Suchergebnisse

This book explores Kant's cosmopolitanism and the normative requirements consistent with a Kantian based cosmopolitan constitution. Topics such as cosmopolitan law, cosmopolitan right, the laws of hospitality, a Kantian federation of states, a cosmopolitan epistemology of culture and a possible normative basis for a Kantian form of global distributive justice are explored and defended.Contrary to many contemporary interpretations, Brown considers Kant's cosmopolitan thought as a form of international constitutional jurisprudence that requires minimal legal demands versus the extreme condition

This book explores Kant's cosmopolitanism and the normative requirements consistent with a Kantian based cosmopolitan constitution. Topics such as cosmopolitan law, cosmopolitan right, the laws of hospitality, a Kantian federation of states, a cosmopolitan epistemology of culture and a possible normative basis for a Kantian form of global distributive justice are explored and defended. Contrary to many contemporary interpretations, Brown considers Kant's cosmopolitan thought as a form of international constitutional jurisprudence that requires minimal legal demands versus the extreme condition of establishing a world state. Viewing Kant's cosmopolitan theory as a minimal form of global jurisprudence allows it to satisfy communitarian, realist and pluralist concerns without surrendering cosmopolitan principles of human worth and cosmopolitan law. In this regard, it provides a more comprehensive understanding of Kantian cosmopolitanism and what normative implications this vision has for contemporary international political theory. Key Features. Outlines the various positions within Kant's cosmopolitanism and examines their interrelated themes and conclusions Defends a Kantian cosmopolitan position against its most profound critics Argues for the contemporary and interdisciplinary relevance of Kant's cosmopolitan thought and its importance for understanding and resolving current global concerns

This article agrees with recent arguments suggesting that normative and epistemic power is rife within global health policy and provides further examples of such. However, in doing so, it is argued that it is equally important to recognize that global health is, and always will be, deeply political and that some form of power is not only necessary for the system to advance, but also to try and control the ways in which power within that system operates. In this regard, a better focus on health politics can both expose illegitimate sources of power, but also provide better recommendations to facilitate deliberations that can, although imperfectly, help legitimate sources of influence and power.

AbstractAcademics and policymakers often argue that global health policy greatly affects and influences national health systems because these policies transfer and implant 'best practice' norms and accountability techniques into local health systems. On the whole these arguments about the 'diffusion of norms' have merit since there is considerable evidence to suggest the existence of a positive correlation between global norms and national behaviour. Nevertheless, this article argues that traditional analytical frameworks to explain norm diffusion underplay the fact that norms are significantly 'glocalised' by national actors and further discount the role that national leadership plays in strengthening health systems. In response, this article presents a ten-year comparative paired study of the participatory governance mechanisms of the South African health system and its health strengthening measures. In doing so, the role of the national government in their relations with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM) will be examined and how key 'partnership' norms were amalgamated into health governance mechanisms. It will be argued that although global policy plays an important guiding role, health norms are never transcribed straightforwardly and a central element to successful health governance remains vested in the nation and the leadership role it exerts.

When surveying the literature on cosmopolitan thought, it is common to see cosmopolitans allude to theoretical, historical and practical links between Immanuel Kant's idea for a cosmopolitan federation and the formulation of the European Union. However, this relationship between Kant and 'Kant's Europe' remains a rather underdeveloped assumption and there is compelling exegetical and practical evidence to suggest that this relationship is not as robust as is generally assumed. In response, this article explores the link between Kant's vision for a cosmopolitan federation and its consanguinity with the formation and practice of the European Union. By doing so, it will be argued that a link between Kant and the European Union can only be reasonably claimed to exist at the level of Kant's first two Definitive Articles and that the European Union remains rather impoverished with regard to Kant's more radical concept of cosmopolitan right. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

When surveying the literature on cosmopolitan thought, it is common to see cosmopolitans allude to theoretical, historical and practical links between Immanuel Kant's idea for a cosmopolitan federation and the formulation of the European Union. However, this relationship between Kant and 'Kant's Europe' remains a rather underdeveloped assumption and there is compelling exegetical and practical evidence to suggest that this relationship is not as robust as is generally assumed. In response, this article explores the link between Kant's vision for a cosmopolitan federation and its consanguinity with the formation and practice of the European Union. By doing so, it will be argued that a link between Kant and the European Union can only be reasonably claimed to exist at the level of Kant's first two Definitive Articles and that the European Union remains rather impoverished with regard to Kant's more radical concept of cosmopolitan right.

