nach oben

2021 | Buch

Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

Climate Change and Sovereignty

An Essay on the Moral Nature and Limits of State Sovereignty

verfasst von: Prof. Joshua J. Kassner

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Buchreihe : AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice

Enthalten in: Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" , Springer Professional "Technik" , Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Über dieses Buch

This book offers a meditation on global justice and international political and legal theory. The author assesses positions in the current debate over the moral nature and limits of sovereignty. He also evaluates the normative role sovereignty ought to play in the practical deliberations of states.

The discussion moves from theory to practice. Coverage starts with a conceptual analysis and moral critique. It then goes on to consider specific issues. These include global climate change, secession and self-determination, human rights, global distributive justice, and immigration. Readers will learn how states ought to deliberate about and respond to these important topics. They will also discover potential institutional structures better suited to resolving these issues while also respecting state sovereignty.

In working through each specific challenge, the author provides insight into how we ought to think about challenges facing the international community and the potential for properly constructed institutions to function as solutions. These analyses also provide a valuable critical lens to assess the actions (and omissions) of our leaders.

In the end, the book argues that domestic governments and regional bodies should be responsible for implementing the chosen course of action. This would provide a basis for holding political leaders more accountable.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview

Abstract

In 1648, after decades of internecine war, the powers of Europe sought to bring an end to the violence that had ravaged their kingdoms. This moment in the history of international relations has come to be known as the Peace of Westphalia, and it is here that we find the intellectual foundations for the modern conception of sovereignty. Much has changed, however, since Westphalia with some of the most dramatic changes occurring during the latter half of the twentieth and opening decades of the twenty-first centuries. New moral and practical challenges faced by the international community have emerged because of the growing interdependence that has accompanied these changes.

Westphalian sovereignty seems ill-suited for such a pervasively interdependent world. This apparent conflict between respect for sovereignty and the moral and practical demand that the new challenges facing the international community be addressed has caused many to question the continued relevance of sovereignty. Somewhat surprisingly, given the significance of sovereignty to contemporary international law and relations, there has been scant rigorous philosophical inquiry focused on sovereignty itself. This book is, in part, an effort to fill this gap. This chapter provides insights into, and an overview of, the argument to follow.

Joshua J. Kassner

Developing a Framework for Assessing the Moral Limits of State Sovereignty and Sovereign Discretion

Frontmatter

Chapter 2. Explicating the Tension Between State Sovereignty and the New Challenges Facing the International Community

Abstract

This project’s significance is grounded in the belief that a tension exists between sovereignty and the practical and moral demands generated by the new and emerging challenges facing the international community. As such, understanding this project requires that one understand the bases for, and nature of, this perceived tension. In addition, it is by exploring this tension and its underlying assumption about the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion that we come to a better understanding of sovereignty and sovereign discretion.

With that said, this chapter serves two purposes. First, it explicates the beliefs and conceptual understandings upon which the existence of the tension relies and how, taken together, they have led many to conclude that a tension exists. Second, it provides an argument that the assumption about the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion at the heart of the extant understanding of the moral nature and limits of state sovereignty and upon which the perceived tension relies is unjustified. If correct, then we ought to be skeptical about the supposed tension itself. If correct, this opens the conceptual space for a free-standing inquiry into the moral nature and limits of state sovereignty and sovereign discretion (Chaps. 3 and 4).

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 3. Assessing the Limitations Inherent to the Notion of Sovereignty Itself

Abstract

Chapter 2 opened the conceptual space for a freestanding inquiry into the moral nature and limits of sovereignty and sovereign discretion. This Chapter turns to that inquiry. Assessing the moral nature and limits of sovereignty and sovereign discretion unfolds through two distinct but related understandings of the moral limits to the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion. One seeks out the limits to the legitimate zone of moral discretion inherent to the notion of sovereignty itself. The other is grounded in our understanding of the best moral justification for sovereignty. This chapter is focused on the former.

Some may wonder why we should pursue this understanding of the limits to sovereign discretion at all. Why not simply identify and assess the implications drawn from our understanding of the best moral justification for state sovereignty? For one thing, this approach possesses the methodological virtue of being grounded in weak assumptions. It proceeds largely based on the assumption that, as a moral matter, in practice the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion is defined by the rights (and duties) of sovereign states. In addition, the second approach, which is pursued in Chap. 4, depends on this one.

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 4. Assessing the Limitations from the Best Available Justification for Sovereignty

Abstract

The discussion now turns to identifying and assessing the limits to the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion implied by the best available moral justification for state sovereignty. The underlying approach involves a methodology comprised of two distinct, but interrelated, steps. To begin, it is necessary to identify the best available moral justification for sovereignty. Only then are we able to embark upon the second step and assess the limits to the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion implied by that justification.

