<p>The problems of the world today are global and thus we must act on a global level to solve them. We need to establish a perpetual and global peace and we also need to create global justice. How is this to be done? In 2008 the philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö tried to provide an answer on these questions in the book Global Democracy – The Case for a World Government. In his book Tännsjö argues for an institutional cosmopolitan approach, trying to convince us that a world government would guarantee both a global and perpetual peace, as well as global justice. In this thesis I will present Tännsjö´s main argument and then share my thoughts and give my critique on them.</p>

<p>In the paper different views on the question of world government and world governance are presented. I take the position that only a <em>democratic</em> world government is a desirable political goal, as it is only possible to promote individual autonomy consequently solving global problems. While accepting that there could be different answers to this condition, I analyze three approaches to the subject by Tannajo, Nielsen and Held and argue that shared sovereignty within a world federation defined by a democratic global constitution is a necessary condtion to call a world order a democratic one.</p>

In the paper different views on the question of world government and world governance are presented. I take the position that only a democratic world government is a desirable political goal, as it is only possible to promote individual autonomy consequently solving global problems. While accepting that there could be different answers to this condition, I analyze three approaches to the subject by Tannajo, Nielsen and Held and argue that shared sovereignty within a world federation defined by a democratic global constitution is a necessary condtion to call a world order a democratic one.

The problems of the world today are global and thus we must act on a global level to solve them. We need to establish a perpetual and global peace and we also need to create global justice. How is this to be done? In 2008 the philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö tried to provide an answer on these questions in the book Global Democracy – The Case for a World Government. In his book Tännsjö argues for an institutional cosmopolitan approach, trying to convince us that a world government would guarantee both a global and perpetual peace, as well as global justice. In this thesis I will present Tännsjö´s main argument and then share my thoughts and give my critique on them.

The New Zealand Food Bill is being passed amidst stern criticism of its content and the influence on it by multi-national corporations and the Codex Alimentarius Commission, whose food-safety standards motivated the bill. These concerns illustrate the large democratic and legitimisation deficits in global governance. One response to these criticisms and concerns is global administrative law, which focuses on promoting administrative law tools to enhance accountability. However, an examination of the Food Bill reinforces two main critiques of global administrative law: that it excludes addressing substance of international law and brackets democracy. I argue the limited GAL approach cannot be justified and the significant gaps in its approach require that it engage with democracy. I analyse the possibilities of global administrative law to engage with (to acknowledge and adopt) three theories of global democracy - deliberative, cosmopolitan, and radical pluralism. I argue deliberative democracy offers the most accessible option.

The New Zealand Food Bill is being passed amidst stern criticism of its content and the influence on it by multi-national corporations and the Codex Alimentarius Commission, whose food-safety standards motivated the bill. These concerns illustrate the large democratic and legitimisation deficits in global governance. One response to these criticisms and concerns is global administrative law, which focuses on promoting administrative law tools to enhance accountability. However, an examination of the Food Bill reinforces two main critiques of global administrative law: that it excludes addressing substance of international law and brackets democracy. I argue the limited GAL approach cannot be justified and the significant gaps in its approach require that it engage with democracy. I analyse the possibilities of global administrative law to engage with (to acknowledge and adopt) three theories of global democracy - deliberative, cosmopolitan, and radical pluralism. I argue deliberative democracy offers the most accessible option.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-05T17:20:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 1 / Nenhuma / As presentes reflexões tiveram por objetivo descrever o cenário de um tempo efêmero, redimensionado espacialmente e de ampla interconectividade econômica e cultural, bem como definir os fenômenos contemporâneos que determinaram a narrada efemeridade, a qual foi identificada por um tempo descrito como pós-moderno; a transformação dos espaços e interconexão transfronteiriça, foi identificada por um fenômeno conhecido como globalização. Em seguida, se buscou problematizar as questões da pós-modernidade e da globalização confrontando-as com as atuais conformações do Estado e do Direito, no sentido de demonstrar suas deficiências para responder as questões deste novo tempo e as possibilidades de transformação para o atendimento das novas demandas sociais, jurídicas e políticas da sociedade pós-moderna e do mundo globalizado. A partir disso, com as algumas idéias de Höffe e Kant, empreendeu-se na democracia, como aspecto fundamental para o enfrentamento deste novo cenário de uma sociedade marcada pelas incertezas,

The aim of this thesis is to investigate, explain, compare and to a degree criticize the two theories Global Stakeholder Democracy by Terry Macdonald and Transnational Discursive Democracy by John Dryzek and their respective arguments for a global democracy, by using the method of an internal idea analysis. The two main questions of the thesis are: -  With what arguments do Macdonald and Dryzek legitimize their respective form of global democracy? -  What similarities as well as differences can be found in their argumentation for their respective theory and is it possible to see any potential internal problems in their argumentation? The results show that both Global Stakeholder Democracy and Transnational Discursive Democracy can be interpreted to share the same basic way of legitimizing democracy through a liberal value and notion of autonomy. Because of the current democratic deficit on a global level, this value is threatened. Both theories therefore try to solve this problem by promoting a pragmatic theory to democratize the global political system. The study recognizes some potential problems regarding the way both Macdonald and Dryzek argue for a global democracy. In MacDonald’s theory, the potential problem concerns mainly the lack of a clear definition of the theory’s fundamental part, what a stakeholder is. The potential problems with Dryzek’s theory derive from the fact that he might put to much trust in the concept of reflexive modernization, whether his theory will be able to actually influence discourses despite a lack of formal institutions, and finally if the theory will be able to guarantee political equality in the decision making process.