Globalisation and Communitarian Systems of Citizenship - Essay Example

Cosmopolitan and Communitarian systems of Citizenship Cosmopolitanism and Communitarians offer distinct accounts on rights, democracy, and citizenship by reflecting different views of morality and politics. To start, with cosmopolitanism is wide and simply refers to liberalism on a global scale (Modood, 2010:119). Cosmopolitanism has its normative foundation lying on the theory of human rights and combines individualism, universality and the genetic composition. Rights are essentially self-standing and their justifications are independent of social or cultural recognition. Cosmopolitan focuses on the scope and location of political institutions, and how they promote the human rights and their welfare. Cosmopolitans are suspicious of national sovereignty since its rights to membership to a particular state are institutional and need government intervention. Cosmopolitans vary in wary for democracy, because though democracy embodies the notion of equality on human rights, its procedures are not always countable and upheld. Contrary, communitarians believe that universal human rights are exerted only on a limited claim of attention (Torres, 2010:8). Though we can invoke this on extreme situations like famine or genocide, humans always remain basic. Their daily comfort is derived from their locality and the specific culture. The principles of rights and justice vary within the different communities but they all appeal to the universal core shared across all the societies. Communitariansm is beyond maximal morality possessed by the members of a given society. The contrast between cosmopolitan and communitarian brings out the analysis of human rights foundation and their international implementation. Human rights are universal as suggested by cosmopolitan scholars (Turner, 1993:23). However, the communitarian criticizes the liberal justice as the cone between community of strangers within a limited scope of statehood and recognition. Cosmopolitan succeeds in providing coherent critique of compatriot favoritism and provides a stronger defense of the moral foundations of the human rights. The universal extension of moral obligations is justified whereas the claim for global institutions reforms falls on weaker premises. Cosmopolitan and communitarian have been a dividing line in the field of theory. Cosmopolitan arguments era based on beset of domination under an unswerving universalism and is said to be washed between the human plurality and diversity (Steveson, 201:68). On the other hand, Communitarianism is consumed under the contradiction of parochialism that is after reducing community and ethics to the local sphere alone. The legal declaration of human rights made around 1948 is a broad recognition of human rights in international treaties that provide strong justification on assumptions that are subject to the international law. Cosmopolitan rights are positive universal rights that might be weaker but enforceable in a stronger sense and exercise of sovereignty in a particular state (Faulks, 2000:74). Anarchism (the defense of an individual who is subject and non-coercive) is becoming common on the social-relations at the local and global levels. Anarchism brings many key debates in the contemporary theories of fundamental conceptual antagonism. The problem has its origin from the communitarian who propound that generations are bound by local social norms. For communitarians, the international arena is dominated by states but each performs very different from the other. Subordinate actors are however availed to co-ordinate interstate activity. For the cosmopolitans, the international arena is a public sphere and governs the interest of all its members (Engin, 1999:134). The cosmopolitans look at the globe like a state with strong set of institutions. They look forward for faster reforms on the compositions of United Nations Security Council and the power of veto for its permanent members. It also looks forward for restrictions on international intervention arising from the United Nations charter and from state sovereignty. The communitarians dismiss the believe by the cosmopolitans that democracy can be extended at the international levels and bring empowerment to the global citizens. The mechanisms of operations envisaged by the cosmopolitans do not however provide sufficient means of political accountability (Dower, 2003:87). They instead provide more opportunities for freedom of action by the leading world powers and the developed nations. According to communitarians, rights and justice are culturally specific and cannot apply to all nations at the same time and mode. They consider that in the world we have different political communities with divergent and incompatible interests. They the diversity and the heterogeneity between a plurality of communities and each is in the verge to sustain its values. The communitarians see the international bodies and organizations as valid in facilitating communication and action between the different states (Crick, 2000:112). They suggest that these bodies should not seek to supplant the sovereignty of a state and make laws that govern the whole globe. Their suggestion is that each state should respect the other’s independence. Communitarians suggest that the separate communities especially inter-state are the building blocks of the large global community and thus each should have an independent political institutions, government and the rule of law which should all focus on the political activity of the citizens. Human rights as maintained by the communitarian cannot be defined universally because they different meaning in reference to a particular society and culture. For example, human rights in Somalia mean different in context to that of, say, Britain (Storey, 2003:189). The communitarians argue that rights especially those of humans are so fixed that they are subject to neither change nor challenge. In order for human rights to be applicable on this real world of politics, they need interpretation. Though the cosmopolitans may argue that humans are free beings and have the freedom to interact profoundly the communitarians believe that needs are independent with those of others and thus does not consider the reflationary (Dower, 2003:87). Communitarians also argue that, for an equal distribution of resources, priorities of each state must be considered an activity, which is next to impossible. Cosmopolitans believe that people and sate have the responsibility to distribute justice everywhere in the world just as they do to their co-nationals or fellow citizens within state boundaries. The communitarians believe in the need-based form of justice distribution whereas the cosmopolitans are committed to the right-based criteria. Cosmopolitans argue strongly that interventionist version of justice distribution aims at measures associated with subsistence, economic and welfare rights. The measures may include international development efforts, humanitarian aid, debt relief, and environment conservation measures (Crick, 2003:118). Cosmopolitan’s international justice follows the consequence of the development of economic