Suchergebnisse

Explores cosmopolitanism in terms of political communities that transcend state borders, situating this treatment in the field of cosmopolitan democracy that views human needs as best served by global political institutions. Discussion opens with a consideration of various interpretations of cosmopolitanism, contending that political theorists employ the term without any idea of a global community of citizens. It is asserted that two ways exist for building political communities beyond national identities, assimilation into larger communities that replicate particularistic nationhood traits or federalization that fosters loyalties to the larger unit. The latter, multinational federalism, appears most promising. However, such a cosmopolitan project must address issues of asymmetry, enlargement, & democratization. In this light, it is asked whether current conditions of globalization even allow for the emergence of a global political community before even considering the possibility of cosmopolitan democracy. Thus, various patterns of extant supranational political community are examined to determine their impact on democratic citizenship. Four boundary regimes through which political communities can relate in a larger supranational context are identified: separate, nested, multilevel, or overlapping. It is argued that, in fact, the state system is transforming via a combination of the nested, multilevel, & overlapping patterns. In this light, the UN & EU are assessed. Focus turns to overlapping affiliations as manifest in transborder national minorities, global networks of indigenous groups, & transnational migrant communities. It is concluded that a cosmopolitan democracy might arise from this overlapping pattern of minority communities should an endogenous development of liberal norms emerge in response to challenges raised by the claims of these transnational communities' leaders. J. Zendejas

Explores cosmopolitanism in terms of political communities that transcend state borders, situating this treatment in the field of cosmopolitan democracy that views human needs as best served by global political institutions. Discussion opens with a consideration of various interpretations of cosmopolitanism, contending that political theorists employ the term without any idea of a global community of citizens. It is asserted that two ways exist for building political communities beyond national identities, assimilation into larger communities that replicate particularistic nationhood traits or federalization that fosters loyalties to the larger unit. The latter, multinational federalism, appears most promising. However, such a cosmopolitan project must address issues of asymmetry, enlargement, & democratization. In this light, it is asked whether current conditions of globalization even allow for the emergence of a global political community before even considering the possibility of cosmopolitan democracy. Thus, various patterns of extant supranational political community are examined to determine their impact on democratic citizenship. Four boundary regimes through which political communities can relate in a larger supranational context are identified: separate, nested, multilevel, or overlapping. It is argued that, in fact, the state system is transforming via a combination of the nested, multilevel, & overlapping patterns. In this light, the UN & EU are assessed. Focus turns to overlapping affiliations as manifest in transborder national minorities, global networks of indigenous groups, & transnational migrant communities. It is concluded that a cosmopolitan democracy might arise from this overlapping pattern of minority communities should an endogenous development of liberal norms emerge in response to challenges raised by the claims of these transnational communities' leaders. J. Zendejas

A fourth component -- cultural -- is added to T. H. Marshall's (1965) three components of citizenship: civil, political, & social. Claims for cultural citizenship rights are examined in the case of linguistic culture. These claims can be disaggregated along three axes by distinguishing between the cultural practices of religion & language & their claims, by identifying different linguistic minority categories in political communities (ie, immigrants vs national minorities), & by considering the differential application of general rights depending on context. The general principles of religious toleration are not sufficient for the demands of linguistic minorities, because language is not only for communication, but also has identity & political functions. It is argued that the claims of immigrant & national minorities are different because the right to establish a language of public life is based on claims to territorial self-government. The relationship between the underlying nation-building project & claims for self-government & language rights is discussed. Six reasons that further support making a distinction between immigrant & national minority linguistic rights are developed, including waiving cultural protection through emigration & voluntary assimilation, scarcity of resources for dispersed groups, & the special obligations toward national minorities. 54 References. M. Pflum

A federalist perspective on the secession debate challenges grievance theories that promote federal arrangements as a way to reconcile nationalist aspirations without imperiling the unity of the state. It is argued that a right to self-government can be achieved in a federal framework that views self-government by national minorities as their collective right & not simply a concession in multinational polities. The most common grievance of national minorities in multinational states is that the terms of federation are unfair or violated by the majority; therefore, it follows that national minorities are morally bound to maintain the existing state's unity if the terms of federation are fair. A description of federalism as both self-rule & shared rule is followed by an exploration of contractarian, devolution, & normative perspectives on federalism. Disputes between territorially concentrated groups over the division of political powers should be resolved by federal arrangements. It is concluded that participation in fair arrangements of federal power-sharing creates commitments toward the common good & accommodates multiple identities that help to integrate diverse societies. J. Lindroth