Advertisement

Contested Multilateral Dominance

  • Erik O. EriksenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the instances of dominance and democratic challenges that occur in an increasingly multilateral and interdependent world. It addresses the problem of multilateral dominance that arises when a higher-ranking arbitrator is missing. Then it revisits the concept of sovereignty and clarifies the distinction between state sovereignty and popular sovereignty. The European integration experiment is part of a larger process of increasing cosmopolitanisation of nation-states and institutionalisation of human rights. Sovereignty has become a question of complying with international standards of democracy and human rights. However, legal protection beyond the nation-state may increase citizens’ private autonomy at the expense of their political autonomy. Lastly, the chapter discusses constitutions as a coupling between law and politics that differentiation has decoupled.

Keywords

Executive multilateralism Dominance Sovereignty Human rights Constitutionalism Juridification 

References

  1. Arnesen, Finn, and Are Stenvik. 2009. Internationalization as juridical method, Internasjonalisering og juridiske metode. Særlig om EØ’s-rettens betydning i norsk rett [Internationalization as Juridical Method]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.Google Scholar
  3. Beattie, A. 2017. Arbitration on Trial: The US and UK’s Fear of the Supranational, Financial Times, 2 May. https://www.ft.com/content/e607c6b2-28f5-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c. Accessed on 8 January 2019.
  4. Biermann, Frank. 2014. Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blichner, Lars C., and Anders Molander. 2008. Mapping Juridification. European Law Journal 14 (1): 36–54.Google Scholar
  6. Brownlie, Ian, and Guy Goodwin-Gill. 2006. Basic Documents on Human Rights, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brunkhorst, Hauke. 2014. Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions: Evolutionary Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  8. Buzan, Barry, and George Lawson. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Constitution of Italy. 22 December 1947. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b59cc.html. Accessed on 13 November 2018.
  10. Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dahl, Robert A. 1994. A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness Versus Citizen Participation. Political Science Quarterly 109 (1): 23–34.Google Scholar
  12. Dahl, Robert A., and Edward R. Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dworkin, Ronald. 2013. A New Philosophy for International Law. Philosophy & Public Affairs 41 (1): 2–30.Google Scholar
  14. Eriksen, Erik O. 2009. The Unfinished Democratization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Eriksen, E.O. 2017. Democratic Innovations Beyond the State. In The Crisis of the European Union: Challenges, Analyses, Solutions, ed. Andreas Grimmel, 199–214. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Eriksen, Erik O., and Jarle Weigård. 2003. Understanding Habermas. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Falk, Richard. 2002. Revisiting Westphalia, Rediscovering Post-Westphalia. Journal of Ethics 6 (4): 311–352.Google Scholar
  18. Fassbender, Bardo. 2009. The United Nations Charter as the Constitution of the International Community. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  19. Forst, Rainer. 2012. The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice, trans. J. Flynn. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Franck, Thomas M. 1992. The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance. American Journal of International Law 86 (1992): 46–91.Google Scholar
  21. Grant, Ruth W., and Robert O. Keohane. 2005. Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics. American Political Science Review 99 (1): 29–43.Google Scholar
  22. Grimen, Harald, Anders Molander, and Erik O. Eriksen. 2012. Professional Discretion and Accountability in the Welfare State. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3): 214–230.Google Scholar
  23. Grimm, Dieter. 2015. Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political Concept. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. The Inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory. Edited by Ciaran Cronin and Pablo de Greiff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. Does the Constitutionalization of International Law Still Have a Chance? In The Divided West, ed. Jürgen Habermas, 115–193. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 2012. The Crisis of the European Union: A Response. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, Herbert L.A. 1997. The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hegel, Georg. W.F. 1967 [1821]. Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Translated with notes by T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. London: Andrew Crooke, Green Dragon, St. Paul’s Churchyard.Google Scholar
  31. Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks, Arjan H. Schakel, Sandra Chapman Osterkatz, Sara Niedzwiecki, and Sarah Shair-Rosenfield. 2016. Measuring Regional Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance, vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, Robert. H. 1990. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Julius, A.J. 2006. Nagel’s Atlas. Philosophy & Public Affairs 34 (2): 176–193.Google Scholar
  35. Keohane, Robert O. 2002. Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (4): 743–765.Google Scholar
  36. Keohane, Nannerl O. 2017. Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  38. Koskenniemi, Martti. 2005 [1989]. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lefort, Claude. 1988. Democracy and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Linklater, Andrew. 1996. Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State. European Journal of International Relations 2 (1): 77–103.Google Scholar
  42. Lipset, Seyour Martin. 1960. Political Man: The Social Basis for Modern Politics. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  43. Locke, John. 1689 [1967]. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lord, Christopher. 2013. The Democratic Legitimacy of Co-decision. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (7): 1056–1073.Google Scholar
  45. Lord, Christopher. 2015. Utopia or Dystopia? Towards a Normative Analysis of Differentiated Integration. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (6): 783–798.Google Scholar
  46. Lord, Christopher. 2017. An Indirect Legitimacy Argument for a Directly Elected European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research 56: 512–528.Google Scholar
  47. Luhmann, Niklas. 2000. Die Politik der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  48. Maus, Ingeborg. 1994. Zur Aufklärung der Demokratietheorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  49. Michelman, Frank I. 1997. How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberative Democracy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. James Bohman and William Regh. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Morgan, Glyn. 2005. The Idea of a European Superstate: Public Justification and European Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1993. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  52. Morse, Julia C., and Robert O. Keohane. 2014. Contested Multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations 9 (4): 385–412.Google Scholar
  53. Niesen, Peter. 2012. Kosmopolitismus in einem Land. In Transnationale Gerechtigkeit und Demokratie, ed. Niesen Peter. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  54. Niesen, Peter, and Benjamin Herborth. 2007. Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  55. Pettit, Philipp. 2006. Democracy, National and International. The Monist 89 (2): 301–324.Google Scholar
  56. Pogge, Thomas W. 1992. Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics 103 (1): 48–75.Google Scholar
  57. Rana, Waheeda. 2015. Theory of Complex Interdependence: A Comparative Analysis of Realist and Neoliberal Thoughts. International Journal of Business and Social Science 6 (2): 290–297.Google Scholar
  58. Richardson, Henry S. 2002. Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning About the End of Policy. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ruggie, John G. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47 (1): 139–174.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitt, Carl. 1996 [1932]. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Schmitt, Carl. 2003 [1950]. The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum. New York: Telos Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sen, Amartya. 2012. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stie, Anne Elizabeth. 2012. Democratic Decision-Making in the EU: Technocracy in Disguise? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State. The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sunstein, Cass R. 1990. After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Taylor, Diane. 2018. May Accused in High Court of Deserting International Law Principle. The Guardian, 26 July. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/26/may-accused-in-high-court-of-deserting-international-law-principle?CMP=share_btn_link. Accessed on 13 November 2018.
  68. United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html. Accessed on 13 November 2018.
  69. United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed on 13 November 2018.
  70. Walzer, Michael. 1977. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  71. Weiler, Joseph H.H. 1997. To Be a European Citizen: Eros and Civilisation? Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4): 495–519.Google Scholar
  72. Weinrib, Jacob. 2017. Sovereignty as a Right as a Duty: Kant’s Theory of the State. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  73. Zürn, Michael. 2000. Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State: The EU and Other International Institutions. European Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 183–221.Google Scholar
  74. Zürn, Michael. 2014. The Politicization of World Politics and Its Effects: Eight Propositions. European Political Science Review 6 (1): 47–71.Google Scholar
  75. Zürn, Michael. 2018. A Theory of Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARENA Centre for European StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations