Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Slaughter, who holds a law degree as well as a Ph.

D in international relations, describes a world


in which the predominance of unitary nation states is being complemented, and perhaps even
partly supplanted, by a system of multiple networks in which disaggregated nation states (that
is, agencies and branches within national governments, as opposed to heads of state) interact
cooperatively with one another as well as with international organizations.

This is unfortunate, according to Slaughter, for a number of reasons. On the most basic level, it
leads to a distorted view of how international relations really works and is likely to develop as
the twenty-first century unfolds. It also keeps observers from seeing the most likely solution to
what Slaughter calls “the globalization paradox,” that is, the condition of “needing more
[world] government and [at the same time] fearing it.” At present, debate about the issue of
world governance tends to pit national sovereignty versus world government.

Slaughter article summary

Take-Aways
 Informal networks of regulators, judges and legislators change how the world works.
 Such networks make it possible to enforce laws and harmonize regulations in an
increasingly inter-connected world.
 Critics charge that such networks are unrepresentative, secretive and dangerous.
 Networks could be a positive force, but they need norms and checks-and-balances.
 Networks of financial officials have been key in responding to regional fiscal crises.
 Judges are reluctant to be bound by foreign court decisions, but international legal
affairs now affect their decisions.
 Legislators are latecomers to the networked world, for sound political reasons. Yet even
legislators are forming networks and learning from each other.
 States once communicated only through carefully defined channels. Networks have
opened more pathways among countries.
 Networks need not replace traditional institutions and could reinvigorate them.
 States have clear boundaries and clear limits on authority, but corporations and other
transnational forces do not. Networks keep states relevant in an era of globalization.

Summary
Networks and the Global Order

Like business people, stock traders and even criminals, governments now rely on
networks to achieve their objectives. Law enforcement agencies cooperate on
investigations through formal and informal networks. Financial ministers and central
bankers work jointly in networks such as the G-20, the G-8, the International
Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSCO) and others. Environmental officials,
justices and legislators have networks. There are even networks of government
networks. Networks have several advantages:

 They allow regulators to develop better intelligence about the activities of transnational
organizations such as corporations, lobbying groups and even criminal gangs. This
enables regulators to respond with timely, well-coordinated action.
 They help members get to know each other and learn to trust each other.
 They provide a forum for swapping information about best practices.
 They often offer various forms of assistance to members.

Governments now confront cross-border problems, so they need cross-border solutions.


Air and water pollution do not respect national boundaries. Just as Old West outlaw
Billy the Kid fled to Mexico, modern criminals often find similar refuge when they use
national borders to complicate the job of law enforcement. Without networks to enable
compliance and enforcement, many international agreements would amount only to so
much paperwork.

“It would be a world order in which human hope and despair, crime and charity, ideas
and ideals are transmitted around the globe through networks of people and
organizations. So, too, would it be in the power of governments to represent and
regulate their people.”
The United States could benefit greatly from the network phenomenon. Although the
U.S. has historically believed that problems with domestic sources need domestic
solutions, even it has begun to understand that multilateral problems need solutions on
that level. Networks can also help the U.S. learn from the example of other venues.
When the "American Way" is "best," networks will help others to learn from it. When
the "American Way" is not as good as some other approach, the networks will make that
clear, to the benefit of all concerned.

“Terrorists, arms dealers, money launderers, drug dealers, traffickers in women and
children, and the modern pirates of intellectual property all operate through global
networks. So, increasingly, do governments.”

Envisioning a World of Networks

To use networks most effectively, and to help them become all they could be, society
must think about the world in a different way. It is time to stop conceiving of a world of
states. Such a world is made up of national institutions that interact in clearly defined
official ways, usually through embassies, consulates and the associated bureaucracy of a
foreign office. By contrast, the new world includes states, but also includes many other
networked channels. Some are formal; others are less formal.

“The prerequisite for a vertical government network is the relatively rare decision by
states to delegate their sovereignty to an institution above them with real power — a
court or a regulatory commission.”
Changing the way society thinks about the world opens the possibilities of creating a
new world order. The foundation stones of the new world order include networks as well
as states. Networks would not substitute for states or abrogate national powers. They
would have only the power and authority that state governments decided to delegate to
them. And, national governments probably would delegate authority and power when it
served their own interests.

“Only by pushing the envelope of what we assume to be natural or inherent can we


hope to envision and create a genuinely new world order.”
A world of networks is a world able to address the challenge of globalization. Capital
flows across national borders; so does information. But the power of a national
government stops at the nation's borders. After World War II, institutional architects
recognized the need for institutions that would function across borders. Yet such
organizations as the World Bank, the United Nations and others have clear and
increasingly problematic deficiencies. The world needs a new way of working. Networks
can provide it.

“So what exactly do government networks do? Their members talk a lot.”

Regulatory Networks

In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf took power in Pakistan by military coup. The Clinton
administration protested and waited for Musharraf's response. The General did not call
Clinton, his secretary of state, his secretary of defense or the American ambassador.
Musharraf went outside ordinary official circles and called a Marine general he knew.

“To the extent that pockets of global jurisprudence are emerging, they are most likely
to involve issues of basic human rights.”
Military officers, heads of state, senior ministers and economic officials network. The
famous economic "Groups," usually identified by "G" followed by the number of
member states, include the G-7, G-8 and G-20. They have been important factors in the
world's response to major economic shocks, such as the East Asian crisis of the late
1990s. They helped coordinate efforts to control criminal or terrorist use of the world's
financial system.

Regulatory networks generally take on one or more of these missions:

1. Information exchange — Participants discuss problems, analyze various


approaches to resolving them and sometimes draft codes of best practice.
Developed countries use networks to share know-how on institution building
with undeveloped countries.
2. Enforcement — Members may cooperate in tracking and arresting criminals,
terrorists, violators of antitrust laws or egregious polluters.
3. Harmonization — Members use the network to make their policies, procedures
and regulations consistent and congruent. Regulators refer to networks when
trying to persuade home-country legislators that change in a particular direction
is necessary.

