Cosmopolitan entitlements. The construction and constitution of human beings as human rights subjects

References

• Agosín, M. (Ed.). (2001). Women, gender, and human rights: A global perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Albrow, M. (2014). Global age essays on social and cultural change. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. (1949). The rights of man: What are they? Modern Review, 3(1), 24–37.
   Google Scholar
• Bauman, Z. (1993). Modernity and ambivalence. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1999). What is globalization?. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of modernity. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 79–105.10.1080/000713100358444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (2002). The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1-2), 17–44.10.1177/026327640201900101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (2016). The metamorphosis of the world: How climate change is transforming our concept of the world. Cambridge: Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 1–33.10.1177/0263276403020002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. & Grande, E. (Eds.). (2010). Varieties of second modernity: Extra-European and European experiences and perspectives. Special Issue of The British Journal of Sociology. London: Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U., & Lau, C. (2005). Second modernity as a research agenda: Theoretical and empirical explorations in the “meta-change” of modern society. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 525–557.10.1111/bjos.2005.56.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bobbio, N. (1999). Das Zeitalter der Menschenrechte [The age of human rights]. Berlin: Wagenbach.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L. (1999). Distant suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511489402
   Google Scholar
• Brysk, A. (Ed.). (2002). Globalization and human rights. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J., Gambetti, Z., & Sabsay, L. (Eds.). (2016). Vulnerability in resistance. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, A.E. (2005). Situational analysis. Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dudai, R. (2009). “Can you describe this?” Human rights reports and what they tell us about the human rights movement. In R. A. Wilson & R. D. Brown (Eds.), Humanitarianism and suffering: The mobilization of empathy (pp. 245–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engel, N., & Klemm, M. (2017). Nach der Globalisierung – eine Phänomenologie transnationalen Wissens [After globalisation – a phenomenology of transnational knowledge]. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from http://www.trans-wissen.de/fileadmin/unitrier/Dokumente/Engel_Klemm_nach_der_Globalisierung.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Favret-Saada, J. (2010). Jeux d’ombres sur la scène de l’ONU: Droit humains et laȉcité [Shadow Games on the UN Stage: Human Rights and Laity]. Paris: L’Olivier.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, M. (Ed.). (1990). Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London, Newbury Park and New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (2010). The government of self and others. Edited by F. Gros. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.10.1057/9780230274730
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, A.S. (2002). Becoming human: The origins and development of women’s human rights. In M. Agosín (Ed.), Women, gender, and human rights: A global perspective (pp. 15–64). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Glick Schiller, N., & Wimmer, A. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1992). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heintz, B. (2015). Die Weltgesellschaft und ihre Menschenrechte: Eine Herausforderung für die Soziologie [The world society and its human rights: A challenge for sociology]. In B. Heintz & B. Leisering (Eds.), Menschenrechte in der Weltgesellschaft: Deutungswandel und Wirkungsweise eines globalen Leitwerts (pp. 21–64). Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsch, A. (2006). Menschenrechte als zivilgesellschaftliche Verantwortungskultur [Human rights as a civil society-based culture of responsibility]. In L. Heidbrink & A. Hirsch (Eds.), Verantwortung in der Zivilgesellschaft: Zur Konjunktur eines widersprüchlichen Prinzips (pp. 247–263). Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Hollinger, D. (1993). How wide the circle of the we? American intellectuals and the problem of the ethnos since world war II. The American Historical Review, 98(2), 317–337.10.2307/2166835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopgood, S. (2013). The endtimes of human rights. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, L. (2007). Inventing human rights: A history. New York and London: Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Japp, K.P. (2015). Zur Funktion der Menschenrechte in der Weltgesellschaft – Niklas Luhmanns “Grundrechte als Institution” revisited [On the function of human rights in the world society – Niklas Luhmann’s Grundrechte als Institution revisited]. In B. Heintz & B. Leisering (Eds.), Menschenrechte in der Weltgesellschaft: Deutungswandel und Wirkungsweise eines globalen Leitwerts (pp. 65–97). Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Joas, H. (2013). The sacredness of the person: A new genealogy of human rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, R., Knoblauch, H., & Reichertz, J. (Eds). (2013) Kommunikativer Konstruktivismus [Communicative constructivism: Theoretical and empirical contributions to a sociology of knowledge]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-531-19797-5
   Google Scholar
• Koenig, M. (2015). Neo–institutionalistische Weltgesellschaftstheorie und die Perspektiven einer historischen Soziologie der Menschenrechte [Neo–institutionalist world society theory and perspectives from a historical sociology of human rights]. In B. Heintz & B. Leisering (Eds.), Menschenrechte in der Weltgesellschaft: Deutungswandel und Wirkungsweise eines globalen Leitwerts (pp. 98–129). Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Koselleck, R. (1989). “Erfahrungsraum” und “Erwartungshorizont” – zwei historische Kategorien ["Space of experience” and “horizon of expectation“]. In R. Koselleck (Ed.), Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (pp. 349–375). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Kurasawa, F. (2007). The Work of Global Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619465
   Google Scholar
• Lachenmann, G., & Dannecker, P. (Eds.). (2008). Negotiating development in muslim societies: Gendered spaces and translocal connections. Lanham: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Laqueur, T. (1989). Bodies, details, and the humanitarian narrative. In L. Hunt (Ed.), The new cultural history (pp. 176–204). Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laqueur, T. (2009). Mourning, pity and the work of narrative in the making of “humanity”. In R. A. Wilson & R. D. Brown (Eds.), Humanitarianism and suffering: The mobilization of empathy (pp. 31–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, D., & Sznaider, N. (2010). Human rights and memory. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mead, G. H. (1963). Mind, self and society. From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merry, S.E. (2006). Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36 (1), 1–20.10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moghissi, H. (1999). Feminism and islamic fundamentalism: The limits of postmodern analysis. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Moyn, S. (2010). The last utopia: Human rights in history. Cambridge, MA, and London: Belknap.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, J.-W. (2007). Constitutional patriotism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• von der Pfordten, D. (2016). Menschenwürde [Human dignity]. Munich: Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Poferl, A. (2010). Jenseits der Solidarität? Globale Probleme und die kosmopolitische Konstitution von Sozialität [Beyond solidarity? Global problems and the cosmopolitan constitution of sociality]. In U. Beck & A. Poferl (Eds.), Große Armut, großer Reichtum: Zur Transnationalisierung sozialer Ungleichheit (pp. 134–167). Berlin: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Poferl, A. (2014). Kosmopolitische Empathie: Subjektivität und die fluiden Grenzen der Sozialwelt [Cosmopolitan empathy: Subjectivity and the fluid boundaries of the social world]. In A. Poferl & N. Schröer (Eds.), Wer oder was handelt? Zum Subjektverständnis der Hermeneutischen Wissenssoziologie (pp. 175–197). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804397
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. (1993). Human rights, rationality and sentimentality. In S. Shute & S. Hurley (Eds.), Human rights: The Oxford amnesty lectures 1993 (pp. 11–34). New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, R. D., & Benford, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements. An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A.L. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, processes, contexts, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A.L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Sznaider, N. (2001). The compassionate temperament: Care and cruelty in Modern Society. Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, B. (2006). Vulnerability and human rights. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R.A. & Mitchell, J. P. (Eds.). (2003). Human rights in global perspective: Anthropological studies of rights, claims, and entitlements. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar