Call for papers vol 9, no. 1, 2018 is open until 30 March 2018


Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail


and while democracy and the protection of human rights were becoming a civilizational axiom,
authoritarian, tyranical, the so called, rogue states were surviving in various parts of
the world. The ambiguities of the restructuring become the basis for the emergence of the
new normative project, the basis for launching new rules and redefining the obligations of
the international community beyond the existing norms of the international law. It appeared
under various headings - developing cosmopolitan law/global democracy, comprehensive
human security, global governance, etc. The underlying assumption was that a transition
from an order, based on the sovereignity norm to a cosmopolitan order was necessary, for
the world was becoming interdependent not only economically and politically, but morally,
as well. Therefore, the classical, Westphalian, principle of non-interference in internal matters
was becoming ahistorical. In order to adequatly respond to the new challenges and
reach higher ethical standards, the advocates of the new normative order asserted that the
relationship between territorial integrity and self-determination has to be reinterpreted,
the right to military intervention in the internal affairs of sovereing states in the name of
extending democracry and protecting human rights has to be recognized, while the concept
of self-defence has to be redefined allowing for preventive and pre-emptive strikes, even
transitional occupation, due to the aggressive nature of some of the regimes and new nonstate
actors. New types of missions - spreading democracy, bringing tyranicall regimes
down - have to be carried out, and new responsibilities assumed, above all, to protect
citizens from massive violations of human rights. The argument was that the respect for
the sovereignty norm2 can not continue to be a rationalization for indifference, inaction, for
the abandonment of countless individuals, citizens to the massive violation of their rights
due to the violence of an authoritarian regime, or the incapacitated, weak state.
In principle, the advocacy of the cosmopolitan order was voicing a legitimate concern for the
development of global democracy, the wellbeing of citizens and their rights beyond the walls of
the nation state at a historical moment when the state was udergoing fundamental
transformations and global interdependence was reaching unprecedented levels. However, a
closer look at the practice attempting to implement and legitimize a new emerging normative
narrative, is pointing to a forceful, but uneven relativization of sovereignty - primarily of the
small and weak states, and the creation of new foundations for the arbitrary use of violent
means by the powerful states – extending democracy by non-democratic means,
instrumentalizing the issue of human rights protection for domination.3 Thus, the relevant
2 Susan L. Woodward, „Compromised Sovereignty to Create Sovereignty“, in: Stephan. D. Krasner, (ed) (2001),
Problematic Sovereignty, New York, Columbia UP, pp. 252-300.
See: Costas Douzinas (2009), Ljudska prava i imperija, politička filozofija kosmopolitizma (Human Rights and
Empire, The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism), Belgrade, Službeni glasnik.

Creative Commons License
Security Dialogues by Toni Mileski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at

Copyright © 2012 Security Dialogues. Designed by Cube Systems