Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
INTRODUCTION
This paper analyses the contemporary debate between cosmopolitanism and
communitarianism in international society. This is a key theoretical and political debate
within all reflections on the reconfiguration of the model of international order and the
articulation of mechanisms for managing global problems. It is linked to a context in
which new forms of human and social relationships are taking place. As a result, the
traditional international society is evolving into a world society whose form and
structure are yet to be fully defined.
Since the early nineties, the ever-present tension between centrifugal and
centripetal forces within international society1 has taken on new forms, as is manifested
by the
contrasting
phenomena
of
globalisation-regionalisation,
homogeneity-
Arenal, C. del (2005), En torno al concepto de sociedad internacional, in Rodrguez Carrin, A. J. and
E. Prez Vera, (coord.), Soberana del Estado y Derecho Internacional. Homenaje al Profesor Juan
Antonio Carrillo Salcedo. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 453-464. Arenal, C. del, (2002), La nueva
sociedad mundial y las nuevas realidades internacionales: un reto para la teora y para la poltica,
Cursos de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz 2001, Bilbao: Servicio
Editorial de la Universidad del Pas Vasco, pp. 19-85; (2010), Homogeneidad y heterogeneidad en la
sociedad internacional como bases hacia la integracin y la fragmentacin, in Rodrigo, A. and C. Garca
(2010), Unidad y pluralismo en el derecho internacional pblico y en la comunidad internacional,
Madrid: Tecnos. (forthcoming)
2
The terms of this contrast (unity-pluralism) are the same of those of universalism-pluralism.
The nineties saw a resurgence in cosmopolitan models as a response to the changes that had taken place
within the system and as a result of the theoretical renewal that accompanied these. See the information
on symposia and academic publications on cosmopolitanism in the nineties in Hollinger, D.A. (2002),
Not Universalists, Not Pluralists: The New Cosmopolitans Find Their Own Way, in Vertovec, S. and R.
Cohen (2002), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context and Practice, New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 227-239 (pp. 227-228).
relevance, there is another reason behind the selection and specified aims of this topic,
namely the need to profile the various forms of the terms cosmopolitanism and
communitarianism in order to advance in the way that these are conceptualised. These
concepts are ambiguous and imprecise, as they attempt to express the dynamics and
processes of a complex reality which is in transformation, and they are used in different
ambits, disciplines and linguistic registers.
Cosmopolitan ideas have seen a resurgence due to the transformations that have
taken place in international order and society following the end of bipolarity, as well as
the intensification of the effects of globalisation, especially the growing recognition that
the global nature of risks and threats creates a collective future conscience that brings
with it the need to rethink the international political community and global governance
mechanisms4. In other words, society perceives global risks and this leads to the layingout of a potential global public domain, thereby driving forward international
cooperative institutions5. All this, in short, is the result of attention paid to changes in
the social sphere, right through from market expansion to new patterns of personal
loyalty and advances in new forms of governance6.
The strong resurgence of cosmopolitan positions has brought forth criticisms
from those who support communitarian standpoints and who also aim to reflect upon,
and respond to, the needs of contemporary international society. Cosmopolitan
approaches to international order stress the need to focus on the common aspects and
elements of convergence which, according to this perspective, predominate in
international society and which should form the basis for cooperative management of
common problems and for the future articulation of world society. Communitarians, on
the other hand, emphasise the different aspects which spring from the idiosyncrasy of
distinct socio-political groups, defending the need for an order which protects these,
assuming that the homogenising elements of cosmopolitan approaches would lead to
their disappearance.
Beck, U. (2002, first ed. in English. 1999), La sociedad del riego global, Madrid: Siglo XXI de Espaa
Editores, p. 30. Also see Ruggie, J.G. (2004), Reconstituting the Global Public Domain Issues, Actors
and Practices, European Journal of International Relations, 10, 4, pp. 499-531.
6
The hypothesis put forward here in this respect is that discussing international
society and order creates a false debate with communitarian pluralism and
cosmopolitanism which is set forth in mutually exclusive terms. The aim of this paper is
to overcome this divergence, striking out from the position that both standpoints
represent an ideological stance and that this must be recognised rather than denied under
supposed academic objectivity. The stance set out in this paper in no way inhibits a
rigorous analysis; in fact, it allows us to better understand some of the key factors in the
false debates and the exaggerated extrapolations. Furthermore, it enables us to highlight
the points of convergence between both approaches and, by extension, enhance their
applicability to global governance.
Bislev, S. (2004), Globalization, State, Transformation and Public Security, International Political
Science Review, 25, 3, pp. 281-196; Shaw, M. (1997), The state of globalization: towards a theory of
state transformation, Review of International Political Economy, 4, 3, pp. 492-513; Buzan, B. (1991),
New patterns of global security in the twenty-first century, International Affairs, 67, 3, pp. 431-451;
Buzan, B. (1997), Rethinking security after the Cold war, Cooperation and Conflict, 32, pp. 5-28;
Davis, L.E: (2003), Globalizations Security Implications, Rand Issue Paper, Washington: Rand
Corporation.
8
Cuttler, C., Haufler, V. and Porter, T. (eds.) (1999), Private Authority and International Affairs, Albany:
State University of New York Press; Smith, D.A: (1999), State and Sovereignty in the Global Economy,
London: Routledge.
9
Eckersley, R. (2004), The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty, Cambridge (Ma):
Massachussetts Institute of Technology; Held, D. (1997), La democracia y el orden global. Del Estado
moderno al gobierno cosmopolita. Barcelona: Paids, (first ed. in English 1995).
