Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:02:39.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moving from cosmopolitan legal theory to legal practice: models of cosmopolitan law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Garrett Wallace Brown
Garrett Wallace Brown*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been considerable debate about how it would be possible to move from cosmopolitan normative theory to cosmopolitan legal practice. These debates range from an uncertainty about what specific moral and normative principles should underwrite cosmopolitan law, to how those requirements should be institutionalised at the global level. In addition, many cosmopolitan theorists rest their more elaborate institutional models on the assumption of an already existing and thoroughgoing practice of cosmopolitan law, without detailed considerations regarding applied theory. The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of cosmopolitan law and to argue how legal cosmopolitanism provides a necessary linchpin and transitional conduit between cosmopolitan theory and more institutionally based forms of cosmopolitanism. The paper examines the historical development of legal cosmopolitanism, the uniqueness of contemporary cosmopolitan legal theory within international legal debates, and maps the various approaches for moving cosmopolitan legal theory to legal practice. Through mapping the discipline, it is argued that Kantian legal cosmopolitanism represents the most coherent attempt to move from cosmopolitan legal theory to global institutional practice. This is due to the fact that it represents a minimal and moderate form of legal cosmopolitanism that accepts that any move to a cosmopolitan order would need to evolve from our current legal order. In this regard, it is argued that Kantian legal cosmopolitanism can occupy a transitional position, that not only satisfies the cosmopolitan concern for human worth, but that is also not guilty of being grossly utopian in its quest toward global justice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 430 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 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

1. Wright, Martin ‘An Anatomy of International Thought’ (1987) 13 Review of International Studies 226.Google Scholar

2. Cabrera, Luis Political Theory and Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Case for the World State (New York: Routledge, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Brown, Garrett Wallace ‘Kantian Cosmopolitan Law and the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution’ (2006) 27(3) History of Political Thought 661.Google Scholar

4. Held, David Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).Google Scholar

5. Post, Robert (ed) Another Cosmopolitanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

6. Laertius, Diogenes The Lives of Eminent Philosophers vol I [R Hicks (transl)] (Cambridge MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1925).Google Scholar

7. Aurelius, Marcus The Meditations (New York: Hackett, 1983) Sect 14.Google Scholar

8. Cicero, Tallus Marcus On the Commonwealth and On the Laws (Cambridge: Cambridge Classical Texts, 1999).Google Scholar

9. Keyes, Clinton Walker ‘Original Elements in Cicero's Ideal Constitution’ (1921) 42(4) The American Journal of Philology 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. De Vattel, Emeric The Law of Nations (Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund, 2000).Google Scholar

11. Wolff, Christian [H Drake (transl)] The Laws of Nations Treated According to a Scientific Method (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934).Google Scholar

12. Archibugi, Daniele ‘Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace’ (1995) 1(4) European Journal of International Relations 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Kant, Immanuel Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’ in Reiss, H (ed) Kant's Politics Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

14. Immanuel Kant ‘On the Common Saying: “This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice”’ in Reiss, ibid.

15 As outlined in Kant's Doctrine of Right, ‘right is…the sum of the conditions under which the choice of one can be united with the choice of another in accordance with a universal law of freedom.’: Kant, Immanuel The Metaphysics of Morals Gregor, M (ed) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) p 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Covell, Charles Kant and the Law of Peace: A Study in the Philosophy of International Law and International Relations (New York: Palgrave, 1998) pp 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 107.

18. Gregor, Mary, ‘Kant's Approach to Constitutionalism’ in Rosenbaum, A (ed) Constitutionalism: The Philosophical Dimension (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988) p 71.Google Scholar

19. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 101. Kant claims that only well constituted republics strive to approximate three universal principles of right, namely, ‘freedom for all members of society’, the ‘dependence of everyone upon a single common legislation’ and the ‘legal equality as citizens’. For quotes see, ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 99.

20. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 107.

21. Kant The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, pp 89–95.

22 See Doyle, Michael ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’ (1983) 12(4) Philosophy and Public Affairs 204–235; andGoogle Scholar

23. Brown, Garrett Wallace ‘State Sovereignty, Federation and Kantian Cosmopolitanism’ (2005) 11 European Journal of International Relations 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Ibid.

25. For a more detailed discussion, see Brown, above n 3.

26. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace,’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 106.

27. Kant The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, p 128.

28. Kant ‘An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’,’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 55.

29. Kant The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, p 121. Also see ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 106.

30. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 106.

