Compared to the other International Relations (IR) perspectives (Realism, Institutionalism, and International Political Economy) the cosmopolitan school of thought provides quite a different take on the international and global order. The main difference is that, unlike these other perspectives, it is explicitly based on and begins with a moral argument.[1] In the broadest sense, cosmopolitanism is a quest for a common moral ground for the whole of humanity. Thus, arguably more so than the other schools of thought, the cosmopolitan perspective has more to offer in terms of guidance towards desirable changes in the international order. The main argument put forth here is that, although the cosmopolitan perspective seems (highly) idealistic, it is solidly grounded in reality. While this does not mean that the cosmopolitan worldview will inevitably prevail, it provides a solid foundation for a distinct approach to the environmental challenge, albeit one that requires complementing it with insights from the other three schools of thought to develop a strategy that has a chance of success.
The sources of cosmopolitan thinking
The concept of cosmopolitanism has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. The Cynic Diogenes, when asked where he came from, proclaimed that he was a “citizen of the world”.[2] Cynics, who sought to live by the general laws and order of the universe (implying taking distance from politics which was considered corrupt and corrupting), influenced the Stoics who believed in the existence of a law of nature and a universal moral law which could be known through the human capacity for reasoning and deliberation. From this perspective, as all humans share that capacity and are bound by the same universal laws, rights, and duties, they form a world community or “kosmopolis”. Nonetheless, the Stoics considered it both possible and desirable to be citizens of local communities as well as citizens of the world. Among the adherents of Stoic ideas were Zeno, Seneca, Cicero, and Marcus Aurelius.[3]
However, the Stoic idea of shared humanity lay dormant during much of the Middle Ages (although it found expression in Augustine’s “City of God”) and was only revived during the Enlightenment, developing into a distinct political philosophy in the second half of the 18th century. Immanuel Kant is commonly seen as the most important contributor to this project, putting forth principles and ideas about natural law, practical reason, and “categorical imperatives”, including the principle that our actions should be universalisable. Kant ascribed natural rights to all humans, including the right to freedom and equality, that he wished to see enshrined in cosmopolitan law. He advocated a representative republican system of government in which citizens participated in making and enforcing laws. In his work Perpetual Peace, he proposed a system of international and cosmopolitan laws that put binding constraints on the sovereignty of states. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that Kant did not advocate for the creation of a world state or government, but rather a federation of free states.[4]
But although Kant’s claim of the existence of universal human rights was compatible with 18th-century republicanism and its emphasis on constitutional human and political rights, this idea was increasingly contextualised and applied within the framework of sovereign nation-states. Civic and political rights became entangled with nation-building and the introduction of exclusive rights for citizens of particular states or nations, which did not apply to non-nationals or foreigners. For much of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, nationalism flourished, promoted by governments, and fuelled national rivalries, colonialism, imperialism, and wars. Although Marxism and international socialism advocated for international solidarity among the working classes of nations, such calls were often overshadowed by dominant nationalist ideologies and sentiments.[5]
It was only in the wake of the devastation wrought by both World Wars that the ideal of “perpetual peace” came again to the fore. Unfortunately, the League of Nations created after WWI failed miserably in containing international conflict and preventing atrocities, most notably the slaughter of six million Jews by the Nazis. After World War II, the desire to prevent another major war led to the creation of the United Nations and a renewed recognition of the importance of human rights, reflected in the adoption, in 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several other human rights conventions thereafter.[6]
Nonetheless, although concerns about political, civil, and other human rights led to the creation of several international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International (in 1961) and Human Rights Watch (in 1978), it was only in the 1980s that a strong revival of interest in cosmopolitan thinking and ideas emerged.[7] In large part, this can be attributed to the phenomenon of globalisation, which was said to create a much more interdependent world. The burgeoning globalisation literature has raised questions about the role, capacity, and even the continued relevance of states, as well as the need for strengthening mechanisms for global governance to address perceived threats. Among these were concerns about global financial-economic (in-) stability, climate change or global warming and its effects, rising international crime, and international terrorism, the latter issue taking centre-stage after the attacks of 11 September 2001. Added to this, there was growing concern about the adverse socio-economic effects of economic globalisation as promoted by the IMF and the World Bank (based on neoliberal prescriptions involving structural adjustment, cuts in social welfare spending, and free trade), especially in the so-called developing countries, and increasingly also about the growing inequality between and within countries. In the cultural realm, globalisation was associated with the erosion of cultural diversity and the spread of a superficial consumer and entertainment culture pushed by American (media) interests.[8]
