BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cisrul.blog
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20130101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20141014
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20141015
DTSTAMP:20260504T150054
CREATED:20210819T194921Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211027T094316Z
UID:10000002-1413244800-1413331199@cisrul.blog
SUMMARY:International political community
DESCRIPTION:Believes that Aristotle’s “self-sufficiency” remains with us in form of “self-determination” \n\nsomething special about communities which can give rise to supreme power\nthere are always other communities that don’t have same claim to political representation i.e. right to self-determination\nif do have political community then illegitimate to govern from outside\, subjecting to foreign rule\n\n> state legitimacy can be curtailed when \n\nSubject to foreign rule\nGovern tyrannically  i.e. not representational\nInstitutional failure – can only be exercised through consolidated state\n\ne.g. in case of Libya: denied that Gadaffi’s government had a representational relationship with given people \n> but never settled in international law what meant by “people” – this is left to political decision \n1945 Charter was breakthrough which made this legitimacy claim central > “right to self-determination” \n\ninitially used to argue for decolonisation: why illegitimate for Britain to have colonies overseas\nin process\, becomes most fundamental right – which seen as prerequisite to exercising any other right (though this not entirely convincing)\n\n“People” that find in UN documents is new subject in international law \n\nunderstood as kind of political community i.e. representational\ngovernment recognised as such inasmuch as representative of peoples\n\ne.g. UN preamble: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined…” \nPriority in 1945 is peace and security but accompanied by idea that \n\nif don’t have development\, won’t get peace and security\ncrucially\, that need representation of peoples to get development\, peace and security\n\nAnd later development of international human rights framework\, which \n\ncame to define non-negotiable character of legitimate government (e.g. Henry Shue Basic Rights 1980)\nwas extended to include human-rights approach to development etc.\n\nIn fact economic and social rights much more important than originally thought\, in terms of influence on government functions: e.g. though not legally required to run hospitals\, necessarily\, states do have to fulfil function of providing for health \n\nmany complained that too political in that carry ideology of welfare state or alternatively give too much power to judges\nbut in fact political in that determine functions of legitimate state e.g. no excuse to lack education or healthcare policies\n\n> tend to make for isomorphism among states \n\none might expect self-determination to lead to greater variety among states (since each claiming to represent different “people”)\nbut in fact\, tends to make governments similar to each other because HR law is setting out functions of legitimate state\n\nWith regard to agencies such as indigenous peoples \n\nin principle\, international law open to wide range of agencies\, including indigenous peoples\nin practice\, isomorphising statism of international law has led to less and less representation of sub-national entitles\n\nNigel Dower\nGood case that both global and international political community exist \n\nGlobal: member are politically-engaged global citizens\nInternational: community whose members are nation-states\n\nGlobal\nOften argued that doesn’t exist because not like political community > don’t have formal rights (though could be argued that ICC and HR law) and no global authority \nBut ND argues there is global citizenship \n\nthere is global civil society > formally international law but substantive input from NGOs\nglobally-oriented citizens (Parekh) put pressure on our governments vis-a-vis global issues\n\nObjections and ND’s counter-objections\nNeed to be values holding together political community but these don’t exist \n\nglobal political community made up of those who those who observe certain parameters even if different agenda and values\n\nGlobal civil society doesn’t really exist \n\ntrue that not harmonious or uniform but still clearly does exist in form of international NGOs etc.\nincreasing number of actors act on cosmopolitan goals > ND describes as “solidarist pluralism” in book on Global Ethics\n\nInternational political community\nSeems clear that states members of international political community; each of which themselves are political units \nUN is central to international political community – but is it essential? Before all states were part of UN\, surely non-members were still part of some kind of political community \n\nstates observe norms though not forced to do so > goes back long way\n\nObjections and ND’s counter-objections\nJust system of states interacting in struggle for power – political realism (and Hobbes: no norms internationally because no enforcement) \n\nND: pace Hobbes\, communities held together by fear should not be called political; however\, states do not only interact out of fear\n\nConclusions\nInternational political community should be informed by global political community > to make more explicitly cosmopolitan \ne.g. strengthening of commitment to social and economic goals\, which produces cosmopolitan turn \nDiscussion\nSian Lazar \n\nat point that make states responsible for economic and social rights\, states are palming off to multinational companies – given that these are not members of UN\, it is possible to hold them responsible?\n\n> Matyas: true that no way of finding multinationals responsible on HR grounds – HR cases are always X vs. the State \n\n\n\ncompanies instead operate on basis of “social license” but often very inadequate for making responsible\non other hand\, making companies responsible would raise complex legal questions about relation to states where registered etc.\n\n\n\n> Nigel: companies get away with things in countries where not same regulatory framework \nPaul Tamuno for MB: what position on internal self-determination or local autonomy? self-determination of minority peoples? \n> Matyas: indigenous and other groups in current statist system usually focused with choice of losing self-determination and being separatist \nJohn Perry \n\ncosmopolitanism often taken to imply weaker commitment to national-state; but what if my commitment to nation-state entail commitment to wider world?\n\n> Nigel: “global citizenship” for him is translation of cosmopolites; obligations may sometimes modify loyalty to nation-states but need not do all the time \nAndrea Oelsner \n\nconflating international society and community? claim of “international community” implies Gemeinschaft rather than Gesellschaft\n\n> Nigel: agrees distinction can be useful in terms of strength of bonds… but might want to favour “international community” to extent that moving toward cosmopolitan goals of socioeconomic progress etc. \n\ntransnational companies\n\ncould include within concept of transnational political community?\nnot to assume all bad – many signing up to Corporate Social Responsibility
URL:https://cisrul.blog/event/international-political-community/
CATEGORIES:Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://cisrul.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cisrul-logo.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR