I immediately thought of the writing of the US Constitution and its authors/deliberators. Looking just at the "Founding Fathers" it seems like there was a brief moment in time where it was possible for individuals to put aside their own interests and create an institution that defined the collective and provided guidance for future decisions. I think that this is true even with the problem of most of the public authorities being slave holders and wealthy. Yet, it didn't take long for there to be disagreements on the legitimacy of the expression of public authority. Two examples about 170 years apart.
First, after the failure of the Articles of Confederation a strong Fed. government is created but only after outlining some guaranteed rights for citizens and states. But almost immediately there was a crisis as the federal government passed a law that two states sought to nullify. As Kentucky and Virginia attempted to assert their own sovereignty they submitted a petition to the other states promoting the idea that states could ignore certain federal laws. In the Constitutional Period each state had realized the weakness and vulnerability of the Confederation and decided to give up some sovereignty and then created a document expressing the General Will. However, with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Kentucky and Virginia experienced some "buyers remorse". Their appeal to the other states (public sphere) was rejected because the remaining states were still committed to the principals of a federal government.
For the international realm this should mean that at certain moments of crisis, Nation-States can agree to certain "Constitutions" or at least "Conventions", that set out identity and imply action.
The second example from the domestic to the international is the idea that once a State make a proclamation, that activists will attempt to hold the Public Authority to that position.
As difficult as this struggle would be for Civil Rights in the US, it is even more difficult in the international realm to get states to "put something on paper" and then have them shamed into being "true to it".
Amit, thanks for bringing up the Articles of Confederation. It's an area of American history where most people are woefully ignorant. The very name of our country still reflects that one point, the country was a loosely united organization of different states with a shared cultural history, with each former colony taxing, issuing currency, and providing for its own defense. In essence, each being its own sovereign while collectively agreeing to a limited authority. It's also worth noting that in the case of the Articles of Confederation, too little authority can be just as detrimental as too much and the US Constitution which replaced it was an attempt to balance between the overwhelming authority of a monarchy and the ineffective nature of the Confederation of States.
ReplyDelete