Transnational Law in the Age of Nationalism
We have been here before, at this very crossroads. The human race seems destined to follow some old roads over and over again. In 1923 Alfred Zimmern wrote "It is a common theme among the pessimists that the world has relapsed since the armistice into a temper of nationalism which renders illusory the hopes and dreams of internationalism so widely entertained during the war. These two movements or moods, nationalism and internationalism, are regarded as opposing and mutually exclusive, and the very evident ascendancy of the former is too often unquestioningly accepted as involving, if not the final defeat, at least the indefinite postponement of the latter. If this were really so the outlook for mankind would be black indeed, for nationalism, not only in Europe and America but throughout the world, is clearly a rising power." (Zimmern, Alfred E. "Nationalism and Internationalism." Foreign Affairs. 11 Aug. 2017. Web. 11 Aug. 2017.) Ironically, it was the collapse of the world into nationalism, and the horrors of the second world war that followed, that finally led to an international view of the world that followed the end of that war.
The transnational institutions created by the United States of America, with the strong support of Great Britain, France and eventually the adversaries in that war, Germany and Japan, that formed the basis of a level of prosperity that had never been seen before. Of course, in this transnational, globalizing world, the United States, arguably the only winner of that war, came out as the principal beneficiary of this new world order. It is thus ironic that in many ways the United States, with the election of Donald Trump, is cheer leading the world to a new nationalism: asserting an "America First" policy reminiscent of the The America First Committee (AFC) of the 1940's and even earlier American isolationist, nationalist and protectionist movements. That coupled with the near suicidal move in the United Kingdom to depart from the European Union, driven by misplaced political ambition and a virulent populist nationalism based upon some elusive false memory of past imperial greatness has seen cracks in the post-war global order represented by free trade, globalization and mutually beneficial coordinated cooperative military and political structures underpinned by treaties and transnational legal structures.
The impact of this change is hard to judge from the current perspective. While the Trump administration has blustered a great deal, very little has actually been done to further the America First agenda. Indeed, the America First agenda flies in the face of not just the American post war world order-which has greatly benefited the American economy and its people, but in the face of traditional Republican party orthodoxy, and as a result may be more of a slogan than reality. Across the Atlantic, Britain has less to lose from an erosion of the post war order. One could in fact argue that of all of the founder nations of that order, Britain was a net loser, having shed an empire, seen its currency relegated to a quaint historical anomaly and its economy decline in contrast not to just the United States but also to its European partners. But the British government is still flailing about trying to find its way out of the European embrace-and in the end may opt for something less radical than at first thought. Yet the threat remains, and the global economy, founded on multinational cooperation and transnational legal structures may yet come under real threat, with unpredictable consequences.
We have been here before, at this very crossroads. The human race seems destined to follow some old roads over and over again. In 1923 Alfred Zimmern wrote "It is a common theme among the pessimists that the world has relapsed since the armistice into a temper of nationalism which renders illusory the hopes and dreams of internationalism so widely entertained during the war. These two movements or moods, nationalism and internationalism, are regarded as opposing and mutually exclusive, and the very evident ascendancy of the former is too often unquestioningly accepted as involving, if not the final defeat, at least the indefinite postponement of the latter. If this were really so the outlook for mankind would be black indeed, for nationalism, not only in Europe and America but throughout the world, is clearly a rising power." (Zimmern, Alfred E. "Nationalism and Internationalism." Foreign Affairs. 11 Aug. 2017. Web. 11 Aug. 2017.) Ironically, it was the collapse of the world into nationalism, and the horrors of the second world war that followed, that finally led to an international view of the world that followed the end of that war.
The transnational institutions created by the United States of America, with the strong support of Great Britain, France and eventually the adversaries in that war, Germany and Japan, that formed the basis of a level of prosperity that had never been seen before. Of course, in this transnational, globalizing world, the United States, arguably the only winner of that war, came out as the principal beneficiary of this new world order. It is thus ironic that in many ways the United States, with the election of Donald Trump, is cheer leading the world to a new nationalism: asserting an "America First" policy reminiscent of the The America First Committee (AFC) of the 1940's and even earlier American isolationist, nationalist and protectionist movements. That coupled with the near suicidal move in the United Kingdom to depart from the European Union, driven by misplaced political ambition and a virulent populist nationalism based upon some elusive false memory of past imperial greatness has seen cracks in the post-war global order represented by free trade, globalization and mutually beneficial coordinated cooperative military and political structures underpinned by treaties and transnational legal structures.
The impact of this change is hard to judge from the current perspective. While the Trump administration has blustered a great deal, very little has actually been done to further the America First agenda. Indeed, the America First agenda flies in the face of not just the American post war world order-which has greatly benefited the American economy and its people, but in the face of traditional Republican party orthodoxy, and as a result may be more of a slogan than reality. Across the Atlantic, Britain has less to lose from an erosion of the post war order. One could in fact argue that of all of the founder nations of that order, Britain was a net loser, having shed an empire, seen its currency relegated to a quaint historical anomaly and its economy decline in contrast not to just the United States but also to its European partners. But the British government is still flailing about trying to find its way out of the European embrace-and in the end may opt for something less radical than at first thought. Yet the threat remains, and the global economy, founded on multinational cooperation and transnational legal structures may yet come under real threat, with unpredictable consequences.
Comments
Post a Comment