10
Carter, A. (2002), The Political Theory of Global Citizenship, London: Routledge; Linklater, A. (1996),
Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State, European Journal of International
Relations, 2, 1, pp. 77-103.
11
Barkin, J.S. and B. Cronin (1994), The state and the nation: changing norms and rules of sovereignty
in international relations, International Organization, 49, 1, winter, pp. 107-130; Paris, R. (2001),
Human Security. Paradigm Shift or Hot Air, International Security, 26, 2, pp. 87-102.
Kindlerberger, Ch.P. (1981), Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy. Exploitation,
Public Goods and Free Riders, International Studies Quarterly, 25, 2, pp. 242-254; Snidal, D. (1985),
The limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory, International Organization, 39, 4, pp. 579.614; Webb, H.C.
and S.D. Krasner (1989), Hegemonic Stability Theory; an empirical Assessment, Review of
International Studies, 15, pp. 183-198.
13
Slaughter, A-M. (2004), A New World Order. Governments, Networks and the Disaggregated State,
Princeton: Princeton University Press; (2003) Global Government Networks, Global Information
Agencies and Disaggregated Democracy, Michigan Journal of Law, 24, pp. 1041-1075).
14
See recent revisions of Schmitt's works: Giraldo, J. and J. Molina (eds.), (2008), Carl Schmitt:
Derecho, poltica y grandes espacios, Murcia: Sociedad de Estudios Polticos; Villacaas, J.L. (2008),
Poder y poltica: ensayos sobre Carl Schmitt, Granada: Editorial Comares.
15
The authors who support this option consider it to be the definitive solution to the problems of
humanity. In general, International Relations theorists have rejected the idea of a global government.
Recently, however, this option has been defended from constructivist positions. Wendt, A. (2003), Why
a World State is Inevitable?, European Journal of International Relations, 9, 4, pp. 491-542. Also in this
line, some authors from the field of critical theory propose a post-sovereign model of global governance
which would be defined by democratic, decentralised and diverse federalism. Young, I.M. (2002),
Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
States. The second is the recognition of the existence of a set of general interests of the
international community (peace, life, human dignity, sustainable environment) which
must be collectively managed and protected.
Beck, U, (2002, first ed. in English, 1999), El manifiesto cosmopolita in Beck, U. (2002), Op. cit.,
pp. 1-28.
17
For a general approach to the concept see Prez de Armio, K. (2006-2007), El concepto y el uso de la
seguridad humana: anlisis crtico de sus potencialidades y riesgos, Revista CIDOB dAfers
Internacionals, n 76, pp. 59-77.
18
Report of the International Comission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001), The Responsibility
to Protect, available at: http://www.iciss.ca/spanish-report.pdf; Report of the UNs High-level Panel on
Threats, Challenges and Changes, (2004), A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. U.N. Doc.
A/59/565, 2 December.
and reduce war, poverty and oppression20. However, there isnt a unique cosmopolitan
focus. As Harvey posits, the reconstruction of cosmopolitanism has been undertaken
from different viewpoints which, on occasion, have served more to confuse than clarify
the political-economic and scientific-cultural agendas. In the opinion of Harvey,
cosmopolitanism has taken on so many meanings and nuances that it is impossible to
identify a central strand of thought beyond its opposition to the parochialism that comes
from extreme loyalty to a national, racial, ethnic or religious identity. He points out that
the differences also derive from the division of academic labour: the standpoints
concerned with moral imperatives and principles come from philosophy, the focus on
hybrid cultural identities and criticism of multiculturalism is pushed forward by cultural
theorists, and the approach that reflects on the rule of law and global governance
systems is adopted by social-science specialists21. In an initial attempt at classification,
four perspectives of cosmopolitanism are established here, which are a simplification of
those used by Vertovec and Cohen, which, in turn, are a subdivision of the
aforementioned categorization. The different models will thus be placed within the four
perspectives, though it should be noted that these are not hermetically sealed categories
and that some elements are shared between them22.
19
Delanty , G. (2006), The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory,
British Journal of Sociology, 57, 1, pp. 25-47.
20
21
Harvey, D, (2009), Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom, New York: Columbia:
University Press, p. 78.
22
The denominations used are of the author of this paper, though they do correspond with the spirit of
Vertovec and Cohens classification. Other authors use a classification system according to three possible
meanings of cosmopolitanism: a) an individual lifestyle, b) a universalist morality and c) global political
institutions. Baubck, R. (2002), Political Community Beyond the Sovereign State, Supranational
Federalism and Transnational Minorities in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Op. Cit., pp.110-136.
25
cultural elements but they consider that, in reality, the only elements which are shared
are those that are linked to the expansion and homogenisation of certain consumerist
habits from the West; as examples of this they point to the planet-wide success of fast-
23
Appadurai, A. and C. Beckenridge (1988), Why Public Culture?, Public Culture, 1, 1, pp- 5-9
(available at http://publicculture.org/issues/view/1/1).; Geertz, C. (1986), The Uses of Diversity,
Michigan Quarterly Review, 25, 1, pp. 105-123 (available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu).
24
25
Smith, A. (1995), Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.
food (Mac-foodism), the wearing of jeans and the predominance of the Hollywood film
industry. Finally, a third group of critics call cultural cosmopolitanism into question
from the point of view of protecting minorities, arguing that the key is to defend the
internationalisation of multiculturalism via the creation, by international organisations,
of international norms which guarantee public support and recognition of non-dominant
ethnocultural groups26.
26
Kymlica, W. (2009, first ed. in English, 2007), Las odiseas multiculturales, Las nuevas polticas
internacionales de la diversidad, Barcelona: Paids. Though this position stems from cultural reflections,
it implies a political project.
