Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

International Politics Assignment 2

Do our ethical duties to others transcend the community of the nation-state? In answering the
question, compare and contrast the claims of communitarian and cosmopolitan approaches to
international political theory. 1750 words

Especially in the analysis of recent events and their social, political and economic
implications, ethics have had an important role to play in the way states have operated and
interacted with one another within international relations theory. There exist two
prominent, normative theories within international relations that are linked to the study of
ethics within global politics. They are, the cosmopolitan and communitarian approaches to
international relations. In this essay, I will critique and compare both the claims of the
theories of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism in responding to a certain ethical
dilemma. That is, whether our ethical duties to others transcend the boundaries of the
community of the nation state. I will begin by clarifying the aspects of cosmopolitanism and
evaluating the practical consequences in their claims that we do have an ethical duty to help
others beyond our own borders. I will then outline the claims of communitarianism and
their main view of contextualism and the ethical right of localized entities trumping the
priorities of the international community. Finally, I will conclude upon the fact as to why
elements of both normative theories should be respected within contemporary times and
will also comment on the extent to which our ethical duty exists to help others beyond our
border.

In most cases, cosmopolitanism refers to the normative theory that ideally sees individuals
around the world as a part of an interconnected global community, with shared values and
norms through things such as language and feeling pain. It rejects communitarian aspects
such as relativism and sometimes forms of nationalism (Appiah, 2008) (Shapcott, 2010).
Since the establishment of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
1948 and the UN charter, the globe has evolved into a form of society where universal
notions of morality are ideally meant to be upheld (Benhabib, 2008). Although advocates of
cosmopolitanism differ upon the methodology that should be employed to implement a
framework of universalized values, the most contemporary and relevant way has been
through inter-governmental organizations, such as the United Nations (Saito, 2011). It has
usually been the most powerful states that have existed within the diplomatic platform of
the UN that have attempted to impose their own version of a form of universalized values.
That is, the ‘big three’ victors of the Second World War, contributing their ideas of a
globalized human rights system heavily within the establishment of the UN charter
(Normand and Zaidi, 2008). These examples demonstrate the shift of the global political
community in the attempt of powerful actors to establish a cosmopolitan sense of world
order through global governance (Saito, 2011). Through the cosmopolitan perspective, it is
Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

obvious that the ideals of international law and human rights must be upheld and therefore
it is vital to identify that the ethical duties of a state do transcend its own civil community.

In fact, this notion is most evident through the doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’ and
its relation to the military intervention within Libya in 2011 which was authorized by
resolution 1973 in the UN security council. In this case, the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Libyan state was intruded, with a cosmopolitan-utilitarian intent and the aim
of protecting the civilian population from human rights abuses, war crimes or genocide
(Çubukçu, 2013). It is evident, in this case, that the utilitarian aspect of cosmopolitanism,
apparently in the interest of the wellbeing of the greater number, outweighed the
deontological principle of the negative duty of doing no harm and avoiding war. While at
first the action may be praised of its endorsement of the preservation and safety of fellow
human beings abroad, cosmopolitan acts like these can still be criticized (Çubukçu, 2013)
(Hehir, 2013). Indeed, interventions such as those that have occurred within Libya in 2011
and Iraq in 2003 are not always done with ethical intentions, they are either unilaterally
declared by a superpower such as the United States, or triggered by the permanent five
members of the security council who usually act with hidden, pragmatic agendas (Hehir,
2013). It is these states that usually claim to act for the international community and
generate ideas of a globalized human rights system or attempt to implement a worldwide
socio-economic ideology. (Çubukçu, 2013) These ideas are then foisted, sometimes in an
imperialist manner, upon states that are socially, culturally and politically dissimilar, which
ultimately leads to political and economic depression. Clearly then, global superpowers
acting in the name of cosmopolitan philosophies simply cannot represent the views of those
communities and civilians who would be socially, politically and economically affected by
military interventions which, ironically, are meant to be carried out in the civilian
population’s best interest. Especially within cases such as the Iraqi invasion of 2003, the
apparent humanitarian and utilitarian intervention, of attempting to impose liberal
democracy, had implications that led to the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS, which left
the Iraqi people in a worse state (Oosterveld et al., 2017). Cases such as interventions within
Libya and Iraq, which clearly fall in line with the cosmopolitan attitude of having the ethical
obligation to aid other human beings within a ‘global community’, demonstrate that
cosmopolitanism can often lead to impractical consequences (Lamont, 2016). Namely, the
hijacking of notions such as ‘just war’ and ‘intervention to uphold global human rights’ by
world powers to further their own political agenda and power.

Communitarianism, on the other hand, holds aspects that are in great contrast to the
cosmopolitan approach to ethics in international relations. Communitarianism views the
global political arena as a make up of different communities or states and that within these
communities, people share a distinct form of culture, norms and morals that are relative to
their specific society (Adler, 2004). In this sense, communitarians, unlike cosmopolitan
thinkers, would reject hard forms of global governance and the globalization of political
ideology and political ethical institutions such as universal human rights. Rather, it focuses
Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

upon localized communities within their individual social, political, economic and cultural
context (Shapcott, 2010). Naturally then, communitarians would reject any sort of ethical
obligation to prioritize the wellbeing of individuals outside their own community. So,
notions of human rights and the implementation of a political ideology to allow the state to
function, should be dependent purely upon the local population of the state and whatever
methodology it chooses to employ. This is in stark contrast to the principles of
cosmopolitanism and its promotion of protecting human beings worldwide through the
common goal of upholding a universal political ideology and moral framework. Indeed,
advocates of communitarianism have criticized this cosmopolitan idea as a violation of the
autonomy of nation-states as well as the possibility of universalism being used as an excuse
for imperialism, ‘domination’ and ‘tyranny’ (Shapcott, 2010). Indeed, communitarians would
point to examples such as Iraq and Libya and state that foreign powers had no business to
act as a global policing agency and the autonomy of those states should have been
respected.

