Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Formal to Radical: Tracing the Democratic Argument in Global Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy and Globalization

Part of the book series: Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship ((EALELS,volume 10))

  • 274 Accesses

Abstract

Global law is said to be the paradigmatic case for a law beyond democracies because it transcends the veil of the national state. At the same time, this transcendence initiates a search for adequate representations of legitimacy beyond the relatively stable frame of sovereignty. In legal and philosophical discussions on the legitimacy conceptions for a new global order, the concept of “democracy” takes a central place. Yet, this raises the question how are we able to conceptualize democracy without the clear territorial frontiers that the national state had to offer. This article surveys of the use of democratic vocabulary in theoretical sketches of global law. It aims to show that in these debates there is no clear unified concept of democracy. Rather, it argues that all uses of democratic vocabulary in the law beyond the state exhibit certain “blind spots” which render it difficult to associate the use of the term democracy with the qualified term in the political theory of the nation state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    This contribution draws on Roth-Isigkeit (2018), Chapters 3 and 4.

  2. 2.

    Habermas (2001), p. 5.

  3. 3.

    See in particular Habermas (1998), Chapter 3.

  4. 4.

    Habermas (1998), p. 123.

  5. 5.

    Habermas (1998), pp. 121–123.

  6. 6.

    See Habermas (2006), pp. 123–125. Habermas understands his reconstruction of the co-originality of popular sovereignty and the rule of law as a combination of Kant’s and Rousseau’s political theory.

  7. 7.

    Habermas (2006), p. 127.

  8. 8.

    Habermas (2006), p. 124.

  9. 9.

    Habermas (2015), p. 54.

  10. 10.

    Habermas (1998), p. 228.

  11. 11.

    Habermas (2015), p. 55.

  12. 12.

    Habermas (2015), p. 55.

  13. 13.

    Habermas (2015), p. 56.

  14. 14.

    Habermas (2015), p. 56.

  15. 15.

    Habermas’ institutional visions have developed significantly since he started theorizing about world order. In order to present his thoughts in the best way possible, this reconstruction refers to his latest works.

  16. 16.

    Habermas (2013), p. 59.

  17. 17.

    Habermas (2013), pp. 60–61.

  18. 18.

    Habermas (2013), p. 61.

  19. 19.

    Habermas (2013), p. 61.

  20. 20.

    Habermas (2013), pp. 63-64.

  21. 21.

    See, for an introduction to the discussion, Patberg (2013), p. 224.

  22. 22.

    Günther (2008), pp. 16–17.

  23. 23.

    Günther (2008), p. 16.

  24. 24.

    Günther (2008), p. 18.

  25. 25.

    Günther (2008), p. 16. For further discussion, see Roth-Isigkeit (2016), p. 175.

  26. 26.

    Günther (2008), p. 19.

  27. 27.

    Günther (2008), p. 20.

  28. 28.

    Pulkowski (2014), pp. 238–239.

  29. 29.

    Pulkowski (2014), pp. 238–239.

  30. 30.

    Pulkowski discusses this as reference to the lifeworld. See Pulkowski (2014), p. 258.

  31. 31.

    Pulkowski (2014), p. 261.

  32. 32.

    Pulkowski (2014), p. 265.

  33. 33.

    Pulkowski (2014), p. 270.

  34. 34.

    Günther (2008), p. 17.

  35. 35.

    Initially, Kingsbury et al. (2005), p. 15; Cassese (2005), p. 663. See further Kingsbury and Krisch (2006), p. 1.

  36. 36.

    Kingsbury and Krisch (2006), p. 1.

  37. 37.

    GAL distinguishes between two general types of administrative action, constititutive and substantive. Sometimes the category of procedural law is added. See, Kingsbury (2009), p. 34. The first type, constitutive administrative law, concerns the delegation of power to administrative bodies and their internal structure. GAL counts these constitutive rules, that in most jurisdiction would count as constitutional law in the narrow sense, to a body of emerging administrative law. The primary advantage of GAL is the capacity to address the second type of global administrative action, which they define as substantive. This type refers to the output of global administration, which can be understood in general terms as producing norms and decisions. Both types have external effects on other global administrative entities, states or individuals, which have to be legitimated through the administrative process.

  38. 38.

    Kingsbury and Krisch (2006), pp. 4–5.

  39. 39.

    Kingsbury (2009), pp. 32–33.

  40. 40.

    Kingsbury (2009), p. 30.

  41. 41.

    von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014). See also Goldmann (2015).

  42. 42.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), p. 9.

  43. 43.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), p. 112.

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Muir Watt (2011), p. 347.

  45. 45.

    See von Bogdandy et al. (2008), p. 1383.

  46. 46.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 135–136.

  47. 47.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 157–158.

  48. 48.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), p. 147.

  49. 49.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), p. 146.

  50. 50.

    Von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), p. 19.

  51. 51.

    Kingsbury (2009), p. 35.

  52. 52.

    Kingsbury (2009), p. 36.

  53. 53.

    Krisch (2010), p. 245.

  54. 54.

