Nations are not citizen-elected officials and no direct accountability to citizen concerns. Moreover, questions of legitimacy and effectiveness of the United Nations and affiliated international institutions still hangs in question in Global Cosmopolitanism. The issue of symbolism in soft law versus the effectiveness of enforced hard law has spurred academic conversations for decades. Implications of Practice for Transnational Discursive Democracy Transnational Discursive Democracy shows most prominently in site host and DBT design analysis, although both citizen response and site hosts agree in favor of the educational materials used for the deliberations. I highlight the overlapping opinions in lieu of the communicative core of Discursive Democracy. Scientific and social information distributed to participants proved to be a positive tool for all parties. There is solidifying contentment with the information provided as the basic talking point and connection. These ideas of citizen deliberations and biodiversity issues snowballed a network of affiliates together in a common project. The capacity of the network exemplifies possibilities of civil society around a common idea, as suggested in Transnational Discursive Democracy. While the power of a communicative network is demonstrated in the organizing of World Wide Views on Biodiversity, the strength and extent of the network may come into question against such as: Would the network be more successful if it was institutionalized? Would greater decentralization and less strict and demanding procedures allow the network greater capacity to expand?
Nations are not citizen-elected officials and no direct accountability to citizen concerns. Moreover, questions of legitimacy and effectiveness of the United Nations and affiliated international institutions still hangs in question in Global Cosmopolitanism. The issue of symbolism in soft law versus the effectiveness of enforced hard law has spurred academic conversations for decades. Implications of Practice for Transnational Discursive Democracy Transnational Discursive Democracy shows most prominently in site host and DBT design analysis, although both citizen response and site hosts agree in favor of the educational materials used for the deliberations. I highlight the overlapping opinions in lieu of the communicative core of Discursive Democracy. Scientific and social information distributed to participants proved to be a positive tool for all parties. There is solidifying contentment with the information provided as the basic talking point and connection. These ideas of citizen deliberations and biodiversity issues snowballed a network of affiliates together in a common project. The capacity of the network exemplifies possibilities of civil society around a common idea, as suggested in Transnational Discursive Democracy. While the power of a communicative network is demonstrated in the organizing of World Wide Views on Biodiversity, the strength and extent of the network may come into question against such as: Would the network be more successful if it was institutionalized? Would greater decentralization and less strict and demanding procedures allow the network greater capacity to expand?