27
29
Heater, D. (2002), World Citizenship. Cosmopolitan Thinking and Its Opponents, New York:
Continuum.
30
Though not an exhaustive list, among the communitarians of the nineties it is worth noting William
Galston, Michael Walzer, Benjamin Barber, Charles Taylor, Robert Putnam and Alexander Lee. The
publications of Amitai Etzioni are representative of the United States perspective. Etzioni is the director
of the Institute for Communitarian Studies (a think tank devoted to the defence of communitarian ideas)
at George Washington University and founder of the Communitarian Network (an independent, nonprofit-making association
with the same aim. See: The Responsive Community
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/articles1.html. )
Ramrez, M.T. (1999), Monismo, relativismo y pluralismo. Isaiah Berlin y la teora de la cultura,
Revista internacional de filosofa poltica, 14, pp. 125-145.
32
Requejo, F. (2009), El pluralismo de valors dIsaiah Berlin. Refinar la teoria per millorar la prctica
democrtica, in VIA, 10, September pp. 7-20.
33
Nussbaum, M.C (1999, first in English , 1994), Compiled by J. Cohen, Los lmites del patriotismo.
Identidad, pertenencia y ciudadana mundial, Barcelona: Paids. This publication only includes five of
10
conservative thought, with this being no more than a strategy to rail against the welfare
state and against the ceding of power to centralised, bureaucratic organisations and
structures that control its functioning, thereby putting limits on State sovereignty in
favour of citizen rights; other authors, on the other hand, do not fall into this category at
all. From the perspective of this paper, the most interesting communitarian contributions
are those which attempt to build bridges between both postures, drawing attention to
both their strengths and weaknesses, such as the arguments put forward by Appiah,
Barber and Falk34. Antonio Kwame Appiah sets out his stall in the title of his essay
Cosmopolitan Patriots, transmitting the idea that it is not necessary to give up cultural
roots and particularities in order to argue in support of the existence of universal rights,
and vice versa. According to Appiah, cosmopolitanism and patriotism should be
understood more as sentiments than as ideologies and, therefore, it is necessary to
recognise that the most important actor is the emerging civil society. In this line, he
supports the existence of smaller political communities rather than a global State (which
cosmopolitan models do not defend either, although it is often attributed to them) and
argues that different forms of social and cultural life are not incompatible with the idea
we have of common rights35. Richard Falk36 opposes the polarised and exclusive vision
(either cosmopolitanism or communitarianism) as, in his opinion, which is shared by
the vision put forward in this paper, this is out of line with current reality (he was
writing at the end of the twentieth century and his views are valid for the twenty-first).
An extreme form of patriotism which ignores the challenges faced by the State and
brings the autonomy of the self-same State into question will be functionally inefficient.
And a version of cosmopolitanism which remains uncritical of the global power of
markets will be ethically inefficient. Falk thus proposes a positive dialogue between
both postures based on the premise that the current world order must not simply reflect
the interactions between States, but must also consider the transnational agents and
processes that are committed to both local and global actions. When these actions are
brought together they create what Falk refers to as neocosmopolitanism. This breaks
the twenty-nine replies and five new contributions. It was originally published in The Boston Review,
October-November 1994. Available at http://bostonreview.net/BR19.5/BR19.5.html
34
See Appiah, K.A. (1999), Patriotismo y Cosmopolitismo, pp. 33-42; Barber, B. (1999), Fe
constitucional, pp, 43-53; Falk, R. (1999), Una revisin del cosmopolitismo, pp. 67-76, all in
Nussbaum (1999), Op. Cit.
35
See also Appiah, K.A. (2007, first in English , 2006), Cosmopolitismo. La tica en un mundo de
extraos, Buenos Aires/Madrid: Katz editores
11
with the traditional State-society link and dynamises other forms of interaction between
people and the various structures of authority, thus promoting a version of globalisation
conceived in terms of people (bottom-up globalisation) and not in terms of markets
(top-down globalisation). Benjamin Barber37 argues persuasively against the false
debate between patriotism (as a version of communitarianism) and cosmopolitanism,
although the analysis centres on the case of the United States, which is not necessarily
extrapolable to other contexts. Barber starts out by pointing out the problems which he
sees as affecting Nussbaums reasoning, which he breaks down into two main
categories. Firstly, he notes how the success of the United States in incorporating its
sense of patriotism into a constitutional framework defined by substantive values of law
and justice has been undervalued. Secondly, he points to the lack of consideration given
to the weakness of cosmopolitanism and humanising processes key to identity politics
in a rootless world of contrasts. Barber posits that both postures have strengths and
weaknesses. In a tribalised world cosmopolitanism could serve as a useful counterpoint.
On the other hand, if we look at a world disillusioned with bureaucracy, then local
systems of governance and a healthy, democratic, civic, patriotism that can bring
institutions and citizens together could be more useful than abstract, universalist
positions. What is especially interesting is the consideration of identity as the
assumption of a set of constitutional principles, thats to say, the linking of identity to a
set of political ideas rather than to race, religion or culture. At the international level this
approach links in with the idea of constitutionalisation of international law38. In this
36
37
See also Barber, B. (2000, first in English 1998), Un lugar para todos. Como fortalecer la democracia
y la sociedad civil, Barcelona: Paids. Barber combines his research work with political activism: he is
the president of CivWorld @ Demos. Demos is an NGO devoted to strengthening democracy in America.
CivWorld is a project that seeks to advance in a more democratic system of global governance, as well as
in a more inclusive economy, new approaches to citizenship and political representation, and control of
US foreign policy through public opinion in order to avoid its excesses. http://www.civworld.org.
