Held's Cosmopolitism Analysis

The author Held defines cosmopolitism as this ideal that enables people to see themselves as a part of a larger cultural, moral political community. Held explains cosmopolitism with an emphasis on the roots of cosmopolitan law. One of the things he points to is “universal hospitality” the idea that everyone anywhere has the right to seek admission to any other country and they have the right to be heard. Further more they have the right to make an appearance in public and have the ability to make their case, to have a hearing for example. Held suggests what underlies this is the notion that everybody has this equal moral standing and everyone the ability to make their voice heard in the state, that they have the right to do this in a way that …show more content…
Kant defines this cosmopolitan hospitality as the right of a foreigner not to be treated with hostility because he has arrived on the land of another. One can see the relevance of this right in the contemporary world, as accessibility in traveling to other states has become an everyday routine. Therefor this right of hospitality is something we have to bare in mind, to protect people on a global scale. Through a summary of Held’s arguments on cosmopolitanism law one can see why its necessary in the realization of human rights projects and global social justice as it enables people the rights to be heard.
As far as critics go, Calhoun is a fairly sympathetic critic within his writing one can see that he likes the idea of cosmopolatinism yet he suggests in it’s current sort of form it just does not go far enough. Calouhn emphasizes some of the potential …show more content…
For instance Fine critiques the idealism of cosmopolitanism, and suggests in ourder for it to be effective we must focus on the frameworks that will promote a practical human rights culture . Calhoun similarly discusses the concern with cosmopolitanism not being effective enough to promote a less fractured world. He suggests it needs a change of focus as right now its focus is primarily on individual rights and is ignoring the role of global capitalism. Though one could argue that in the face of state violence this ideal is imperative to maintain some minimal form of human society or community on a global scale. With this sense of global society there would be a responsibility attached to this power not to remain inactive in the face of state violence. Cosmopolitanism can serve as a universal responsibility, it can impose governance of international affairs through non violent processes of communicative interaction (Fine, 82). Therefor as one can see the critics are correct in that cosmopolitanism has limited effectiveness to promote an equal world, but with a change in focus it may be deemed effective. Cosmopolitan ideals are more necessary than ever given the recent resurgence of nationalist and isolationist politics worldwide. More specifically this is addressing issues such as the