Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T09:34:34.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is a Supranational Constitution? An Essay in International Relations Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Alec Stone
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Under the banner of “regime theory,” the study of international relations has experienced a massive if largely unacknowledged return to law, the study of the nature, scope, and relevance of norms international politics. Regime is shorthand for forms of institutionalized cooperation in the international system. The article provides one way to assess this movement. In part I, I develop an abstract conception of constitutions as bodies of metanorms, those higher order norms that govern how lower order norms are to be produced, applied, and interpreted. I then examine the extent to which international relations theory is equipped to recognize that some international regimes are constitutional in form (part II). In part III, I propose a means of situating all regime forms, from the most primitive to the full blown constitutional, along a continuum. The central claim is that the distinction made between international and domestic society, for the most part a matter of dogma in mainstream theory, is relative not absolute.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 56 , Issue 3: Special Issue on Public Law , Summer 1994 , pp. 441 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Friedrich, Carl J., Constitutional Government and Democracy (Boston: Ginn, 1950), p. 86.Google Scholar

2. Mancini, Federico G., “The Making of a Constitution for Europe” in The New European Community, ed. Keohane, R. and Hoffmann, S. (Boulder: West View, 1991), pp. 177–94Google Scholar; Stein, Eric, “Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution,” American Journal of International Law 75 (1981): 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiler, Joseph, “The Transformation of Europe.” Yale Law Journal 100 (1991): 2403–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Axelrod, Robert, “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986): 1095–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Taken up again in part 2.

5. The quasi-identity is familiar to students of comparative politics.

6. I am consciously seeking to distill an essentialist if abstract conception of constitution here and in the typology below.

7. Metanorms may be present in, and constitutive of, a wide range of “constitutionalized” social settings, such as universities, trade unions, major league baseball, corporations.

8. Friedrich notes that “the word [constitution] has for modern political science a very distinct meaning, namely, as the process by which government is effectively restrained,” Friedrich, , Constitutional Government and Democracy, p. 123.Google Scholar Lenaerts defines constitutionalism as “limited government operating under the rule of law” (Lenaerts, Koen, “Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism,” American Journal of Comparative Law 38 [1990]: 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

9. Krasner, Stephen D., “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” in International Regimes, ed. Krasner, S. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

10. Haggard, Stephen and Simmons, Beth A., “Theories of International Regimes,” International Organization 41 (1987): 491–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kratochwil, Friedrich V., Rules, Norms, and Decisions (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Krasner, , “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences,” p. 2.Google Scholar

12. Puchala, Donald J. and Hopkins, Raymond F., “International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis,” in International Regimes, ed. Krasner, , pp. 61–91.Google Scholar

13. Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1979).Google Scholar

14. Keohane, Robert O., ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

15. Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, p. 66.Google Scholar

16. Since “each state duplicates the activities of other states,” (Ibid., p. 95).

17. Ibid., chap. 5.

18. Ibid., pp. 114–15.

19. In fact, Waltz does just this in order to demonstrate how structure matters in his comparison of the impact on metanorms on political outcomes in Great Britain and the United States, (Ibid., pp. 81–88).

20. Ibid., pp. 72, 98, 122.

21. Ibid., p. 89.

22. Ibid., p. 102.

23. Ibid., pp. 106–107.

24. Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar; Axelrod, Robert and Keohane, Robert O., “Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions,” World Politics 38 (1985): 226–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grieco, Joseph M., “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42 (1988): 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Grieco, , “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation,” p. 493.Google Scholar

26. Hechter, Michael, Principles of Group Solidarity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Taylor, Michael, Anarchy and Cooperation (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976).Google Scholar

27. Grieco, , “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation,” p. 498 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

28. Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in International Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, p. 88.Google Scholar

30. Ibid., pp. 161–76.

31. Those who have focused on free trade as the paradigmatic example of a collective good regime, have also examined the near-hegemony of Great Britain, from the latter half of the nineteenth century to World War II. For a review of this literature, see Gilpin, Robert, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 72–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Snidal, Duncan, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” International Organization 39 (1989): 581.Google Scholar

33. Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar I take After Hegemony to be a neorealist text for three interrelated reasons. Unlike neoliberals (see below), the After Hegemony Keohane: (1) accepts assumptions that states are “like-units” and that anarchy - in the absence of a regime - is an environment in which disincentives outweigh incentives to cooperate; (2) does not incorporate transnational society as a factor in a regime's creation, maintenance, or extension; and (3) does not show how regimes may develop semi-autonomous institutional capacity to generate political processes and outcomes.