38
Constitutionalisation can be understood as a process which aims to organise and regulate the world
system via a set of fundamental norms which correspond with a triple objective: limiting the power of
States, acknowledging the rights and freedoms of people and therefore demanding that responsibility be
taken where these are violated and crimes against humanity are committed and, finally, protecting the
general interest of international society. The need for the constitutionalisation of international and/or
global society comes from the observation that the world in its current form is not governable through
resort to the classic system of international law and from the inability of the United Nations Charter to
respond to current challenges (here we could mention international terrorism, for example). See
Macdonald, R.S-J. and D.M. Johnston (2005) Introduction, in Macdonald R.S-J. and D.M. Johnston
(comp. and eds.), Towards World Constitutionalism. Issues on the Legal ordering of the World
Community, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, pp.xiii-xviii. Dunoff and Trachtman look at
constitutionalism in terms of functionality: on the one hand, the demand for constitutionalism comes from
globalisation and the fragmentation of international society and international law, and on the other hand
12
This author defines constitutionalism as a type of idealism in institutional and ethical terms for
international society which should compete with other models and which requires a collective effort to
achieve a universal order through the development of a constitutional structure and a procedure which
regulates inter-state relations. From this definition it could be inferred that the author positions himself in
an inter-state universe; however, in the development of his model, Johnston openly states that it is not
enough to restrict constitutionalism to inter-state relations, rather that constitutionalism should echo the
voices of civil society. Johnston, D.M. (2005), World Constitutionalism in the Theory of International
Law, in Macdonald, R.S-J. and D.M. Johnston (2005), Op.cit. pp. 3-29.
40
Archibugi establishes five levels of governance, between which there is a functional rather than
hierarchical relationship and which correspond to Manns five socio-spatial interaction networks: local,
State, inter-state, regional and global. See Mann, M. (1997), Has Globalisation Ended the Rise of the
Nation State?, Review of International Political Economy, 4, 3, pp. 472-496; Archibugi, D. (2004),
Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics, European Journal of International Relations, 10, 3,
September, pp.437-473.
41
Kratochwil, F.V. (1989), Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal
Reasoning in International Relations and in Domestic Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42
Habermas, J. (2006, first in German 2004), El oriente escindido , Madrid, Trota; (2008); El derecho
internacional en la transicin hacia un escenario posnacional, Buenos Aires: Katz.
13
43
possibility of various levels which, put together, wouldnt be state-like in nature. At the
supranational level, a reformed global organisation (UN) would carry out functions of
vital importance (guaranteeing peace, protecting human rights). At the intermediate
level (transnational), the great actors capable of acting globally States would take
care of problems related to economics and the environment. In this system the
constitutionalisation of international law is an alternative to hegemonic international
law44.
Finally, and also within the group of authors who view cosmopolitanism as a
cosmovision, we need to mention the German sociologist Ulrich Beck, who has
proposed that politics be reinvented on the basis of the observation that the global-local
dialectic does not fit in with national politics 45. The term risk society, which he coined
in 1986, reflected an era which was leaving traditional ways of life behind and which
was unhappy with the consequences of modernisation (the danger and insecurity which
affect everyone and which nobody can protect us from)46. Faced with this situation,
Beck put forward the opportunity for a cosmopolitan look; this involves having a sense
of the world and the absence of borders, a vision which is historically aware and
reflective in the face of an environment which contains cultural contradictions and
within which there are differences which are disappearing, a vision capable of shaping
life itself and cultural coexistence. The cosmopolitan look is not the idealised and
utopian vision presented by its critics; on the contrary, as Beck argues, it is in fact
sceptical and critical.47
43
See Walter, N. (2005), Making a World of Difference? Habermas, Cosmopolitanism and the
Constitutionalization of International Law, European University Institute Working Papers, Florence:
EUI, Law, 2005/17.
44
46
Beck, U. (2008, first in German 2007), La sociedad del riesgo mundial. En busca de la paz perdida,
Barcelona: Paids.
47
Beck, U. (2005, first in German 2004), La Mirada cosmopolita o la Guerra es la paz, Barcelona:
Paids, p. 12
14
48
49
50
15
democracy)51. It is appropriate to briefly go through the seven premises52 and the four
basic principles53 of the cosmopolitan democracy project. The premises are as follows:
first, democracy is a process, not a set of norms and procedures; second, a conflictive
State system hinders internal democracy; third, internal democracy works to the benefit
of peace, though it does not necessarily lead to virtuous foreign policy; fourth,
achieving democracy in every State does not represent global democracy; fifth,
globalisation erodes political autonomy and thus calls into question the efficiency of
State-based democracy; sixth, the geographical spread of members of different
communities does not necessarily correspond with State borders; and seventh,
globalisation generates social movements which are committed to issues which affect
individuals and communities that are geographically and culturally distinct from their
own. The principles which govern the project are the following: normative
individualism (people, not States or other collectives, are the units we are morally
concerned with); egalitarian individualism or inclusivity (all people have the same value
and, by extension, must enjoy the same status within institutional orders); empathy,
(everybody should be treated impartially and their points of view must be respected);
and prioritisation of the disadvantaged (in bringing about global justice, actions must be
directed first and foremost towards the most vulnerable and towards the eradication of
the most serious suffering)54. In sum, the project is a base with which to promote the
following: the rule of law, greater transparency and accountability of global governance,
commitment to social justice, the protection and reinvention of the community on
51
53
Held, D (1997, first in English 1995), La democracia y el orden global. Del Estado moderno al
gobierno cosmopolita, Barcelona: Paids. Pierik and Werner reduce these four principles down to three:
normative individualism, inclusivity and generality. Pierik, R. and W. Werner (eds.) (2010),
Cosmopolitanism in Context Perspectives from Political International Law and Political Theory,
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press
(Introduction
available
at:
www.rolandpierik.nl/theory/Downloads/GJ_IL.pdf).