However, communitarian values of the supreme sovereignty of the state have also come
under criticism within recent years. While cosmopolitanism can be criticized for its
universalist values of ‘helping humans abroad’ practically being hijacked to further
individual state’s national interest, the same can be done in the name of communitarian
values and its promotion of supreme sovereignty and autonomy. Especially within the case
of the Syrian civil war, states such as Russia have used the guise of ‘respecting sovereignty’
to veto any humanitarian intervention within Syria, probably due to their economic and
strategic interests within the area (Averre and Davies, 2015). Of course, this has led to the
prolonging of one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises and an increase in the massive
loss of civilian life through reprehensible war crimes (Averre and Davies, 2015). Additionally,
due to globalization and how it has led an increase of diverse communities overlapping and
living within the same geopolitical areas, communitarianism had led to extreme forms of
nationalism and notions of divisiveness (Shapcott, 2010). An example of this can be seen
within the rise of far-right parties within Europe and their attempts in creating policies that
fuel an ‘us’ vs ‘them’ ideology (Lazaridis et al., 2016). It is exactly this ideology, that can be
stemmed from the principles of communitarianism, that led to the refusal of several
European states in taking in endangered refugees and asylum seekers, even though it was of
little cost to them. Indeed, it is cases like these that demonstrate the unethical nature of
communitarianism in relation to helping fellow human beings beyond the nation state.

Yet, it is of vital importance within contemporary times that elements of both

communitarianism and cosmopolitanism are upheld. In the area of the cotemporary global
crisis for example, it is crucial that the international community adopts the cosmopolitan
perspective of nations collectively moving towards environmentalist policies in order to
reduce the negative effects of climate change upon humanity. While moving towards a
global, cosmopolitan aim, it is also important that states recognize the ability of some states
in contributing towards this goal and how it differs from community to community
Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

depending upon the socio-economic context of individual states, as the Paris climate
agreement exemplifies (Falkner, 2016). Another example refers to policies referring to
refugees. It is of course pivotal that the cosmopolitan ethical principle of helping asylum
seekers from beyond our communities is upheld. Yet, a clear and sophisticated model of
distribution should also be promoted in order to acknowledge the ability of states to take in
refugees (Betts and Collier, 2015). Ideally, this would allow for a reasonable boost to the
localized economy and minimize harmful social effects which is often the worry in states
with far-right governments (Betts and Collier, 2015). Evidently, especially within areas of
global concern, a combination of both cosmopolitan and communitarian attitudes should be
adopted when examining the question of whether our ethical duties to help others
transcend our localized states.

In conclusion, it is evident that there does exist an extent to helping others beyond our
localized borders and communities. While the cosmopolitan approach seeks to maximize aid
for others in order to sustain a globalized idea of human rights and morality, problems may
occur through states hijacking this for their own political agenda, as cases stated in this
essay show. On the other hand, although the communitarian response respects the
sovereign authority of states and allows for culturally relative policies, it may also lead to
notions of divisiveness that seek to justify harm to other human beings that are not a part of
one’s community. That is, assuming that states have fairly worked out what characteristics
and values form the basis of their ‘community’ and whether it involves foreign people of
different ethnic backgrounds. However, in summary, an amalgamation of both cosmopolitan
and communitarian attitudes is necessary within the global political arena when tackling the
ethical dilemma in relation to assisting others that are situated beyond our own confines.
1822 words

ADLER, E. 2004. Communitarian international relations: The epistemic foundations of international

relations, Routledge.
APPIAH, K. A. 2008. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. management revue, 19, 340-
341.
AVERRE, D. & DAVIES, L. 2015. Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect:
the case of Syria. International Affairs, 91, 813-834.
BENHABIB, S. 2008. Another cosmopolitanism, Oxford University Press.
BETTS, A. & COLLIER, P. 2015. Help refugees help themselves: Let displaced Syrians join the labor
market. Foreign Aff., 94, 84.
ÇUBUKÇU, A. 2013. The responsibility to protect: Libya and the problem of transnational solidarity.
Journal of Human Rights, 12, 40-58.
Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

FALKNER, R. 2016. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics.
International Affairs, 92, 1107-1125.
HEHIR, A. 2013. The permanence of inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility
to Protect. International Security, 38, 137-159.
LAMONT, C. K. 2016. Contested governance: understanding justice interventions in post-Qadhafi
Libya. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10, 382-399.
LAZARIDIS, G., CAMPANI, G. & BENVENISTE, A. 2016. The Rise of the Far Right in Europe, Springer.
NORMAND, R. & ZAIDI, S. 2008. Human rights at the UN: The political history of universal justice,
Indiana University Press.
OOSTERVELD, W. T., BLOEM, W., FARNHAM, N., KAYAOĞLU, B. & SWEIJS, T. 2017. The Rise and Fall
of ISIS: From Evitability to Inevitability, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
SAITO, H. 2011. An actor‐network theory of cosmopolitanism. Sociological Theory, 29, 124-149.
SHAPCOTT, R. 2010. International ethics: A critical introduction, Polity.