Advertisement

Law and Critique

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 199–229 | Cite as

The Vicious Circles of Habermas’ Cosmopolitics

  • Isobel Roele
Article

Abstract

Habermas’ cosmopolitan project seeks to transform global politics into an emancipatory activity in order to compensate for the disempowering effects of globalization. The project is traced through three vicious circles which stem from Habermas’ commitment to intersubjectivity. Normative politics always raises a vicious circle because politics is only needed to the extent that an issue has become problematized through want of intersubjective agreement. At domestic level Habermas solves this problem by constitutionalizing transcendental presuppositions that political participants cannot avoid making. This fix will not work at the global level because it is pre-political as between human individuals. Habermas therefore premises cosmopolitics on the transformation of nation-states into sites of participatory politics, engagement in which will eventually ignite a global cosmopolitan consciousness. This transformation depends on the constitutionalization of existing UN structures and their enforcement of an undefined and (therefore) ‘uncontroversial’ core of human rights. Unable to ground this project in social practice, Habermas eventually disregards his own lodestar of intersubjectivity based in social practice by relying on the prediscursive concept of human dignity. This move is not merely philosophically inconsistent; it also opens the door to the moralization of politics and the imposition of human rights down the barrel of a gun.

Keywords

Democracy Cosmopolitanism Habermas Human rights Public international law Constitutionalism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Phil Fennel, Ioannis Kalpouzos, Panu Minkkinen, Nell Munro and Jiří Přibáň for their invaluable comments and suggestions. Errors are, of course, my own.

References

  1. Beck, Ulrich, and Natan Sznaider. 2006. A literature on cosmopolitanism: An overview. The British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benhabib, Seyla. 2009. Claiming rights across borders: International human rights and democratic sovereignty. American Political Science Review 103(4): 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogdandy, Armin von. 2013. Discourse theory and international law: An interview with Jürgen Habermas. ESIL lectures. http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/288. Accessed 24 May 2013.
  5. Borradori, Giovanna. 2003. Philosophy in a time of terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Delahunty, Robert J., and Jon Yoo. 2010. Kant, Habermas and democratic peace. Chicago Journal of International Law 10(2): 437–474.Google Scholar
  7. Douzinas, Costas. 2007. Human rights and empire: The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  8. Douzinas, Costas. 2013. Philosophy and resistance in the crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Elster, John. 2000. Arguing and bargaining in two constituent assemblies. Journal of Constitutional Law 2(2): 344–421.Google Scholar
  10. Engle, Karen. 2000. Culture and human rights: The Asian values debate in context. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 32: 291–333.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, Robert. 2003. Taking the ‘ism’ out of cosmopolitanism. European Journal of Social Theory 6(4): 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fine, Robert, and Will Smith. 2003. Jürgen Habermas’s theory of cosmopolitanism. Constellations 10(4): 469–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giegerich, Thomas. 2009. The is and the ought of international constitutionalism: How far have we come on Habermas’ Road to a ‘well-considered constitutionalization of international law’? German Law Journal 10(1): 31–62.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Volume one: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987a. The theory of communicative action. Volume two: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1987b. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. Morality and ethical life: Does Hegel’s critique of Kant apply to discourse ethics? Northwestern University Law Review 83(1): 38–53.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge (US): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. On the internal relation between the rule of law and democracy. European Journal of Philosophy 3(1): 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996a. Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996b. On the cognitive content of morality. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96: 335–358.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Kant’s idea of perpetual peace, with the benefit of two hundred years’ hindsight. In Perpetual peace: Essays on Kant’s cosmopolitan ideal, ed. James Bohman, and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, 112–154. Cambridge US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998a. Remarks on legitimation through human rights. Philosophy & Social Critique 24(2/3): 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998b. Social action, purposive activity and communication. In On the pragmatics of communication, ed. Maeve Cooke, 105–182. Cambridge (US): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, Jürgen, and Ciaran Cronin. 1998. The European nation-state: On the past and the future of sovereignty and citizenship. Public Culture 10(2): 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas, Jürgen. 1999a. Bestiality and humanity: A war on the border between legality and morality. Constellations 6(3): 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 1999b. A short reply. Ratio Juris 12(4): 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Habermas, Jürgen. 2001a. Learning from catastrophe? In The postnational constellation, ed. Max Pensky, 38–57. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Habermas, Jürgen. 2001b. The postnational constellation and the future of democracy. In The postnational constellation, ed. Max Pensky, 58–112. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Habermas, Jürgen. 2003a. Dispute on the past and future of international law. Transition from a national to a postnational constellation. Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 13: 31–39.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, Jürgen. 2003b. Interpreting the fall of a monument. German Law Journal 4(7): 701–708.Google Scholar
  32. Habermas, Jürgen. 2005. Concluding remarks on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta Politica 40(3): 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Habermas, Jürgen. 2006a. The divided West. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, Jürgen. 2006b. Time of transitions. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, Jürgen. 2007. A political constitution for the pluralist world society. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 34(3): 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Habermas, Jürgen. 2008a. The constitutionalization of international law and the legitimation problems of a constitution for world society. Constellations 15(4): 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Habermas, Jürgen. 2008b. The architectonics of discursive differentiation. In Between naturalism and religion, ed. Habermas Jürgen, 77–97. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  38. Habermas, Jürgen. 2010. The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights. Metaphilosophy 41(4): 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Habermas, Jürgen. 2012a. The crisis of the European Union: A response. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  40. Habermas, Jürgen. 2012b. The crisis of the European Union in the light of a constitutionalization of international law. European Journal of International Law 23(2): 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Held, David. 2010. Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and realities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2000. The responsibility to protect. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  43. Kant, Immanuel. 1983. Perpetual peace and other essays. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  44. Kennedy, David. 2004. The dark sides of virtue: Reassessing international humanitarianism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kleingeld, Pauline. 1999. Six varieties of cosmopolitanism in late eighteenth-century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas 60(3): 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The democratic paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  47. Pahuja, Sundhya. 2011. Decolonizing international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pogge, Thomas. 1992. Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics 103(1): 48–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasch, William. 2000. Just war? Or just a war? Schmitt, Habermas and the cosmopolitan orthodoxy. Cardozo Law Review 21(5): 1665–1684.Google Scholar
  50. Scheffler, Samuel. 1999. Conceptions of cosmopolitanism. Utilitas 11(3): 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scheuerman, William. 2008. Global politics without global government. Political Theory 36(1): 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmitt, Carl. 1996. The concept of the political. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tully, James. 2008. The unfreedom of the moderns in comparison to their ideals of constitutional democracy. Modern Law Review 65(2): 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/. Accessed 20 May 2013.
  55. United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, UN Doc. 217 A (III).Google Scholar
  56. United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, 24 October 2005, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1.Google Scholar
  57. Waldron, Jeremy. 2000. What is cosmopolitan? Journal of Political Philosophy 8(2): 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zolo, Danilo. 1999. A cosmopolitan philosophy of international law? A realist approach. Ratio Juris 12(4): 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations