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) • 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 ...

Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France by Jennifer Pitts
Jennifer Pitts asserts that imperialism was not essential to the liberal project, as is so often alleged by its critics, most recently and systematically by ...
Summer 2007 (21.2) • Review
Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny by Amartya Sen and Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers by Kwame Anthony Appiah
These two books are the inaugural releases in Norton's Issues of Our Time series, but they are linked by much more than this fact. Each ...