Sovereignty is one of the most controversial ideas in political science. Many philosophers have written on this concept, and each of them interprets it differently. In this essay, I focus on Thomas Pogge’s conception of sovereignty that is largely influenced by liberalism. Pogge argues for a multi-layered scheme where borders could be redrawn more easily. According to him, sovereignty should be dispersed vertically instead of concentrating it at one level – the state. However, Pogge’s conception of sovereignty is flimsy. Instead, it is a romanticisation of political reality. In order to demonstrate this, this essay will provide a realist critique of his main arguments for a vertical dispersal of sovereignty – peace/security; reduces oppression; global economic justice; and ecology.
First, Pogge’s argument that a vertical dispersion of sovereignty promotes peace and security is a utopian ideal that does not resonate well with political reality. He argues that in the current state of affairs, outbreak of devastating wars for various reasons is only a matter of time …show more content…
To argue that this provides check and balance on national government is to imply that perfectibility is achievable, which is rarely the case. Perfectionism is one of the core tenets of Liberalism that assumes moral perfection is attainable because humanity is good in nature. In this sense, Pogge’s argument is melioristic. A realist critique of this argument would be that we must not assume every member of a political community will act in a principled manner because there are bound to be some who are “impaired in their capacity for justice”, while others lack it outright. In both scenarios, no institutions or policies can change this fact. In other words, even with the changes proposed by Pogge, the new global institutional scheme would not be able to ensure national governments act
First, Pogge’s argument that a vertical dispersion of sovereignty promotes peace and security is a utopian ideal that does not resonate well with political reality. He argues that in the current state of affairs, outbreak of devastating wars for various reasons is only a matter of time …show more content…
To argue that this provides check and balance on national government is to imply that perfectibility is achievable, which is rarely the case. Perfectionism is one of the core tenets of Liberalism that assumes moral perfection is attainable because humanity is good in nature. In this sense, Pogge’s argument is melioristic. A realist critique of this argument would be that we must not assume every member of a political community will act in a principled manner because there are bound to be some who are “impaired in their capacity for justice”, while others lack it outright. In both scenarios, no institutions or policies can change this fact. In other words, even with the changes proposed by Pogge, the new global institutional scheme would not be able to ensure national governments act