Open Access
The Future of Democratic Sovereignty and Transnational Law
Loading...
Files
MWP_LS_2012_04_Benhabib.pdf (176.17 KB)
MWP LS 2012/04
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1830-7736
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI MWP LS; 2012/04
Cite
BENHABIB, Seyla, The Future of Democratic Sovereignty and Transnational Law, EUI MWP LS, 2012/04 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/22565
Abstract
This essay examines the rise of legal cosmopolitanism in the period since the UDHR of 1948 as it gives rise to two very distinct sets of literature and preoccupations. I contrast the mainly negative conclusions drawn by conventional political theory about the possibility of reconciling democratic sovereignty with a transnational legal order to the utopianism of contemporary legal scholarship that projects varieties of global constitutionalism with or without the state. I argue that transnational human rights norms strengthen rather than weaken democratic sovereignty. Distinguishing between a ‘concept’ and a ‘conception’ of human rights, I claim that selfgovernment in a free public sphere and free civil society is essential to the concretization of the necessarily abstract norms of human rights. My thesis is that without the right to self-government, which is exercised through proper legal and political channels, we cannot justify the range of variation in the content of basic human rights as being legitimate. I name processes through which rights-norms are contextualized in polities ‘democratic iterations.’ The institutionalization of human rights norms through democratic iterations that permit their revision, rearticulation and contestation, both within judicial institutions and in the larger spheres of civil society, exhibits certain ‘epistemic virtues’ and shows, in Allen Buchanan’s words, ‘public practical reason’ at work. In conclusion, in addition to Buchanan’s thesis, I consider Anne-Marie Slaughter’s concept of ‘transjudicial communication,’ and Judith Resnik’s model of ‘law by affiliation’. These three models, like ‘democratic iterations,’ develop modalities of thinking beyond the binarism of the cosmopolitan versus the civic republican; democratic versus the international and transnational; democratic sovereignty versus human rights law.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
The lecture was delivered on 16 May 2012.