basu43_CrailsheimStudio_getty images_gavel

Argumente für eine globale Verfassung

Apr 18, 2019 Kaushik Basu

NEW YORK – In meinem Buch The Republic of Beliefs: A New Approach to Law and Economics will ich zeigen, wie die Methoden, die aus dem langen und fruchtbaren Dialog zwischen Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften entstanden sind, gemeinsam mit etwas Spieltheorie auf internationale Streitigkeiten und multijurisdiktionale Konflikte angewendet werden können. Also habe ich einen Abschnitt über die Einführung einer globalen Verfassung hinzugefügt. Dies ist eine Idee mit einer ziemlich langen Geschichte.

Bereits im vierzehnten Jahrhundert haben Italiens halbautonome Stadtstaaten die „statuistische Doktrin“ entwickelt, um die Probleme zu lösen, die aus dem Handel und den Geschäften über mehrere juristische Rechtsgebiete hinweg entstanden waren. Wie Stephen Breyer, ein Richter beim Obersten Gericht der USA, nahelegt, hätte ein Prozess, der von einem römischen gegen einen florentinischen Bürger geführt worden wäre, ohne institutionelle Mechanismen zur Streitschlichtung beide Staaten in einen Krieg verwickeln können.

Oder nehmen wie die Beschlagnahmung des portugiesischen Handelsschiffs Santa Catarina durch die Niederländische Ostindien-Kompanie in der Straße von Singapur im Jahr 1603. Dieser Zwischenfall führte zu derart nervenaufreibenden, multijurisdiktionalen Fragen, dass der holländische Jurist Huig de Groot (Grotius) – bei einem der ersten Versuche, internationales Recht zu schaffen – als Vermittler hinzugezogen werden musste.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

The Brexit Impossibility Triangle
Leon Neal/Getty Images

The Brexit Impossibility Triangle

Emily Jones & Calum Miller provide a definitive outline of the tradeoffs involved in any scenario for a post-European United Kingdom.

14

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 3 in all 3 Comments on this article

Mirek Fatyga Apr 19, 2019

Global Constitution is about as realistic as was the global adoption of Esperanto. Remember that one?

Global Constitution would represent a radical change ,which societies rarely respond to well. If the last 200 years should have taught the advanced societies something it is this: Evolution, not Revolution.

We can re-start the evolution by acknowledging that the last 40 years of market uber alles, aka neoliberalism, was indeed an attempted revolution whose purpose was to abruptly undo decades of evolution known as Managed Capitalism. it failed, and produced fairly predictable results when applied to the actual society. We are living with these results today. Attempts to revolutionize societies, particularly by fiat, lead to tyranny of one kind of another as the revolutionaries seek to subjugate the resistant society to their will. We need to start undoing the damage, gently, through international agreements, re-calibration of governing philosophies, and better control over transnational corporations.

We should also acknowledge the material reality of population growth. The world population more than doubled in my lifetime. This rapid growth is putting a very real strain on scarce resources. To use oil as one example: bringing the entire world to North American consumption would require quadrupling of the production of oil. To the EU level, "only" doubling. Attempts to overcome these constraints through fiscal and political gimmicks always lead to the same outcome: disappointment and financial crisis. The solution to this predicament is technological evolution and management of social tensions. Management of social tensions has to be done on the country-by-country basis. There is no "one size fits all" that will manage tensions in Germany or the US as well as in China. All these countries have different problems and will need different solutions, because their starting points are different, as is their culture and history.

Evolution. Gently. Doucement.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Apr 18, 2019

Basu is of Indian origin. Grotius justified enslavement and oppression of brown skinned people by Europeans. Why does Basu mention the man as 'attempting to codify international law'? He is undermining his own case.

The fact is Justice is expensive. Nations pay for superior access to Justice for their own people- they won't pay for it if third parties benefit.

Basu has worked for the Govt. of India. He knows that lack of resources severely curtails access to Justice for the vast majority of Indians. Why is he pontificating about a Global Justice system?

Wars don't occur because some guy in one place sues some guy in another place. Rome and Florence were often at War- but never for this reason.

Which country has a justice system that is 'sensitive to the wellbeing of all individuals'?
None. Rich people hire better lawyers. Indeed, they have more power to write the laws.

Basu is an academic. He says 'we cannot wait around for academic debates on such matters'. That is literally what he is paid to do. The rest of us think academics are fools. We pay them to look after adolescents who are too old for school and too immature to work.

Why does Basu mention Brexit? Surely he must be aware that there is no jurisdictional issue involved whatsoever. Bilateral and Multilateral treaties specify the matter of adjudication. There is no need for a 'Global Constitution'. Some countries get on very well without a written Constitution. Others are utterly horrible despite having a fine sounding Constitution with a Bill of Rights and so forth.

Basu asks us to believe that having a common code reduces conflict. History does not bear him out. He is perpetuating a mischievous notion once common in India- viz. passing lots of lots of nice sounding laws without bothering to enforce them would magically improve matters. Vide https://socioproctology.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-kaushik-basus-republic-of-beliefs.html/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Apr 18, 2019

The key word here are: "Authorize enforcement by a third party that is actually empowered to carry this out." Does anyone honestly that China or Russia or The US or the EU would accept enforcement on them by a 3rd party. In the end all Law Enforcement be it Local Law or International Law is coercion. And no one could enforce a law like the writer describes without a (very High) chance of war.
And who guards the guardians ? The amount of corruption in International organizations is truly astonishing. The chances of one International player or another getting control of this "Third Party" enforcement organization and using on their rivals? The author ................... is ignoring the realities of situation. The big players will not sign such an agreement and absolutely would not accept enforcement by a 3rd Party.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Y2s5lLG/de;

Argumente für eine globale Verfassung

To continue reading, subscribe now.

The Brexit Impossibility Triangle

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Asia’s Multilateral Balancing Act

The Economic Consequences of Automation

The Return of Fiscal Policy

Jerome Powell’s Dilemma

Can Direct Democracy Defeat Populism?

Strengthening Land Rights Will Curb Migration

Islands of Climate Ambition

Brexit House of Cards

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register