La recherche porte sur l’actualité de la notion de cosmopolitisme. L’origine de cette notion remonte en effet aux racines de la philosophie, mais la période contemporaine présente une caractéristique inédite dans la mesure où elle offre la possibilité d’envisager, pour la première fois, une traduction politique de ce concept. Certes le cosmopolitisme a toujours eu une dimension politique, mais, aujourd’hui, la « citoyenneté » dont il est question dans l’idée de « citoyenneté mondiale » n’est plus seulement métaphorique. Ce travail peut donc être vu comme une théorisation générale du cosmopolitisme politique contemporain. La thèse défendue est la suivante : la notion de « citoyenneté mondiale » a gagné une effectivité politique nouvelle à l’époque contemporaine. Ce travail se propose d’analyser le cadre conceptuel proposé par ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui la « démocratie cosmopolitique », c'est-à-dire le cosmopolitisme politique. Il s’agira de l’articuler à une compréhension plus générale du concept de cosmopolitisme, de montrer les biais par lesquels le cosmopolitisme gagne en effectivité sur le plan politique, et de mesurer la pertinence des critiques possibles. / The research focuses on the notion of cosmopolitanism as it applies today. The origin of this concept dates back to the roots of philosophy, but the contemporary period presents a unique characteristic which, for the first time, offers the possibility to consider this concept in a political sense. While cosmopolitanism has always had a political dimension, today "citizenship", when applied to "global citizenship", is no longer purely metaphorical.This work can therefore be seen as a general theory of contemporary political cosmopolitanism. The supported point of view is the following: the notion of "global citizenship" has taken a new political reality in modern times. This essay aims at analyzing the conceptual framework of what is now called the "cosmopolitan democracy", i.e. "political cosmopolitanism". It will articulate this conception to a more general understanding of the concept of cosmopolitanism, show the ways through which cosmopolitanism becomes more effective in the political sphere, and assess the relevance of possible critics.

Today, one of the most compelling issues facing students of environmental politics is global environmental governance’s democratic legitimacy. Critics of multilateral and transnational sustainable development negotiations and implementations perceive these as democratically deficient, due to non-state actors deciding over nation-state politics. Multilateralism is then seen as a governance structure which sacrifices state sovereignty, which is the pillar of modern democratic theory together with the concept of national demos. Yet, other theorists consider global environmental governance and multilateralism to foster democratization beyond the concept of the nation-state – something which by them is understood as necessary in a world with ever-increasing supranational environmental and developmental issues. Since 1992, the United Nations has implemented stakeholder models, meaning multi-stakeholder partnership and civil society involvement in sustainable development negotiations, as a way of raising democratic legitimacy and accountability. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals is the culmination of these efforts and the globally guiding document on the subject. The Agenda is a result of the broadest deliberation strategy ever employed by the UN. Via typological content analysis and viewing the Agenda through our theoretical framework, we understand that the UN applying stakeholder models does not necessarily mean evoking stakeholder democracy. Furthermore, democracy is largely construed as a tool for sustainable development and less as an end per se, even if the two are sometimes communicated as equal objectives. All in all, whether one interprets sustainable development negotiations as democratically legitimate or deficient depends on one’s view of democracy beyond the nation- state, as either a possible and necessary notion or a directly undemocratic one. / Idag är global miljöstyrnings demokratiska legitimitet ett av de mest åtråvärda forskningsproblemen inom miljöpolitiska studier. Kritiker av multilaterala och transnationella förhandlingar rörande hållbar utveckling och implementering uppfattar dessa som demokratiskt bristfälliga, då icke-statliga aktörer bestämmer över nationalstaters politik. Multilateralism ses då som en styrelseskicksstruktur som offrar nationalstaters suveränitet, vilket tillsammans med konceptet nationellt demos är kärnan i modern demokratisk teori. Dock anser andra teoretiker att global miljöstyrning och multilateralism kan befrämja demokratisering bortom nationalstater - något som av dessa anses som nödvändigt i en värld med ständig ökning av överstatliga miljö- och utvecklingsproblem. Sedan 1992 har Förenta Nationerna verkställt intressentmodeller, alltså multi- intressentpartnerskap och civilsamhällsinvolvering i hållbar utvecklings-förhandlingar, som ett sätt att höja demokratisk legitimitet och ansvarsskyldighet. Agenda 2030 och dess 17 globala mål för hållbar utveckling är kulmineringen av dessa satsningar, och det globalt ledande dokumentet gällande ämnet. Agendan och dess grundarbete är resultatet av den till dagsdatum största och mest omfattande överläggningsstrategi som FN någonsin använt sig av. Via typologisk innehållsanalys, och granskning av Agendan genom vårt teoretiska ramverk, så tolkar vi att FN:s genomförande av intressentmodeller inte nödvändigtvis innebär en frammaning av ett uteslutande intressentdemokratiskt ideal. I tillägg så kommuniceras demokrati mestadels som ett verktyg för hållbar utveckling, även om dessa två koncept delvis beskrivs som likvärdi ga mål. Huruvida förhandlingar kring hållbar utveckling uppfattas som demokratiskt legitima eller bristfälliga beror på tolkarens syn på demokrati utanför nationalstaten, som antingen en möjlig och nödvändig uppfattning, eller som en direkt odemokratisk sådan.

