In Pogge's efforts to create a moral cosmopolitan theory he tries to establish a means of vertically distributing power in order to both allow universal politically enshrined rights whilst sustaining local communal differences. In this essay I will look to criticise two of the main theoretical bases of his argument that seek to justify this new system of governance and that seek to reestablish our ideas about state borders and sovereignty.
Firstly, Pogge reconsiders the concept of state sovereignty, dividing between sovereignty and absolute sovereignty in order to step around complaints against world governance that have been raised by other cosmopolitans such as Kant and O'Neill. However, does his concept of the 'centralization and decentralization' as opposed to a 'world state' truly succeed in both fitting in with political concepts of sovereignty whilst still acheiving his cosmopolitan ends? Also, does his defense of this structural form rely on practical reasoning based on what we have seen already, whilst ignoring the new logical dangers that may arise from this different political structure.
Finally, Pogge establishes two rough rules for the process of shaping and reshaping political units. However, are these rules capable of dealing with the need for cultural identity that even Pogge seeks to retain in his efforts at cosmopolitanism? For one part they seem too firmly entrenched in linking defined geographical boundaries with specific ethnic or cultural groups, which we can see is inadequate in trying to explain some modern examples.
I hope to come out in support of Pogge's unique vertical distribution of power, but first must challenge these controversial aspects to see if they are adequate.
Cheers,
Nick
No comments:
Post a Comment