15 May Global Governance vs. Liberal Democracy? We are going to have to choose
I want to thank Peter for inviting me to participate in this discussion. It has been very useful and clarifying. I will close with a few thoughts. Peter’s book addresses what will become the major issue of world politics in the 21st century and I’m grateful for his efforts. He has made a strong descriptive case (as has Alex and others), but, in the end, we are all moral human beings interested in the normative.
What we are talking about is the ultimate normative question of politics going back to Plato and Aristotle: who shall govern? For many among Western elites the big idea of the coming century will be how do go beyond the nation-state and national citizenship and create some new form of global governance. In my view (and I realize I’m in a minority in this discussion) global governance (as it has been articulated to date) presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy and authority of the liberal democratic nation-state in general and to American constitutional sovereignty in particular. It is not possible, in my view, to have the new forms of post-national global governance (that have been described in our exchanges) and have, at the same time, constitutional democratic government. At the end of the day, we must choose global governance or liberal democracy?
I choose liberal democracy and its only real historical home, the liberal democratic nation-state as the highest political authority, above any international institution or laws. This is a universal principle and American foreign policy should apply this universally, speaking not simply for American democratic sovereignty, but for the democratic sovereignty of other liberal democratic states as well in arguments over, for example, the International Criminal Court (ICC). Particularly, we should speak up for and protect those democratic nation-states that are under pressure from transnational institutions and forces such as Israel and the Czech Republic (non-ratifiers of the ICC). I will be addressing these issues in my forthcoming (2009) book, Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others? (Encounter Books). Thanks Peter.
Of course global governance presents a direct challenge to the nation-state, just as the formation of tribes presented a challenge to clans and the formation of nations presented a challenge to tribes. It does not present a challenge to democracy. The question is how are Human Rights best served? Individual Human Rights must be the foundation of all governance. The world has become globalized but is not governed globally. We are a world community, like it or not. How can we address climate change other than on a global basis? How can we allow the free flow of capital without global accounting and disclosure standards? How can we protect oppressed peoples other than on a global basis? As the US Constitution says, each human being has rights that no government can take away. No sovereignty, global or local, should be recognized that deprives human beings of their rights.
Absolute nonsense. There is no single good reason why the US, Israel and Czechia should not ratify the ICC Statute, period.
I believe that Mr. Fonte is correct in his assertion that Americans are not ready or willing to concede the obsolecence of the nation state in furtherance of greater global governance. In fact, they are more likely to object to such a movement than is being represented by the globalists. I previously engaged in a dialogue with Peter Spiro about the hierarchy of law within the US. I insisted that a treaty is of the same legal significance within the US as is a federal statute (i.e., a legislative promulgation of Congress), and that both are lesser in legal significance than is the U.S. Constitution. In other words, in the case of a conflict, the US Constitution trumps both a federal statute AND a treaty. This truism is absolute insofar as the Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty, like a federal statute, cannot contravene the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and remain legally valid for purposes of US law. Of course, Peter, being a revisionist, disagrees with this outcome. And, based on his prior statements to me, he endeavors to reinterpret US case precedent and the original intent of the US Constitution (particularly its federal treaty-making clause) for… Read more »