Advertisement

Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? The Futures of Liberal Internationalism

  • Antonio Franceschet

Abstract

The meaning of liberal internationalism—specifically its vision of progressive reform—is controversial and diverse because of its evolution. Kant’s symbolic place within this trajectory is equally complicated by the changing conceptions that liberals have historically held of international politics and the institutionalization of justice. This chapter examines these claims within the context of democratization in the post - Cold War order. There has emerged not merely a revival of liberal internationalist thought, but increasingly refined accounts of the place of democracy in achieving its ethico-political agenda. In particular, there have emerged two scholarly research programs with distinct visions of reform based on the liberal ethical concerns that have been discussed above, freedom and justice. Interestingly, these two visions—the “democratic peace” (DP) thesis and the “cosmopolitan democracy” (CD) model—rely on the contrasting Kantian legacies revealed in chapter 4.

Keywords

Sovereign State Definitive Article Formal Principle Popular Sovereignty Liberal Democratic State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Stanley Hoffmann, “The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism,” Foreign Policy 98 (1995): 175–176.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Thomas W. Pogge, “Kant’s Theory of Justice,” Kant-Studien 79, 4 (1988): 413.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Steve Chan, “In Search of the Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise,” Mershon International Studies Review 41, 1 (1997): 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 8.
    Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” in Debating the Democratic Peace, ed. Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 3–57.Google Scholar
  5. See also Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80, 4 (1986): 1153–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 9.
    Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles of a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 4.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Charles W. Kegley Jr., “The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction,” in Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, ed. Charles W Kegley Jr. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 9–10.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    Michael Cox, “Wilsonianism Resurgent? The Clinton Administration and the Promotion of Democracy,” in American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, ed. Michael Cox, G. John Ikenberry, and Takashi Inoguchi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 230–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 15.
    Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), 206, 211Google Scholar
  10. Cf. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Christopher Layne, “Kant or Cant: the Myth of the Democratic Peace,” in Debating the Democratic Peace, ed. Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 159, 190.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Raymond Cohen, “Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory That ‘Democracies Do Not Go to War with Each Other,’” Review of International Studies 20, 3 (1994): 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 19.
    see also John M. Owen, “How Liberalism Produces the Democratic Peace,” International Security 19, 2 (1994): 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 20.
    Cf. Scott Gates, Torbjørn Knutson, and Jonathan W Moses, “Democracy and Peace: A More Skeptical View,” Journal of Peace Research 33, 1 (1996): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 27.
    Chris Brown, “‘Really Existing Liberalism’ and International Order,” Millennium 21, 3 (1992): 313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. John MacMillan, “A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State Peace,” Millennium 24, 3 (1995): 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 33.
    Pierre Laberge, “Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations,” in International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed. David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
  18. Otfried Höffe, “‘Even a Nation of Devils Needs the State’: The Dilemma of Natural Justice,” in Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. Howard Williams (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1992), 120–142.Google Scholar
  19. 39.
    David Held, Models of Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 289.Google Scholar
  20. 40.
    David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  21. 41.
    Daniele Archibugi, “Models of International Organization in Perpetual Peace Projects,” Review of International Studies 18, 4 (1992): 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Archibugi, “From the United Nations to Cosmopolitan Democracy,” in Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order, ed. Daniele Archibugi and David Held (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1995), 121–162Google Scholar
  23. Andrew Linklater, “Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State,” European Journal of International Relations 2, 1 (1996): 77–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linklater, The Transformation of Community: the Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  25. See the contributions to Daniele Archibugi, David Held, and Martin Köhler, eds., Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  26. 42.
    This is so especially without an agenda to democratize global politics; see Daniele Archibugi, “So What if Democracies Don’t Fight Each Other?” Peace Review 9, 3 (1997): 379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 47.
    Cf. Alan James, Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1986).Google Scholar
  28. 48.
    The distinction between a state’s formal sovereignty and actual autonomy in international affairs is made by, among others, Mark W Zacher, “The Decaying Pillars of the Westphalian Temple: Implications for International Order and Governance,” in Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, ed. James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 61–62.Google Scholar
  29. 61.
    Maxwell A. Cameron, Robert J. Lawson, and Brian W. Tomlin, eds., To Walk without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
  30. Antonio Franceschet and W. Andy Knight, “International(ist) Citizenship: Canada and the International Criminal Court,” Canadian Foreign Policy 8, 2 (2001): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 71.
    A prominent example is Onora O’Neill, “Transnational Justice,” in Political Theory Today, ed. David Held (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1991), 279–310.Google Scholar
  32. 76.
    see Daniele Archibugi, “Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace,” European Journal of International Relations 1, 4 (1995): 429–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 78.
    Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The Republican Legacy in International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 243.Google Scholar
  34. 80.
    see Thomas W. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty,” Ethics 103, 1 (1992): 48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 82.
    James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachman, “Introduction,” in Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Lutz-Bachman (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), 8–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Antonio Franceschet 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Franceschet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations