Review: The Global Commonwealth of Citizens <i>Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
THE GLOBAL COMMONWEALTH OF CITIZENS Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy Daniele Archibugi Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. 317 pp, US$30.95 cloth ISBN 978-0-691-13490-1We live in an system that is inherently undemocratic. Many of world's organizations - the United Nations, NATO, the financial institutions - are products of a post- World War Two era and no longer reflect 21st- century power realities. And as recent protests in Toronto showed, the G20 - the world's new forum on matters of economic governance - maybe more representative than its predecessor, the G7/8, but it is no better at giving voice the world's most marginalized populations. Indeed, if humanity is address the major global challenges of our time - climate change, poverty, mass human rights violations, pandemics, and war - the forces of globalization wul need be better managed and more inclusive. But how? In his book The Global Commonwealth of Citizens, Daniele Archibugi suggests that the potential for a more just and inclusive order lies in a new approach global governance that connects individuals decisions made at the level, which, as the book's subtitle suggests, is rooted in a approach democratic governance whose authority and legitimacy rest in the collective wul and participation of citizens, the commonwealth.Archibugi envisions the not as it is but as it could be. The book is an ambitious and provocative exercise in futurology, its explicit aim being to inspire the creation of a better (13). In its first half, Archibugi presents his case for cosmopolitan democracy; in the second, he suggests how it could conceivably be applied in practice. So what would a cosmopolitan democracy entau? According Archibugi, there are a number of essential components: The first is citizen control over the use of force, the rationale being that an system that aUows for popular participation is likely be a more peaceful system. The second is the acceptance of cultural diversity, again following the rationale that violent conflict is less likely when minority rights are recognized and respected. The third and fourth involve, respectively, strengthening the self-determination of peoples and monitoring the internal affairs of states. And the fifth calls for participatory management of global problems that aUow for citizen involvement in decision-making (88-89).At its core, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens is about checking power in an system in which might makes right. The cosmopolitan democracy project calls for an end what Archibugi refers as international oligarchism (73), in which states that practice democratic ideals at home are not required do so internationaUy (79). He envisions a global constitutionalism in which the powerful are bound by respect for human rights and the rule of law, which is enforced through supra-national or metagovernment institutions, including an judiciary (98, 119, 129).Whereas the first half of the book is a tight defence of the potential of a liberal order not unlike the European Union, the second half is not nearly as crisp. For example, Archibugi envisions a revitalized UN whose main purpose would be enforce law. This is not an unreasonable proposition. Indeed, efforts strengthen the UN human rights system since the end ofthe Cold War have been designed do exactly that, aiming enforce human rights law either through better monitoring and reporting or through the establishment of an criminal justice system. But he also suggests that the UN might one day establish a world parliamentary made up of elected individuals that would serve as an advisory body the main organs ofthe UN, namely the general assembly and the security council (168-77). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».