Abstract
The post-Cold War world has seen the rise of global governance, a governance by international institutions that increasingly manages to bypass the traditional mechanisms of international law-making and, more importantly, domestic procedures of incorporation. This has put into question the legitimacy of the international legal order for which legal scholars have put forward proposals for reform – a post-national legal order. What they see is the democratic deficit of global governance and propose models of legal order that try to fix it. However, what they do not justify is their basic assumption: why democracy (and equality and rights) in a world that is increasingly rejecting it? By not justifying this assumption, legal scholars have withdrawn themselves from the next ideological debate: why are democracy and rights the best alternatives for a future legal order?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