34. Keohane, Robert O., “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,” in Neorealism and Its Critics, pp. 193–95.Google Scholar

35. Many neorealists remain unconvinced, e.g., Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation.” Grieco views MSR, wrongly I believe, as a form of neoliberalism.

36. Keohane, After Hegemony, chaps. 5, 8, 9.

37. Ibid., chap. 6.

38. Ibid., p. 62.

39. Why exactly regimes can never constitute solid enough “anchors” is unclear. In fact, the assertion is belied by multilateral regimes generally, and by the EC in particular (see below).

40. Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

41. Mearsheimer, John, “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War,” The Atlantic Monthly (08 1990): 35–50.Google Scholar

42. Ibid., p. 45.

43. Ibid., p. 36.

44. Liberal theories of international relations have traditionally been associated with “idealism,” or “utopianism.” Proponents of these theories saw in international law and organization the means of regulating, if not eliminating, the scourge of war, and perhaps even the creation of world government, e.g., Mitrany, David, A Working Peace System (Chicago: Quadrangle Press, 1966).Google Scholar These liberals largely accept realist depictions of the world as accurate, but their commitments to peace and justice lead them to resist the view that anarchy is a permanent condition. Such liberals are, theoretically speaking, semirealists who believe that anarchy is evil, a point made by Moravcsik, note 45 below.

45. Moravcsik, Andrew, “Liberalism and International Relations Theory,” Unpublished Working Paper, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University (1992): 50 pp.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., pp. 2–10,16, 21.

47. Liberal states may sometimes have a net incentive to go to war against nonliberal states, when the zone of liberalism is perceived as threatened (self-defense); or perhaps when force serves to impose capitalist relations on a nonliberal periphery. In either case, it is far easier for liberal leaders to mobilize civil society to war against nonliberal states than against liberal states. For versions of these and other speculations see Moravcsik, “Liberalism and International Relations Theory.”

48. Rosecrance, Richard, The Rise of the Trading State (New York: Basic Books, 1986), p. 24.Google Scholar

49. Moravcsik, , “Liberalism and International Relations Theory,” pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

50. Kratochwil, , Rules, Norms, and Decisions, p. 47.Google Scholar

51. Burley, Anne Marie, “Law Among Liberal States: Liberal Internationalism and the Act of State Doctrine,” Columbia Law Review 92 (1992): 1909–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Rosecrance, , Rise of the Trading State, p. 59.Google Scholar

53. Thus the United States justified pulling out of the Nicaragua v. U.S. case before the International Court of Justice (1984–86), among other things, because Nicaragua was an illiberal state and the ICJ included a judge from the Soviet Union.

54. Haas, Ernst B, The Uniting of Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958).Google Scholar

59. Ibid., p. 54.

60. Stone, Alec, “Ratifying Maastricht: France Debates European Union,” French Politics and Society 11 (1993): 70–88.Google Scholar

61. Krasner, , “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences,” pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

62. Moravcsik, Andrew, “Negotiating the Single European Act,” in The New European Community, ed. Keohane, and Hoffmann, , pp. 41–84.Google Scholar

63. The Commission, the executive agency of the EC, is formally autonomous from the member states.

64. Sandholtz, Wayne and Zysman, John, “1992: Recasting the European Bargain,” World Politics 42 (1989): 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. Sandholtz, Wayne, “Choosing Union: Monetary Politics and Maastricht,” International Organization 47 (1993): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. Morgan, Patrick, “Multilateralism and Security: Prospects in Europe,” in Multilateralism Matters, pp. 327–64.Google Scholar

67. Kratochwil, , Rules, Norms, and Decisions, p. 56.Google Scholar

68. See note 2.

69. Weiler, Joseph, “The Community System: The Dual Character of Supranationalism,” Yearbook of European Law 1 (1981): 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. Lenaerts, , “Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism,” pp. 205–64.Google Scholar