Cosmopolitan Democracy and Global Institutions
The idea of "cosmopolitan democracy," most systematically developed by David Held in Democracy and the Global Order (1995) and, with Anthony McGrew, in Globalization/Anti-Globalization (2002), responds to what Held terms a growing "democratic deficit": the observation that an expanding range of decisions profoundly affecting people's lives — concerning trade, finance, climate, pandemic response, and armed conflict — are increasingly made by transnational actors and institutions, including the World Trade Organization (established 1995), the International Monetary Fund, and multinational corporations, that lie entirely outside the reach of any single national electorate's democratic accountability. Held's proposed remedy involves a multilayered system of global governance featuring, among other reforms, a strengthened and more representative United Nations General Assembly, new regional parliamentary bodies modeled loosely on the directly elected European Parliament (established as a directly elected body in 1979), and an enforceable global bill of rights, all designed to extend democratic accountability to the transnational level without eliminating the nation-state, which Held explicitly retains as one governance layer among several rather than proposing its abolition in favor of a single world state.
Why do you think there's historiographical debate about "Cosmopolitan Democracy and Global Institutions"?