If global governance is consequential, its legitimacy ought to rest on principles of democracy. However, unilateral action such as that taken by the USA in Iraq and elsewhere has hurt the most visible such project, cosmopolitan democracy, by undermining its liberal multilateralist foundations. Other democratic projects have not been quite so badly damaged, in particular, the idea of a transnational discursive democracy grounded in the engagement of discourses in international public spheres. The discourse aspects of international affairs are important when it comes to issues of war and peace, conflict and security, no less so here than elsewhere. Democracy faces competition in the informal realm of discourses from both the “war of ideas” and “soft power” projections, but can hold up well against them, and can more easily pass the test of reflexivity. Discursive democracy can help constitute effective responses to global insecurity.
Archibugi, Daniele and Held, David , eds (1995). Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order. Cambridge: Polity .
2.
Archibugi, Daniele , Held, David and Khler, Martin , eds (1998). Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. Cambridge: Polity .
3.
Beck, Ulrich , Giddens, Anthony and Lash, Scott (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Traditions, and Aesthetics. Cambridge: Polity .
4.
Berejikian, Jeffrey and Dryzek, John S. (2000). “Reflexive Action in International Politics” , British Journal of Political Science30: 193–216 .
5.
Bohman, James (1998). “The Globalization of the Public Sphere: Cosmopolitan Publicity and the Problem of Cultural Pluralism” , Philosophy and Social Criticism24: 199–216 .
6.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press .
7.
Burke, Jason (2003). “What is al-Qaeda?”The Observer(London), July 13, URL: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,996509,00.html.
8.
Canberra Times(2003). August 13: 1–1.
9.
Chambers, Simone (2003). “Deliberative Democratic Theory” , Annual Review of Political Science6: 307–326 .
10.
Chandhoke, Neera (2003). The Conceits of Civil Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press .
11.
Checkel, Jeffrey (1988). “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory” , World Politics50: 324–328 .
12.
Cochran, Molly (1999). Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
13.
Dryzek, John S. (1999). “Transnational Democracy” , Journal of Political Philosophy7: 30–51 .
14.
Dryzek, John S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
15.
Edelman, Murray (1971). Politics as Symbolic Action. New York: Academic Press .
16.
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (2001). “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics” , Annual Review of Political Science4: 391–416 .
17.
Gallup International (2003). Survey, April/May, URL (consulted July 8, 2003): http://www.gallup-international.com/surveys.htm.
18.
George, Jim (1994). Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner .
19.
Giddens, Anthony (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press .
20.
Guardian Weekly(2002). December 5–11: 14–14.
21.
Habermas, Jürgen (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
22.
Habermas, Jürgen (2001). The Postnational Constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
23.
Heins, Volker (2004). “Civil Society's Barbarisms” , European Journal of Social Theory7: 499–517 .
24.
Held, David (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Nation State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge: Polity .
25.
Held, David (2003). “Return to the State of Nature”, Open Democracy, March 20. URL (consulted April 21, 2004): www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2–88–1065.jsp.
26.
Held, David (2004). Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity .
27.
Holden, Barry , ed. (1999). Global Democracy: Key Debates. London: Routledge .
28.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone/Simon and Schuster .
29.
Kaldor, Mary (2003). Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge: Polity .
30.
Lieven, Anatol (2004a). “Demon in the Cellar” , Prospect96 (March): 28–33 .
31.
Lieven, Anatol (2004b). America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism. New York: HarperCollins .
32.
Litfin, Karen T. (1994). Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press .
33.
McGrew, Anthony (2002). “Transnational Democracy”, in April Carter and Geoffrey Stokes (eds), Democratic Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity .
34.
Milliken, Jennifer (1999). “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods” , European Journal of International Relations5: 225–254 .
35.
Neumann, Iver B. (2002). “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy” , Millennium31: 627–651 .
36.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Cannot Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University Press .
37.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr (2003). “Propaganda Isn't the Way: Soft Power”, International Herald Tribune, January 10, URL: www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/nye_softpower_iht_011003.htm.
38.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs .
39.
Patomäki, Heikki (2003). “Problems of Democratizing Global Governance: Time, Space and the Emancipatory Process” , European Journal of International Relations9: 347–376 .
40.
Price, Richard and Reus-Smit, Christian (1998). “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism” , European Journal of International Relations4: 259–294 .
41.
Reus-Smit, Christian (2004). American Power and World Order. Cambridge: Polity .
42.
Risse, Thomas (2000). “‘Let's Argue!’ Communicative Action in World Politics” , International Organization54: 1–39 .
43.
Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto , eds (1992). Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press .
44.
Scheuerman, William E. (2006). “Critical Theory Beyond Habermas”, in John S. Dryzek , Bonnie Honig and Anne Phillips (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
45.
Scott, James C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
46.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton .
47.
Thompson, Dennis (1999). “Democratic Theory and Global Society” , Journal of Political Philosophy7: 111–125 .
48.
Torgerson, Douglas (1995). “The Uncertain Quest for Sustainability: Public Discourse and the Politics of Environmentalism”, in Frank Fischer and Michael Black (eds), Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a Sustainable Future. Liverpool: Paul Chapman .
49.
Tribe, Laurence (1973). “Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of Instrumental Rationality” , Southern California Law Review46: 617–660 .
50.
US Department of State (2003). Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington, DC: US Department of State .
51.
Van Ham, Peter (2002). “Branding Territory: Inside the Wonderful Worlds of PR and IR Theory” , Millennium31: 249–269 .
52.
Von Hayek, Friedrich A. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
53.
Walker, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
54.
Weldes, Jutta (1996). Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
55.
Weldes, Jutta and Saco, Diana (1996). “Making State Action Possible: The United States and the Discursive Construction of ‘The Cuban Problem’” , Millennium25: 361–395 .
56.
Wendt, Alexander (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” , International Organization46: 391–425 .
57.
Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
58.
Young, Iris Marion (1997). “Difference as a Resource for Democratic Communication”, in James Bohman and William Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