The concerns about globalisation also led to the flourishing of literature about the political-philosophical implications of these developments. Cosmopolitan thinking, often inspired by Kant’s ideas, experienced a resurgence. Established views about the importance of nation-states, sovereignty, national identities and loyalties, citizenship, and international relations, among others, were revisited and drawn into question. The growing interest in cosmopolitan ideas and thinking was not so much driven by cosmopolitan idealism but by an acknowledged need to make sense of a world in which the belief in more or less independently functioning states and societies was shaken to its foundations. As Beck argued, cosmopolitanism is not just an ideal but has become a reality (“cosmopolitan realism”) that requires the social sciences to rethink their state and nation-based foundations.[9] Much of the effort of modern cosmopolitan thinking is aimed at what Beck calls the development of “methodological cosmopolitanism” and what Fine refers to as the building of “cosmopolitan social theory”. Yet, while driven by the perceived need to develop a (better) understanding of what is going on in an increasingly interdependent world, many of these theorists were influenced in their thinking by the normative ideas and ideals of cosmopolitan thinkers, in particular, Kant. Thus, modern cosmopolitans aim to build a bridge between moral cosmopolitanism and (empirical-analytical) social theory.[10]
The aim here is not to summarise or provide an overview of the many different efforts that have been undertaken on this front, but to elaborate on some of the difficulties faced by cosmopolitans and to suggest a stronger link with the environmental challenge. The main difficulty relates to the core of the cosmopolitan enterprise, namely, determining what the common ground shared by humanity is. Other difficulties relate to the weak social and political support base for the cosmopolitan cause. Yet, arguably, the aggravation of global environmental conditions points not just to the possibility but to the necessity of strengthening the link between environmental imperatives and cosmopolitan thinking.
What does it mean to be human?
The question “What does it mean to be human?” arguably underlies cosmopolitan thinking from its earliest beginnings. Rather than taking the dominant views, way of life and standards (culture in a broad sense) of the particular community in which one has grown up or lives as the only basis for answering this question, a cosmopolitan outlook begins with embracing an interest in and an open mind towards other cultures. Yet, it must be noted that this does not have to go very far. Curiosity about other cultures may have been a common driver among early explorers and 19th-century world travellers, and it remains among modern-day tourists, but this does not necessarily mean the loss of bias and prejudice. Rather, it can affirm ideas about the superiority of one’s own culture or way of life.[11] Arguably, cosmopolitanism means more than merely recognising cultural diversity and involves seeking what is common to or shared by humans —a search for what is essentially human. Moreover, cosmopolitans seek to derive moral or normative guidance from the answer(s) to this question, partly because they recognise that the differences between cultures or societies can lead to serious conflict, violence and harm. As such, cosmopolitanism is as relevant today as it has ever been.
Nevertheless, it is not surprising that answering these questions has proven to be difficult and often controversial. Roughly speaking, one can identify two main approaches in these attempts: the “natural law” approach, which has dominated cosmopolitan thinking since antiquity, and the empirical or science-based approach. It must be emphasised that these approaches can overlap and are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The idea that the laws of nature also govern humans, and that, thus, these laws offer guidance for how humans should behave, and that it is possible to discover these laws through the human capacity to reason, goes back at least to the Stoics.[12] Early cosmopolitans saw the capacity for reasoning (rationality, logic) as the defining characteristic shared by all humans, distinguishing them from other animals. As all humans share this capacity, this makes them fundamentally and morally equal. Through reasoning, communication, and deliberation, people can discover the laws of nature that also govern themselves. These laws give the basis for determining what is “naturally” good or bad, moral or immoral, just or unjust. It speaks for itself that, as these natural laws, rules, and norms apply to all humans, they are universal laws.
This line of thinking runs like a thread through the history of cosmopolitanism, influencing figures such as Cicero, Grotius, and Kant, as well as many modern cosmopolitans.[13] While modern cosmopolitans may be reluctant to talk about the laws of nature, they still largely rely on reason and “reasonableness” as the basis for their arguments. They often simply start their argument with axiomatic principles, like the moral worth and equality of all individuals,[14] the claim “that we share some basic ideas about the nature and requirements of morality”[15] or principles that “cannot be rejected by any reasonable person”.[16] Reasonableness is also the dominant concept in Rawls’s theory about a “law of peoples”.[17] Although Rawls does not refer to himself as a cosmopolitan, his work is fundamentally a search for principles that should guide global interactions, be it at a collective (“peoples”) rather than the individual level. Nonetheless, the diversity of cosmopolitan ideas and positions demonstrates that it is very difficult to arrive at common ground based purely on reason and the criterion of reasonableness and to reach agreement on issues like distributional justice, humanitarian intervention, or cosmopolitan responsibilities and duties more generally.
Rather than rely on fundamental assumptions about human morality, another way of trying to find common ground for cosmopolitan principles is to undertake empirical research on the world’s cultures and to see what (if any) beliefs or norms they hold in common. This can involve using participatory research techniques by which people from different cultures can decide what (if anything) they can agree upon.[18] This is what has been referred to as the “overlapping consensus” approach, on which Rawls’s work is also said to be based.[19] However, although it may be possible to uncover common elements in the belief systems and socio-cultural norms of cultures or societies, there are no doubt other points on which they (fundamentally) disagree, for instance, related to the position and role of women, homosexuality, and the relative importance of individuals and community. Research and interpretations in such matters are inevitably influenced or shaped by pre-existing beliefs and ideologies held in a given political-economic, socio-cultural, and historical context. This has become obvious, for instance, in the debate about whether there is a “clash of civilisations” that has become more rather than less important in a globalising world.[20]
Such difficulties have also arisen in the area of human rights. As noted above, human rights became an important topic of international discourse and rulemaking after WWII and a core element in much cosmopolitan thinking, which is not surprising given their link with natural law (as reflected in Kant’s philosophy) and the claim of moral universalism that is attached to these rights. However, although the notion of human rights enjoys widespread global support, it has also been argued that existing declarations of rights are biased towards Western liberal-ideological individualism and do not adequately acknowledge the importance of collective and community values. This critique is primarily addressed to the first generation of civic and political rights, which indeed have their roots in Western liberal thinking and ideology, with its emphasis on individual and property rights. Although this does not necessarily invalidate these rights, it is essential to keep in mind that the human rights discourse is relatively young and must be viewed within a historical, political-economic, and socio-cultural context. While it is not true that modern Western societies do not recognise community values at all or that individuals count for nothing in non-Western societies, this is not an adequate response to this critique.[21] As humans are social beings and depend on social institutions for meeting their basic needs, a good case can be made for assigning high importance or even primacy to collective values and institutions (community values, public or collective goods) notably when these are being encroached upon and eroded by individuals who aggressively assert their “private” rights. All too often, in capitalist liberal-democratic systems, private rights (notably property rights) trump collective values to the detriment of whole communities, and a case can be made for giving greater legal protection to the latter. This applies, in particular, to essential environmental systems and services on which communities and humanity as a whole depend.
Another controversial issue linked to human rights is that they can and have been used as grounds for humanitarian intervention in countries against the will of their governments, officially to prevent mass atrocities from being committed. While few would disagree that this is justified in cases where genocide threatens to occur, this principle has also been critiqued as a cloak for major powers to pursue their (geo) political and economic interests and/or to seek regime change, as happened in Libya in 2011.[22] This does not mean that humanitarian intervention should never occur, but it highlights the political-economic and geopolitical obstacles to reaching common ground on when such intervention is justified.[23]
Support for cosmopolitanism
This also raises the issue of the weak social and political support basis of cosmopolitanism. Whether or to what extent people around the world have started to embrace cosmopolitanism and/or look at themselves as global citizens (even while continuing to identify themselves as citizens of a country or nation) is far from clear. On the one hand, linked to economic globalisation driven by capitalist imperatives and dominated by American TNCs, there has been a spread of a consumerist and entertainment culture that has created a banal form of cultural globalisation that has been labelled as McWorld.[24] Some research has found that, at the mundane level, there are indeed many signs of growing cosmopolitanism and that people are increasingly conscious of a shrinking world.[25] On the other hand, still, while these developments have created a more economically interdependent and socially interactive world, they do not necessarily lead to globally shared values that furnish a basis for the adoption of cosmopolitan norms and rules. As Beck notes, cosmopolitan consciousness lags well behind these developments.[26] Support for cosmopolitanism at a deeper level remains largely confined to a relatively small group of humanitarian (aid) workers, international activists, and intellectuals.
One reason for the weak social support basis for cosmopolitanism lies in its inability to generate the “we-feeling” that people derive from membership of smaller political communities, including nation-states.[27] The ability to identify with a particular political community can be seen as a necessary condition for people’s willingness to submit voluntarily to the collective decisions of a polity and to contribute to meeting the collective needs and the functioning of a community, which are essential to its stability and continuity. Social integration has been (and still is) a core function of states, and their abolition or even significant weakening creates a vacuum that cannot be filled by global institutions or unions of states like the European Union. States, therefore, are likely to remain crucially important as foci of collective identity, as institutions for collective decision-making and, one should add, for democracy. Nonetheless, whether this implies that states should (not) give up some of their sovereignty is open to discussion.[28] But there are good grounds for arguing that, if humanity is to survive, some parts of the functions that have been and still are, core functions of the state will have to be delegated to the international (and ultimately global) level while many other parts of these functions can continue to be fulfilled by states, be it in quite different ways than they have been thus far.
In part, the lack of a mass support basis for cosmopolitanism also stems from the issues associated with the process and effects of economic globalisation as pursued by (especially American) capitalists under the neoliberal agenda. Although this process has been instrumental in spreading banal forms of cosmopolitanism, as reflected in a global consumer and entertainment culture, it has also provoked a strong backlash against globalisation due to its adverse socio-economic impacts on many people, both in the so-called developed and developing worlds. There is no need to elaborate on this point here, except to note that this backlash has fueled widespread political discontent and right-wing nationalism, rather than advancing the cause of cosmopolitanism, which emphasises a shared humanity.
Cosmopolitan realism?
These issues and developments highlight that we should not confuse globalisation with cosmopolitanisation. It is true that global interaction has greatly increased in the political-economic and socio-cultural realms, but this does not mean, as Beck suggests, that “the human condition has itself become cosmopolitan.”[29] National borders, states and societies have far from dissolved, governments still have (be it variable degrees of) power to make decisions that affect their citizens in significant ways (which became obvious once more in the different ways the COVID-19 epidemic has been handled), and nation-states or cultures are still important foci of political and social identification and integration. Although it has been suggested that a global (civil) society is emerging,[30] as reflected in the rise of global social movements, international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), and transnational activism, facilitated by modern transport, information, communication and technology media, in particular the internet, this should not be confused with growing cosmopolitanism. Global society is, by implication, the most diverse and plural of all societies, characterised by differences in wealth and income, position and class, cultural and ethnic differences, ideologies, and power, as well as a history of domination, exploitation, and conflict. Even if all borders were to be abolished and a world government created, this does not, by itself, create a cosmopolitan society.
In recognition of this social and political reality, and to avoid being seen as naive idealists, many cosmopolitan thinkers do not reject the (continued) existence of nation-states. Many also reject the idea that cosmopolitanism is about creating a world government that takes over most of the functions of states (political cosmopolitanism).[31] As noted above, Kant opposed the creation of a world government, as it could easily turn into a dictatorship, and instead advocated for a federation of free states. Moreover, many cosmopolitan thinkers consider that identification with a particular nation-state is compatible with a sense of global citizenship (“cosmopolitan nationalism”), something which has been referred to as a “both-and” quality.[32] Habermas emphasises the integration of universal principles into national and supra-national constitutions as a means for bridging the gap between “constitutional patriotism” and cosmopolitanism.[33] Held advocates for the adoption of a Global Covenant that links human rights, social democratic principles, and global institutional reform to enhance the transparency, accountability, and democratic legitimacy of global governance.[34] Rawls sees “Peoples” united by “common sympathies” that have instituted “reasonably constitutional democracies” as the political building blocks for a “Society of liberal and decent Peoples around the world”, effectively limiting the cosmopolitan order to a subset of all nation-states.[35] Thus, many cosmopolitan thinkers are trying to do their best to sell the idea that humans should be forging a more effective supra-national level of governance to handle the common challenges facing humankind by putting forth fairly modest and often rather vague proposals for (global) institutional change. In this respect, the dividing line between cosmopolitanism and those who adhere to the Institutionalist school of thought is not very sharp. There are relatively few advocates of cosmopolitanism who dare to be bold and who have put forward more or less specific ideas and proposals for strong and sovereign, but also democratic, global institutions.[36]
One of the weaknesses in much of the cosmopolitan literature is that the link between the environmental reality and imperatives on the one hand, and the need for a cosmopolitan outlook on the other, is often insufficiently acknowledged. Although it is widely recognised that many environmental issues require global solutions, the nature of the environmental challenge is often inadequately depicted in terms of a series of separate issues or risks. That the ecological reality is also a cosmopolitan reality (a feature affecting all humans) is rarely mentioned. This has, of course, been long recognised by many environmental thinkers. Humans are constituted by nature and are part of the ecological realm together with trillions of other beings and the biophysical systems and processes that sustain them. People may be ecological citizens [37], but they should not forget that they are a tiny minority in the web of life without any special rights granted to them by the rest of nature. As ecological citizens, they should recognise planetary limits and boundaries and respect the “citizenship” of all other species. This consciousness, rooted in a biophysical reality rather than a humanistic or individualistic ideology, can be referred to as the ecological dimension of cosmopolitanism, ecological cosmopolitanism, or eco-cosmopolitanism. Awareness of this common feature of humanity is arguably the strongest motivator for adopting a cosmopolitan outlook, as human survival depends on it. Being human implies learning how to shape and adapt human thinking, behaviour, and practices to interdependent local, regional, national, and global ecological realities.