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 5. Introducing a Framework for Assessing the Moral Limits of Sovereignty and Sovereign Discretion

Abstract

In Chaps. 3 and 4, two different approaches to understanding the moral limits to the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion were identified and explicated, those inherent to the notion of sovereignty itself and those implied by an instrumental moral justification for sovereignty. These limitations are the grounding for a framework to be used to assess the moral limits to the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion and, by implication, the moral limits of state sovereignty.

Joshua J. Kassner

Making the Transition from Theory to Practice

Frontmatter

Chapter 6. Understanding the Application of the Framework

Abstract

One might be tempted to turn immediately to an application of the framework developed in Chap. 5 to assess whether the challenge of climate change falls (or ought to fall within) the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion. Doing so without further discussion of the framework or its application could lead to mistakes and/or unnecessary confusion over our understanding of the moral nature and limits of state sovereignty.

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 7. Global Climate Change: A Matter of Transnational Ethical Concern

Abstract

This Chapter serves several substantive and methodological purposes. First, it addresses a possible concern that one might have about how much can possibly be discovered about the moral nature and limits of state sovereignty by assessing a single challenge like climate change. In short, focusing on climate change serves several objectives. In addition, as was argued in Chap. 6, for this inquiry regarding climate change to be relevant, it must be the case that a conflict exists between climate change and the moral imperatives it generates and sovereign discretion. Whether such a conflict exists depends on whether the challenge under consideration and the imperatives it generates are transnational, ethical and non-discretionary. As such, the second purpose served by this chapter is to answer this threshold issue by establishing that climate change and the moral imperatives it generates are transnational, ethical and non-discretionary and thus in conflict with the moral discretion afforded sovereign states.

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 8. Applying the Framework

Abstract

In Chap. 7, I established that the challenge of climate change is transnational and that it generates non-discretionary moral demands on the practical deliberations of states and the international community. As such, there is, at the very least, a prima facie moral conflict between the moral discretion afforded sovereign states and the moral imperatives generated by the challenge of climate change. It bears repeating that if there was no conflict, there would be no competing demands on the practical deliberations of states giving rise to a moral tension in need of resolution, thus there would be no need to inquire further.

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 9. Applying the Framework: Limits Implied by Instrumental Value of Sovereignty

Abstract

Having established that climate change does not fall within the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion inherent to the notion of sovereignty itself, This Chapter asks whether there is an instrumental justification for including the challenge of climate change within the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion. Since state sovereignty is justified by the instrumental role it plays in the international community’s pursuit of several other morally valuable ends, it is not enough to assess the extent to which extending sovereign discretion will enhance the international moral community’s ability to respond to climate change alone. Rather, we must also assess the impact our choice will have on the ability of the international community to pursue those other morally valuable ends.

As such, in this chapter, answering whether sovereign discretion should be extended to include the challenge of climate change unfolds in response to three questions. First, is the international community’s ability to respond to climate change enhanced by extending sovereign discretion to include the challenge of climate change? Second, assuming a negative answer, what is the overall impact of not expanding sovereign discretion? Finally, all-things-considered, is including climate change within the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion instrumentally justified?

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 10. Explicating Institutional Legitimacy

Abstract

In an effort to complete the transition from theory to practice the final two chapters are dedicated to offering some suggestions for institutional design and reform. It is in offering such suggestions for institutional design and reform that the impact of the conclusions reached thus far have their clearest ethical and practical implications. This Chapter identifies and defends a set of standards for evaluating the legitimacy of institutions intended to respond to the challenge of climate change. To be specific, it is contended that institutional legitimacy requires practical effectiveness, moral and political justification, and some understanding of the structure of legitimate institutions.

Joshua J. Kassner

Chapter 11. Conclusion: Some Suggestions for Institutional Design and Reform

Abstract

One significant implication of the fact that the challenge of climate change lies outside of the legitimate zone of sovereign discretion is that institutions tasked with responding to climate change are not constrained, at least as a moral matter, by sovereignty. Thus, at least when it comes to climate change, the international community has, at least as a moral matter, a freer hand in its institutional response. Since our approach to institutional design in response to the challenge of climate change is not fettered by sovereignty, we needed a standard of institutional legitimacy to guide the evaluation, reform and design of institutions.

In response to this need, Chap. 10 developed a standard of institutional legitimacy to be used to critically evaluate existing institutions and to inform our efforts at institutional design and reform should the existing institutions prove inadequate. Thus, in addition to serving as a conclusion to this inquiry, this chapter completes the transition from theory to practice, by first offering a critical assessment of the prevailing international institutional response to climate change, the Paris Climate Agreement; and second, by making some suggestions for institutional design and reform.

Joshua J. Kassner

Titel: Climate Change and Sovereignty
verfasst von: Prof. Joshua J. Kassner
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-73578-4
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73577-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73578-4