Theresa Scavenius

The indeterminacy failures of moral cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism

ABSTRACT Much of the discussion on cosmopolitanism and nationalism has focused on their different normative views. The purpose of this article is to shift the attention away from the normative debate to the metatheoretical argument about how we determine moral and political principles independently of each other. I argue that the discussion among proponents of cosmopolitanism and contextualist models boils down to latent methodological and metatheoretical assumptions about what selection of facts are considered politically relevant. In the article, I explore what I call ‘the indeterminacy failure’ of moral cosmopolitanism, that is, the view according to which moral principles fail to determine what political-institutional level might be preferable; and the ‘indeterminacy failure’ of liberal nationalism, that is, the view according to which national identity fails to determine moral principles. In opposition to dichotomist cosmopolitan models (including various nonideal types of moral cosmopolitanism) and alternative contextualist approaches (including the practice-dependence thesis and liberal nationalism), I promote a ‘split-level’ model that is set to avoid the difficulties in the other approaches. The split-level corrects the indeterminacy failures of cosmopolitanism and contextualism by distinguishing clearly between the level of moral theorising and the level of political theorising.

Fact-sensitive political theory

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to argue for the importance of attention to facts in normative theorising. I discuss the problems that arise from both not displaying such attention (as some idealists do) and from doing so in the wrong way (as, for example, realists do). I propose a different brand of theorising – fact-sensitive political theory, which aims to avoid these two problems by paying attention to key facts while retaining a solid normative anchoring in abstract normative principles. The merit of abstract vs. non-abstract reasoning is that the normative debate is not torn between two distinct ends of a spectrum in the way the idealist–realist debate is. By contrast, the locus of the investigations is vertical in the sense that abstract and concrete normative discussions are given equal status and can co-exist compatibly. One of the main differences between abstract and concrete normative principles is whether abstract or concrete facts are considered necessary for the determination of the normative principles. The fact-sensitive account of normativity is neither realist nor non-ideal: it is an ambitious and demanding normative theory that contains both abstract and concrete normative reasoning. The fact-sensitive account of political theory meets the two criteria set out in this article: to integrate concrete and empirical facts about the subject matter and to subject the selection of facts to theoretical and methodological discussion and justification.

National Responsibility and Global Poverty

This article argues that institutional cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism can be reconciled as compatible, at least when considering various normative prescriptions for institutional and political relationships. The main claim is that liberal nationalism and the theory of national responsibility present a cosmopolitan argument maintaining that political institutional bodies should be held responsible for catering to their people. So conceived, liberal nationalism provides a significant contribution to contemporary cosmopolitan theory. Three arguments are provided. First, it is argued that liberal nationalists shares fundamental values with institutional cosmopolitans, as Pogge suggests, and especially that they agree on the relevance of shared responsibility supplementing individual responsibility. Second, national responsibility is endorsed as a productive way of determining responsibility for the political distribution of goods and benefits for a group of people that supplements responsibilities at the global level. Yet a premise for this reading of national responsibility is the disputing of the cultural assumptions which are often attributed to the theory of national responsibility. Hence, thirdly, by disentangling the cultural assumptions from the concept of national responsibility, the article suggests a concept of national responsibility based on political institutional capacity rather than culture.

Transnationalism vs. Nationalism: The Case of the Right to Free Movement

The European Union is currently challenged by right-wing populism and economic stress. To understand the nature of these challenges, we need to take an interdisciplinary approach in which empirical studies of politics are combined with studies of the normative implications of European policy-making. To this end, I draw attention to the right to free movement, which is pivotal both for European politics and liberal political philosophy. I show that even though transnational rights, such as the free movement for people, products and money, are normatively sound and desirable, enhancement of free movement may challenge the heterogeneity among the national models of rights and societal commitments. The risk is that the national institutions as a political arena face difficulties in coping with current political challenges such as right-wing radicalism, social inequality, environmental regulation, immigration and financial insecurity. On the other hand, I argue that we should be aware that the transnational rights might in some countries enhance human rights, which national parliaments have not been able to accommodate.