31. Kant, Immanuel [J Ellington (transl)] Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1981) pp 39–45.Google Scholar

32. Buchanan, Allen Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p 4.Google Scholar

33. Franck, Thomas The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

34. Bull, Hedley The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Kant ‘Theory and Practice,’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 74.

36 Held, above n 4. Also and Archibugi, Daniele and Held, David Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).Google Scholar

37. Barry, Brian International Society From a Cosmopolitan Perspective’ in Maple, D and Nardin, T (eds) International Society (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998);Google Scholar

38. Falk, Richard On Human Governance: Towards a New Global Politics (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995);Google Scholar Caney, ibid.

39. Jones, Charles Global Justice: Defending Cosmopolitanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999);Google Scholar Pogge, above n 38.

40. Habermas, Jurgen The Post-National Constellation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001);Google Scholar

41. Teson, Fernando A Philosophy of International Law (Boulder: Westview, 1998);Google Scholar Buchanan, above n 32.

42. Held, David and Archibugi, Danielle (eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).Google Scholar

43. See Jones, above n 39, Falk, above n 38, and Pogge, above n 38.

44. Kaldor, Mary Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003).Google Scholar

45. See Caney, above n 37, and Hayden, above n 38.

46. Jeremy Waldron ‘Cosmopolitan Norms’ in Post, above n 5, p 83.

47. Ibid, p 97.

48. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 111.

49. Ibid, p 94.

50. Seyla Benhabib ‘Hospitality, Sovereignty, and Democratic Iterations’ in Post, above n 46, p 153.

51. Ibid, p 97.

52. Nagel, Thomas ‘The Problem of Global Justice’ (2005) 33(2) Philosophy and Public Affairs 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Kant ‘Theory and Practice’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 90.

54. Ibid.

55. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 104.

56. As represented by Kant's and Waldron's lex mercatoria model, which is based on the growing expansion of legal norms through the commercial contact between peoples over time. A more robust bottom up approach is furthered by both Allan Buchanan and Fernando Teson, who promote changing existing legal practices in order for them to promote cosmopolitan normative principles of human rights and international law, which is based on popular sovereignty.

57 As represented by world state cosmopolitans like Cabrera, above n 2 or world federalists like Marchetti, Raffaele Global Democracy: For and Against (London: Routledge, 2008).Google Scholar

58. As represented by Held, above n 4, Archibugi and Held, above n 36, Barry, above n 37, Caney, above n 37, Hayden, above n 38, and Benhabib, ‘Hospitality, Sovereignty, and Democratic Iterations’ in Post, above n 5. Buchanan, above n 32, and Teson, above n 41 can also fit somewhere in this middle ground because they support the creation of additional laws at the global level as well as adapting current international law.

59. I refer here to Samuel Scheffler's distinction regarding moderate and extreme cosmopolitanism, namely that an extreme position requires that all moral commitments, even localized sentiments, be justified in relation to a particular cosmopolitan principle without exception. Alternatively, a moderate form of cosmopolitanism allows for the acceptance that some special obligations can be held independently and in mutual compatibility with cosmopolitanism. See, Samuel Scheffler Boundaries and Allegiances (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) pp 115–119.

60. Benhabib ‘The Philosophical Foundations of Cosmopolitan Norms’ in Post, above n 5, p 23.

61. Ibid, p 31. Italics are Benhabib's.

62. Waldron, ‘Cosmopolitan Norms’ in Post, above n 5, p 84.

63. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 104.

64. Kant The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, p 121.

65. Kant Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, above n 31, p 40.

66. Kant The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, p 121.

67. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 108.

68. Ibid, p 106.

69. Kant ‘What is Enlightenment?’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 55.

70. Linklater, Andrew Man and Citizen in the Theory of International relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2nd end, 1990) p 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71. Anderson-Gold, Sharon Kant and Human Rights (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2001) p 40.Google Scholar

72. Kant ‘Perpetual Peace’ in Reiss, above n 13, p 125.

73. Ibid, p 107.

74. Kant The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, pp 89–95.

75. Benhabib, ‘Democratic Iterations’ in Post, above n 5, p 49.

76. Ibid.

77. Bonnie Honig ‘Another Cosmopolitanism?: Law and Politics in the New Europe’ in Post, above n 5.

78. Hayek, Fa Law, Legislation and Liberty (London: Routledge, 1973) p 134.Google Scholar

79. Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, above n 15, p 89.

80. Habermas, Jurgen Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), 499.Google Scholar