This concluding chapter makes an overall case for reinstatement of the right to resist in the human rights lexicon, in light of the preceding evidence and analysis. Reprising the persisting gaps in legal certainty, it summarizes the challenge of its reconsideration as a contemporary legal concept lacking express codification at UN level. It then sets an ‘agenda for reconsideration’, identifying both lex lata and lex ferenda options for clarification. Finally, supporting the contention that it is a potentially enforceable human right, it suggests a basic claims analysis template for applying the law as it stands.

compares cosmopolitan versus communitarian issue positions by mass publics and elites across our study. We investigate whether there is an attitude gap between elites, who tend to adhere to cosmopolitan positions, and mass publics with more communitarian leanings. Contrasting mass opinion surveys with results from our own elite survey, we show that the mass-elite divide on globalization issues is indeed pervasive and found in all five countries of study. We consider both economic causes in the shape of diverging material interests and cultural ones, the latter pointing towards cultural capital and symbolic boundaries defining transnational cosmopolitan class consciousness. The results align more with the cultural than with the economic explanation. Political elites in the five countries display convergent cosmopolitan positions across issues as varied as international trade, climate change, migration and supranational integration. Mass publics are much more divided on these issues. Also, education alone does not explain the mass-elite gap because the elites are still significantly more cosmopolitan than highly educated members of mass publics, even within the same country.

maps issue linkage in the public sphere as key component of cleavage formation. Cleavage coalitions in public debates about globalization are mapped using inductive methods. Multidimensional scaling reveals a powerful globalist coalition in all five countries under study - Germany, Poland, Mexico, Turkey and USA - which links various globalization-related issues in a general call for open borders. It is opposed by a protectionist coalition arguing against free trade, a nationalist coalition arguing against immigration and a neoliberal coalition that only champions free trade. This confirms that globalization-related conflict is two dimensional, with conflict over cultural and economic globalization distinct from each other.