Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:49:15.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberation and Global Governance: Liberal, Cosmopolitan, and Critical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

William Smith  and
James Brassett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper develops a critical analysis of deliberative approaches to global governance. After first defining global governance and with a minimalist conception of deliberation in mind, the paper outlines three paradigmatic approaches: liberal, cosmopolitan, and critical. The possibilities and problems of each approach are examined and a common concern with the scope for “deliberative reflection” in global governance is addressed. It is argued that each approach, to varying degrees, foregrounds the currently underdetermined state of knowledge about global governance, its key institutions, agents, and practices. In doing so, the question “ What is global governance?” is retained as an important and reflective element of ongoing deliberative practices. It is suggested that this constitutes the distinctive and vital insight of deliberative approaches to global governance.

Type
Features
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Spring 2008 , pp. 69 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Daniele Archibugi and David Held, eds., Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); David Held, “Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: A New Agenda,” in James Bohman and M. Lutz-Bachmann, eds., Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997); and Richard Falk, Law in an Emerging Global Village: A Post-Westphalian Perspective (Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational Publishers, 1998).

2 James Bohman, “International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions,” International Affairs 75, no. 3 (1999), pp. 499–513; Molly Cochran, “A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy: Pragmatism from the Bottom-Up,” European Journal of International Relations 8, no. 4 (2002), pp. 517–48; and John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006).

3 This article is part of an international and interdisciplinary project, entitled “Deliberation and Global Governance: Theory, Practice, Critique,” that draws together theorists of deliberation and scholars of global governance with a view to mapping the emerging terrain and exploring potential synergies. Participants involved with this project include James Bohman, Garrett Brown, Molly Cochran, Nancy Fraser, Randall Germain, Patrick Hayden, Richard Higgott, Kim Hutchings, Tony McGrew, Peter Newell, Philip Pettit, and Jan Art Scholte. Comments on this paper and questions about the larger project are welcome at .

4 Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau, Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Richard Higgott, “Contested Globalization: The Changing Context and Normative Challenges,” Review of International Studies 26 (2000), pp. 131–53; and James Brassett and Richard Higgott, “Building the Normative Dimension(s) of a Global Polity,” Review of International Studies 29 (2003), pp. 29–55.

5 James Bohman and William Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997); Jon Elster, ed., Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); and James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett, eds., Debating Deliberative Democracy (London: Blackwell Publishing, 2003).

6 Samuel Freeman, “Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29, no. 4 (2000), p. 378.

7 Joshua Cohen, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in Bohman and Rehg, eds., Deliberative Democracy, pp. 415–16; and John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 140–41.

8 James Bohman, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996), pp. 45–46; and Jürgen Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” European Journal of Philosophy 14, no. 1 (2006), p. 10.

9 John S. Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp.168–69; and Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 135.

10 We leave open the possibility that, as suggested recently in an interesting article by Simone Chambers, public reasons may, on occasion, argue against openness and transparency (Simone Chambers, “Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy, and the Quality of Deliberation,” Journal of Political Philosophy 12, no. 4 [2004], pp. 389–410).

11 Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p. 55.

12 Joshua Cohen, “Minimalism About Human Rights: The Best We Can Hope For?” Journal of Political Philosoph y 12, no. 2 (2004), pp. 195–96.

13 Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p. 41.

14 Cohen, “Minimalism About Human Rights,” p. 212.

15 Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p. 61.

16 Ibid., p. 56.

17 Ibid., pp. 84–85.

18 Ibid., p. 84.

19 Ibid., pp. 61–62.

20 Ibid., pp. 142–43.

21 Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions,” Ethics & International Affairs 20, no. 4 (2006), p. 421.

22 Ibid., pp. 425–26.

23 David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); David Held, Global Covenant (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004); and David Held, “Cosmopolitanism: Ideas, Realities and Deficits,” in David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds., Governing Globalization: Power, Authority, and Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002).

24 Held, Democracy and the Global Order, p. 282.

25 David Held, “Law of States, Law of Peoples,” Legal Theory 8, no. 1 (2002), pp. 24–26; and David Held, “Principles of Cosmopolitan Order,” in Gillian Brock and Harry Brighouse, eds., The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 10–27.