globalization and premised on universal principles conducted at level of relations between nation states. A sharp difference between the cosmopolitans and the communitarians comes in between in the question of distribution of justice. Communitarians hold that it is the responsibility of state to uphold the justice of its own. They suggest that international bodies and NGOs can pursue combined justice. However, they argue that there is no basis for claims to universal jurisdiction to deal with matters not found in a specific state (Storey, 2003:194). In contrast, cosmopolitans hold a radical model of international justice distribution with a supranational international court that plays a key role. They suggest for a model that is universal rather national jurisdiction envisaged in areas of retribution. The cosmopolitans believe that the idea of universal justice retributive follows logically the notion of universal human rights-carrying citizens (Engin, 1999:138). The emergence of the cosmopolitans saw significant moves to develop international law, international policymaking, and practice in order to put some muscle to delivering international retributive justice. Communitarians indentify human beings based on their cultural identity whereas cosmopolitans believe in the governing principle of human interaction. They believe in emancipatory power of the human capacity to reason, share his idea across the globe, and implement them to drive the superstitions and ignorance of communitarians (Faulks, 2000:84). The cosmopolitans pushed the United Nations Security Council to establish a tribunal that would deal with war crimes. The tribunal featured the wars of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. These developments are a proof of the new extensions to international law and enhance powers of intervention grated to international institutions for the care for human rights across the globe. The establishment of the International Criminal Court was an important step towards setting up of permanent jurisdiction over the individuals who go against the human rights (Stevenson, 2001:71). The ICC is a radical institution in expressing the cosmopolitan commitment in safeguarding the human rights for all citizens across the globe. Cosmopolitans pursue both distributive and retributive justice at an international level and compromise the independence of sovereign rights of states that have national self-determination. Sovereignty remains a key principle of international order and recognizes both human rights and the state sovereignty (Turner, 1993:29). The cosmopolitans take into consideration that states can be either protectors of human rights or threats to the human rights. More often than not, the cosmopolitans justify the superseding sovereignty to present the rights of the wealthy and powerful as well as those of the disadvantaged. The communitarian’s approach stresses on shaping of rights, claims, needs of the community, and the role of the state in upholding the political order that can define and protect the claims and needs of a given society. The communitarian position however has a lot of pending questions that need be answered (Torres, 2010:14). For instance where do other actors especially the individuals comprise a given community and how do their rights relate to the rights of the state? These are some of the pressing issues that need to be addressed by the communitarian. The efforts of the cosmopolitan in ensuring global justice are beyond the establishment of the International Criminal Court and extend beyond the United Nations goals. Cosmopolitans advocate for a universal human rights applaud which would radically extend the competence of United Nations from being charged with standard setting, monitoring and exerting pressure on states to comply international human rights charter (Modood, 2010:134). Cosmopolitans recognize our asymmetrical responsibility for each other, which implies a relationship of face to face with each other. It creates an open-ended responsibility and discards the ethnical concern in order to profess a start for justice and otherness. The cosmopolitan bases on the theoretical and institutional generality, as well as objectivity that, justice aspire into an impersonal political order. The otherness reminds of the individuals with interpersonal ethical relation in which each of us stands within and motivates the aspiration towards a more humane political order. However, despite all these ethnical concern and justice for many writers about cosmopolitan and communitarian debate they fail to understand that all forms of theoretical and institutional justice violate the rule of the other. Reduction of some terms in working for justice is both necessary and unavoidable (Turner, 1993:38). The writings on the debate about cosmopolitan and communitarian neglect the fact that justice reminded of, exposed to, and held in the check by the interpersonal relation with the other creates an unending responsibility for him. To put more emphasis on justice lets a political disregard on the function of justice. Philosophically, justice corresponds to a broader tendency in the western countries. It works to reduce what is other to the same to attain a system of thought. In theory, units of system receive their meaning from the position in system and disrupt the closure of thought of justice that can be contained in a concept. Conclusion These various views of democracy, rights, and citizenship inform the different visions in Europe. Cosmopolitans see the different forms of freedom and integrate them into a useful democratic benefit. In Europe, still there is an emergent group of communitarian cosmopolitan, which according to Europe is a substantially multinational group though it has a greater role in developing the self-governance and supporting the minority (Engin, 1999:86). Cosmopolitans argue that the overall extension of rights to all international spheres is effective and has led to successful claim for justice. This is evident in the development of global governance commission and the raise of global concern on major events like wars, poverty, and human rights prevention. According to cosmopolitan view, human rights need no intervention. Communitarians argue that the international organization help to promote common language but the gap between theory and practices persist (Torres, 2010:29). According to them, the major problem remains with developing effective mechanism to translate the universal principles into concrete practices. Bibliography Crick, B. 2000. Essays on Citizenship. London: Continuum. Dower, N. 2003. An Introduction to Global Citizenship. Edinburgh: University Press. Engin F. 1999. Citizenship and identity. London: Sage. Faulks, K. 2000. Citizenship. London: Routledge. Modood, T. 2007. Multiculturalism. Oxford: Polity. Modood, T. 2010. Still Not Easy Being British. LinkedIn: Trentham Books. Stevenson, N. 2001. Culture and Citizenship. London: Sage. Storey, D. 2003. Citizen, State and Nation. Sheffield: Geographical Association. Torres, R., Miron, L., Xavier J. 1999. Race, Identity and Citizenship. London: A Reader. Turner, B. 1993. Citizenship and Social Theory. London: Sage. Read More