Maintaining the essential features of local democracy, representation and contestation, my theory allows for the representation of the interest of subpopulations in the global community by actors such as nongovernmental organization and intergovernmental organizations. I will begin by outlining what features are necessary for a theory’s consideration as democratic in nature. Then, relying upon democracy in a broad sense, it will be my aim to demonstrate that the right to democracy is universal human right. The following stage will provide the backing, by way of the moral progress of human rights, that the right to democracy is expressible by “importantly affected” subgroups in the global arena. The final stage of my conceptual defense will focus on the validation of representatives who have no institutional connection with the populations they represent. With such established, the paper will proceed into a practical defense, discussing how claims made by actors can be accepted or rejected by represented subpopulations. It will then become necessary to demonstrate that the paternalistic claims made by representatives are incorporable into a democratic theory without forgoing the essence of democracy. To show this is feasible, methods of appealing paternalistic claims by way of international human rights courts will be explained. Finally, possibilities to mediate general feasibility issues will be explored.

In this paper, we discuss the bridging potential of “interspecies” solidarity between the often incommensurable ethics of care and justice. Indeed, we show that the Environmental Communication literature emphasizes feelings of care and compassion as vectors of responsibility taking for animals. But we also show that a growing field of Political Animal Rights suggest that such responsibility taking should instead be grounded in universalizable terms of justice. Our argument is that a dual conception of solidarity can bridge this divide: On the one hand, solidarity as a pre-political relation with animals and, on the other hand, as a political practice based on open public deliberation of universalizable claims to justice; that is, claims to justice advanced by human proxy representatives of vulnerable non-humans. Such a dual conception can both challenge and validate NGOs’ claims to “speak on behalf of animals” in policy following the Aarhus Convention, indeed underwriting the Convention by insights from internatural communication in solidarity as relation, and by subjecting it to rational scrutiny in mini-publics in solidary as practice.

Two obstructionist ways of doing politics on contentious wildlife management issues currently reflect a legitimacy deficit in official channels for public engagement. The first is that of a pernicious “direct-action” politics, in the form of resort by hunters in rural Sweden to illegal killings of protected wolves over whose policy they contest. The second obstruction is when environmental non-governmental organizations routinely file appeals in higher-level courtrooms contesting democratically mandated wolf cull decisions. Although markedly different when it comes to their categorically deliberative values as well as fidelity to the law, we argue both extra-legal and the litigative phenomena reflect disenfranchisement with the participation channels in which such controversies may be resolved through a public dialogue. We also argue that both possess negative systemic deliberative value inasmuch as they frustrate goals of reaching deliberative consensus, by contributing to a stalled public communication on wolf management. We address this deficit by appeal to recent developments in the theory and practice of mini-publics that promote both the categorical and systemic deliberative value of channeling contestation. In particular, we appeal to a novel conception of hunter-initiated, but citizen controlled, mini-publics as a vehicle for re-starting stalled public communication on wolf conservation.

Even though there is a strong public support for more ambitious policies to mitigate climate change, the politics do not yet follow. Climate assemblies (CA) have been suggested to improve climate change governance by bringing the citizens into the policymaking. However, in systems of representative democracy, the effect of CAs is largely decided by whether the politicians choose to follow the CA’s recommendations. Therefore, the politicians’ attitudes to CAs are of importance. This study is based on interviews with politicians in four Swedish municipalities who are about to conduct their first CA. The politicians’ attitudes to CAs are explored regarding how they view the democratic qualities of the CA and what their expectations are. The results show that CAs are mainly valued as a tool to create innovative policy proposals that are unlikely to stem out of the regular processes. Furthermore, the politicians see it as advantageous compared to regular citizen participation processes that the participants are well-informed and many social groups are represented. Regarding the role of the CA, the politicians frequently contrast the CA’s narrow focus on climate with their responsibility for the whole municipality. The argument is that the CA is not knowledgeable enough to make prioritisations concerning the whole municipality. Thus, the CA produces recommendations that the politicians will consider, but not necessarily follow. The study also highlights implications of the results for the design of CAs, for example in terms of recruitment and scope. There is no one size fits all approach, instead there are trade-offs that need to be acknowledged in the design to increase the chances of the CA to reach its set purpose.