54
This is the line of Linklaters models, which come from a post-structural position. In referring to
cosmopolitanism he admits that although human reason can understand universally-applicable ethical
principles, the problem is that these are not neutral, as every principle has cultural origins. The lack of
consensus leads Linklater to call for a focus on minimalist ethical aspirations such as the reduction of
poverty or the creation of cosmopolitan conventions on suffering. With this he resolves the problem of
values and links up to the origins of the discipline of International Relations (reducing the suffering
derived from the coexistence of States). Linklater (2002), Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions, in
Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Op. Cit., pp. 254-267.
16
various levels, and the transformation of the global economy into a fair economic order
based on norms55.
A second political perspective on cosmopolitanism views it as a project which
defends the recognition of multiple identities. Sharing with the previously outlined
perspective the principles of normative individualism and egalitarian individualism, this
approach aims to promote a project in which individuals are capable of being
simultaneously perceived and accepted as members of different communities.
Therefore, the fundamental principle of this view is the legitimisation of multiple
loyalties. In line with the argument laid out by Amin Maalouf, the model involves
getting away from sectarian and exclusive killer identities. Maalouf maintains that
identity should be perceived as all the belongings of a human being, highlighting
universality and not uniformity. Every individual is the repository of two inheritances:
firstly a vertical inheritance, inherited from their forbearers and their people; and
secondly a horizontal inheritance, which comes from the period in which they live56. By
admitting multiple personal affiliations, this political project supports the creation of
institutions which are coherent with it and, as such, diverse (networks, coalitions,
associations) in order to create space for different voices. This perspective could be
interpreted as aiming to provide a political project which is capable of overcoming the
breach between cosmopolitan and communitarian cosmovisions. According to
Hollinger, what he refers to as new cosmopolitanism57 attempts to distance itself from
previous versions, and what makes it genuinely cosmopolitan is its determination to
maximise human consciousness and to develop instruments to understand and act on
problems at a global level, thus reducing suffering without paying attention to
differences of race, class, religion, gender or tribe. The need to establish solidarities
below the level of that of the human race is considered as a primary need of the
individual and, consequently, a sense of belonging is not viewed as an atavism that must
be thrown off in order to build a cosmopolitan project58. However, this project also
distances itself from pluralism. Although cosmopolitanism and pluralism share their
tolerance for diversity, pluralism is generally more conservative in the sense that,
55
Held, D. (2005, first in English, 2004), Un Pacto global. Barcelona: Paids, p. 205.
56
Maalouf, A (2004, first in French, 1998), Identidades asesinas, Madrid: Alianza editorial.
57
The expression new cosmopolitanism or new cosmopolitans is used by other authors more
generically to refer to the cosmopolitan approaches of the nineties and their proponents. Harvey, D,
(2009), Op. cit.
17
although it admits that all cultural groups must be protected, it identifies each individual
with a specific group. Cosmopolitanism, on the other hand, is based on the idea of
multiple loyalties in constant formation and renovation59. One aspect of this political
project focuses on the analysis of migratory movements and the consequences of these
on the construction of political communities and the interrelations between these60.
The political perspective receives some of the same criticisms as the
philosophical strand, but it also comes under attack from the field of International
Relations, with neorealist authors, in a simplifying manner, defending the central role of
the State against all other actors and authorities and, by extension, arguing that there are
no universal interests that replace the national interest61. In this neorealist concept there
is no space for a limitation of sovereignty in favour of the rights of persons.
Furthermore, multilateralism, which is fundamental to a cosmopolitan conception of
politics, is nothing more than an instrument at the service of the State that can be
abandoned if it doesnt serve State objectives62.
58
59
See Hollinger, D.A. (2006a) "Rethinking Diversity,", in California Magazine (July/August 2006), 4749 and (2006b), "From Identity to Solidarity," in Daedalus (Fall 2006), 23-31.
60
Cohen, M. (1992), Op. cit.; Cohen, R. (1997), Global Diasporas: An Introduction, Seatle: University
of Washington Press; Appiah, K.A (2005), The Ethics of Identity, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
61
Mearsheimer, J.J., (2006), "Structural Realism," in Dunne, T., M. Kurki, and S. Smith, (eds.) (2006),
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71-88.
This article is an excellent summary of neorealism by one of its most representative proponents.
62
63
18
identity that Heater classifies as the vaguest way to position oneself across the broad
spectrum of cosmopolitanism, or what Falk refers to as aspiration of the spirit64.
In addition to being perceived as an attitude, from a personal perspective
cosmopolitanism is understood as a practice or competence that is related to a personal
ability, which can be learnt and fostered, to find ones own way through other cultures.
The cosmopolitan will thus participate in various worlds without forming a part of any
of them65. This attitude has no link whatsoever with the superficial, consumerist
cosmopolitanism (identified with the globalisation of consumer preferences and habits
by its critics) or with elitist cosmopolitanism defined by its detractors as the travelling
style and sophisticated, cosmopolitan tastes of those elites with the income level to
afford such luxuries66. Falk refers to a specific manifestation of this phenomenon in
alluding to the transnational businessman whose identity is formed by a lifestyle67.
