DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

JURISPRUDENCE

PROJECT WORK

ON:

Symposium: Envisioning a More Democratic Global Democracy

Article By Upendra Baxi
(Critical Analysis)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. MANWENDRA KUMAR TIWARI SAURAV SINGH

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW) B.A.LL.B. (B) V SEM.

Dr. RMLNLU R. NO. 122

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone. Firstly, I would like to
thank respected Asst. Professor Manwendra Kumar Tiwari, for giving me such a golden
opportunity to show my skills and capability through this project.

This project is the result of the extensive ultrapure study, hard work and labour, put into to
make it worth reading. This project has been completed through the generous co-operation of
various persons, especially my seniors, who, in their different potentials helped me a lot in
giving the finishing touch to the project.

This project couldnt be completed without the help of my universitys library Dr. Madhu
Limaye Library and its internet facility.

I am glad to have made it

Thanking You........

2
 CONTENTS

Introduction
Global civil society and its nature
Global Citizenship
Global democratic system
Global Parliament System and Global Parliamentary Assembly
Report on how the Democracy that has been envisioned by Upendra Baxi has 3
angles to it.
Conclusion

3
 Introduction

This research is based on the article written by legal Scholar, Upendra Baxi. The article is
concerned with us symposium which was initiated by Widener University School of Law.
The symposium was to envision a more Democratic global Democracy. In April 2016, fifteen
prominent academics and officials from around the world and an audience of over 200
academics lawyers and students convened Widener University to consider the Global
situation at the beginning of new millennium as we are plagued by war and terrorism.
Millions of people's basic needs are not being met. Global warming and other large human
made environmental problems are having devastating effects on the planet. All of these
problems are at the core, the result of Global political system that is incapable of effectively
governing. This system is weak and ineffective regarded by many as unjust and illegitimate.
So Widener symposium asked:

What can be done?

Can democracy be applied internationally?
Is global democracy an answer to planetary governance challenge of 21st
century?

Professor Andrew Strauss was the chairperson of the symposium and Professor Richard Falk
was the one who initiated that symposium of envisioning a more democratic global
democracy. Symposium was consist of 5 chapters where

Chapter I deals with the various alternative approaches were made to Democraticizing the
Global system.

Chapter II follows with Professor Andrew Strauss presenting the plant which he and
Professor Falk have developed for the Global Parliamentary Assembly. And

Chapter III-V was related with the documents of whether how the International community
should proceed with the global parliament addressing critical questions like:

a) Is Global Parliament Feasible?

b) What are its likely advantages and disadvantages?

c) What Strategies can be used to bring about a Global Parliament?

Professor Falk said that situation of today's world is very disturbing where more and more
energy seems to be going into those issues which divides us.

By having a look through the article, it is very compulsory to know the Concept of Global
Democracy, Global Citizenship, and Global Parliament and more importantly what
Global Civil Society is? I have tried to explain it below in my research work. Further I have

4
also tried to analyze the three angles given by Upendra Baxi related with the Democracy that
has been envisioned.

Global civil society and its nature

Global civil society" refers to the vast assemblage of groups operating across borders and
beyond the reach of governments. Whether such organizations constitute a new, increasingly
autonomous realm or are merely artefacts of Western liberal society is widely debated.
Keane, in this sophisticated exploration of an ambiguous and politically contested
phenomenon, argues that a global civil society is taking shape but that its character and
implications for the older state system remain unclear. The sheer heterogeneity of groups,
activities, and networks that make up global civil society -- nonprofits, businesses, social
movements, tourists, academics, artists, cultural performers, ethnic and linguistic groups, and
so forth -- threatens to make the term a description of everything and nothing. Keane
nonetheless insists that this sprawling rumble does indeed function as a society -- or a
"society of societies" -- with rules and norms of conduct. He admits, however, that global
civil society is still an evolving, open-ended civic sphere whose importance will depend on
its ability to become more democratic, better integrated into governance institutions, and
invested with universal values.1

Global Civil Society has started to work to promote a truly democratic and participatory
public sphere at the global level. In this sense, it has becomes a global public sphere
comprising active citizenship, growing self organisation outside formal political
geographies2. GCS is also considered as a realm of socio-political activity created
domestically and internationally by the expansion of capitalist social relations, where modern
social movements pursue their stated goals. The main agencies associated to the rise of a
GCS, are the INGOs and transnational advocacy groups etc. Global Civil Society is primarily
concern with the issues that are transnational in nature. For example, in addressing the issue
of climate change, various civic associations and INGOs have campaigned on ecological
problems, like the loss of biological diversity and the depletion of ozone layer that have a
supra-territorial impact.3

1
John Keane, Global Civil Society?(17 october, 2017) ,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2003-11-01/global-civil-society
2
P. M. Jenlink, Globalization and the Evolution of Democratic Civil Society: Democracy as Spatial Discourse,
World Futures, Vol. 63, No. 5-6, 2007, pp. 386-407.
3
J. A. Scholte, Global Civil Society, In: L. Richard and M. Smith, Eds., Perspectives on World Politics,
Routledge, New York, 2006.

5
 Global Citizenship

It is a way of living that recognizes our world is an increasingly complex web of connections
and interdependencies. One in which our choices and actions may have repercussions for
people and communities locally, nationally or internationally.4

Global citizenship nurtures personal respect and respect for others, wherever they live. It
encourages individuals to think deeply and critically about what is equitable and just, and
what will minimize harm to our planet. Exploring global citizenship themes help learners
grow more confident in standing up for their beliefs, and more skilled in evaluating the ethics
and impact of their decisions.

A Global Citizen is someone who:

is aware of the wider world and has a sense of their own role as a world citizen
respects and values diversity
has an understanding of how the world works
is outraged by social injustice
participates in the community at a range of levels, from the local to the global
is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place
takes responsibility for their actions.

To be effective Global Citizens, young people need to be flexible, creative and proactive.
They need to be able to solve problems, make decisions, think critically, communicate ideas
effectively and work well within teams and groups. These skills and attributes are
increasingly recognised as being essential to succeed in other areas of 21st century life too,
including many workplaces. These skills and qualities cannot be developed without the use of
active learning methods through which pupils learn by doing and by collaborating with
others.5

Global democratic system

Global democracy is a field of academic study and political activism concerned with making
the global political system more democratic. This topic has become a central area of inquiry
for established literatures including political philosophy, international relations (IR),
international law, and sociology. Along with global justice, global democracy has also been
critical to the emergence of international political theory as a discrete literature in recent

4
Hannah Arendt, An ethic of care for the world.(17 october 2017), http://www.ideas-forum.org.uk/about-
us/global-citizenship

5
http://www.ideas-forum.org.uk/about-us/global-citizenship

6
decades. Whereas global justice scholars tend to focus on how burdens and benefits should be
distributed by international institutions, global democrats probe how political power can be
legitimated beyond the nation-state. Global democracy is therefore concerned with how
transnational decision-making can be justified and who should be entitled to participate in the
formation of global rules, laws, and regulations.6

Why Global Democracy?

Global democrats thus share the view that individuals should collectively rule themselves. To
the extent that decision-making power migrates beyond the state, democracy should follow.
There is, of course, a prior question about why individuals should have roughly equal say in
decision-making in the first place. On one level, it is a simple definitional requirement of
democracy. But this point simply begs the question: why should we pursue democracy at all?
As with theoretical discussions of democracy, a variety of intrinsic and instrumental reasons
for global democracy can be discerned in the literature. Intrinsic justifications point to
democracy as a valuable method of decision-making in-and-of-itself. Instrumental claims
hinge upon the outcome of democracy being beneficial, especially compared to alternatives.

Global Parliament System and Global Parliamentary Assembly

Professor Strauss and Professor Falk in the symposium explained the concept of Global
Parliament System and Global Parliamentary Assembly. Global sentiment overwhelmingly
rejects the Bush doctrine and its antidemocratic assertion of an American right to dictate
collective security unilaterally. Faced with the prospect of a looming war in Iraq, millions
around the world took to the streets in protest, sadly with little discernible effect. Now, in the
aftermath of the war, those who are serious about promoting a world order that is democratic,
equitable and sustainable must consider why so much popular energy produced such meager
results and how such energy can be more effectively harnessed in the future.

First of all, it is important for peace forces to advance beyond protest and rejectionism. The
global peace-and-justice movement urgently requires its own alternative vision. But beyond
this, we believe that this is one of those times when concrete steps for global reform should
be proposed and acted upon. A positive vision of world order and the future of the United
Nations should be as bold in moving toward global democracy as the Bush Administrations
vision is in advancing its plans for global dominance.

Specifically, we suggest introducing into the global arena an institution that enables citizens
to participate directly in the world political process regardless of their geographic location:
namely, a citizen-elected Global Parliamentary Assembly (GPA). The struggle against
American unilateralism will gain strength to the extent that the peoples of the world find
ways to have their voices heard.

At present, there is no consistently effective way to counter the ability of US leaders (or
leaders of any other states, for that matter) to mobilize the citizens and resources of their

6
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/global-democracy/

7
states for purposes at odds with the rules of international law. The world order remains a
global system of states rather than laws when it comes to peace and security. Only when
citizens are given an institutionalized site of struggle in the international system and citizen
politics is allowed to operate beyond the confines of sovereign states is it likely that new
sources of authority will gradually emerge.

A GPA would strengthen the international system by creating a new democratic core to that
system. Vertically, the global parliament would derive legitimacy and power from its direct,
unmediated link to the worlds citizenry. And horizontally this new democratic body would
be uniquely qualified to oversee and link the currently disjointed system of weak and
disparate international organizations. It is important to realize that the UN as currently
constituted is a club of states as represented by governments. How different from the Security
Council debate on the prospective war against Iraq would have been a discussion
representing the strongly held views of citizens.

What they are suggesting is neither a pipe dream nor a grandiose scheme for world
government. Its prototype already exists regionally in the form of the European Parliament.
Established in 1957, the European Parliament is, along with the Council of the European
Union and the European Commission, one of the three lawmaking bodies of the European
Union. In the early days, delegates to the Parliament were appointed by national parliaments,
but in 1979 citizens began directly electing representatives. Though it started life as a largely
advisory body, its character as the direct representative of the European citizenry has created
an inexorable momentum toward empowerment. As a result of the Maastricht, Amsterdam
and Nice treaties over the past decade, the Parliament now has veto power over
approximately 80 percent of European Union legislation. Additional powers are envisioned in
the constitution for the European Union that is currently under consideration.

Like the European Parliament, a global parliament could start modestly and develop
incrementally. It could be established initially in various ways, including as an initiative by a
vanguard of democratic governments willing to act as world order pioneers. As few as
twenty to thirty geographically, culturally and economically diverse countries would be
enough to credibly launch this experiment in global democracy. So as to defuse resistance
from apostles of the status quo, following the example of the European Parliament, its powers
could be advisory during its early years.

Once in place, a global parliament would, it is hoped, over time increase in influence and
reputation. The election process would by itself insure a distinctive institutional identity.
Citizen groups would be encouraged to petition the global parliament to pass resolutions
supportive of their positions. Those opposed to the policy preferences of these citizen groups,
whether industrial lobbies, labour unions, states or other citizen groups, would likely be
unwilling to concede to their opponents the legitimacy of the only popularly elected global
body. Instead, they would likely come to participate as well. It is even possible that
nationalistic critics and policy-makers hostile to global democracy would be inclined to
participate and put forth their own views. As groups found in the parliament a transnational
civic space in which to work out their differences, the centre of political gravity could subtly
shift in the parliaments favour. Allowed for the first time to participate in the international
lawmaking process directly, the organized citizenry would tend to become institutionally
committed to the GPA and invested in its activities.

8
As soon as the parliament begins functioning, citizen groups from countries around the world
could exert pressure on their governments to join in the venture. Once a critical mass of
membership was reached, even authoritarian governments might find it politically awkward
to deny their citizens the right to be represented. At some point in its evolution, the
parliaments formal legal powers, as well as its relationship with the UN, would have to be
worked out and augmented by a constitutional process. Perhaps it could, alongside the
General Assembly, become part of a bicameral global legislative system that would
supplement the Security Council as the organ of the UN entrusted with primary responsibility
in the area of peace and security. Whatever its precise legal evolution, the process of
discovering and legalizing the role of the GPA would itself encourage a worldwide debate on
the shape and substance of global governance.

This evolutionary process would take many years, possibly several decades. During this
period, the parliament could still exert a benign moral influence that would complement the
work of existing civil-society monitors and activists. By holding regional hearings, issuing
reports, responding to citizen petitions and passing resolutions, the GPA could gradually
introduce a greater measure of popular accountability into existing global institutions and
help inform world public opinion about threats to human well-being neglected by states.

The mere establishment of a global parliament would be a welcome step, giving hope in a
dark time. Taking such a step would signal the emergence of a democratic and peace-oriented
alternative to achieving national security through domination and recurrent warfare. In a
global parliament, delegates would not represent states, as they do at the United Nations, but
rather the citizenry directly. As occurs in other multinational parliamentssuch as in India,
Belgium and the European Parliament itselfinstead of voting along strictly national and
ethnic lines, many delegates would come to vote along lines of interest and ideology. Thus,
shifting transnational coalitions seeking the peaceful resolution of international disputes
might be able to discourage political leaders and their publics from a reliance on armed
conflict, and over time this might slowly lead to the withering away of war as a social
institution. At the very least, the global climate would become more receptive to serious
disarmament initiatives.

