Essays in this section pursue the idea that Habermas’s conception of deliberative democracy could be deepened and generalized on the one hand, and re-specified for the governance of transnational communities one finds on the other.

Contested social and environmental issues are increasingly regulated by governance arrangements beyond the nation state. The issues concern threats of the development and existence of natural and human beings, like child labour, climate change, devastation of forests, food safety, assessment of scientific work and many more. Governance arrangements, do not decide upon legislation by elected representatives of the population of a territory like in democratic nation states. Yet, many transnational regimes are authoritative, in that they use law-like forms and depend on judicial and administrative enforcement. Transnational regimes are, however, often also less interlaced with force and more open for discussion, judgement, and acceptance of valuations of affected human beings than nation-state and international regulation.

Against this background it is hardly surprising that the democratic quality of these regulatory institutions is intensely discussed. The normative background of this discussion is often provided by the idea of deliberative democracy. This idea implies that the authoritative rules of a community are discussed and decided upon by free members of a community, who are equally entitled to advance their interpretations and valuations in discussions. Habermas developed an influential conception of deliberative democracy suited for nation states and international regulation based on them. It is not at all warranted that this conception can also be used to describe and normatively judge transnational regimes.

My questions here aim at uncovering the (im-)possibility of realizing free and creative intentional action by means of democratic regulation in transnational regimes. I want to know whether these forms of regulating collective actions of members of a community could be interpreted as self-rule of a demos and promises of freedom and equality. Democratic transnational regimes can, I believe, accommodate many different values while setting rules for the issues they govern. They introduce procedures and constitutional frameworks for the admission of many intentions and meanings in a complex fabric of collective self-legislation and action. Thus, they could create a space for the variety and creativity of meanings and intentions that human beings tend to realize together.

A transformed conception of deliberative democracy could be a guideline for the design and development of democratic issue-based transnational regimes that take care for the realization of collective undertakings that need some kind of authoritative regulation. Transnational communities would give place to many different values while setting rules for an issue, as they introduce procedures and constitutional frameworks for the admission of many goals in a complex fabric of shared collective intentions. Transnational regimes would then be promises for freedom-enhancing forms of reflectively organized sociality.