However, quite to the contrary, cosmopolitanism as an individual practice links in with
the image of a person committed to economic and environmental sustainability and with
civil society activism.
By its very nature this perspective generates much less debate than the others,
with discussion limited to comparison between the positive evaluation of
cosmopolitanism which highlights its potential in terms of civil society activism and the
negative view which labels it as snobbish, elitist, frivolous and superficial, with it thus
being considered as socially and politically sterile.
In summary, from a cultural perspective there are two central tenets of the
cosmopolitanism-communitarianism debate: firstly, the recognition or denial of the
emergence of a culture which is cosmopolitan in nature; and secondly, in the case where
this culture is acknowledged, the discussion over its nature is it integrating and
capable of creating spaces for all cultural manifestations that have until now been
ignored or peripheral with respect to the predominant culture, or does it simplify,
reproduce and expand the central elements of Western culture along with some minor
64
65
66
Calhoun, C. (2002), The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travellers: Towards a Critique of Actually
Existing Cosmopolitanism in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Op. Cit., pp. 86-109.
67
Cf. in Heater D. (2002), Carter, A. (2002), The Political Theory of Global Citizenship, London:
Routledge; Linklater, A. (1996), Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State, European
Journal of International Relations, 2, 1, pp. 77-103.02), Op. cit.
19
strands which guide the debate: firstly, the acceptance or rejection of the idea of a
global community which shares some values and ideas; secondly, whether or not this
global community is compatible with the identity sentiments of minority groups; and
thirdly, the efficiency or otherwise of the forms of conduct derived from monistic or
pluralistic postures in order to deal with the current challenges faced by international
society. From a political perspective, the debate revolves around three key themes:
firstly, whether or not it is necessary to limit the State; secondly, the appropriateness or
not of establishing different levels of governance; and thirdly, the meaning of
democracy in a globalised world and the mechanisms necessary to return its
significance; in short, what we are dealing with here is a reflection in new forms of
legitimacy in order to face the challenges of international society. Finally, from a
personal perspective, the debate turns on the possibility or not of a feeling of global
citizenship and the nature of the practice which derives from it: social activism or elitist
snobbery.
20
nineties falls within the sphere of normative theory and fits in well with critical-theory
and constructivist approaches. From the perspective of the search for functionality and
operability, cosmopolitan positions will be relevant if they manage to form a political
project centred on the development of new governance mechanisms for the emerging
world society. However, as a political project it must take on board that, even though it
starts from the basis of a functional goal, it has a clear normative nature and that it
brings with it an ideological position and a particular philosophical perspective.
As has been previously outlined, this project also has a social and/or personal
base. Socially, cosmopolitanism identifies more closely with personal and/or group
sentiment than with a precise political project. This vague sentiment relating to identity
and problems shared by an increasing proportion of civil society is not necessarily
expressed in joint channels of political action, though it does involve a personal
commitment which conditions the behaviour of whoever shares the sentiment. It could
be argued that, from the perspective of order, what we have called the cultural
dimension is only relevant in that it influences other dimensions of cosmopolitanism:
knowledge of reality and an intellectual opening-up to the world allow for the taking on
board of a certain cosmovision and, by extension, a social and/or political commitment.
Returning to the reflections of Archibugui, Held and Klhler on the political project, it
is necessary to reaffirm that cosmopolitanism is not ideologically neutral, as neither is
communitarianism. On the contrary, cosmopolitanism is a project which is markedly
committed to changing the referent object of security and development (the individual
should displace the central focus on the State, one of the main trends of world society
and a factor which clearly sets it apart from the previous international society), and with
a set vision of globalisation (markets should be subordinate to the interests of people).
The displacement of the State does not come from a will to substitute it for another form
of political power organisation but from the desire to demand more responsibilities of it.
It is in this line that cosmopolitanism is committed to the transformation of State
sovereignty to the benefit of citizen rights. Limits on State sovereignty are only
proposed when the State acts against its citizens; in these cases, the cosmopolitan
political project suggests that, even at the expense of the principle of sovereign equality,
the international community should take on the responsibilities that the sovereign-butirresponsible State has shirked.
Cosmopolitanism also defends the existence of basic interests which are
common to the entire international society (peace, life, human dignity, environmental
21
22
23
24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archibugi, D. (2004), Cosmopolitan Democracy and its Critics, European Journal of International
Relations, 10, 3, september, pp.437-473.
Archibugi, D, D. Held and M. Khler (eds.) (1998), Re-imagining Political Community. Studies in
Cosmopolitan Democracy, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Arenal, C. del (2002), La nueva sociedad mundial y las nuevas realidades internacionales: un reto para
la teora y para la poltica, Cursos de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales de
Vitoria-Gasteiz 2001, Bilbao: Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del Pas Vasco, pp. 19-85.
(2005), En torno al concepto de sociedad internacional, in Rodrguez Carrin, A. J. & E. Prez
Vera (coord.), Soberana del Estado y Derecho Internacional. Homenaje al Profesor Juan Antonio
Carrillo Salcedo. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla, pp. 453-464.
(2010), Homogeneidad y heterogeneidad en la sociedad internacional como bases hacia la
integracin y la fragmentacin, in Rodrigo, A. and C. Garca (2010), Unidad y pluralismo en el
derecho internacional pblico y en la comunidad internacional, Madrid: Tecnos.
Appadurai, A. and C. Beckenridge (1988), Why Public Culture?, Public Culture, 1, 1, pp- 5-9
(available at http://publicculture.org/issues/view/1/1).