“According to a former justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Charles


Fried, drawing on foreign decisions could change the course of American law.”
These networks represent a form of diplomacy, but the diplomats involved are, in fact,
regulators whose ordinary responsibilities do not include international diplomacy.

Legal Networks

Even without any sort of treaty, judges have begun to learn from each other. Justices on
the U.S. Supreme Court meet with their peers in Europe, Latin America and Asia. Under
the auspices of the United Nations, the Global Judges Symposium convened in
Johannesburg to discuss environmental laws. Judges have begun to discuss how to
proceed when conflicting decisions in various venues threaten such procedures as, for
example, bankruptcy. The five most common ways that judges utilize networks are:

1. Constitutional dialogue — A Chief Justice of the Norwegian Supreme Court has


said that his country's judges have an obligation to import good ideas from
abroad. Although Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court
may not agree, it is clear that even in the U.S., Supreme Court judges learn from
their peers abroad. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, mentioned a
European Court of Justice decision in an opinion on an anti-sodomy law.
2. Human rights law — Decisions by the European Court of Human Rights have
been cited in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Latin America and Britain.
3. Building the European community's legal system — Judges in Germany, France
and even Britain have shown remarkable deference to the European Court of
Justice. Although they do not necessarily accept it as a higher authority, it is clear
that courts in the European Union are becoming more of a "community" than
ever in history.
4. Transnational disputes — Even in the U.S., judges have been speaking with
remarkable clarity about the need for harmony and cooperation with non-U.S.
courts. Judges in various countries read each other's decisions and negotiate with
each other.
5. Face-to-face meetings — U.S. Supreme Court justices have traveled to other
continents to meet with their peers. Within Europe, judges meet every few years.
The Organization of Supreme Courts of the Americas brings together
representatives from numerous countries. They have created mechanisms to
exchange information and promote "judicial independence and the rule of law
among members."

“U.S. judges have not shied from conflict with their foreign brethren.”

Legislative Networks
Legislators have not moved to form networks as rapidly as judges and regulators, but
they have created some. For example, networks of legislators have helped monitor
elections. They have discussed issues of international trade, such as issues of
standardization in the European Union or the effect of the North American Free Trade
Agreement on labor. Political factors require legislators to exercise some caution about
networks. An accusation that a candidate has gone on too many foreign "junkets" can
resonate in an electoral campaign. Moreover, because legislative terms may be short and
uncertain, legislators find it more difficult to develop the kind of cross-border
relationships that come more easily to bureaucrats, judges, bankers and even military
officers.

“The traditional way for legislators to express themselves in foreign affairs is by trying
to keep members of the executive — the ministers or head of state — on a short
leash.”

The Disaggregated World

The existence of regulatory, judicial and legislative networks (embryonic though these
may be) points to a new kind of world order. International communication and
cooperation is no longer the exclusive domain of embassies, consulates, secretaries of
state and foreign ministers. These networks form the bedrock of a new world order,
based not on old institutions but on new and often flexible networks. These networks
can be structured as:

 Horizontal — Essentially these networks bring together peers or colleagues. They may
be permanent networks, such as the Basel Committee, or they may be temporary, such
as the Financial Stability Forum.
 Vertical — Vertical networks have the power and authority to make decisions that bind
government institutions. These networks are more rare than horizontal networks,
because governments are reluctant to put themselves under the authority of any other
power. Yet examples include the European Court of Justice, the European Court of
Human Rights and the World Trade Organization Appellate Body.
 Networks of government networks — New government networks and old-fashioned
international institutions can and do coexist. The North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was signed by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. to
institutionalize mutual environmental agreements. It created the Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a trilateral network. Sometimes new government
networks help reinvigorate traditional international institutions. Along those lines, the
Organization of American States (OAS) has established networks of specialized officials
to deal with issues of terrorism, children, women, agriculture and so on.

“The ability to use government networks as the working machinery of a formal


international treaty or convention — as with NAFTA and its side-agreements —
provides a guarantee of continuing respect for national sovereignty in the
implementation of international commitments.”
Networks can make the world more just, cooperative, harmonious and prosperous.
Cooperation can lead to beneficial competition in creating new solutions to difficult
problems. By facilitating enforcement, networks can advance legal compliance. They can
also help countries with scant resources or experience build effective institutions by
providing access to crucial information about what has worked elsewhere. Networks can
provide multilateral solutions to the problems of failed, transitional or weak states, and
even states that need rebuilding. Networks can combine the functions of self-regulating
organizations and professional associations. They can use "hard power" when it is
delegated, but they can also use the "soft power" of information, example, persuasion,
debate and discussion.

The picture is not all rosy. Because network operations are not governed by clear
standards, some see them as secret, undemocratic or unaccountable. Setting five norms
may diffuse this:

1. Global equality — All government networks should freely admit any official who
meets the criteria for membership. Once admitted, every member should have an
equal right to hear what others say and to be heard in return.
2. Tolerance for differences — Members should recognize, accept and act on the
belief that there is space for legitimate differences in point of view or in approach.
3. Positive comity — Traditionally, states have merely deferred to each other. The
network norm should be to work on cooperation.
4. Checks and balances — Use institutional mechanisms to limit network power.
5. Subsidiarity — Address issues at the lowest practicable level.

Special Study:

The ideas of the sovereign nation-state is outdated and unable to capture the complexities of
contemporary law and governance.

- History of sovereign state – various definition


- Outdated (Canada is still not sovereign)
- Debate
- Response
-

Вам также может понравиться