AbstractWhen surveying policy documents on global health one is often struck by a general lack of theorizing about why we have moral duties to promote equitable global health initiatives and in regards to what prioritized values should represent the satisfaction of these moral duties. Although there is general agreement that current inequalities in global health provision exist, and agreement that some form of response is necessary, there is little consensus about what should be done to rectify this situation. The purpose of this article is to explore four normative arguments about why we might have global health responsibilities and to examine their relationship with distributive principles for the alleviation of global health inequalities. Through this examination it will be argued that current theorizing about global health rests on opposing ontological perspectives about what global health should prioritize and that these presuppositions result in distinctively antagonistic normative demands about how we should distribute, who gets what and why.Policy Implications
 Creating a more equitable distribution of global health requires policy makers to seriously rethink the key presuppositions, assumption and biases that underpin and perpetuate the inequalities involved with current global health policy.
 In rethinking global health policy – and if we believe reaching some level of health equity to be a morally important endeavor – then greater commitments to the distributive and deliberative properties of cosmopolitan developmental partnerships will be required.
 To this end, global health equity will require cosmopolitan commitments to individual health beyond state and civilizational boundaries, a renewed focus on the social determinants of health, key reforms to unjust global economic practices, and the reformation of global decision making toward more inclusive and deliberative governance formations.

AbstractThere are difficult global challenges that need to be addressed. In response, many have argued for the increased constitutionalization of international law. An argument is often also made that the international order is already constitutionalized in some meaningful sense and that there are founding conditions within the international order that represent something like a global constitution. Nevertheless, when surveying the literature on constitutionalization one is often struck by a general ambiguity about what the term means and with how constitutionalization is meant to operate between theory and institutional practice. In particular, there seems to be an overall ambiguity regarding what is being constituted by the processes of constitutionalization, about how these processes operate, and with whether this legal order is in fact creating the type of progressive cosmopolitanism that is often assumed. To address these ambiguities, this article will seek to better understand what appeals to constitutionalization generally mean and to expose key conceptual problems. The goal in doing so is to highlight areas that need greater conceptual attention and to recommend potential solutions, so that more cosmopolitan minded scholars can feel more confident in prescribing constitutionalization as part of their normative catalogue.

When surveying the cosmopolitan literature one is often struck by the ease with which the state is rendered morally and empirically otiose and by resulting ambiguities about the role states could play in creating a cosmopolitan condition. In response to these ambiguities, the purpose of this article is to examine some recent cosmopolitan arguments and to see what answers, if any, they have for bridging the gap between cosmopolitan theory and state practice. By doing so, this article will map out the recent relationship between cosmopolitanism and the state while also suggesting that cosmopolitans should reconsider a research agenda based on the idea of responsible cosmopolitan states as a means to create stronger links between cosmopolitan theory and contemporary international practice.

AbstractIt is often argued that multilateralism is no longer an effective mechanism to respond to global priorities and that more deliberative and multisectoral governance is needed. To explore this, the purpose of this article is to examine the practice of mutlisectoral deliberation within the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and to determine whether it has resulted in providing a more deliberative response to global health priorities. To do so, this article will apply various theoretical arguments for deliberative democracy to the results of a four year study on the multisectoral organisation the Global Fund. By making links between theory and practice, the article will argue that the multisectoralism practiced by the Global Fund continues to suffer from a deliberative deficit and that it has not safeguarded equal stakeholder participation, equal deliberation between stakeholders or alleviate the asymmetric power relationships which are representative of current forms of multilateral governance. Nevertheless, by locating these gaps between theory and practice, it is possible to outline deliberative safeguards that might, if constitutionally enhanced, pull the Global Fund closer to its own normative values of multisectoral deliberative decision-making.