Author: Linda Gessesse
Can true global citizenship exist when national sovereignty always gets the final vote? Global dynamics are anarchic as the world lacks a supreme governing authority. In a realist perspective, anarchy is the competitive condition that forces states to fixate on power and national security. Therefore, Luis Cabrera, author of The Practice of Global Citizenship, conclusion of the plausibility of global citizenship is difficult to reconcile with current global dynamics, because of the prioritization of sovereignty creating a significant barrier for countries to assume universal obligations towards humanity.
Cabrera defines global citizenship as expanding the existing global institutions to create an integrated, democratically accountable body that secures the core human rights and expands the duties ordinary citizens to protect human rights (Cabrera pp. 468 – 471). Cabrera’s argument is under the context of cosmopolitan politics – a system where all humans can belong in the same community where there is a universal respect for human rights. In a similar sense, John Dryzek’s Global Democracy and Its Setbacks argues for a transnational (extending beyond the boundaries of a single nation) democracy that seeks the goal of global accountability by overcoming the limits of the traditional nation-state to protect humanity on a global scale (Dryzek p. 479). Both approaches therefore depend on extending political responsibility beyond the boundaries of the nation. However, the persistence of in-group and out-group divisions creates a relevant obstacle as, at the state level, international institutions can be perceived as limiting national sovereignty or imposing obligations that conflict with domestic priorities. The European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and International Criminal Court (ICC) demonstrate different forms of international cooperation, while instances of withdrawal demonstrate the continued favoring of national sovereignty in determining the extent of state obligations.
A core example of the tension between global citizenship and national sovereignty is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the EU in 2020. The 2016 referendum reflected significant public concerns surrounding national sovereignty, immigration control, and financial contributions to the EU (UK Parliament, 2016). Referendums are common mechanism in Europe, which in this context, ultimately illustrates how the public itself serves as the foundation for the in-group favoritism that defined the UK’s choice. Although the EU does not require its members to possess a uniform culture, it creates a common political and legal framework that states must accept. Therefore, the withdrawal illustrates the tension between participation in a broader regional community and the preservation of national sovereignty and nationalism. Similarly, under Donald Trump’s second administration, the US withdrew from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties, including the UN Human Rights Council; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the UN Population Fund (White House, 2026; US Mission to the USUN Rome Mission, 2026).
The friction between cosmopolitan idealism and realist statecraft is at the core of every state in a perpetual anarchic world system, especially in the recent actions of the UK and the US demonstrating their international commitment remain vulnerable to domestic political shifts. In Model UN, delegates face this exact same struggle: balancing fundamental principles of national sovereignty – such as territorial integrity and economic stability – with the shared obligations to advance global humanitarianism and cosmopolitanism. International cooperation is not impossible for delegates; the true test is fiercely defending and sustaining the necessity of fulfilling their international responsibilities.
Bibliography
Cabrera, Luis. “82. The Practice of Global Citizenship.” In Democracy: A Reader edited by Ricardo Blaug and John Schwarzmantel, 468-472. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.7312/blau17412-100
Dryzek, John S.. “84. Global Democracy and Its Setbacks.” In Democracy: A Reader edited by Ricardo Blaug and John Schwarzmantel, 478-482. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.7312/blau17412-102
“Fact Sheet: President Doland J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that are Contrary to the Interest of the United States.” USUN Rome Mission. January 8, 2026. https://usunrome.usmission.gov/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-withdraws-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-u-s/
UK House of Commons Library. Brexit: Impact Across Policy Areas. Research Briefing CBP-7213. London: House of Commons Library, August 26, 2016. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7213/
“Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.” White House. January 7, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states/