O presente estudo propõe-se a investigar o potencial de o projeto de democracia cosmopolita, tal como formulado por David Held, Anthony McGrew e Daniele Archibugi, suprir o déficit democrático das instituições representativas brasileiras decorrente dos fenômenos da globalização e do policentrismo do poder, no contexto da atual crise econômica mundial. Trata-se, pois, de se contrapor o modelo cosmopolita, de caráter transterritorial, ao modelo representativo, de base territorial. A pesquisa segue um plano analítico político-jurídico, ou seja, sua sede epistemológica é a Teoria Geral do Estado. / This study wants to investigate the potential of the project of cosmopolitan democracy, how it was formulated by David Held, Anthony McGrew and Daniele Archibugi, to supply de democratic deficit of the Brazilians institutional organizations, occurred because the phenomenon of globalization and polycentrism of power, in the context of now global economic crisis. Therefore, we will compare the cosmopolitan model, of transterritorial character, and the representative model, based on the territory. This research follows a politic-juridical plan, so, its epistemological place is the General Theory of State.

O presente estudo propõe-se a investigar o potencial de o projeto de democracia cosmopolita, tal como formulado por David Held, Anthony McGrew e Daniele Archibugi, suprir o déficit democrático das instituições representativas brasileiras decorrente dos fenômenos da globalização e do policentrismo do poder, no contexto da atual crise econômica mundial. Trata-se, pois, de se contrapor o modelo cosmopolita, de caráter transterritorial, ao modelo representativo, de base territorial. A pesquisa segue um plano analítico político-jurídico, ou seja, sua sede epistemológica é a Teoria Geral do Estado. / This study wants to investigate the potential of the project of cosmopolitan democracy, how it was formulated by David Held, Anthony McGrew and Daniele Archibugi, to supply de democratic deficit of the Brazilians institutional organizations, occurred because the phenomenon of globalization and polycentrism of power, in the context of now global economic crisis. Therefore, we will compare the cosmopolitan model, of transterritorial character, and the representative model, based on the territory. This research follows a politic-juridical plan, so, its epistemological place is the General Theory of State.

The aim of this study was to identify if digital games could be used as a method to study Cosmopolitan Democracy. Using a mixed methods approach, players of the Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV) community were asked to answer a questionnaire concerning the importance of age, gender and nationality of other players, in order to see if their values aligned with those of Cosmopolitan Democracy. The questionnaire also investigated the use of the Auto-Translate feature in FFXIV to examine its usefulness as a lingua franca to bridge gaps in language equality. Furthermore a literature review on the use of digital games in education and ideologies was conducted. The results showed that the values of the FFXIV community do align with those of Cosmopolitan Democracy, that Auto-Translate successfully acts as a lingua franca, and that games have a history of teaching players about differing ideologies. The conclusions advocated the creation of a game based on Cosmopolitan Democracy, allowing for players to experience the democratic model and for researchers to gather data on its functionality.