Abstract
The idea of a responsible cosmopolitan state (RCS) represents a recent attempt to reconcile the utopianism of cosmopolitan political theory and the practical constraints arising from the current realities of politics among territorial and largely self-interested states. I show in this chapter that the neorealist and/or geopolitical challenge rests on a misconception about what cosmopolitanism is meant to provide, because immediate practical advice is only a part of what normative political theory may bring to the table. Besides the notion of self-interest, which can be interpreted in different ways, it is mainly the action-modifying role of norms (especially international/supranational law) which may gradually change the game. Since the sustenance of state capacities is often preconditioned by events which take place beyond state borders, shared rules of conduct allow for more effective coordination in cases where collective action is required. Although the idea of an RCS primarily targets foreign policy priorities of smaller/weaker states (not-great-powers), it may turn out that collective action problems arising from the empirical realities of the twenty-first century increasingly put great powers under pressure to accept such self-imposed constraints and comply with them. In the final part of the chapter, however, I explain why this ‘cosmopolitan optimism’ needs to be aware of its own limitations, singling out the problems of the internal motivation of actors in world politics and the deeper meaning of sovereignty which precludes an easy switch to the language of dispersed, pooled, or relational sovereignty. I conclude by arguing that if we are to take cosmopolitan ideals seriously, the RCS most likely represents a transitional stage on the route towards a centralised global political authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See, e.g. the discussion in Rosen (2012, Chapter 2).
- 3.
This is the prominent understanding of the distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory, which is an important element of the methodology of political theory; see Stemplowska and Swift (2012).
- 4.
Compare also the related legal/constitutionalist-centred perspective in Somek (2014).
- 5.
See prototypically Wendt (1992).
- 6.
Those embedded in the tradition of Roman law might want to distinguish between public and private variants of international law; I do not think this affects my explication in any way. For reasons of simplicity, I will use the term ‘international law’ as covering all the modalities of extra-statal law, including ‘supranational’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘global’ etc. law.
- 7.
Making it possible for an agent to form stable expectations about the likely behaviour of others, as well as about their expectations regarding one’s own behaviour, is perhaps the greatest benefit of stable social rules in general. See, e.g. Bicchieri (2006).
- 8.
The Melian dialogue as recounted in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War is a classic example.
- 9.
In this sense, they must not be confused with the ‘everyday nationalism’ and state-worshipping which politicians so often use to mobilise the masses.
- 10.
Compare also Article 2 of the (consolidated) Treaty on European Union.
- 11.
For instance, the Czech constitution (Art. 65[2]) states that the President of the country can be tried for treason, which ‘is deemed to mean any conduct of the President of the Republic directed against the sovereignty and integrality [sic] of the Republic as well as against the democratic order of the republic’. Italics added; see https://public.psp.cz/en/docs/laws/constitution.html
- 12.
Hence the polemical label of (international) juristocracy (Hirschl, 2004): courts and international courts are precisely those bodies which make such authoritative interpretations.
- 13.
The modern locus classicus concerning the empirical inevitability of the emergence of a world state is Wendt (2003).
References
Alston, P., & Goodman, R. (2013). International human rights. Oxford University Press.
Alvarez, M. (2020). Reasons for action: Justification, motivation, explanation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/
Archibugi, D. (2008). The global commonwealth of citizens: Toward cosmopolitan democracy. Princeton University Press.
Archibugi, D., & Held, D. (2011). Cosmopolitan democracy: Paths and agents. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(4), 433–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679411000360
Arendt, H. (1961). What is freedom? In Between past and future: Six exercises in political thought. Viking Press.
Beardsworth, R., & Shapcott, R. (2019). The state and cosmopolitan responsibilities. Oxford University Press.
Beck, U., & Grande, E. (2004). Das Kosmopolitische Europa: Gesellschaft und Politik in der zweiten Moderne. Verlag.
Belling, V. (2019). Smrt suveréna? Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury.
Belov, M. (2018). Global constitutionalism and its challenges to westphalian constitutional law. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://books.google.at/books?id=nDNWDwAAQBAJ
Besson, S. (2009). Institutionalising global demoi-cracy. In L. H. Meyer (Ed.), Legitimacy, justice and public international law (pp. 58–91). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691720.003
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.
Blake, M. (2013a). Justice and foreign policy. Oxford University Press.
Blake, M. (2013b). We are all cosmopolitans now. In Cosmopolitanism vs. non-cosmopolitanism: Critiques, defenses, reconceptualisations (pp. 35–54). Oxford University Press.
Boháček, P., Dufek, P., & Schmidt, N. (2021). Peaceful use of lasers in space: Context-based legitimacy in global governance of large technical systems. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 46(3), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754211039624
Brock, G. (2009). Global justice: A cosmopolitan account. Oxford University Press.
Brooks, T. (2020). The Oxford handbook of global justice. Oxford University Press.
Brown, G. W. (2011). Bringing the state back into cosmopolitanism: The idea of responsible cosmopolitan states. Political Studies Review, 9(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2010.00226.x
Cabrera, L. (2004). Political theory of global justice: A cosmopolitan case for the world state. Routledge.
Caney, S. (2005). Justice beyond borders. A global political theory. Oxford University Press.
Caney, S. (2020). Climate justice. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/
Carens, J. (2013). The ethics of immigration. Oxford University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1999). Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordón (Eds.), Democracy’s edges (pp. 19–36). Cambridge University Press.