Likewise, the GPA would offer disaffected citizens a constructive alternative to terrorism and
other forms of political violence. Those alienated by perceived injustices or by global silence
about their grievances would no longer have to choose between surrender and the adoption of
desperate tactics. Instead, they would have a legitimate international forum in which they
could at least be heard and perhaps find enough support to achieve peaceful redress. Citizens
would be able to stand for office, champion candidates and form coalitions to lobby the
parliament, a process that would bring those with diverse or opposing views into a give-and-
take setting that would improve the chances for compromise and reconciliation. Those whose
views did not prevail would likely be more inclined to accept defeat out of a belief in the
fairness of the process, and with an understanding that they could continue to press their
cause on future occasions.

Of course, the brand of religious extremism associated with September 11 is decidedly

antidemocratic in outlook. It is reasonable to question the ability of a parliament to
successfully absorb supporters of Al Qaeda and groups with comparable agendas of violence.
A salient feature of the liberal parliamentary process at its best, however, has been a capacity
to assimilate even those who do not share a pre-existing commitment to democracy. Because
a parliamentary process allows for participation and has the ability to confer popular

9
legitimacy on a policy position, experience suggests that even those with extreme agendas
will often be drawn into the processthough they may voice dissatisfaction with it and be
frequently discouraged by the results. Most aggrieved people in the world, however, are
neither ideologically antidemocratic nor naturally prone to extremism and, therefore, given
democratic options are much less likely to resort to violence. It is notable that Israeli Arabs
continue to value their participation in the Knesset and that Sinn Fein has felt the same with
regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, the Osama bin Ladens of the planet will
never accept the legitimacy of a global parliamentary process. But their ability to attract a
significant following might well be substantially diminished by the presence of such an
institution, especially if the legitimate grievances of peoples around the world were being
consistently addressed with an eye toward the realization of global justice and the promotion
of the rule of law.7

Benefits-

First, by its very existence a global parliament would make the international system more
fair and democratic. There is no principled reason why the establishment of citizen
representative institutions should be the litmus test for legitimate governance at the local,
provincial and national levels, but not at the global level. Surely, the ethical imperative
behind democracy - that all citizens be given a say regardless of ethnicity or local affiliation
and that officials be democratically accountable to those citizens - does not carry with it an
exception for the increasingly important global polity as a whole.

Second, present fragmented global governance of states, by states, and for states is
increasingly unable to solve humanity's common problems. Even in such vital areas as
climate change and the control of weapons of mass destruction, the current system seems
unable to achieve sufficient consensus to implement appropriate policy initiatives. Though a
global parliament would most likely be limited initially to a largely consultative role, the
experience of the European Parliament suggests that the parliament's claim to democratic
authority will contribute to its empowerment, allowing it over time to assume legislative
powers.

Finally, a global parliament would hopefully make the world less prone to war and other
forms of political violence. A functioning assembly of elected delegates from around the
world would help discredit belligerent and fundamentalist ideologies. In addition, if
experience in existing multi-polity parliaments such as India, Belgium, or the European
Union is indicative, national delegations would tend to fragment based on differing class
interests and policy priorities, replacing dangerously nationalist worldviews with far more
fluid transnational parliamentary coalitions.

7
Richard Falk, Andrew Strauss, Toward a Global Parliament(18 october 2017 ),
https://www.thenation.com/article/toward-global-parliament/

10
Global Parliamentary Assembly-

Professor Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss also proposed for a Global Parliamentary
Assembly. Professor Andrew Strauss laid out the proposal with the goal that all citizens on
the planet over a certain age been enfranchised to vote for the representative to parliament.8
Though parliament's power was limited by the principal of subsidiary which says that it
should only involve issues of international concern and it should not interfere in matters of
domestic politics. So as to protect the right of all citizens, the parliament power when fully
realized will be limited by Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Professor Strauss
explained the Global Parliament to start as an Advisory Body.

He further said parliament would be created by an independent treaty. The treaty would be
joined by whichever progressively minded countries those are willing to allow the free and
fair elections within their Countries. It would establish formulas for voting Districts and also
how the cost of parliament would be allocated between treaty member and other legestic.

Report on how the Democracy that has been envisioned by Upendra Baxi has 3 angles
to it.

Understanding the utopian view, this is something having perfect having almost impossibly
ideal conditions especially of social organization. Basically, a utopia is an imagined
community or society that possesses highly desirable or nearly perfect qualities for its
citizens.9 Upendra Baxi, inspired by many philosopher has explained the importance of
Utopian view in emergence of a Global democracy. Baxi has said that Utopian approach
actually influence the global democracy. Many attempts have been made to make the ideal
world. Because there are many situations which if considered cannot lead to global
democracy given by Baxi. For example, inter-state dispute etc. Agreeing to Upendra Baxi's,
utopian approach do affects the global democracy. Until or unless these factors are not
considered we cannot even envision a more Democratic Global Democracy. but it can't be
said that attempts are not made in order to make a ideal world, Baxi's utopian view in this
clearly shows that Many attempts are made like creation of ILO, League of Nations, United
Nations etc.