While bringing a normative cosmopolitan perspective to the debate about how environmental integration can be advanced at the international and global levels is a positive contribution, it needs to be complemented with critical analyses of factors that stand in the way. As noted above, a potential weakness of cosmopolitanism is its idealism. Although many cosmopolitan authors do their best to avoid putting forth ideas or solutions that seem quite unrealistic and others refer to their stance as “utopian realism”, indicating that notions of what is realistic are relative and can change over time, they often open themselves up to legitimate critique by ignoring the insights and lessons offered by the other perspectives on IR and globalisation. For instance, many cosmopolitans find the Realistic perspective not just abhorrent but also underplay the continuing importance of the role and power of states, especially that of the United States. Equally, most seem to be almost allergic to, and/or ignorant of, political-economic perspectives and analyses, dismissing them as discredited Marxist or socialist ideology or ignoring them altogether. Much of the cosmopolitan literature remains firmly rooted in normative liberal-philosophical thinking, discussing principles and ideas for the cosmopolitan cause rather than analysing the obstacles to it. Hence, many of the obstacles to environmental integration are hardly discussed in cosmopolitan literature. Cosmopolitan thinking, therefore, needs to be complemented with insights derived from the other three IR schools of thought if it is to provide realistic as well as normative guidance on how to meet the environmental challenge.
References
[1] Delanty, Gerard (2012), “Introduction. The Emerging Field of Cosmopolitan Studies”, in G. Delanty (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Cosmopolitan Studies. London and New York: Routledge, 1-8, 2.
[2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2019), Cosmopolitanism (Accessed: 22 June 2020); Hayden, Patrick (2005), Cosmopolitan Global Politics. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 12.
[3] Hayden, Patrick, Cosmopolitan Global Politics, 12-15.
[4] Kant, Immanuel (2016), Collected Works. Hastings, United Kingdom: Delphi Classics; Fine, Robert (2006), Cosmopolitanism. London: Routledge, 22-29; Hayden, Patrick, Cosmopolitan Global Politics, Chapter 1.
[5] Colás, Alejandro (1994), “Putting Cosmopolitanism into Practice: The Case of Socialist Internationalism”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol . 23, No.3, 513-534.
[6] Such as the Convention on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), and the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), both adopted in 1966.
[7] Marchetti, R. (2008), Global Democracy: For and Against. Ethical Theory, Institutional Design, and Social Struggles. London: Routledge, 3.
[8] Ramonet, Ignacio (2000), “The Control of Pleasure”, Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition), May, 4; Barber, Benjamin R. (1998), “Culture McWorld Contre Démocratie”, Le Monde Diplomatique, Vol.45, 533, Aout, 14-15.
[9] Beck, Ulrich. The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 17-18; Fine, Robert, Cosmopolitanism. London: Routledge, xi.
[10] Fine, Robert, Cosmopolitanism, xi.
[11] Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2006), Cosmopolitanism. Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Chapter 1.
[12] Hayden, Patrick, Cosmopolitan Global Politics. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 13-15; Nussbaum, Martha C. (2019), The Cosmopolitan Tradition. A Noble but Flawed Ideal. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 73-80.
[13] Fine, Robert, Cosmopolitanism, 11.
[14] Caney, Simon (2005), Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4.
[15] Beitz, Charles R. (1979, rev. 1999 ed.), Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 17.
[16] Caney refers to Barry on this point. Caney, Simon, Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, 27-28. Caney’s own argument for moral universalism begins with “the assumption that there are valid moral principles” and that there are “persons who share some morally relevant properties”, both of which presume the existence of a “valid” view of human nature on which morality can be based.
[17] Rawls, John (1999), The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
[18] For an exploration along these lines, see Note, Nicole, et al. (eds.) (2009), Worldviews and Cultures. Philosophical Reflections from an Intercultural Perspective. Springer.
[19] Caney, Simon, Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, 29-30.
[20] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. London: Simon & Schuster: Touchstone Books; Barber, Benjamin R. (1995), Jihad Vs McWorld. How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books.
[21] This is Caney’s main response on this point. Caney, Simon, Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, 46.
[22] Borger, Julian (2020), “Srebenica 25 Years On: How the World Lost Its Appetite to Fight War Crimes”, The Guardian, 5 July; Bush, Ray, et al. (2014), “Humanitarian Imperialism”, Review of African Political Economy, Vol.38, No.129, 357-365; Chomsky, Noam (2016, Expanded ed.), A New Generation Draws the Line. Humanitarian Intervention and the “Responsibility to Protect” Today. London and New York: Routledge.
[23] Fine, Robert, Cosmopolitanism, Chapter 5.
[24] Barber, Benjamin R., Jihad Vs McWorld. How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World; Ramonet, Ignacio, “The Control of Pleasure”, Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition), May, p.4; Beck, Ulrich, The Cosmopolitan Vision, 40-44.
[25] Szerszynski, B. and J. Urry (2002), “Cultures of Cosmopolitanism”, Sociological Review, Vol . 50, No.4, 461-481.
[26] Beck, Ulrich, The Cosmopolitan Vision, Chapter 1.
[27] Eckersley, Robyn (2007), “From Cosmopolitan Nationalism to Cosmopolitan Democracy”, Review of International Studies, Vol . 33, 675-692.
[28] Nussbaum, for one, seems to have abandoned her earlier belief in cosmopolitanism, now seeing it as a noble but “flawed” ideal, notably because of its “moral-psychological problem” of (not) motivating people and the importance of “particularistic attachments” for the functioning of a political community. Consequently, she now presents herself as a fierce defender of (US) sovereignty: “one should always beware of leaching away national sovereignty”, a statement that seems to leave little if any room for delegating some important supreme authority to international or global institutions. Nussbaum, Martha C., The Cosmopolitan Tradition. A Noble but Flawed Ideal, Chapter 6.
[29] Beck, Ulrich, The Cosmopolitan Vision, 2.
[30] Smith, Jackie (1998), “Global Civil Society?”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 42, No.1, 93-107; Kaldor, Mary, et al. (2012), Global Civil Society 2012. Ten Years of Critical Reflection. Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; Lipschutz, R., “Governing Nature: Global Change, Social Complexity and Environmental Management”, in Lipschutz, R. (ed.) Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance. The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet. New York: State University of New York Press, Chapter 3.
[31] Hayden, Patrick, Cosmopolitan Global Politics, 21; Caney, Simon, Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, 164-165.
[32] Fine, Robert, Cosmopolitanism, 42; Beck, Ulrich, The Cosmopolitan Vision, 26.
[33] Habermas, Jürgen (1998), The Inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory. Edited by Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 64; Habermas, Jürgen (2001), The Postnational Constellation. Political Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, Chapter 4; Fine, Robert, Cosmopolitanism, Chapter 3.
[34] Held, David et al. (2005), Debating Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press, Chapter 1; Held, David (2009), “Restructuring Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order”, Millennium, Vol . 37, No.3, 535-547.
[35] Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 23-25.
[36] Marchetti’s model of “cosmo-federalism” is a rare example. Marchetti, R., Global Democracy: For and Against. Ethical Theory, Institutional Design, and Social Struggles. George Monbiot has put forward a proposal for the creation of a World Parliament. Monbiot, George (2003), The Age of Consent. A Manifesto for a New World Order. London: Flamingo.
[37] This expression is commonly referred to as implying human rights to (aspects of) the environment, in line with the liberal-ideological philosophical tradition, which seeks to protect or strengthen the rights of individuals in a liberal-democratic order. Although the discussion on this topic sometimes raises the idea of also granting rights to non-human nature, the discourse of “rights” seems odd when talking about the need for environmental protection: referring to human and organisational duties to protect ecosystems and species seems more appropriate.