2025/05/15 by Kilian Spandler · 2 voices · 3 citations
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Aggression #Agonistic behaviour #Corporate governance #Democracy #Economics #Epistemology #International Relations and Foreign Policy #Law #Law and economics #Linguistics #Management #Norm (philosophy) #Philosophy #Pluralism (philosophy) #Political economy #Political science #Polysemy #Psychology #Social psychology #Sociology
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s1752971925000053
published in International Theory 17(3), 320-349 (Cambridge University Press)
openalex publication_date 2025/05/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/17
Abstract This article examines the democratic potential of global network governance. It critiques conventional legitimacy frameworks that focus on the institutional qualities of governance networks for evading deeper ethical questions about how to deal with diversity as a fundamental condition of global life. Drawing on contestation theory, English School pluralism, and radical democratic theory, I argue that democratic network governance thrives by embracing diverse norm interpretations and fostering agonistic engagement among its members. I illustrate how this idea can guide a critical analysis of global governance networks through a case study of humanitarian governance in Southeast Asia. I assess to what extent diverse humanitarian actors have been able to assert and practise their own interpretations of humanitarian norms, how they relate to the fact that others advance competing understandings, and whether the boundaries for legitimate norm enactments are drawn on legitimate grounds. By highlighting the ethical significance of these dynamics from a pluralist standpoint, the study offers a novel way of thinking about democracy in a world that is characterised by complex policy problems, diffuse authority, and vocal demands for recognition by an increasingly diverse array of actors.