26 James Bohman, “Cosmopolitan Republicanism,” Monist 84, no. 1 (2001), pp. 3–22; James Bohman, “Republican Cosmopolitanism,” Journal of Political Philosophy 12, no. 3 (2004), pp. 336–52; James Bohman, “The Democratic Minimum: Is Democracy a Means to Global Justice?” Ethics & International Affairs 19, no. 1 (2005), pp. 101–16; and James Bohman, Democracy Across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007).

27 Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, p. 41.

28 Bohman, “Republican Cosmopolitanism,” pp. 340–41.

29 Jürgen Habermas, “Kant's Idea of Perpetual Peace: At Two Hundred Years’ Historical Remove,” in Ciaran Cronin and Pablo de Greiff, eds., The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998); Jürgen Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, ed. and trans. Max Pensky (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001); and Jürgen Habermas, The Divided West, trans. Ciaran Cronin (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006).

30 Habermas, The Postnational Constellation, p. 107.

31 Habermas, The Divided West, pp. 142–43.

32 Held, “Principles of the Cosmopolitan Order,” p. 18; Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, pp. 114–20; and Habermas, “Kant's Idea of Perpetual Peace,” pp. 185–86.

33 Bohman, “Republican Cosmopolitanism,” p. 437.

34 Held, “Cosmopolitanism: Ideas, Realities and Deficits,” p. 313.

35 Habermas, “Kant's Idea of Perpetual Peace,” pp. 190–91.

36 Bohman, “Republican Cosmopolitanism,” p. 349; Habermas, The Divided West, p. 142; and Patrizia Nanz and Jens Steffek, “Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere,” in David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, eds., Global Governance and Public Accountability (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 198–200.

37 Robert A. Dahl, “Can International Organizations Be Democratic? A Skeptic's View,” in Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordón, eds., Democracy's Edges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 32–34; Will Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenshi p (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 238–39; and David Miller, Citizenship and National Identity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000), pp. 89–96.

38 Bohman, “Cosmopolitan Republicanism,” p. 17.

39 Robert Fine and Will Smith, “Jürgen Habermas's Theory of Cosmopolitanism,” Constellations 10, no. 4 (December 2003), pp. 469–87.

40 Held, “Principles of the Cosmopolitan Order,” pp. 25–27; Bohman, Democracy Across Borders, p. 124; and Habermas, The Divided West, pp. 140–41.

41 Held, “Law of States, Law of Peoples,” pp. 24–26.

42 Held, “Cosmopolitanism: Ideas, Realities and Deficits,” p. 313.

43 Held, “Law of States, Law of Peoples,” p. 32.

44 Bohman, “The Democratic Minimum,” p. 108.

45 Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, pp. 115–39; Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics; and John S. Dryzek, “Transnational Democracy,” Journal of Political Philosophy 7, no. 1 (1999), pp. 30–51.

46 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, p. 161.

47 Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, p. 120.

48 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, pp. 136–43.

49 Ibid., p. 1.

50 Ibid., p. 27.

51 Ibid., p. 154.

52 Ibid., pp. 54–58.

53 Ibid., p. 52.

54 Bohman, “Cosmopolitan Republicanism,” p. 17.

55 This point is made forcibly by Molly Cochran in her sympathetic critique of Dryzek's theory; her own “pragmatist” approach—presented as an alternative to the “deliberative” models advanced by Bohman and Dryzek—allows for the possibility that “international public spheres” can be conceptualized as “institutions” in their own right, with some degree of “public authority” (Cochran, “A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy,” p. 532).

56 Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics, p. 52.

57 Ibid., pp. 20–21.

58 Robert O. Keohane, “The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism,” GARNET Working Paper No. 09/06 (2006), p. 3.

59 James Brassett, “A Pragmatic Approach to the Tobin Tax Campaign: The Politics of Sentimental Education,” European Journal of International Relations (forthcoming); David Chandler, Constructing Global Civil Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004); and Michael Goodhart, “Civil Society and the Problem of Global Democracy,” Democratization 12, no. 1 (2005), pp. 1–21.