Towards a New Cosmopolitanism: Global Reflexive Interactive Democracy as a New Mechanism for Civil Society Participation in Agri-food Governance

J.A.B. Duncan, D. Bevilaqua

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In an increasingly interconnected world, where the widespread travel of goods highlights our interconnectedness, who has the power to decide the global regulations that shape the production, processing and exchange of agri-food products? How are such decisions made and by whom? Who decides what is safe to eat? Whose definition of safe is used? Where is the way to the new cosmopolitanism? In this article we seek out answers to these questions through an analysis of global food safety regulation. We review the current legal structure of global agri-food governance and consider limitations in decision-making models, restricted transparency, limited public participation and insufficient democratic guarantees.Global food regulation necessitates transparent, participative and impartial mechanisms of policy- and rule-making. However, a common global regulation must also consider and respect pluralism. We argue that the harmonization of global food regulation thus needs to follow a democratic pattern which pursues integration without compromising pluralism, and reduces fragmentation without denying legal and cultural differences. In this context, we propose a model for global decision-making that combines associative and deliberative democracy. We then propose a plan to engage the public in policy-making by using an interactive procedural mechanism of deliberation and by engaging civil society organisations in decision-making. Enhanced civil society participation in global agri-food governance has the capacity to increase efficiency, impartiality, transparency and democracy in the global policy-making process.
Original languageEnglish
JournalGlobal Jurist
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

cosmopolitanism
civil society
governance
democracy
food
participation
global regulation
decision making
regulation
pluralism
transparency
deliberative democracy
harmonization
deliberation
cultural difference
fragmentation
guarantee
respect
travel
efficiency

Cite this

@article{59b9981368b44294a5278c7fc148effe,
title = "Towards a New Cosmopolitanism: Global Reflexive Interactive Democracy as a New Mechanism for Civil Society Participation in Agri-food Governance",
abstract = "In an increasingly interconnected world, where the widespread travel of goods highlights our interconnectedness, who has the power to decide the global regulations that shape the production, processing and exchange of agri-food products? How are such decisions made and by whom? Who decides what is safe to eat? Whose definition of safe is used? Where is the way to the new cosmopolitanism? In this article we seek out answers to these questions through an analysis of global food safety regulation. We review the current legal structure of global agri-food governance and consider limitations in decision-making models, restricted transparency, limited public participation and insufficient democratic guarantees.Global food regulation necessitates transparent, participative and impartial mechanisms of policy- and rule-making. However, a common global regulation must also consider and respect pluralism. We argue that the harmonization of global food regulation thus needs to follow a democratic pattern which pursues integration without compromising pluralism, and reduces fragmentation without denying legal and cultural differences. In this context, we propose a model for global decision-making that combines associative and deliberative democracy. We then propose a plan to engage the public in policy-making by using an interactive procedural mechanism of deliberation and by engaging civil society organisations in decision-making. Enhanced civil society participation in global agri-food governance has the capacity to increase efficiency, impartiality, transparency and democracy in the global policy-making process.",
author = "J.A.B. Duncan and D. Bevilaqua",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.2202/1934-2640.1348",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "Global Jurist",
issn = "1934-2640",
publisher = "BEPress",
number = "1",

}

Towards a New Cosmopolitanism: Global Reflexive Interactive Democracy as a New Mechanism for Civil Society Participation in Agri-food Governance. / Duncan, J.A.B.; Bevilaqua, D.

In: Global Jurist, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards a New Cosmopolitanism: Global Reflexive Interactive Democracy as a New Mechanism for Civil Society Participation in Agri-food Governance

AU - Duncan, J.A.B.

AU - Bevilaqua, D.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - In an increasingly interconnected world, where the widespread travel of goods highlights our interconnectedness, who has the power to decide the global regulations that shape the production, processing and exchange of agri-food products? How are such decisions made and by whom? Who decides what is safe to eat? Whose definition of safe is used? Where is the way to the new cosmopolitanism? In this article we seek out answers to these questions through an analysis of global food safety regulation. We review the current legal structure of global agri-food governance and consider limitations in decision-making models, restricted transparency, limited public participation and insufficient democratic guarantees.Global food regulation necessitates transparent, participative and impartial mechanisms of policy- and rule-making. However, a common global regulation must also consider and respect pluralism. We argue that the harmonization of global food regulation thus needs to follow a democratic pattern which pursues integration without compromising pluralism, and reduces fragmentation without denying legal and cultural differences. In this context, we propose a model for global decision-making that combines associative and deliberative democracy. We then propose a plan to engage the public in policy-making by using an interactive procedural mechanism of deliberation and by engaging civil society organisations in decision-making. Enhanced civil society participation in global agri-food governance has the capacity to increase efficiency, impartiality, transparency and democracy in the global policy-making process.

AB - In an increasingly interconnected world, where the widespread travel of goods highlights our interconnectedness, who has the power to decide the global regulations that shape the production, processing and exchange of agri-food products? How are such decisions made and by whom? Who decides what is safe to eat? Whose definition of safe is used? Where is the way to the new cosmopolitanism? In this article we seek out answers to these questions through an analysis of global food safety regulation. We review the current legal structure of global agri-food governance and consider limitations in decision-making models, restricted transparency, limited public participation and insufficient democratic guarantees.Global food regulation necessitates transparent, participative and impartial mechanisms of policy- and rule-making. However, a common global regulation must also consider and respect pluralism. We argue that the harmonization of global food regulation thus needs to follow a democratic pattern which pursues integration without compromising pluralism, and reduces fragmentation without denying legal and cultural differences. In this context, we propose a model for global decision-making that combines associative and deliberative democracy. We then propose a plan to engage the public in policy-making by using an interactive procedural mechanism of deliberation and by engaging civil society organisations in decision-making. Enhanced civil society participation in global agri-food governance has the capacity to increase efficiency, impartiality, transparency and democracy in the global policy-making process.

U2 - 10.2202/1934-2640.1348

DO - 10.2202/1934-2640.1348

M3 - Article

VL - 10

JO - Global Jurist

JF - Global Jurist

SN - 1934-2640

IS - 1

ER -