    Fischer-Lescano (2005), pp. 68–71.

  55. 55.

    Fischer-Lescano (2005), pp. 31–32.

  56. 56.

    See, Arditti (1999), p. 50.

  57. 57.

    Teubner (2012), p. 63.

  58. 58.

    Teubner (2012), p. 63.

  59. 59.

    Fischer-Lescano (2005), p. 276, my translation [“Will das Weltrecht mehr sein, will es nicht zwischen Apology und Utopia oszillieren, dann muss es seine Politisierung zum Anlass nehmen zwischen colère publique und colère politique die richtigen Entscheidungen zu treffen. Es muss sich seine Unabhängigkeit erkämpfen…”].

  60. 60.

    Hardt and Negri (2000), p. 190.

  61. 61.

    Hardt and Negri (2000), p. xii.

  62. 62.

    Hardt and Negri (2000), p. 268.

  63. 63.

    Mouffe (2013), p. 19.

  64. 64.

    Laclau and Mouffe (2001), p. 119.

  65. 65.

    Laclau and Mouffe (2001), p. 127.

  66. 66.

    Laclau and Mouffe (2001), p. 163.

  67. 67.

    Becker (2014), p. 170.

  68. 68.

    Abensour (2012), p. 152, my translation.

  69. 69.

    Laclau and Mouffe (2001), p. 167.

  70. 70.

    In Agonistics (2013), p. 5–9, Mouffe suggests a comprehensive theory of such constructive non-institutional treatment of disagreement.

  71. 71.

    Rancière (2002), p. 46.

  72. 72.

    See also Becker (2014), p. 181.

  73. 73.

    See, for example, Mouffe (1993) or Mouffe (2000).

  74. 74.

    Mouffe (2013), p. 23.

  75. 75.

    See Roth-Isigkeit (2016), pp. 251–253.

  76. 76.

    Kant (1995), p. 565 (B 672).

References

  • Abensour M (2012) Demokratie Gegen den Staat – Marx und das Machiavellistische Moment. Suhrkamp, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti R (1999) Searching for life – the grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the disappeared children of Argentina. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker C (2014) Gegen das Recht oder Gegen das Volk? Zum Spannungsvollen Verhältnis von Demokratie und Widerstand in der Aktuellen Französischen Politischen Theorie. Crit Q Legis Law 97(3):170

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2005) Administrative law without the state? The challenge of global regulation. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 37:663

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano A (2005) Globalverfassung – Die Geltungsbegründung der Menschenrechte. Velbrück, Weilerswist

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann M (2015) Internationale öffentliche Gewalt. Handlungsformen internationaler Institutionen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Günther K (2008) Legal pluralism or uniform concept of law – globalization as a problem of legal theory. No Found J Extreme Leg Positivism 5:16

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1998) Between facts and norms(trans: Rehg W). MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2001) Why Europe needs a constitution. New Left Rev 11(5):5

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2006) Does the constitutionalization of international law still have a chance? In: (trans: Cronin C) (ed) The divided west. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2013) Crisis of the European Union, (trans: Cronin C). Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2015) The lure of technocracy (trans: Cronin C). Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardt M, Negri A (2000) Empire. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1995) In: Weischedel W (ed) Kritik der reinen Vernunft 2, suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B (2009) The concept of ‘law’ in global administrative law. Eur J Int Law 20(1):34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B, Krisch N (2006) Introduction: global governance and global administrative law in the international legal order. Eur J Int Law 17(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart RB (2005) The emergence of global administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 68:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2010) Global administrative law and the constitutional ambition. In: Dobner P, Loughlin M (eds) The twilight of constitutionalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Laclau E, Mouffe C (2001) Hegemony, 2nd edn. Verso, London, p 119

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe C (1993) The return of the political. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe C (2013) Agonistics – thinking the world politically. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Patberg M (2013) Constituent power beyond the state: an emerging debate in international political theory. Millennium J Int Stud 42(1):224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulkowski D (2014) The law and politics of international regime conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rancière J (2002) Das Unvernehmen – Politik und Philosophie. (trans: Steurer R). Suhrkamp, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth-Isigkeit D (2016) The grammar(s) of global law. Crit Q Legis Law 99(3):175

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth-Isigkeit D (2018) The plurality trilemma. Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2012) Constitutional fragments: societal constitutionalism and globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2014) In whose name? A public law theory of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A, Dann P, Goldmann M (2008) Developing the publicness of public international law: towards a legal framework of global governance activities. German Law J 9(11):1383

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt HM (2011) Private international law beyond the schism. Transnatl Legal Theory 2(3):347

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SOCAI Centre for Social Implications of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Law, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    David Roth-Isigkeit

Authors
  1. David Roth-Isigkeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Roth-Isigkeit .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Charlotte Sieber-Gasser

  2. Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Alberto Ghibellini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Roth-Isigkeit, D. (2021). From Formal to Radical: Tracing the Democratic Argument in Global Law. In: Sieber-Gasser, C., Ghibellini, A. (eds) Democracy and Globalization. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69154-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69154-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69153-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69154-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation