The London School of Economics and Political Science Realising Cosmopolitanism: the Role of a World State Luke Ulaş a Thesis S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Realising Cosmopolitanism: The Role of a World State Luke Ulaş A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2013 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 98,875 words. Statement of use of third party for editorial help I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Rachael Lonsdale. 2 Abstract The central claim of this work is straightforward: if one endorses cosmopolitan principles of distributive justice, then one ought also to be a world statist. This is not the generally held view. Institutionally, cosmopolitans have tended to endorse – when they have endorsed any particular institutions at all – either modified and enhanced versions of today's domestic state system, or ‘intermediary’ institutional constructs that are conceptualised as sitting apart from both the domestic state system and a world state. I aim to demonstrate that, from a cosmopolitan perspective, these are inferior alternatives, and to make the case for a federal world state. The point of such a project is to confront cosmopolitan moral theory with its radical institutional implications, which its proponents have often ignored or resisted. In making this argument, after underlining conceptual and empirical difficulties for the idea of ‘cosmopolitan law’ without strong central government, I pay extended attention to what has been described as cosmopolitanism’s ‘solidarity problem’, which recognises that there is currently little appetite among the global population for distributing resources or otherwise changing behaviours and practices so as to realise cosmopolitan distributive principles. I consider three approaches to this problem: the possibility of the principled transformation of domestic states; the development of a sense of global community; and an emphasis upon the harnessing of self-interested motivations. In each case I demonstrate the importance of the transcendence of the domestic state system, and global political integration. Thereafter, I directly address various ‘intermediary’ institutional prescriptions, arguing that in many respects they are less clearly distinguishable from a world state than their authors believe, and that where they are distinguishable this represents a disadvantage with respect to the realisation of cosmopolitan ends when compared to a world state. Finally, I consider and reject a range of common critiques of the world state itself, while emphasising that many of these critiques in fact function as critiques of cosmopolitan distributive theory, rendering them unavailable to the cosmopolitan theorists who are my intended audience. 3 Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to be writing these acknowledgements, both because to be doing so means that I am at the end of a long hard journey, and because it gives me the opportunity to thank those who have helped me get here. Firstly I must thank my supervisor, Chandran Kukathas. Chandran showed great patience with me in the early stages of my research, reading and commenting upon numerous pieces of writing that were destined never to make it into the final draft, and guiding me gently toward my eventual research project. He offered consistently challenging criticism while always remaining supportive, and in the closing stages he gave great encouragement as to the value of the project as a whole. All of this was done with famous good humour. As far as I’m aware, I was never assigned an official adviser by the LSE. Fortunately, however, two members of the Department of Government in effect voluntarily assumed this role. I met Mathias Koenig-Archibugi through taking his Globalisation and Democracy course during my MRes year. Mathias showed great interest in my research plans, and over the years read and commented upon various pieces of work. He was always willing to respond to emails picking his brain on various matters, and even offered me employment helping to organise a conference he was hosting. I learnt that Lea Ypi was to join the department shortly after I began engaging with her work. This proved to be a blessing, since Lea has shown great generosity with her time, discussing her work with me, reading drafts of various chapters, and offering advice on academic publishing. I thank Mathias and Lea for all their help. The Political Theory group at the LSE was a great place to present work-in- progress, and I thank all the convenors and attendees of that group over the years. In the department more widely I have met many fellow doctoral students whom I would like to thank for their camaraderie: Karabekir Akkoyunlu, Aslan Amani, Carlo Argenton, Jack Blumenau, Mauricio Dussauge, James Gledhill, Ed Hall, David Jenkins, Pietro 4 Maffetone, Alison Mallard, Yehonathan Reshef, Rikke Wagner and Baldwin Wong. In particular, Ed, Yehonathan and Pietro have become good friends with whom it has been a pleasure to share the experience of completing a PhD. Prior to joining the LSE I completed an MA in Global Ethics at King’s College London, where I first started thinking about the issues raised in this thesis. I would like to thank Jonathan Glover and Patricia Walsh for their teaching and guidance during that year. Away from academia, I owe my mother, Elizabeth Ulaş, great thanks for being endlessly supportive, both financially and emotionally, of my decision to continually return to further education. She will be pleased to know that there is now nowhere left for me to turn, and it is finally time to start earning a living. At times, writing a PhD has felt akin to attempting to swim the English Channel; there were various points when I felt that I was not going to make it to the other side, yet also that I was too far from shore to turn back. During those moments, Rachael Lonsdale kept me buoyant, offering all the support and encouragement I could ask for. She discussed the project with me at all stages from inception to completion, and even copy- edited the final version. In the brief period of time between my completing the thesis and writing these acknowledgements, she has done me an even greater kindness, and agreed to become my fiancée. 5 Table of Contents Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 8 1 Distributive Cosmopolitanism and the World State __________________________ 17 1.1 Clarifying the Goal: Distributive Cosmopolitanism _____________________ 17 1.2 Clarifying the Proposal: A Federal World State _________________________ 31 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________ 45 2 Two Problems for ‘Cosmopolitan Law’ ____________________________________ 46 2.1 Cosmopolitan Law ________________________________________________ 47 2.2 The Conceptual Problem ___________________________________________ 51 2.3 The Empirical Problem ____________________________________________ 63 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________ 73 3 Transforming (but not Transcending) the Domestic State System? ______________ 74 3.1 Theoretical Arguments Against the Domestic State System ______________ 75 3.2 Transforming the State? ____________________________________________ 83 3.3 The Prospects for Avant-Garde Success ______________________________ 91 3.4 The Consequence of Avant-Garde Success ___________________________ 101 Conclusion ____________________________________________________________ 109 4 Creating a Global Community? __________________________________________ 111 4.1 The Nationalist Challenge _________________________________________ 112 4.2 Interrogating and Refining the Nationalist Challenge ___________________ 116 4.3 Global Multinational Patriotism ____________________________________ 121 4.4 A Globally Prevalent Interpersonal Worldview ________________________ 137 4.5 Non-Integrationist Approaches _____________________________________ 144 4.6 Community is Not Enough ________________________________________ 153 Conclusion ____________________________________________________________ 154 5 Selfish Cosmopolitanism ________________________________________________ 156 5.1 The Domestic State Context _______________________________________ 156 6 5.2 Economic Self-Interest ____________________________________________ 161 5.3 Prudent Self-Interest ______________________________________________ 175 5.4 Democratic Self-Interest ___________________________________________ 180 Conclusion ____________________________________________________________ 187 6 Against Intermediary Proposals __________________________________________ 189 6.1 The Proposals ___________________________________________________ 190 6.2 Intermediary or Not? A Conceptual Analysis _________________________ 196 6.3 Sovereignty, Constitutionalism and the State __________________________ 207 6.4