Review: The Global Commonwealth of Citizens <i>Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".