The Necessity of International Law, Part 1: The Failure of National Sovereignty
One of the biggest drawbacks of intensely polarized political debate is that it shortens and narrows the scope of discourse. Instead of examining what is best for the advancement of the world or for development during the next century, we end up looking only at our own national (or partisan) interests in the next election, and rarely beyond. World events and trends are grotesquely distorted to fit this tunnel-perspective. One need only look at the aftermath of the grisly Madrid bombings as an example of this. Rather than look for a true solution to a cycle of violence stretching over decades (or even centuries), partisan interests have dictated only how to spin the news to one side or another's rhetorical advantage in November 2004.
But what is the "true solution" to global terrorism... environmental destruction... crime... poverty? The key to finding a solution lies in the concept of applicable scale. Can a city government solve problems that occur on a state level? No. Can a state government solve national problems? No. Why is it then that so many feel a national government, no matter how well intentioned, can solve global problems? "If only so-and-so were President (or Premier, or Prime Minister), then the environment would be fixed." "If the Whatchamacallit Party takes over Congress (or Parliament, etc.), we can stop the terrorists." The statements fly back and forth. Yet the decisions of only one government, even if (a big if) well-intentioned and idealistic, can only provide cosmetic fixes to structural problems. Global problems cannot be solved but on a global scale.
The early history of the United States provides a compelling case study. Following the capitulation of the British in 1781, there existed not one, but 13 independent nations on the North American continent (not counting the First Nations). Each had its own currency, its own laws and culture, and its own specific state interests. The first attempt at unifying these nations, the Articles of Confederation, was so weak that we don't even consider its leaders to have been American Presidents, though technically they could be viewed as such. While it provided for some semblance of government, the true sovereignty still lay with the states themselves, who were able to easily hamstring any encroachment on their interests by the confederation government. It soon became clear however, that such an approach was untenable. A confederation unable to raise funds and with no enforceable authority left the individual states themselves weak and at the mercy of foreign invasion. It is a truly remarkable fact that state leaders at the time were enlightened enough to recognize that jealously guarding their own interests was in reality undercutting them. After a few short years, a new Constitution was drafted, superseding the old and creating a strong federal government, despite the persistence of the "slave question" (a topic for an entirely different essay).
What the leaders of the 13 states realized was that they actually benefited from the cession of part of their sovereignty. With a strong federation, each was guaranteed protection from invasion, a unified market for goods and services, as well as freedom from internecine conflict (broken only once, tragically so, 80 years later). In later years, this government served to provide uniform national social services, transportation, and development projects that have alleviated a great deal of poverty and misery. Without a federal government, there would likely today be 13 (or more) "banana republics" squabbling for power, some under dictatorial governments, some with gross levels of poverty, malnutrition, and disease, and most, if not all, without religious or political freedom. The development of the United States we know today would have been impossible without the unity and organization provided by the Constitution.
But what of the world? An observer detached from nationalist pride can surely see that today's world provides a compelling (though not an exact) parallel. Since the end of World War I, the need for international law and transnational cooperation has been widely recognized and tentatively established through first the League of Nations, and later the United Nations. Woodrow Wilson, despite his many failings, was a visionary in this regard. He saw, nearly a century ago, that it was no longer possible for nations to "go it alone." However, like the early Articles of Confederation, the United Nations lacks power, lacks funding, and lacks authority. Sovereignty still rests fully with the individual nations, who are free to observe or ignore its pronouncements as they see fit. Therefore, nations are at risk from invasion, despotic governments thrive, transnational corporations plunder the world's human resources, organized crime and terrorism fester, environmental degradation accelerates, and poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, and disease are the rule, not the exception. Many world leaders seem incognizant of or unwilling to understand the simple truth that the continued fetish of absolute national sovereignty is weakening and undermining the well-being of every nation on the face of the earth.
Despite such obvious and massive problems, grave barriers exist to the formation of binding international authority. These will be discussed in detail in Part 2. Part 3 will explore possible strategies for overcoming these barriers and outline a hopeful vision of the future.