Global Residents in Urban Networks: The Right to Asylum in European Cosmopoleis

  • David ÁlvarezEmail author
Part of the Studies in Global Justice book series (JUST, volume 18)


The purpose of this chapter is to examine the limitations of our current political structures in incorporating the cosmopolitan principles that may be emerging in the normative developments of our global order. The perspective that I take is explicitly cosmopolitan, although it is elaborated out of an exercise of immanent criticism from within our existing institutional order. This analysis confronts spaces of the incipient articulation of cosmopolitan realities with political models of international legitimacy. This scenario constitutes an example of the incapacity of national state democracies to give a proper account of their foreign duties through national or supranational institutions. We briefly examine two emerging political sites that partially realize cosmopolitan realities in defiance of the national system. The first case is the political space of our metropoleis and their distinctive disposition towards refugees in Europe. The second case is the emergence of a cross-border network of urban connectivity and the alternative characterization of the refugee flows as a constitutive part in this transnational social fabric.


  1. Álvarez, D. 2012. Individual Membership in a Global Order: Terms of Respect and Standards of Justification. Public Reason 4 (2): 92–118.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2016. Democracy for Idiots. Republicanism, Self-Alienation and Permanent Minorities. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 72 (4): 953–974. Scholar
  3. ———. 2017. Democratic Legitimacy, International Institutions and Cosmopolitan Disaggregation. Law, Ethics & Politics 4: 187–199.Google Scholar
  4. Amin, A. 2012. Land of Strangers. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Amin, A., and N. Thrift. 2017. Seeing like a City. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Appaduray, A. 2004. The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition. In Culture and Public Action, ed. V. Rao and M. Walton, 59–84. Redwood: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Arendt, H. 1973 [1948]. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harvest Books.Google Scholar
  8. Ascher, F. 1995. Métapolis. Ou, l’avenir des villes. Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2009. L’âge des métapoles. La Tour-d’Aigues: Éditions l’Aube.Google Scholar
  10. Beitz, C. 2009. The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2013. From Practice to Theory. Constellations 20 (1): 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benhabib, S. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2013. Reason-Giving and Rights-Bearing: Constructing the Subject of Rights. Constellations 20 (1): 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Betts, A. 2015. The Normative Terrain of the Global Refugee System. Ethics & International Affairs 29: 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Betts, A., and P. Collier. 2017. Refuge. Transforming a Broken Refugee System. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  17. Blake, M. 2016. Philosophy and the Refugee Crisis. What are the hard Questions? The Critique. [Especial issue –And Who is my Neighbor? Immigration, Human Rights and Sovereignty
  18. Brenner, N. 2013. Theses on Urbanization. Public Culture 25 (1): 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brenner, N., and C. Schmid. 2015. Towards a New Epistemology of the Urban? City 19 (2–3): 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carens, J.H. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Christiano, T. 2008. The Constitution of Equality. Democratic Authority and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2010. Democratic Legitimacy and International Institutions. In The Philosophy of International Law, ed. S. Besson and J. Tasioulas, 119–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2011. An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 39: 142–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2017. Replies to David Álvarez, David Lefkowitz, and Michael Blake. Law, Ethics & Politics 4: 221–236.Google Scholar
  25. Fainstein, S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fassin, D. 2012. Humanitarian Reason. A Moral History of the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2016. From Right to Favor. The refugee Question as Moral Crisis. The Nation.
  28. Gibney, M. 2016. Liberal Democratic States and the Problem of the Refugee. Why Do Liebral Democratic States maintain a Commitment to the Institution of Asylum? The Critique. [Especial issue –And Who is my Neighbor? Immigration, Human Rights and Sovereignty
  29. Harvey, D. 2013. Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  30. Laclau, E. 2005. On Populist Reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  31. Lafont, C. 2012. Global Governance and Human Rights, Spinoza Lectures Series. Amsterdam: Van Gorkum.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2015. Human Rights, Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect. Constellations 22 (1): 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2016. Sovereignty and the International Protection of Human Rights. Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (4): 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lefebvre, H. 2003. The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2012. O Direito à Cidade. Lisbom: Estúdio e Letra Livre.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, D. 2016. Strangers in Our Midst. The Political Philosophy of Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mouffe, C. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2017. Radical Politics as Counter-Hegemonic Intervention: The Role of Cultural Practices. In Ethics of the Urban. The City and the Spaces of the Political, ed. M. Mostafavi, 209–212. Zürich: Lars Muller Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Mouffe, C., and M. Miesse. 2012. The Space of Agonism. In The Space of Agonism. Markus Miessen in Conversation with Chantal Mouffe, ed. N. Hirsch and M. Miessen. Berlin: Stenberg Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nicholls, W.J. 2008. The Urban Question Revisited: The Importance of Cities for Social Movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (4): 841–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Papanastasiou, N. 2017. How Does Scale Mean? A Critical Approach to Scale in the Study of Policy. Critical Policy Studies 11 (1): 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Purcell, M. 2009. Hegemony and Difference in Political Movements: Articulating Networks of Equivalence. New Political Science 31 (3): 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2013. Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City. Journal of Urban Affairs 36 (1): 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Raz, J. 1988. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 2010. Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of law and Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sandercock, L. 2003. Cosmopolis II. In Mongrel Cities in the 2st Century. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  48. Sassen, S. 2005. Cityness in the Urban Agen. Urban Age Bulletin 4: 1–3.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights. From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 2013. Does the City have Speech? Public Culture 25 (2–70): 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2014. Expulsions. Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soja, E.W. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society (CEPS)University of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations