Advertisement

European Governance and American Sovereignism

  • Zaki Laïdi
Part of the The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy book series (SPIRP)

Abstract

As discussed earlier, Europe’s social preferences affect the rest of the world in highly variable conditions and proportions. To prohibit importation of beef with hormones from the United States reflects a relationship with food that Europeans can maintain without seeking to impose it on other societies. In the latter can reasonably make do with this. Such preferences shall thus be called defensive social preferences.

Keywords

Kyoto Protocol Security Council International Criminal Court Global Governance Rome Statute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 4.
    See Samuel Scheffler, Boundaries and Allegiances. Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. Also see David Held’s essential work, Global Covenant, The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus, Cambridge, MA, Polity Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    Alasdair MacIntyre, “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” in R. Beiner (ed), Theorizing Citizenship, 1995, New York, State University of New York Press, pp. 209–228.Google Scholar
  3. 7.
    See Bardo Fassbender, “The Better People of the United Nations? Europe’s Practice and the United Nations,” EJIL 15 (5), (2004), pp. 857–884.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Pierre Brana, Rapport 2141, French National Assembly, February 15, 2000, p. 7. Rapport fait au nom de la Commission des Affaires Etrangères sur le projet de loi autorisant la ratification de la Convention portant Statut de la CPI (cited hereafter as Brana Report). Google Scholar
  5. 17.
    Philip Altson, “Review Essay. Transplanting Foreign Norms: Human Rights and Other International Legal Norms in Japan,” EJIL 10 (3), 1999. Available at http://www.ejil.orgjournal/vol10/n°3/rev.html.
  6. 18.
    See Y. Iwasawa, International Law, Human Rights Law and Japanese Law: The Impact of International Law on Japanese Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 19.
    Joseph Weiler, “The Transformation of Europe,” Yale Law Journal, June 1991, p. 2407.Google Scholar
  8. 20.
    Joseph Weiler, “Une révolution tranquille. La CJCE et ses interlocuteurs,” Politix 32 (3), (1995), p. 121.Google Scholar
  9. 21.
    Weiler, “Transformation of Europe,” p. 2412.Google Scholar
  10. 24.
    David Sloss, “International Agreements and the Political Safeguards of Federalism,” Stanford Law Review 55 (May 2003), p. 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 28.
    John Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global Governance,” p. 5 in Michael Ignatieff (ed), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, Princeton, Princeton University Press (available at the Kennedy School of Government Web site, Faculty Research Working Papers Series. February 2004. Page references are to the working paper).Google Scholar
  12. 29.
    Glennon and Steewart, “The United States: Taking Environmental Treaties Seriously,” in Weiss E. Brown and H.K. Jacobsen (eds.), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Agreements, 1998, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 174–175.Google Scholar
  13. 30.
    Jutta Brunnée, “The United States and International Environmental Law,” EJIL 15 (4), 2004, p. 629Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    Jed Rubenfeld, “The Two World Orders,” Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2003, p. 34.Google Scholar
  15. 34.
    See Paul Stephan, “International Governance and American Democracy,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 36.
    Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith, “Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position,” Harvard Law Review 110 (4), 1997, p. 815.Google Scholar
  17. 37.
    Customary international law is defined as “the set of unwritten norms resulting from a general and consistent practice of states that they follow from a sense of legal obligation.” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 701, Philadelphia, American Law Institute, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 40.
    John Ruggie, “American Exceptionalism,” p. 23.Google Scholar
  19. 41.
    Andrea Bianchi, “International Law and US Courts: The Myth of Lohengrin Revisited,” EJIL 15 (4), 2004, pp. 773 and 775.Google Scholar
  20. 42.
    See Curtis Bradley, “International Delegations, the Structural Constitution and Non-self Execution,” 2000, Stanford Law Review 55, May 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 43.
    Peter Spiro, “Treaties, International Law and Constitutional Rights,” Stanford Law Review, May 2003, p. 2.Google Scholar
  22. 44.
    Andrea Bianchi, “International Law and US Courts,” p. 780.Google Scholar
  23. 45.
    Christian Vergaris, “The Federalism Implications of International Human Rights Law,” The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, p. 9. Available at www.fed-soc.org.Google Scholar
  24. 47.
    Jack Goldsmith, “Should International Human Rights Law Trump US Domestic Law?” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000, p. 328.Google Scholar
  25. 48.
    Andrea Bianchi, “International Law and US Courts,” p. 777. In fact, the new point of departure for American legal sovereignism came in 1985 with Washington’s decision to withdraw from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.Google Scholar
  26. 51.
    Jed Rubenfeld, “The Two World Orders,” pp. 22–36.Google Scholar
  27. 52.
    Seeinteralia, PeterSpiro, “The New Sovereignists: American Exceptionalism and Its False Prophets,” Foreign Affairs, November–December 2000 as well as Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Building Global Democracy,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 53.
    Eric Posner, “Do States Have a Moral Obligation to Obey International Law?” Stanford Law Review, May 2003, p. 1918.Google Scholar
  29. 54.
    Kenneth Roth, “The Charade of US Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000, p. 138.Google Scholar
  30. 55.
    John Bolton, “Should We Take Global Governance Seriously?” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000, p. 220.Google Scholar
  31. 59.
    Paul Stephan, “International Governance and American Democracy,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000, p. 249.Google Scholar
  32. 60.
    Eric A. Posner, “Terrorism and the Law of War,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Winter 2005, p. 433.Google Scholar
  33. 61.
    Bolton, “Should We Take Global Governance Seriously?” p. 220.Google Scholar
  34. 62.
    Jeremy Rabkin, “Is EU Policy Eroding the Sovereignty of Non-members States?” Chicago Journal of International Law, Autumn 2000, p. 273.Google Scholar
  35. 65.
    See Jeremy Rabkin, The Case for Sovereignty. Why the World Should Welcome American Independence, Washington, AEI Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  36. 66.
    Richard Pildes, “Conflicts between American and European Views of Law: The Dark Side of Legalism,” Virginia Journal of International Law, Autumn 2003, p. 147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zaki Laïdi 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zaki Laïdi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations