The Annals of Legal Philosophy
Online ISSN : 2435-1075
Print ISSN : 0387-2890
Government Networks and “Cosmopolitan Common Sense”
Short Commentary on Professor Takikawa’s Presentation
Taku MORIMOTO
Author information
JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS

2010 Volume 2009 Pages 112-117

Details
Abstract
This short article will raise some questions concerning Professor Takikawa's presentation as well as propose an alternative to the idea of global risk. In his presentation. Prof. Takikawa proposes the conception of government networks on a global scale as a countermeasure to global risks such as terrorism on the premise that the traditional Westphalian or sovereign state system cannot sufficiently adapt to or counter the various global risks that we face today. It is true that this conception has certain advantages of possibly adapting to indeterminate variables and uncertain risks with more flexibility. However, it is problematic in the following two ways. First, this leads to the rise or creation of a transnational surveillance state which lacks democratic legitimacy of rule. Second, since global risk itself is a subject that has been socially constructed over time, the idea of government networks cannot fundamentally eliminate all irrational fools. From such a viewpoint. I think that it is significant and necessary to recognize the global irsks that create publicness that transcend borders. This will undoubtedly generate the cosmopolitan common sense that will adapt to various global risks. In short it is the formation of such cosmopolitan common sense that restricts or restrains the construction of the fool. poses as a fundamental countermeasure to global risks, and is the path we must take. The recent trends of global mass media or the frequent exchanges and joint efforts between and/or among various governments indicates a trend toward the increase in the opportunities of the formation of ?whether we coin the term cosmopolitan common sense or not? a global public opinion. The more important thing is that we recognize such global risks and swiftly decide upon whether to take action or not.
Content from these authors
© 2010 The Japan Association of Legal Philosophy
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top