Revisiting Kumm's Cosmopolitan Constitutionalism

Maximilian Fenner
{"title":"Revisiting Kumm's Cosmopolitan Constitutionalism","authors":"Maximilian Fenner","doi":"10.1515/krt-2018-320304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, I revisit Mattias Kumm's work on a `cosmopolitan conception of law'. I make two claims: First, I claim that although some criticism can be resisted by Kumm, under closer methodological scrutiny there are flaws in his theory. Second, I claim that these flaws challenge Kumm's approach when reading the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) as a `global constitution'. This also has pertinent practical implications for the functioning of the United Nations. This contribution does not take a stance on the nature of law but focuses on this conception in the context of politics and law. In a first section, I recount Kumm's cosmopolitan conception of law. In a second section, I claim that implicit monism in the relationship between national and international law and theoretical idealization pose serious dificulties to the cosmopolitan approach. In a third section, I claim that these flaws pose a challenge to the United Nations when considering the UN Charter as a `global constitution'. I sum up my findings in a final section and reflect on a future outlook for research on global constitutionalism in political philosophy.","PeriodicalId":107351,"journal":{"name":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","volume":"295 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2018-320304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, I revisit Mattias Kumm's work on a `cosmopolitan conception of law'. I make two claims: First, I claim that although some criticism can be resisted by Kumm, under closer methodological scrutiny there are flaws in his theory. Second, I claim that these flaws challenge Kumm's approach when reading the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) as a `global constitution'. This also has pertinent practical implications for the functioning of the United Nations. This contribution does not take a stance on the nature of law but focuses on this conception in the context of politics and law. In a first section, I recount Kumm's cosmopolitan conception of law. In a second section, I claim that implicit monism in the relationship between national and international law and theoretical idealization pose serious dificulties to the cosmopolitan approach. In a third section, I claim that these flaws pose a challenge to the United Nations when considering the UN Charter as a `global constitution'. I sum up my findings in a final section and reflect on a future outlook for research on global constitutionalism in political philosophy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视库姆的世界主义宪政思想
在本文中,我重新审视马蒂亚斯·库姆关于“世界主义法律概念”的工作。我提出两点主张:首先,我主张,尽管库姆可以抵制一些批评,但在更仔细的方法论审查下,他的理论存在缺陷。其次,我认为这些缺陷挑战了库姆将《联合国宪章》(UN Charter)解读为“全球宪法”的方法。这对联合国的运作也具有相关的实际影响。这篇文章没有对法律的本质采取立场,而是集中在政治和法律背景下的这一概念。在第一部分中,我叙述了库姆的世界主义法律概念。在第二部分中,我认为国内法与国际法关系中的隐性一元论以及理论理想化给世界主义方法带来了严重的困难。在第三部分中,我声称这些缺陷在将联合国宪章视为“全球宪法”时对联合国构成了挑战。我在最后一节总结了我的发现,并反思了政治哲学中全球宪政研究的未来前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Vague Disagreements: Vagueness Without Arbitrary Stipulation An Argument for Micropsychism: If There is a Conscious Whole, There Must be Conscious Parts Abduction in Animal Minds The Unity of Religious Experience: An Analytic Reading of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Second Speech On Religion A Liberal Theory of Commodification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1