31 Jan John Yoo, Neo-Medievalist
Well, sort of. Yoo and co-author Robert Delahunty have a provocative piece in the latest edition of the National Interest (“Lines in the Sand,” not available on-line, but you can get it on Lexis) in which they argue against the primacy of the nation-state, or at least the primacy of existing nation-states. The cash-out here, of course, is splitting up Iraq. I don’t know enough about the context there to buy in or out, but it’s clear that in some situations (Somaliland probably now the best example) redrawing borders makes sense. Delahunty and Yoo are looking at it through a national security/stability optic, but autonomy values get you to the same place.
Along the way, Delahunty and Yoo come to realize that the Westphalian system isn’t a ordained by nature.
Before the 1648 Peace of Westphalia recognized the modern nation-state, and indeed well after it, the international system witnessed a broader diversity of forms of sovereignty, including city-states, empires and loose regional confederations-and overlapping religious or ethnic authorities, such as the Catholic Church. In more recent times, the period between the end of the First World War and the rapid decolonization that followed the Second World War might provide models other than the nation-state structure for governing failed states.
I suspect Yoo and others would put the medieval system to work in ways we wouldn’t all be happy with, but it’s nice to see them breaking out of the sovereignty box, if only to advance an agenda item.
I would have thought John Yoo’s medievalist streak became rather obvious with his oh-so-memorable torture memos.
Marko is quite right. I would add at least another institution from the past that John “Voodoo Law” Yoo has regurgitated with appalling success — trial by ordeal — and a long list of others that came with enlightenment — rule of law, jus ad bellum, separation of powers, lawyer ethics, due process, etc. — which he has decisively contributed to undermine with equally abominable results.
— rule of law, jus ad bellum, separation of powers, lawyer ethics, due process, etc. — which he has decisively contributed to undermine with equally abominable results.
Results? Mr. Yoo’s legal theories haven’t had a great deal of success recently. He certainly wasn’t very happy with the Hamdan verdict.
Common, Matthew, this is no joking matter. You’re surely aware of the fact that the war in Iraq is ongoing and sables are rattling loudly in the White House over Iran. On the hand, if you’re not familiar with it, please check out what the Detainee Treatment Act — the Administration’s response to Hamdan — is all about.
I open with the caveat that I haven’t read the article yet, but is the real danger what the article lays out as “Since September 11, failed or dysfunctional states have become the central challenge to American foreign policy and national security?” Or is the real danger the assumption of a system of nation-states that is endangered by weak states? In other words, why focus on the concept of failed states when the only thing that arguably props up failed states is our assumption of a system, both in concept and in practice? Post-colonialists have dwelled on the flawed model for decades now – Makau wa Mutua has even argued that the entire map of Africa be redrawn because the lines as adopted at independence do no represent geographic or demographic realities. In a similar vein, Stephen Ratner has argued that uti possidetis juris, the vague concept that upholds borders in the post-colonial world, is at best an “idiot rule.” So there are flaws in the concept of statehood as the foundation for a system. I assume Yoo and Delahunty pick up on this. But where Yoo and Delahunty presumably go wrong is that there must be a system, and… Read more »
“But where Yoo and Delahunty presumably go wrong is that there must be a system”
How exactly do you intend to eliminate the system? Asking Putin nicely? I’m going to guess that Africa has some people who would oppose redrawing the map: everyone who has a stake in the existing governments there. Not to mention the nationalisms that have been constructed and propagated. Theory is fine, but eventually it has to meet reality. That’s a problem for post-colonialists.
International Law can ignore states. But then, states can also ignore international law.
You’re surely aware of the fact that the war in Iraq is ongoing and sables are rattling loudly in the White House over Iran.
Yes, current events have not entirely escaped me. However, I was referring to the courts disagreeing with his theories. Losing the argument in court and then having the matter taken out of their hands via jurisdiction stripping is hardly a “win” for Mr. Yoo, although it may constitute one for Bush.
In response to jvarisco… Please read my post again, as nowhere does it suggest the elimination of a system. Elimination suggests an alternative of anarchy, or elimination without an alternative. That is not the case… the point is that there are no proposals for reform of the system, alternative systems, much less acceptance that the system, as is, simply does not work. Assumptions must change. Which assumptions to begin with? I would argue challenging uti possidetis juris – this notion that borders must adhere to their colonial predecessorial boundaries. It is basically this “idiot rule,” or flawed principle at best, that legally protects the sovereignty of the governments of Sudan and Zimbabwe, even moreso the odd map of Africa despite its problems in governance. We have to start somewhere. And it certainly won’t be a one size fits all approach. Rather, it must be on an individual basis – the initial question being, is this country, as drawn, able to effectively govern its people beyond the city centers? Secondly, in its governance, does this country treat its borders as delineations of sovereignty? Third, if the answer to both two are no, then the next question should be, if redrawn and… Read more »