outside of the system entirely, is even further evidence that the system does not hold the answer to problems presented here: the problem of the right to have rights and oppression. This is very similar to what Benhabib points out, although she goes about it in a different way, which will be elaborated on further. What has become abundantly clear is that rights require belonging to a nation-state (or some other political community) as a necessary precondition. Or at least this is what Arendt observed in her extensive historical research and in her own situation of stateless as a Jew who fled Nazi Germany. This is not an inherently natural order and proponents of the Westphalian structure may have led the world to believe. The sovereign state is an artifact. It is a creation and function of human history and the interactions of socio-political beings. It has changed and evolved. It can continue to do so. What cosmopolitan federalism seeks to offer is a true alternative to the Westphalian system as this structure has become unintentionally destabilized and increasingly post-Westphalian, at least in strict terms of the supremacy of national sovereignty, primarily due to economic and environmental processes but also politically. These are changes that are occurring now whether people like it or not, what are being called for here are intentional changes to the international system to a supranational system based on shared underlying principles that are culturally sensitive and universally acceptable. BEYOND THE PROBLEM: BEYOND THE BINARY OF ABSOLUTE INCLUSION/EXCLUSION The right to have rights does not just express the concept of absolute inclusion or exclusion, in a binary sense (Although this could be one interpretation of how Arendt presents it). What this concept and real problem illuminates for us intellectually is that inclusion and exclusion rarely functions binaristically. There can be forced inclusion in a specific which would seem to violate any demos, autonomous choice that individuals may have. There can be partial inclusion. We see this with the status of Palestinians within the imperial borders of Israel, under internationally legally suspect
outside of the system entirely, is even further evidence that the system does not hold the answer to problems presented here: the problem of the right to have rights and oppression. This is very similar to what Benhabib points out, although she goes about it in a different way, which will be elaborated on further. What has become abundantly clear is that rights require belonging to a nation-state (or some other political community) as a necessary precondition. Or at least this is what Arendt observed in her extensive historical research and in her own situation of stateless as a Jew who fled Nazi Germany. This is not an inherently natural order and proponents of the Westphalian structure may have led the world to believe. The sovereign state is an artifact. It is a creation and function of human history and the interactions of socio-political beings. It has changed and evolved. It can continue to do so. What cosmopolitan federalism seeks to offer is a true alternative to the Westphalian system as this structure has become unintentionally destabilized and increasingly post-Westphalian, at least in strict terms of the supremacy of national sovereignty, primarily due to economic and environmental processes but also politically. These are changes that are occurring now whether people like it or not, what are being called for here are intentional changes to the international system to a supranational system based on shared underlying principles that are culturally sensitive and universally acceptable. BEYOND THE PROBLEM: BEYOND THE BINARY OF ABSOLUTE INCLUSION/EXCLUSION The right to have rights does not just express the concept of absolute inclusion or exclusion, in a binary sense (Although this could be one interpretation of how Arendt presents it). What this concept and real problem illuminates for us intellectually is that inclusion and exclusion rarely functions binaristically. There can be forced inclusion in a specific demos, which would seem to violate any autonomous choice that individuals may have. There can be partial inclusion. We see this with the status of Palestinians within the imperial borders of Israel, under internationally legally suspect
sculos.docx