International Political Science: New theoretical & Regional Perspectives. IPSA International Conference. Concordia University, Montreal (Quebec), April 30-May 2, 2008 Is Trans-disciplinary Dialogue Possible? Translating International Relations and International Law to Each Other, Ph.D., LL.B. Director, Institute for Transborder Studies & Prof., Department of Political Science Kwantlen University College, 12666-72 nd Ave., Surrey, B.C., Canada V3W 2M8 Tel. (604) 599-2544, Fax (604) 599-2578 Email noemi.gal-or@kwantlen.ca; www.kwantlen.ca/itbs My intervention addresses the external relations of IR with another discipline - IL. The revolutionary developments in international relations, e.g. the rising role of the nonstate actor, the return of religion, the inter-connectedness between security and the economy, etc. have been challenging both the politics of international relations as well as the legal architecture of the regimes designed to assist politicians in navigating these politics. Consequently, they have pushed the disciplines of international relations and international law towards closer interaction. To communicate meaningfully two major hurdles must be crossed: 1. First, some common vocabulary, rising above the distinct disciplinary jargons, must be agreed upon. 2. Second, the terminology must address more than specific cases; it must be of universal validity. I therefore suggest to identify a handful of most relevant meta concepts; order them in a logical-theoretical sequencing; compare how each discipline addresses them; and distil a shared meaning, perhaps coin a basic inter-disciplinary harmonised terminology. Much of the prevailing legal and political discourse, which does occasionally interconnect in areas of common inquiry, follows an inductive (empirical) approach: e.g. study of the WTO, NAFTA, civil society, NGOs, Guantanamo, Kosovo, or alternatively, I am dedicating this presentation to my former teacher, Prof. Aharon Kleinman, thanking him for having instilled in me the enthusiasm for the study of international relations. 1
concrete themes such as judicialisation, compliance, levels of governance, power differentiation, the private-public divide, corporate control, and so on. This reflects that the attention is set on what, in the larger scheme of things, can be referred to as either the micro issues/level, at least, secondary issues. This approach will continue undisturbed because it is the most practical way to secure some inter-disciplinary dialogue. However, I argue that in order to engage the political and legal discourses in a more thorough and profound dialogue, the option of pursuing the deductive (theoretical) approach, must not be neglected. In addition to operationalising the big jig-saw puzzle into its smaller pieces, as has been done, the largest picture also deserves attention. To do this, we need to develop a clear vocabulary. To advance towards this end, I suggest a methodology of simultaneous translation. Simultaneous translation consists of collecting, categorising, prioritising, and sequencing knowledge regarding overarching meta key concepts ubiquitous in both international legal and political disciplines. This knowledge must then be woven into a transdisciplinary discourse to set a common platform for a discussion wherein concept and theories from the two disciplines are being addressed. Ideally, this should facilitate communication among scholars from different fields within each of these two disciplines; and successfully tackle the twin challenge of international legal uniformity and political re-orientation. By way of reference to Gunther Hellmann s concerns: I submit that the more inclusive the geo-political regional representation in such a dialogue, the more purely distilled will be the knowledge gained. As a point of departure for the implementation of this simultaneous translation, I suggest the following common platform of five meta themes. These themes have been recurring in, and are fundamental to, the discourses on politics and law: Sovereignty, democracy, federalism, institutionalisation, and legitimacy. This particular sequence - sovereignty, democracy, federalism, institutionalisation, and legitimacy is important because it reflects an originating order, a teleology. Only once the meaning of sovereignty (internal and 2
external, re. public and private, etc.) has been established, is it possible to move on and explore the ambit of democracy; and only once democracy has been clarified, federalism can be addressed, and so on and so forth. In this simultaneous translation, each of the five themes is being addressed separately. In each thematic translation discussion, relevant benchmark theories dominating the political and legal discourses will be juxtaposed. This way, I am hoping to elucidate the point of intersection of the two disciplines, which is where they share a common denominator - the element critical for a harmonised vocabulary. This approach is deliberately oblivious to doctrinal labels. Therefore, choosing sovereignty as the point of departure must not be confused with opting for a positivist, or any other, approach. It simply reflects my appreciation that this is the most fundamental epistemological hurdle to cross. Here is an example of how simultaneous translation works. 1 Sovereignty mediates sets of relationships among individuals, individuals and groups, and group-to-group. In spite of ongoing de-construction, sovereignty remains linked primarily to two associate and this applies to both the political and legal discourses. For instance, in the: 1. Political discourse: 1.1. Re. equality - some meanings: - as geo-political and political cultural delineations. (Huntington, 1996 and 2004) - from historical and socio-economic prisms (Gramscian) (Youngs, 1997; Kennedy in Kingsburry, 1998) - as key in the exercise of power & control within the state and in inter-state relations (security & economics) 1 Please see Annex A. 3
- managed across levels of governance (Scharpf, 2001, Bache & Flinders, 2004, Hooghe & Marks, 2001) - in neo-medievalism (Friedrichs, 2005) - as a special case: American hegemony/empire Re. Territory. - spatial dimension vs. de-bordering, transnationality (eliminating the territorial component of sovereignty) - sovereignty as the locus of legitimate authority, an internal concept (Henkin in Kingsburry, 1998: 602) - reframing of the private-public spaces (Lebel, 1997; Zumbansen, 2004; Cutler 2003) 2. Legal discourse - some meanings Re. Equality - Sovereignty as attached to the sources of international law - Inter-national = between or among nations (or states) - as a natural right (Hugo Grotius) - the state as possessing its own volition, highest authority, submitting to the common will of, and based on agreement with, its equals (Morin, 1987) - Monism and dualism (the normative dimension) 2.2. Re. territoriality - Con-federal European Union (EU) model 4
- Plurilateral or network-like Law Merchant, each offering different interpretations of equality and territoriality. By juxtaposing both political and legal debates on sovereignty, we can advance a step further to understanding questions such as: Has the state been abdicating its responsibility (to protect certain socio-economic interests, security interests, etc.)? Are NSAs taking over some of the state s traditional functions? Is soft law trespassing on hard law? Has international law come to exert direct effect on national law? Is sovereignty still a relevant working concept? Next, by juxtaposing both political and legal debates on democracy, we can ask whether democracy applies as a formula tailored for decision making governing not only the intrasovereign space but also in international relations? How? To what extent? For what purpose - for instance, must an international regime be democratic in order to secure compliance by all its subjects? In conclusion, the purpose of this presentation is to advocate for the development of an inter-disciplinary grand dialogue between the disciplines of politics & international relations, and international law. The sharing of knowledge between these two approaches to understanding reality is expected to assist in establishing some measure of order in real international life. 5
ANNEX A Mapping For Simultaneous Translation - Table 1 PERSPECTIVES: PERSPECTIVES: I.L. I.R. THEMES ISSUES I II III IV V I II III IV V Sovereignty Equality Territory Democracy Federalism Institutionalization Legitimacy 6