Suchergebnisse

Defence date: 19 September 2008 ; Examining Board: Robert E. Goodin (Australian National University), Wojciech Sadurski (EUI, Law Department), Henry Shue (Oxford University), Peter Wagner (Univ. Trento/ former EUI) (Supervisor) ; First made available online on 3 September 2018 ; The thesis defends a particular version of cosmopolitanism: statist cosmopolitanism. Its point of departure is the current debate in international political theory on the moral standing of boundaries and the scope of distributive equality. Against existing cosmopolitan approaches, it is argued that states have an intrinsic normative standing and constitute the most relevant agents of global justice. Against non-cosmopolitan approaches, it is argued that the defence of compatriot favouritism in the distribution of egalitarian obligations rests on a confusion between motivation and principles in ethical reasoning. More positively, this research claims that the state is not only compatible with the cosmopolitan defence of distributive equality but also necessary for its realization. The work is divided in three parts. The first part introduces some preliminary observations and illustrates the historical roots of the controversy between statism and cosmopolitanism with particular reference to the Enlightenment. The second part criticizes cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan approaches to global justice and defends both cosmopolitanism and the state. It illustrates how the limits of cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan arguments are due to more fundamental methodological flaws, regarding the place of ideal and non-ideal considerations in normative theories of global justice. The third part reconciles the defence of cosmopolitanism with the defence of the state both at the level of principle and at the level of agency. At the level of principle, it shows how cosmopolitan egalitarian obligations to relieve relative deprivation may be grounded on sufficientarian responsibilities to relieve absolute deprivation. At the level of agency, it argues that those obligations ought to be understood politically - not just morally - and that states constitute the most relevant agents for their realization. Finally, the research clarifies how the transition from principles to agency could be made by local cosmopolitan 'avant-gardes', responsible for acting within the state and thinking beyond it.

As the international community has become increasingly connected, cosmopolitanism has often been proposed as a means to reduce inequalities and maintain peace. Cosmopolitan scholars, like Martha Nussbaum, hypothesize that this citizenship can be achieved through standardized, international education standards. While it is undeniable that the projects which cosmopolitans seek to solve are vital, this paper seeks to examine the plausibility and effectiveness of cosmopolitan theory, contending that modern cosmopolitan justifications only serve to further Western interests. It is imperative to examine the applicability of cosmopolitanism, because flawed theory produces flawed policy. Cosmopolitan scholars fail to recognize that one universalized standard of education creates a monolithic culture, without a capacity for innovation or ability to cultivate strong cultural identities. Furthermore, while cosmopolitans call for the disintegration of physical borders, past trends suggest that this free movement incites an agglomeration of wealth and capital. Historically, global citizenship hasn't been able to solve human rights issues or economic inequalities because humans' political identities cannot extend to the capacity which cosmopolitan thinkers assume they can; Western leaders have instead used 'human rights' and 'economic equality' as a justification to further their own nations' agendas. In sum, cosmopolitanism is a flawed ideology and nations should focus on international cooperation, instead of global governance and individuals' economic and political agency, instead of cultural conformity.

The author of this paper compares Kant's notion of cosmopolitan right with contemporary liberal cosmopolitanism of such theorists like James Bohman (Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University) and David Held (Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science). These two theorists bring Kant's cosmopolitan right and reshape it by taking into consideration the process of globalization and the fact of pluralism. It is necessary to investigate how far these authors have changed the insight into Kant's cosmopolitan right and its implications as well as how deeply the authors reshape the classical liberal political vocabulary. ; Rafał Wonicki

Although over time mass migration has brought about de facto cosmopolitan situations in Gulf cities, foreign residents continue to experience segregation and endure exclusionary policies and practices on a daily basis. This article unpacks two sets of internal tensions that characterise cosmopolitanism in the Gulf, through a comparison of cosmopolitan discourses and practices in Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and Jeddah. The first tension relates to official discourses and policies: Saudi and Emirati governments design and enforce exclusionary policies and, at the same time, publicly endorse cosmopolitan ideals and projects—consisting in Islamic universalism for Saudi cities and the rhetoric of tolerance for the United Arab Emirates. Such cosmopolitan claims are, moreover, reflected in the aspirations and subjectivities of migrants and local citizens while also generating feelings of alienation. We call this discursive paradox cosmopolitanism in denial. The second tension concerns migrants' everyday practices and modes of consumption in urban spaces. We argue that these are best understood as a form of segregated cosmopolitanism, whereby both Gulf citizens and the various migrant communities explicitly acknowledge, and at times consume, urban diversity but also maintain certain boundaries. Drawing on an analysis of both governmental and individual discourses, as well as on ethnographic observations collected over a decade of fieldwork in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, our research engages with theories of cosmopolitanism from a situated perspective. As such, it moves away from the dominant unitary and normative approach to cosmopolitanism and instead emphasises both the resilience and transience of everyday cosmopolitan situations.

This article draws on the tradition of cosmopolitanism to offer a normative framework for the integration of democratic constitutional systems. The laterally conducted constitutional integration, which takes place outside formal institutional settings, remains under-theorized despite its transformative effect on constitutional law around the world. This article uses Kant's tripartite system of public law as presented in Perpetual Peace – ius civitatis (domestic political right), ius gentium (international political right), ius cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan right) – to explain, defend and steer ongoing phenomena of constitutional integration. By contrast to other scholarly accounts, which associate a cosmopolitan view to top-down approaches to institutional reform at the international level or to universal moral demands, my account takes domestic constitutionalism as both starting and end points. In this sense, I defend a bottom-up version of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism from the ground-up preserves the primacy of the domestic jurisdictions: each domestic constitutional order retains the filter of its own discourse and structures as it integrates and internalizes the experiences of other constitutional orders. Cosmopolitanism helps to understand ongoing phenomena of constitutional integration because it rejects methodological nationalism in constitutional analysis. It also justifies these phenomena by showing that cross-jurisdictional integration is compatible with the constitutional democratic commitment to self-government.

Although over time mass migration has brought about de facto cosmopolitan situations in Gulf cities, foreign residents continue to experience segregation and endure exclusionary policies and practices on a daily basis. This article unpacks two sets of internal tensions that characterise cosmopolitanism in the Gulf, through a comparison of cosmopolitan discourses and practices in Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and Jeddah. The first tension relates to official discourses and policies: Saudi and Emirati governments design and enforce exclusionary policies and, at the same time, publicly endorse cosmopolitan ideals and projects—consisting in Islamic universalism for Saudi cities and the rhetoric of tolerance for the United Arab Emirates. Such cosmopolitan claims are, moreover, reflected in the aspirations and subjectivities of migrants and local citizens while also generating feelings of alienation. We call this discursive paradox cosmopolitanism in denial. The second tension concerns migrants' everyday practices and modes of consumption in urban spaces. We argue that these are best understood as a form of segregated cosmopolitanism, whereby both Gulf citizens and the various migrant communities explicitly acknowledge, and at times consume, urban diversity but also maintain certain boundaries. Drawing on an analysis of both governmental and individual discourses, as well as on ethnographic observations collected over a decade of fieldwork in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, our research engages with theories of cosmopolitanism from a situated perspective. As such, it moves away from the dominant unitary and normative approach to cosmopolitanism and instead emphasises both the resilience and transience of everyday cosmopolitan situations.

Although over time mass migration has brought about de facto cosmopolitan situations in Gulf cities, foreign residents continue to experience segregation and endure exclusionary policies and practices on a daily basis. This article unpacks two sets of internal tensions that characterise cosmopolitanism in the Gulf, through a comparison of cosmopolitan discourses and practices in Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and Jeddah. The first tension relates to official discourses and policies: Saudi and Emirati governments design and enforce exclusionary policies and, at the same time, publicly endorse cosmopolitan ideals and projects—consisting in Islamic universalism for Saudi cities and the rhetoric of tolerance for the United Arab Emirates. Such cosmopolitan claims are, moreover, reflected in the aspirations and subjectivities of migrants and local citizens while also generating feelings of alienation. We call this discursive paradox cosmopolitanism in denial. The second tension concerns migrants' everyday practices and modes of consumption in urban spaces. We argue that these are best understood as a form of segregated cosmopolitanism, whereby both Gulf citizens and the various migrant communities explicitly acknowledge, and at times consume, urban diversity but also maintain certain boundaries. Drawing on an analysis of both governmental and individual discourses, as well as on ethnographic observations collected over a decade of fieldwork in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, our research engages with theories of cosmopolitanism from a situated perspective. As such, it moves away from the dominant unitary and normative approach to cosmopolitanism and instead emphasises both the resilience and transience of everyday cosmopolitan situations.

In the paper I analyse Daniele Archibugi's conception of the new cosmopolitanism, aimed at formulation of a theory of cosmopolitan democracy capable of facing contemporary global problems that go beyond the competences of nation-states. My claim is that the advocates of the new cosmopolitanism have yet to come up with a theoretical minimum to which all parties of the cosmopolitan debate would subscribe. I argue that the main obstacle in formulation of a viable cosmopolitanism are attempts at imposition of the universalist uniformity inscribed in the traditional cosmopolitanism or, at best, a straightforward acceptance of cultural differences. In opposition to this, I outline the idea of reciprocal cosmopolitanism which, I believe, should proceed from the acknowledgement of human diversity, thus becoming a more inclusive project than its existing alternatives. ; Straipsnyje analizuojama Daniele'io Archibugi naujojo kosmopolitizmo sąvoka, skirta suformuluoti tokiam kosmopolitinės demokratijos konceptui, kuris tiktų sprendžiant šiuolaikines globalias problemas, esančias už paskirų tautų-valstybių kompetencijos ribų. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad naujojo kosmopolitizmo užtarėjai dar neišplėtojo minimalaus teoretinio šios sąvokos pagrindo, kuris tenkintų visus kosmopolitizmo diskusijos dalyvius. Teigiama, kad pagrindinė kliūtis, trukdanti suformuluoti veikiantį kosmopolitizmą, yra bandymai primesti universalistinį vienodumą, esantį tradiciniame kosmopolitizme ar geriausiu atveju slypintį paprastame kultūrinių skirtumų priėmime. Prieštaraujant tam, straipsnyje apibrėžiama abipusiško kosmopolitizmo idėja, kuri, tikima, turi prasidėti nuo žmonių įvairovės pripažinimo ir taip tapti labiau visa apimančiu projektu nei šiuo metu egzistuojančios alternatyvos.

The topic of my paper is the attack on cosmopolitanism ever since the Great Recession. Since 2008, populist reactions to the ill effects of globalisation have sprung up in many Western countries. Their target is the post-WW II political consensus—at least as far as Europe is concerned—of an 'ever closer union,' a policy based on 20th century history and a new cosmopolitan sensibility. This sensibility is now under attack—Brexit being only the most visible sign—and calls for a new nationalism have returned to both sides of the Atlantic. For a West-German citizen born after the war, such a focus on the nation was out of the question for all the well-known reasons. In this paper I engage with the critics of cosmopolitanism, exploring both populist and liberal objections to it. As a result, I arrive at a more nuanced position that takes stock of the negative effects of globalization. I suggest that the road forward—at least for the foreseeable future—might well be a division of labour between the European nation states and a cosmopolitan sensibility. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The topic of my paper is the attack on cosmopolitanism ever since the Great Recession. Since 2008, populist reactions to the ill effects of globalisation have sprung up in many Western countries. Their target is the post-WW II political consensus—at least as far as Europe is concerned—of an 'ever closer union,' a policy based on 20th century history and a new cosmopolitan sensibility. This sensibility is now under attack—Brexit being only the most visible sign—and calls for a new nationalism have returned to both sides of the Atlantic. For a West-German citizen born after the war, such a focus on the nation was out of the question for all the well-known reasons. In this paper I engage with the critics of cosmopolitanism, exploring both populist and liberal objections to it. As a result, I arrive at a more nuanced position that takes stock of the negative effects of globalization. I suggest that the road forward—at least for the foreseeable future—might well be a division of labour between the European nation states and a cosmopolitan sensibility. ; This work was published in a book funded by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UIDB/04041/2020 (Centro de Estudos Arnaldo Araújo) ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

In this essay, I first outline the contexts in which the idea of cosmopolitanism appears in Kant's moral and political philosophy. I then survey the three main debates regarding his political cosmopolitanism, namely, on the nature of the international federation he advocated, his theory of cosmopolitan right, and his views on colonialism and 'race', and I consider the relation between patriotism and cosmopolitanism in Kant's work. I subsequently discuss Kant's moral cosmopolitanism. Kant is widely held to be a defender of moral cosmopolitanism, but the terminology of world citizenship is in fact strikingly rare in Kant's writings on moral theory. I offer a two-part explanation for why this is the case.

The text briefly discusses cosmopolitanism as a philosophical idea, a political ideal and as experience in a global world. Then it argues that people can have an individual interest in cosmopolitanism.

This chapter concerns the roots and increasing diversification of cosmopolitan social thought and the research it inspires. It shows that cosmopolitan matters now constitute central topics for research, debate, and controversy across the social sciences. Having begun as a sense of non-national affiliation – declaring oneself to be a 'citizen of the world' rather than of any specific polity – it now encompasses a much wider range of issues. Cosmopolitanism today simultaneously refers to a scholarly field, a set of research agendas, a series of substantive phenomena, moral and ethical norms, ideals and practices, and ways of thinking, both socially and politically, as well as in more purely academic terms of analysis and research procedures. Running through all these is a common theme: the limits of nation-states and national frames of reference, and the need to think and act beyond these. This is a scholarly area directed towards developing non-Western-centric, post-universalistic, multi- and inter-disciplinary inquiry, rendering ideas of cosmopolitanism more open, flexible, and multiple, especially as regards becoming more cognisant of forms of difference and plurality in the world. The overarching intellectual tendency over time has been to cosmopolitanise cosmopolitanism itself. ; Peer reviewed

The thesis proposes to understand contemporary discourses on cosmopolitanism in Britain and Germany as situated outlooks influenced by specific national cultures and nation state histories. These discourses are also embedded in the transition of the current nation state order that is driven by global capitalism and new forms of social and legal integration. Within Europe, the legal integration project of the European Union has to be regarded as at the core of these contemporary discourses. While situating discourses of cosmopolitanism historically, the thesis traces back dominant discourses of commercial (Britain) and cultural (Germany) cosmopolitanism that influence contemporary national outlooks of British (David Held, Chantal Mouffe and Homi K. Bhabha) and German voices Qiirgen Habermas, Ulrich Beck and Hanna Behrend). The main argument is that those discourses are framed by historical pathways, particular memories and national horizons situated differently in various countries, but also situated differently regarding the social locations of concrete intellectuals engaging in these discourses. Thus, the analysis of the different authors' writings pursues a double aim. On the one hand, it explores to what degree national discourses are situated as hegemonic public communicative sphere historically; on the other, it reveals how specific voices are situated individually within the larger discourse, thereby unearthing their contribution to confirming or challenging a hegemonic discourse. Most significantly, the Utopian vision of a cosmopolitan 'opening' that evolved during the 1990s shifted to a hegemonic ideological discourse of European 'closure' after 9/11 2001. The analysis reveals the appearance of a discourse of European cosmopolitanism conveying cultural Europeanisation. Apparently, this discourse neglects the problematic legacy of a distinction that was typical for the German discourse of the late 19 th and lasting until the mid of the 20th century, i.e. the distinction between the world citizen (Weltbürger)and the cosmopolitan (Koswopolit). The former had a positive connotation of mobility whereas the latter was used as an anti-Semitic signifier for Jews as unwanted 'wanderers'. The contemporary discourse conveys still biased meanings of 'mobility' and 'migration' being decisive for e.g. the notion of EU citizenship as die privileging frame of free movement constructing new insides and outsides of populations.

The relationship between cosmopolitanism and social theory cannot be recon-structed directly. What we commonly refer to as the leading ? gures in the history of social theory – Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Parsons – did not write much, if at all, on cosmopolitanism. True, in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels (1976) used the term loosely as an adjective to describe the new kind of cultural artifacts with world-wide orientation that were being created in capitalism. Thus, although they spoke of "cosmopolitan" literature and science – the German term they used there was Weltbürgertum – this hardly amounts to a systematic treatment or valuation of it as an idea. More poignantly, in his lectures on political sociology Émile Durkheim (1992) used the notion of cosmopolitanisme to recover Kant's idea of perpetual peace as he tried to reconcile the old natural law cosmopolitan credo with the nascent force of nationalism just before World War I. But again in this case the highly politicized meaning Durkheim gave to the concept does not warrant, at least without further ado, depicting his sociological viewpoint as cosmopolitan. This chapter therefore begins with a note of caution. The assessment of the connections between cosmopolitan thinking and social theory cannot replicate the paths fol-lowed by those who have reconstructed how social theory relates to a number of alternative social and intellectual trends: the rise of capitalism (Giddens 1971) and the critiques of the Enlightenment (Hawthorn 1987), liberalism (Seidman 1983), Romanticism (Nisbet 1967), and nationalism (Chernilo 2007a). Rather, we need ? rst to identify the de? ning elements of cosmopolitanism as an intellectual tradition and only then can we attempt to move on and assess the extent to which they are compatible with the modern social theory's main features.