'Democratizing' Global Governance? A Republican Critique.

The philosophical literature on global governance aims to address the distinctive problem of political justice in the international sphere. Rather than focusing on the substantive moral problems that occur in the international realm, this paper engages with the political question of the structure and processes by which the various policies that bear on these moral problems gain acceptance. It is a critique of one of the prevalent approaches in the literature on global governance: the cosmopolitan democratic approach expounded by David Held (e.g. 1995, 2003, 2004), Daniele Archibugi (e.g. 1995, 2003), and others.Held and Archibugi's normative emphasis rests on the principles of self-determination and autonomy, which help shape their conception of the democratic good. In addition, both authors argue that the function individual states are expected to fulfill in a 'democratized' world order must be modified and restricted. This paper describes the cosmopolitan democratic approach and its characteristics, and considers three critiques of it: Jeremy Rabkin's (1998) concern with the erosion of domestic institutions, Robert Dahl's (e.g. 1999) doubt regarding the 'scaling' of democracy, and Will Kymlicka's (e.g. 1999) apprehension about global governance's relationship with multiculturalism.This paper suggests that these criticisms can be addressed adequately by an alternative, republican approach to global governance, which focuses on the ideal of non-domination (cf. Philip Pettit, 1997) rather than on self-determination or autonomy. In the final section, the paper argues that a concern with global democracy can be subsumed within this republican global ideal. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]