At the end of the end of the asynchronous lecture, Professor Jackson asked which future trajectory was most likely or least likely of the power dynamics between countries. Although it is my favored prediction, the least likely future scenario in power transition is the human project. Out of the three scenarios, the one that appears to be the complete opposite of the human project, hegemonic institutions, appears the most likely.
I think for the most part, people would love for everyone to agree on something collectively as the human race. However, this is very unlikely as there remains a difference in opinion on large-scale issues, and whether or not they are even issues. An example of this is the different opinions on climate change. Although most countries believe that it is a global issue that must be worked on, there are countries that do not believe in working to end climate change with other global leaders, such as the United States. The Paris Climate Agreement is a prime example of a transition to the human project. Leaders from around the world got together to create goals they agreed to try to meet, in hopes of focusing on more renewable energy and limiting current pollution. This idea appeared to be working, humanity agreeing together to stop the destruction of our planet. That is until the idea of President Trump became a reality. Instead of agreeing to continue to do our best to help the planet, Trump decided to pull the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.
I think that this illustrates that the hegemonic institutions scenario is the most likely, at least as long as Trump is president. On the other hand, to be fair, I don't think all of the blame for an unlikely "human project" falls on Trump. I believe that there will always be someone or some country in great power that relies on and enjoys using dominant power. As much as we would like to think that we could all work together for the greater good, there will always be someone that thinks they are strong enough to do things on their own, or who refuses to give up some of their power for a collective action. This all goes back to Hobbes' state of nature, humans are and always will be self-interested.
https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/08/forever-wishing-for-human-project.html
I have a hard time believing that any human project has any potential for staying power. These types of projects rely on the buy in from a number of states over an extended period of time, essentially expecting a static state of diplomacy in a dymanic world. States and individual actors will also find some way to leverage power in their given situation to advance their position, and inevitably this will lead to states leaving or threatening to leave in order to advance their position. That being said, this response presupposes that the current and predominant Westphalian type of state is what will re-emerge from whatever chaos might prompt such a human project, but if it did states would never remain in this type of organization indefinitely.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, when you look at the founding of the United States, it was more like a collection of separate states than a country. Indeed the Articles of Confederation was essentially the result of a wartime necessity for a common effort of several different states coming together to fend off Britain; those states wanted no kind of centralized system governing over them. States imposed tariffs on one another, a few even almost came to blows. Yet further integration happened. A federal government was born and a true sovereign came into being. A people with a very short shared history as "a people" built what would later become the model for constitutional republican governments all over Europe. With that in mind, I want to believe that such a project is not completely outside the realm of possibility, but like the American journey will be difficult but worthwhile one.
ReplyDelete