Coming to the second approach, Pragmatic. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that

began in the United States around 1870.10 Their origins are often attributed to the Philosopher
William Jones, John Dewey and Charles Sanders Pierce. They described it in their Pragmatic
maxim: "Consider the practical effects of the Objects of your conception. Then, your

8
Falk & Strauss, Toward Global Parliament, supra note 1, at 218.
9 Giroux, H., 2003. Utopian thinking under the sign of neoliberalism: Towards a critical pedagogy of educated
hope. Democracy & Nature, 9(1), pp.91-105.

10
Pragmatism. 13 September 2013. Retrieved 13 September 2013.

11
conception of those effects is the whole of your of the object.".11 Baxi through his Practical
approach says that the Hegemony and the domination of Great Countries cannot come to an
end. Hegemony will always exist and so will always affects the creation of Global
Democracy. For example, the cold war and Concept of Colonialization. He also advices that
to make things good at world level there would be a requirement of discipline. What Baxi
said is totally acceptable in today's world according to my point of view. Explaining it with
example of rogue nation like North Korea, there occurs a lot of violence in such country. So
there is a need of disciplinary Globalization. Also reparation has to be made to nation which
had been colonized by great powers in order to bring them to the same level. So these are the
practical approach which can be considered to make a democratic global democracy.

The very last view is Nihilistic Approach. Nihilism is a philosophical doctrine that suggests
the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. It is basically the
rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief
that nothing in the world has a real existence. If I talk about in context of Upendra Baxi,
Global democracy is almost impossible because of terror wars. Basically I found the
Nihilistic approach is quite unrealistic.

Conclusion

After going through the article written by Upendra Baxi and concept given under the
symposium by Widener University School of Law, the main question arises is that: Is Global
Democracy Possible?

Democratic governance has been defined as autonomous determination of the conditions of

collective association, being also connected with a collective self-determination by equal and
free citizens, that should be able to choose freely the conditions of their own association and
determine the form and direction of their polity. It is also about a common structure of
political action, that should be neutral regarding the relations and institutions which can be
regarded as impartial or even-handed with respect to their personal ends, hopes and
aspirations.

The possibility of a democratically governed global polity is considered to be incompatible

with necessary conditions for democratic governance, or, on the other hand, with the
necessary conditions for international structural change although the arguments regarding this
necessary conditions are not compelling. Global democracy represents a real challenge,
without being impossible and very difficult to explain causally.

11
Peirce, C. S. (1878), "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, 286302. Reprinted
often, including Collected Papers v. 5, paragraphs 388410 and Essential Peirce v. 1, 12441. See end of II for
the pragmatic maxim. See third and fourth paragraphs in IV for the discoverability of truth and the real by
sufficient investigation.

12
The requirements for global democracy are unclear, based on several relevant factors: the
stateness component, the cultural homogeneity, a certain level of economic prosperity, and a
certain level of economic equality.

While the sphere of domestic politics, considered to represents the main space for democracy
is part of the sphere of international politics, the sphere of domestic economy, developed in
some aspects under public control and within the reach of democratic politics, is part of the
sphere of the world economy. The result is considered as ambivalent and contested by
regional and global multilateral treaties and institutions such as the EU and
NAFTA.The globalization concept involves various economic and neoliberal senses that
have been fetishised and mystified as an inevitable process in numberless times. Global polity
is directly connected to three main factors, in order to become a concrete reality: citizen
participation, government responsiveness, and patterns of public policy-making and their
consequences. The terms are relative, as they can be considered from multilateral points,
especially from the inside and outside references.

The contemporary crisis of democracy regards the borders between political and economic,
and inside and outside of the space for democratic politics within liberal states. The practices
and institutions of capitalist market society have been developed by sovereign states in the
context of interstate diplomacy and law, being considered as the origin of the balance of
power, from the cosmopolitan perspective of a world revolution. The result was unclear as it
created more questions than ever: was the idea of national self-determination just pen name?

The Global Wars and the major historical events have brought a new wave of incertitude
regarding the form and direction of their polity. Democracy has not ever been existing as a
reality of choice.

Because of the democratic possibilities and tendencies, the legitimization of a global rule is
hard to be proved. Democracy is strongly connected to the global democracy, especially now,
in a deep crisis. Without this necessary dependence, democracy has no value, as it must be
based on an open-ended process of democratization.

13