Graduate studies at Western
Ethics and Global Politics 1 (3) (2008)
|Abstract||Cosmopolitanism in normative theory of transnational justice is often characterized by the thesis that the moral and legal status of states must be entirely derived from the moral status of the individuals who constitute them. Although the thesis itself is rather indeterminate in substantive and analytical content, it is generally understood as the claim that states should not be granted the status of moral and legal agents sui generis. This article argues that such a view is analytically and methodologically misleading, and that any fruitful approach towards a liberal theory of transnational justice must face the challenge of coming up with a more complex concept of statehood, and acknowledge that in international relations and international law states are collective moral agents in their own right that can be addressees of genuinely collective forms responsibility. The argument starts with a critical examinations of two common interpretations of the cosmopolitan thesis, a reductivist reading, which suggests that we can reduce the moral and legal status of states to the rights and duties of the individuals (section I), and a methodological reading, which suggests that the moral status of individuals must based on the acknowledgment of “universal” individual rights (section II). For different reasons, both readings are argued to fail. Section III then presents an outline of how to conceive of states as agents that possess moral and legal status sui generis and be addressees of collective responsibility. Keywords : cosmopolitanism, statism, ethical individualism, methodological individualism, collective agents, collective responsibility (Published online: 25 August, 2008) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics 2008. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v1i3.1859|
|Keywords||Collective agents Ethical individualism Statism Methodological individualism Collective responsibility Cosmopolitanism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Win-Chiat Lee (2012). Cosmopolitanism with Room for Nationalism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):279-293.
Daniel Bray (2011). Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: Representation and Leadership in Transnational Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Patrick Hayden (2004). Cosmopolitanism and the Need for Transnational Criminal Justice. Theoria 51 (104):69-95.
Cindy Holder (2012). Justice, Cosmopolitanism and Policy Prescription: Gillian Brock’s "Global Justice&Quot;. Diametros 31 (31):138-145.
Pauline Kleingeld (2011). Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge University Press.
Hye-Ryoung Kang (2008). A Critique of “Idealized” Non-Ideal Justice Theory in Rawls' Laws of People. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:299-308.
R. J. Holton (2009). Cosmopolitanisms: New Thinking and New Directions. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pauline Kleingeld (1999). Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (3):505-524.
Amy Allen (2008). Power and the Politics of Difference: Oppression, Empowerment, and Transnational Justice. Hypatia 23 (3):pp. 156-172.
Robert Fine (2007). Cosmopolitanism. New York.
Soran Reader (2007). Cosmopolitan Pacifism. Journal of Global Ethics 3 (1):87 – 103.
S. Benhabib (2013). Transnational Legal Sites and Democracy-Building Reconfiguring Political Geographies. Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (4-5):471-486.
David Miller (2007). National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford University Press.
Kathryn Walker (2012). Is Rooted Cosmopolitanism Bad for Women? Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):77-90.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads11 ( #107,689 of 749,171 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #62,995 of 749,171 )
How can I increase my downloads?