This module was particularly interesting to me in that it covered questions and concepts that deal with the idea of an end to the current framework of the international system. As the system continues to integrate further and states become more and more interdependent, the idea of single, unitary actors becomes increasingly more difficult to defend. International law is one such method of integration that begs the question, can the impermeable, autonomous states of yesterday make it through today and into tomorrow?
The part of Professor Jackson's lecture that I love the most is where he talks about how difficult it is for the idea of public authority to exist in the upper left box of the 2x2. As there is no sovereign in the international system yet, states acting as both public and authority is such an interesting concept. It is one of the stronger arguments for the increasing permeability and loosening of autonomy going on in the system. Sovereigns choosing to bind themselves and be accountable to authority from without, granted authority enforced by other states. It raises more questions for me. If sovereigns are willing to forfeit autonomy to others for the sake of international law, is it unreasonable to assume that they could, down the line, cede it to a sovereign to maintain such law? Would a sovereign not be more impartial than a series of other states with divergent interests? By extension, would the application of violence by a sovereign not be more impartial, too?
I think a better question to pose would be " is there a way for a sovereign to be impartial? who would this sovereign be?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't we theoretically need to create an entire impartial nation? how can those within this sovereign be impartial if they in fact belong to a nation.
This concept of an international body of rulers makes me think of the divergent series. How do we create this class of rulers that are impartial? we have to separate them from birth to avoid biases. However if we separate this group how then do they understand the context of decisions they end up making?
This is an interesting concept, and indeed represents a serious impediment to that kind of integration and cooperation. However, I do not think it is wild unrealistic to imagine people working together from different regions/backgrounds/lifestyles to achieve common ends. Shrink it down to the domestic level.
ReplyDeleteA city kid from Detroit is a completely different person from a country club New Englander, yet we are all Americans. We all live under the same government, vote in the same elections for that government and support the nation through taxes, registering for the selective service, etc. It would definitely be a difficult first step, but not insurmountable.