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press.
Dufek, P. (2013). Why strong moral cosmopolitanism requires a world-state. International Theory, 5(2), 177–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971913000171
Dufek, P. (2019). Why a world state is unavoidable in planetary defense: On loopholes in the vision of a cosmopolitan governance. In N. Schmidt (Ed.), Planetary defense (pp. 375–399). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01000-3_24
Dufek, P., & Mochtak, M. (2019). A case for global democracy? Arms exports and conflicting goals in democracy promotion. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22(3), 610–639. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0114-0
Dunoff, J. L., & Trachtman, J. P. (2009). Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press.
Estlund, D. (2019). Utopophobia: On the limits (if any) of political philosophy. Princeton University Press.
Evans, G. (2008). Responsibility to protect: Ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Brookings Institution Press. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cuni/docDetail.action?docID=10338435
Gaus, G. (2008). On philosophy, politics, and economics. Thomson Wadsworth.
Habermas, J. (1998). Die Postnationale Konstellation. Politische essays. Suhrkamp Verlag.
Held, D., & Maffettone, P. (2017). Global political theory. Wiley.
Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards juristocracy: The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.
Hutchings, K. (1999). International political theory: Rethinking ethics in a global era. SAGE.
Keating, M. (2001). Plurinational democracy: Stateless nations in a post-sovereignty era. Oxford University Press.
Kingsbury, B., & Straumann, B. (2010). State of nature versus commercial sociability as the basis of international law: Reflections on the Roman foundations and current interpretations of the international political and legal thought of Grotius, Hobbes, and Pufendorf. In S. Besson & J. Tasioulas (Eds.), The philosophy of international law. Oxford University Press.
Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism: The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press.
Kuyper, J. (2015). Global democracy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/global-democracy/
Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Macdonald, T. (2008). Global stakeholder democracy: Power and representation beyond liberal states. .
Macdonald, T. (2017). Global political theory. In D. Held & P. Maffettone (Eds.), Global political theory. Wiley.
Majone, G. (1996). Regulating Europe. Routledge.
Marchetti, R. (2012). Models of global democracy: In defence of cosmo-federalism. In D. Archibugi, M. Koenig-Archibugi, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives (pp. 22–46). Cambridge University Press.
Maritain, J. (1951). Man and the state. University of Chicago Press.
Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice. Oxford University Press.
Moellendorf, D. (2006). Equality of opportunity globalized? The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 19(2), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900004124
Orbán, V. (2014, July 26). Speech at the XXV. Bálványos Free Summer University and Youth Camp, on-line. Băile Tuşnad. https://budapestbeacon.com/full-text-of-viktor-orbans-speech-at-baile-tusnad-tusnadfurdo-of-26-july-2014/
Orford, A. (2011). International authority and the responsibility to protect. Cambridge University Press.
Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics, 103(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/293470
Pogge, T. (2005). A cosmopolitan perspective on the global economic order. In G. Brock & H. Brighouse (Eds.), The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism (pp. 92–109). Cambridge University Press.
Pogge, T. (2008). World poverty and human rights (2nd ed.). Polity.
Pogge, T. (2010). Politics as usual. Polity Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples: With “the idea of public reason revisited” Harvard University Press.
Rosen, M. (2012). Dignity: Its history and meaning. Harvard University Press.
Sadurski, W. (2015). Supranational public reason: On legitimacy of supranational norm-producing authorities. Global Constitutionalism, 4(3), 396–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204538171500012X
Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Regieren in Europa: Effektiv und demokratisch? Campus Verlag.
Scheuerman, W. E. (2011). The realist case for global reform. Polity.
Scheuerman, W. E. (2014). Cosmopolitanism and the world state. Review of International Studies, 40(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210513000417
Shaw, M. (2018). International law. Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of politics. Cambridge University Press.
Somek, A. (2014). The cosmopolitan constitution. Oxford University Press.
Stemplowska, Z., & Swift, A. (2012). Ideal and nonideal theory. In D. Estlund (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political philosophy (pp. 373–389). Oxford University Press.
Trachtman, J. P. (2013). The future of international law: Global government. Cambridge University Press.
Ulaş, L. (2017). Transforming (but not transcending) the state system? On statist cosmopolitanism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(6), 657–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2015.1048071
Valentini, L. (2014). No global demos, no global democracy? A systematization and critique. Perspectives on Politics, 12(4), 789–807. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714002138
Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. University of Notre Dame Press.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764
Wendt, A. (2003). Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406610394001
Ypi, L. (2008). Statist cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00308.x
Ypi, L. (2012). Global justice and avant-garde political agency. Oxford University Press.
Ypi, L. (2013). Cosmopolitanism without if and without but. In G. Brock (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism vs. non-cosmopolitanism: Critiques, defenses, reconceptualisations (pp. 75–91). Oxford University Press.
Funding
This research was supported by the Technological Agency of the Czech Republic, grant TL01000181: ‘A multidisciplinary analysis of planetary defense from asteroids as the key national policy ensuring further flourishing and prosperity of humankind both on Earth and in Space’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am grateful to Nikola Schmidt for helpful editorial comments and suggestions.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dufek, P. (2022). Reconciling Cosmopolitan Theory and Policy Practice? Responsible States as a Transitional Category. In: Schmidt, N. (eds) Governance of Emerging Space Challenges. Space and Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86555-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86555-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86554-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86555-9
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)