Despite some limited moves toward openness and accountability, suprastate policy formation in such bodies as the World Trade Organization remains fundamentally exclusive of individuals within states. This article critiques the "don't kill the goose" arguments commonly offered in defense of such exclusions. It highlights similarities between those arguments and past arguments for elitist forms of democracy, where strict limitations are advocated on the participation of non-elites in the name of allowing leaders to act most effectively in the broad public interest. Advocated here is movement toward a strongly empowered WTO parliamentary body that would be guided in practice by a principle of democratic symmetry, attempting to match input to the increasing impacts of WTO governance. A parliament with co-decision powers broadly similar to those of the European Parliament is offered as a long-term institutional ideal.
To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.
More in this issue
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Essay
The Human Rights Council: A New Era in UN Human Rights Work? [Full Text]
Kofi Annan did more than any UN secretary-general before him to stress the close link between human rights and peace and security. With the creation ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Feature
Crime and Punishment: Holding States Accountable
Should states be held responsible and punished for violations of international law? This article argues that they can and should be.
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Feature
Liability and Just Cause
This paper is a response to Jeff McMahan's "Just Cause for War" (EIA, 19.3, 2005). It defends a more permissive, and more traditional view of just war ...