Human Rights and Empire

"It’s interesting because Costas is not particularly specific about whose empire it is – it has more to do with the general rise and rise of human rights. He argues that the rise can achieve the political objectives of the powerful – particularly the Western states. The flexibility that Western states apply regarding interventions works for them very well. One of the things I like about his book is that he makes a case for universalism – what he calls cosmopolitanism in the old philosophical tradition. I don’t know that it can be realised in any immediate sense but I think it is a worthwhile aspiration, though I do consider 'universalism' a stronger and better term. It means progressing to a world that is more integrated, with greater solidarity between different peoples. Even if it’s abstract and utopian in this day and age, it gives a sense of something we should move towards. No, I think a world state would be a good thing. Though there seems no way to realise it in the near future. But the best way of achieving it would be through the sovereign state. The UN and the institutions of global governance that exist today are often offered up as a compromise to the state while avoiding the dangers of world government. I think we should reject this option. Instead of muddling through with all these confusing and overlapping jurisdictions and authorities in international politics, it would be better to use the principles of self-determination and sovereignty as a springboard towards moving towards a more universal world politics."