A Matter of Perspective: Global Governance and the Distinction between Public and Private Authority (and Not Law) (original) (raw)
Related papers
There is no global public: the idea of the public and the legitimation of governance
International Theory, 2013
Scholars of global governance have made much use of the public-private distinction in their exploration of the power of non-state actors and the constitution of authority beyond the state. But is this distinction analytically adequate? We subject the public-private distinction to analytical scrutiny and argue that it does not hold when analysing phenomena beyond the domestic setting. State actors are universal at the domestic level, but they are particularistic at the global level, being responsible primarily to its territorially defined constituency. The difference between public and private actors qua participants in global governance is thus overstated. We differentiate between public as a category of analysis and a category of practice. As a category of analysis, public denotes a particular configuration of accountability and capacity, which can, in principle, be found at the global level. As a category of practice, public is a claim to universality and responsibility that different types of actors use to legitimize what they do. We illustrate the added value of this conceptualization through a discussion of possibly emerging global public actors, and of how actors' claim to 'publicness' in an incomplete public sphere serves to conceal their particularistic character, thereby undermining 'publicness' at the global level.
Normative questions concerning political authority and political obligation are widely seen as central questions of political philosophy. Current global transformations require an innovative response from normative political thinking about these two topics. In light of a concrete example of the supranational forms of authority and obligation that have been and are emerging beyond the national state and beyond the traditional domains of international law, I lay out what has become the standard approach to authority and obligation and indicate why this approach is inadequate in contemporary circumstances. I sketch an alternative approach and suggest how the most promising exemplar of this kind, Habermas’ discourse theory of law and politics, can better deal with the example. Having thus made plausible the advantages of the discourse theory of the alternative approach, I end with an ‘internal’ critique of Habermas’ own recent writings on the global political order.
The (re-)Constitution of the Public in a Global Arena
This chapter deals with the prospects of public law in global governance. It analyses firstly the foundations of modern public law and considers how they are changed in the global setting. It asks whether they survive through the de-centring practices of States, detached from the legitimating grounds of the modern 'idea of publicness', and whether what it identifies as the duality of public law (in its State-related political and juridical strands) fades and decouples in the sphere of deracinated global legalities and regimes. It argues that the Constitution of the Public can only resurface by recomposing and re-coupling the legal/political duality found in the state. However, as case-by-case experience shows, this quest involves the safeguarding non-instrumental codes of law with the primary function of avoiding injustice in the inescapable interactions among legalities; that is the relationship between disembodied transnational/supranational orders and socio-political legal communities.
Constructing a Global Polity. Theory, Discourse and Governance (Introduction)
2013
'In this highly innovative book, Olaf Corry provides a fresh take on the problem of world order. Venturing beyond statist and globalist accounts, Corry argues that the concept of polity will help us to make better sense of the structure of the global realm, as well as the constitution of governance objects within that realm. As such, this book represents a significant contribution to the study of order in world politics, and should be of interest to international relations theorists and sociologists alike.' -Jens Bartelson, Lund University, Sweden
Introduction: The Turn to Authority beyond States
Transnational Legal Theory, 2013
The concept of authority has become increasingly palatable to scholars in law, political science and philosophy when describing, explaining and assessing global governance. While many now seem to agree that applying authority to transnational relations opens fruitful arenas for legal, empirical and normative research, they rely on partly incompatible notions of authority, how it emerges out of and affects the social relations between key actors, and how it relates to legitimacy. In this paper, we introduce this special issue on transnational authority. We discuss why international authority has become a central concern in international studies and compare key contemporary conceptions of international authority, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. We also present the different contributions to this issue, which further seek to clarify the concept and its application in law, political science, and political theory, theoretically or empirically, assessing arenas where authority is or is not legitimately exercised and developing legal conceptions, which might be utilized to constrain the use of authority in international relations.
2007
A BSTRACT This essay develops a critique of modern constructivist approaches to norms in international relations theory. It distinguishes between a behaviourist and a societal perspective on norms. The former explains compliance with norms and/or norm diffusion via the logic of appropriateness and the logic of arguing, respectively, the latter understands divergence in normative meaning via the logic of contestedness. Using Habermas's approach to facts and norms as a framework, the article discusses the possibilities of legitimate governance based on core constitutional norms such as democracy, the rule of law and fundamental and human rights and their role in contexts beyond the modern nation-state.
“Most Reasonable for Humanity”: Legitimation Beyond the State
Jus Cogens
Legal and political philosophers of a normative bent face an uphill struggle in keeping themes of global justice and cosmopolitan governance, at the forefront of their disciplinary debate, given the perceived urgency of confronting, at the domestic level, the populist upsurge in mature democracies and Bdemocratizing societies^alike. In this paper, these two levels of analysisnational and transnational-mutually enrich one another through a reflection on the ground of legitimacy. In the first section (BPerfectionism Redux^), (a) neo-perfectionist approaches to the legitimation of transnational authority (rooted in Kantian or Hegelian notions, or in some natural law conception of human rights) and (b) public reason approaches rooted in the paradigm of Bpolitical liberalism^will be contrasted. In the second section (BFrom Balance to Separation of Powers^), a non-perfectionist and normative conception of the legitimacy of transnational authorities will be derived from Rawls's Bliberal principle of legitimacy^(renamed Blegitimation by constitution by F. Michelman) and the difference with the application of the same principle at the domestic level will be elucidated. In the third section (BLegitimacy and the Flourishing of Humanity: Buchanan and Keohane on Global Institutions^), on the basis of such conception, one of the most complete and influential approaches to the legitimacy of transnational authoritiesi.e., the BComplex Standard of Legitimacy^expounded by A. Buchanan and R. Keohane in BThe Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions^-will be critically assessed.