Global Constitutionalism without Global Democracy (?)

C. Corradetti, G. Sartor, Dimitri Van Den Meerssche, Aoife O’Donoghue, Pavlos Eleftheriadis, M. Carrai, E. Petersmann
{"title":"Global Constitutionalism without Global Democracy (?)","authors":"C. Corradetti, G. Sartor, Dimitri Van Den Meerssche, Aoife O’Donoghue, Pavlos Eleftheriadis, M. Carrai, E. Petersmann","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2880469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The contributions in this volume investigate interconnected aspects of the democratic deficit in global constitutionalism.The commonly shared question is the following: to what extent, if any, a global (or cosmopolitan) shift of international law can proceed absent a transnational democratic check? Some scholars are convinced that this is a real problem since that a ‘division of labour’ is to be recognized between national and regional/international legal levels, only the first needing a democratic legitimacy. The contributors to this volume, on the contrary tend to share the view that detaching the production of international law from constituent will, as well as from a democratic framework, can indeed undermine constitutional legitimacy. Furthermore, this may open the way to forms of domination that affect also state’s democratic institutions from within.What is the way out from this deadlock? How is it possible to tame global constitutionalism in order to avoid a global Leviathan? The collection of essays here presented attempts to conceptualize some of the central challenges affecting contemporary patterns of legal dispersion and fragmentation. They follow a conceptual-historical thread which starts with a modern Kantian understanding of the problem, and unfolds into the discussion of issues of constitutional pluralism, institutional legitimacy and the risk of tyranny. The volume includes analyses of the role of China and the EU, two of the most important actors, even though perhaps at the opposite pole of the global constitutional project.","PeriodicalId":284892,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","volume":"34 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2880469","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

The contributions in this volume investigate interconnected aspects of the democratic deficit in global constitutionalism.The commonly shared question is the following: to what extent, if any, a global (or cosmopolitan) shift of international law can proceed absent a transnational democratic check? Some scholars are convinced that this is a real problem since that a ‘division of labour’ is to be recognized between national and regional/international legal levels, only the first needing a democratic legitimacy. The contributors to this volume, on the contrary tend to share the view that detaching the production of international law from constituent will, as well as from a democratic framework, can indeed undermine constitutional legitimacy. Furthermore, this may open the way to forms of domination that affect also state’s democratic institutions from within.What is the way out from this deadlock? How is it possible to tame global constitutionalism in order to avoid a global Leviathan? The collection of essays here presented attempts to conceptualize some of the central challenges affecting contemporary patterns of legal dispersion and fragmentation. They follow a conceptual-historical thread which starts with a modern Kantian understanding of the problem, and unfolds into the discussion of issues of constitutional pluralism, institutional legitimacy and the risk of tyranny. The volume includes analyses of the role of China and the EU, two of the most important actors, even though perhaps at the opposite pole of the global constitutional project.
没有全球民主的全球宪政?
本卷的贡献调查了全球宪政中民主赤字的相互关联的方面。共同的问题是:在没有跨国民主制衡的情况下,国际法的全球性(或世界性)转变能在多大程度上进行?一些学者相信这是一个真正的问题,因为在国家和区域/国际法律层面之间要承认“劳动分工”,只有前者需要民主合法性。相反,本卷的撰稿人倾向于同意这样一种观点,即将国际法的制定从选民的意愿以及民主框架中分离出来,确实会破坏宪法的合法性。此外,这可能为从内部影响国家民主制度的各种形式的统治开辟道路。走出僵局的出路是什么?如何才能驯服全球宪政主义,以避免出现全球利维坦?这里的论文集试图将影响当代法律分散和分裂模式的一些核心挑战概念化。他们遵循一个概念-历史的线索,从现代康德对问题的理解开始,展开到宪法多元化、制度合法性和暴政风险等问题的讨论。本书包括对中国和欧盟这两个最重要的角色的分析,尽管它们可能处于全球宪法项目的对立面。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信