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 betwixt cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, give ins. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not of necessity by socialisation, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any crystallize of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or commu nities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, indeed intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International transaction p. 173A)Communitarianism says that communities themselves define what rightful conduct is, and therefore should not be have 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 cannot be a universal moral standard because where would these standards come from? Who would decide what is right and wrong? However, the argument communitarianism can be turned against it if these communities are nation-states. It is only 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 eve ry community must abide. They allow for state autonomy, but only to an extent. States must not be able to be completely self-determined and free from moral obligations to the rest of the international community. But this raises hearty questions. Can a universal moral standard exist? And how can it apply to all states? While cosmopolitanism allows for some state autonomy, the moral standard would suppose 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 control intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics An Introduction to International 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)Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism dif fer vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the ensure 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.