Appiah, K.A. (1999), Patriotismo y Cosmopolitismo, in Nussbaum, M.C (1999, first pub. in English,
1994), Compiled by J. Cohen, Los lmites del patriotismo. Identidad, pertenencia y ciudadana
mundial, Barcelona: Paids, pp. 33-42.
(2005), The Ethics of Identity, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
(2007, first pub. in English, 2006), Cosmopolitismo. La tica en un mundo de extraos, Buenos
Aires/Madrid: Katz editores.
Barber, B. (1999), Fe constitucional, in Nussbaum, M.C (1999, first pub. in English, 1994), Compiled
by J. Cohen, Los lmites del patriotismo. Identidad, pertenencia y ciudadana mundial,
Barcelona: Paids, pp, 43-53.
(2000, first pub. in English 1998), Un lugar para todos. Como fortalecer la democracia y la
sociedad civil, Barcelona: Paids.
Barkin, J.S. and B. Cronin (1994), The state and the nation: changing norms and rules of sovereignty in
international relations, International Organization, vol. 49, n 1, winter, pp. 107-130.
Baubck, R. (2002), Political Community Beyond the Sovereign State, Supranacional Federalism and
Transnational minorities in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism.
Theory, Context and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.110-136.
Beck, U. (2002, first pub. in English 1999), La sociedad del riego global, Madrid: Siglo XXI de Espaa
Editores.
(2002, first pub. in English 1999), El manifiesto cosmopolita en Beck, U. (2002), La sociedad
del riego global, Madrid: Siglo XXI de Espaa Editores.
(2005, first pub. in German 2004), La Mirada cosmopolita o la Guerra es la paz, Barcelona:
Paids.
(2008, first pub. in German 2007), La sociedad del riesgo mundial. En busca de la paz perdida,
Barcelona: Paids.
Bellamy, R, and D. Castiglione (1998), Between Cosmopolis and Community: Three Models of Rights
and Democracy within the European Union, in Archibugui, D., D. Held and M. Khler (eds.)
(1998), Re-imagining Political Community. Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, Oxford: Polity,
pp. 152-178.
Bislev, S. (2004), Globalization, State, Transformation and Public Security, International Political
Science Review, 25, 2, pp. 281-196.
25
Buzan, B. (1991), New patterns of global security in the twenty-first century, International Affairs, 67,
3, pp. 431-451.
(1997), Rethinking security after the Cold war, Cooperation and Conflict, 32, pp. 5-28
Calhoun, C. (2002), The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travellers: Towards a Critique of Actually
Existing Cosmopolitanism in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism.
Theory, Context and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 86-109.
Carter, A. (2002), The Political Theory of Global Citizenship, London: Routledge.
Cohen, M. (1992), Rooted Cosmopolitanims: Thought on the Left, nationalism and Multiculturalism,
Dissent, autumn, pp. 478-483.
(1997), Global Diasporas: An Introduction ITALICS?, Seattle: University of Washington Press;
Cuttler, C., Haufler, V. and Porter, T. (eds.) (1999), Private Authority and International Affairs, Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Davis, L.E: (2003), Globalizations Security Implications, Rand Issue Paper, Washington: Rand
Corporation.
Delanty , G. (2006), The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory, British
Journal of Sociology, 57, 1, pp. 25-47.
Dunoff, J.L and J.P. Trachtman (eds.) (2009), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law
and Global Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2009), A Functional Approach to International Constitutionalization, in Dunoff, J.L and J.P.
Trachtman (eds.) (2009), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, Internacional Law and Global
Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-35.
Eckersley, R. (2004), The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty, Cambridge (Ma):
Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Falk, R. (1999), Una revisin del cosmopolitismo, in Nussbaum, M.C (1999, first pub. in English,
1994), Compiled by J. Cohen, Los lmites del patriotismo. Identidad, pertenencia y ciudadana
mundial, Barcelona: Paids, pp. 67-76.
(2008), Achieving Human Right , London, Routledge.
Friedman, J. (1994), Cultural Identity and Global Process, London: Sage.
Geertz, C. (1986), The Uses of Diversity, Michigan Quarterly Review, 25, 1, pp. 105-123 (avalaible at
http://quod.lib.umich.edu).
Giraldo, J. and J. Molina (eds.) (2008), Carl Schmitt: Derecho, poltica y grandes espacios, Murcia:
Sociedad de Estudios Polticos).
Habermas, J. (2006, first pub. in German, 2004), El oriente escindido , Madrid: Trota.
(2008), El derecho internacional en la transicin hacia un escenario posnacional, Buenos Aires:
Katz.
Harvey, D, (2009), Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom, New York: Columbia: University
Press.
Hazner, U. (1996), Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. London, Routledge.
Heater, D. (2002), World Citizenship. Cosmopolitan Thinking and Its Opponents, New York: Continuum.
Held, D. (1997), La democracia y el orden global. Del Estado moderno al gobierno cosmopolita.
Barcelona: Paids, (first pub. in English 1995).
(2005, first pub. in English, 2004), Un Pacto global. Barcelona: Paids
Hollinger, D.A. (2002), Not Universalists, Not Pluralists: The New Cosmopolitans Find Their Own
Way, in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context and
Practice, Nueva York, Oxford: University Press, pp. 227-239.
(2006a) "Rethinking Diversity", in California Magazine (July/August 2006), 47-49
26
(2006b), "From Identity to Solidarity," en Daedalus (Fall 2006), 23-31. (1995), Potethnic America:
Beyond Multculturalism, New York: Basic Books.
Johnston, D.M. (2005), World Constitutionalism in the Theory of International Law, Macdonald R.S-J.
and D.M. Johnston (comp. and eds.), Towards World Constitutionalism. Issues on the Legal
ordering of the World Community, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 3-29.
