish a new set of governing institutions, we could benefit from a highly reformed version of existing ones. This would greatly reduce cost and could be done much more quickly than having to rely on developing entirely new governing bodies. There is a significant drawback, however, in that the problem of institutional history could not be removed, even from highly reformed institutions. The United Nations, despite many of the benefits it has as a governing body, carries with it significant historical baggage. Finally, Daniel Bray in his Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism is fundamentally concerned with the issues of democratic

49

David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From The Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance,

(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), esp. 267-286. 50

Daniele Archibugi, “From the United Nations to Cosmopolitan Democracy,” in Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order, eds. Daniele Archibugi and David Held, (London: Polity, 1995), 121-162.

governance and representation at the global level. His focus is on ensuring adequate levels of representation in global democratic forums.51 As such, the question of global

democracy is of central concern for some political cosmopolitans. Yet, the impetus for expanding political institutions has not yet been discussed.

We must justify political cosmopolitanism, as it requires the creation or

strengthening of political institutions that are coercively imposed and thereby need to be justified.52 That is, individuals are subject to the rules of their state and if political

cosmopolitans wish to augment the rules or interactions, or otherwise change the way individuals and groups are governed; they need to offer good reasons for doing so. This is especially true, as the institutions envisioned by political cosmopolitans will necessarily limit the liberty of individuals and groups (e.g. States) to act in particular ways. Returning briefly to the discussion of negative rights from Pogge, we can make the argument that negative duties imply a claim about political institutions. In order to fulfil our negative duties we may need stronger global governance that can limit the ability for others to negatively impose social institutions. This will, quite apparently, limit the ways in which certain groups and institutions can act. Presumably, this would require governing

institutions that limit the ways corporations act, change international trade law, or possibly even redistribute between states. Under this arrangement some groups will be positively impacted, while others will be forced to change their practices. If these

institutions are to be democratic, which I argue they ought to be, then the impositions and limitations they create need to be justified to the affected groups.

51

Daniel Bray, Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: Representation and Leadership in Transition (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 75-137.

52

As I argued in the previous section, I conceive of political cosmopolitanism as emerging out of moral claims. Utilizing a claim about moral equality or the scope of moral obligation can thereby justify the impositions and restrictions generated by

governing institutions. Certainly, a political cosmopolitan argument that is independent of moral claims can be made. However, I argue that these types of claims are ultimately unsatisfactory as they lack a justificatory mechanism that accounts for the restrictions and limitations of individual liberty and state sovereignty.

As mentioned above, Tan presents a political-moral cosmopolitan argument; it is useful to refer to Tan’s argument here as it overlaps between moral and political

cosmopolitanism.53 Tan argues for the development of international governing institutions that can properly and effectively distribute socioeconomic resources to better fulfil the principles of global justice as he conceives of them. Although Tan’s position is

controversial, it brings forward the important idea that he conceives of the international sphere as generating socioeconomic relations between individuals and between groups. His moral position helps to support his political cosmopolitanism.

Though political cosmopolitanism occupies less space here than moral forms, I see an important link between it and moral forms. In addition to acting as a justificatory measure, moral cosmopolitanism can also provide the impetus or act as a source of political will. Outside of the issues I explore in subsequent chapters, cosmopolitanism faces an issue of motivation. That is, once we recognize our global moral obligations we may be more inclined to act.54 This helps to further explain the important overlaps

53

Tan, Justice Without Borders, 107-134. 54

between the different types of cosmopolitanism. Moral and cultural cosmopolitanism, as I conceive of them, fail without being implemented politically and enforced by governing institutions. Political cosmopolitanism, then, can be seen to be a diverse set of positions that explore the possibilities for global governance or institutional arrangements above the state. My conception of political cosmopolitanism narrows the field substantially. By classifying political cosmopolitanism as such I can help to focus the discussion onto formal institutions of governance.