Communitarianism vs. Cosmopolitanism Essay -- Politics Political

Normative Theories of Politics - Contrasting Cosmopolitan and Communitarian ApproachesWhen looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term club sh altogether refer to policy-making communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these policy-making communities postulate been defined territorially, and not necessarily by agriculture, although this is taken for given to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each alliance is different, and at that placefore should correspond accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral bars should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of supranational law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral shopworn to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An opening to populace(prenominal) competeings p. 173A)Communitarianism says that communities themselves define what rightful conduct is, and therefore should not be obliged to follow any universal moral code. Morality arises from the culture that makes up the community, and therefore determines what is right for that community, whether it is or not for anyone else. Communitarians say that there merchant shipnot be a universal moral standard because where would these standards come from? Who would shape what is right and wrong? However, the argument communitarianism can be turned against it if these communities argon nation-states. It is however the predominant culture that will determine what the moral standards of the community are. Cosmopolitans argue that there should be a universal moral standard to which every community must abide. They allow for state autonomy, but only to an extent. States must not be able to be completely self-determined and relax from moral obligations to the rest of the transnational community. But this raises significant questions. Can a universal moral standard exist? And how can it apply to all states? While cosmopolitanism allows for or so state autonomy, the moral standard would mean that some ... ...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory earn intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to external Relations p. 173A)(Chris Brown, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations p. 480A)(Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)C osmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state. It is because of these fundamental differences that they deal with international relations in significantly different ways. However, both theories have their flaws and it seems that we can have neither a fully cosmopolitan or communitarian world political system.