ABSTRACT
In part one of this article it was posited that the Pinochet case was best understood not as a harbinger of a borderless world of eroded state sovereignty and universal rights, but rather as an indication that those distanced from popular sovereignty and citizenship by the deals struck in a pacted democratic transition may have found their most potent means of forcing a reopening of the particularist national debate on who belongs to, and in, ‘the nation’. Here, two phases of the Pinochet case are examined through this prism. The extradition attempt saw Pinochet’s victims ‘escape’ the legalized confines of domestic space only to shape the understanding of national citizenship from afar. The case’s surprising development after repatriation revealed the potential coercive power of the cosmopolitan liberal consensus on ‘deserving sovereignty’ similar to the conditionality associated with the neo-liberal ‘W ashington consensus’ on economic reform. Three primary lessons are drawn: cosmopolitanism may have to be coerced; pacts are not forever; and place and belonging still matter even as justice is ‘globalized’.
