MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202656142 · doi:10.1177/002070201006500410

Review: The Global Commonwealth of Citizens <i>Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy</i>

2010· article· en· W2202656142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew S. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthPolitical scienceDemocracyGlobal governanceMultilateralismHuman rightsPolitical economyGlobalizationCivil societyLegitimacyPublic administrationSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207