000			01559pab a2200169 454500
008			180718b2009 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aBenhabib, Seyla
245			_aClaiming rights across borders: international human rights and democratic sovereignty
260			_c2009
300			_ap.691-704.
362			_aNov
520			_aThe status of international law and transnational legal agreements with respect to the sovereignty claims of liberal democracies has become a highly contentious theoretical and political issue. Although recent European discussions focus on global constitutionalism, there is increasing reticence on the part of many that prospects of a world constitution are neither desirable nor salutary. This article more closely considers criticisms of these legal transformations by distinguishing the nationalist from democratic sovereigntiste positions, and both, from diagnoses that see the universalization of human rights norms either as the Trojan horse of a global empire or as neocolonialist intentions to assert imperial control over the world. These critics ignore "the jurisgenerativity of law." Although democratic sovereigntistes are wrong in minimizing how human rights norms improve democratic self-rule; global constitutionalists are also wrong in minimizing the extent to which cosmopolitan norms require local contextualization, interpretation, and vernacularization by self-governing peoples. - Reproduced.
650			_aHuman rights
773			_aAmerican Political Science Review
908			_aN
909			_a85650
999			_c85650 _d85650