Kaldor, M. (2003), American power: from compellance to cosmopolitanism?, International Affairs,
79: I, pp. 1-22.
Kymlica, W. (2009, first pub. in English, 2007), Las odiseas multiculturales, Las nuevas polticas
internacionales de la diversidad, Barcelona: Paids.
Kindlerberger, Ch.P. (1981), Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy. Exploitation,
Public Goods and Free Riders, International Studies Quarterly, 25, 2, pp. 242-254.
Krasner (1989), Hegemonic Stability Theory: an Empirical Assesment, Review of International Studies,
15, pp. 183-198.
Kratochwil, F.V. (1989), Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal
Reasoning in International Relations and in Domestic Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Linklater, A. (1996), Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State, European Journal of
International Relations, 2, 1, pp. 77-103.
(2002), Cosmopolitan Harm Conventions, in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Vertovec, S. and
R. Cohen (2002), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context and Practice, Nueva York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 254-267.
Maalouf, A (2004)., Identidades asesinas, Madrid: Alianza editorial.
Macdonald R.S-J. and D.M. Johnston (comps. and eds.) (2005), Towards World Constitutionalism. Issues
on the Legal Ordering of the World Community, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
(2005) Introduction, in Macdonald R.S-J. and D.M. Johnston (comp. and eds.), Towards World
Constitutionalism. Issues on the Legal ordering of the World Community, Leiden/Boston: Martinus
Nijhoff, pp.xiii-xviii.
Mearsheimer, J.J., (2006), "Structural Realism," in Dunne, T., M. Kurki, and S. Smith, (eds.) (2006),
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
71-88.
Mann, M. (1997), Has Globalisation Ended the Rise of the Nation State?, Review of International
Political Economy, 4, 3, pp. 472-496
McGrew, A. (2004), Cosmopolitan and Global justice, in Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International
Studies, 3, pp. 1-17
Nowicka, M. and M. Rovisco (2008), Cosmopolitanism in Practice. Global Connections, Farnham:
Ashgate.
Nussbaum, M.C (1999, first pub. in English, 1994), compiled by J. Cohen, Los lmites del patriotismo.
Identidad, pertenencia y ciudadana mundial, Barcelona: Paids.
Paris, R. (2001), Human Security. Paradigm Shift or Hot Air, International Security, 26, 2, pp. 87-102.
Prez de Armio, K. (2006-2007), El concepto y el uso de la seguridad humana: anlisis crtico de sus
potencialidades y riesgos, Revista CIDOB dAfers Internacionals, 76, pp. 59-77.
Pierik, R. and W. Werner (eds.), (2010), Cosmopolitanism in Context Perspectives from Political
International Law and Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pogge, T. (1992), Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty, Ethics, October, pp. 48-75
Ramrez, M.T. (1999), Monismo, relativismo y pluralismo. Isaiah Berlin y la teora de la cultura,
Revista internacional de filosofa poltica, 14, pp. 125-145.
Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001), The Responsibility
to Protect, available at: http://www.iciss.ca/spanish-report.pdf.
27
Report of the UNs High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes, (2004), A More Secure World:
Our Shared Responsibility. U.N. Doc. A/59/565, 2 December.
Requejo, F. (2009), El pluralismo de valors dIsaiah Berlin. Refinar la teoria per millorar la prctica
democrtica, in VIA, 10, September pp. 7-20.
Robbins, B. (1992), Comparative Cosmopolitism, Social Text, 31/32, pp. 169-196.
Rodrigo, A. (2008), El derecho internacional hegemnico y sus lmites, in Garca, C. and A. Rodrigo,
(2008), Los lmites del proyecto imperial. Estados Unidos y el orden internacional en el siglo
XXII, Madrid, La catarata (pp.111-174).
Rodrigo, A. and C. Garca (2010), Unidad y pluralismo en el derecho internacional pblico y en la
comunidad internacional, Madrid: Tecnos , (forthcoming).
Ruggie, J.G. (2004), Reconstituting the Global Public Domain Issues, Actors and Practices, European
Journal of International Relations, 10, 4, pp. 499-531.
Shaw, M. (1997), The state of globalization: towards a theory of state transformation, Review of
International Political Economy, 4, 3, pp. 492-513.
Slaugther, A-M. (2004), A New World Order. Governments, Networks and the Disaggregated State,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
(2003) Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies and Disaggregated
Democracy, Michigan Journal of Law, .24, pp. 1041-1075).
Smith, A. (1995), Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smith, D.A: (1999), State and Sovereignty in the Global Economy, London: Routledge.
Snidal, D. (1985), The limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory, International Organization, 39, 4, pp. 579614.
Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002), Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context and Practice, Nueva
York: Oxford University Press.
(2002), Introduction: Conceiving Cosmopolitanism, in Vertovec, S. and R. Cohen (2002),
Conceiving Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press,
pp.1-22.
Villacaas, J.L. (2008), Poder y poltica: ensayos sobre Carl Schmitt, Granada: Editorial Comares.
Waldron, J. (1992), Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative, University of Michigan
Journal of Law Reform, 25, 3, pp. 751-793.
Walter, N. (2005), Making a World of Difference? Habermas, Cosmopolitanism and the
Constitutionalization of International Law, European University Institute Working Papers,
Florence: EUI, Law, 2005/17
Webb, H.C and S.D. Linklater, A. (1996), Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State,
European Journal of International Relations, 2, 1, pp. 77-103.
Wendt, A. (2003), Why a World State is Inevitable?, European Journal of International Relations, 9, 4,
pp. 491-542.
Young, I.M. (2002), Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28