The paper addresses the philosophical presuppositions underlying the concept of the “international system.” It suggests that the international system is not a system in any technical sense of this term, but rather a static order – an international order – founded on international boundaries. Nor is there any place in reality that corresponds to the term “international” or, more broadly, the “international plane.” The international plane is a state analogous to the quantum state in physics – a quantum state writ (...) large. In reality, the international plane is reducible to an international event taking place on an international boundary. The international order of boundaries, in turn, is ultimately rooted in common sense and metaphysics – the two founding positions of modern philosophy. (shrink)

The paper is a sequel to an earlier introductory article on the international order of boundaries, the conceptual equivalence of physics and law, and the philosophical presuppositions (metaphysics, common sense) underlying the international order and modern philosophy more broadly. The paper develops a philosophical approach that does not engage with any such presuppositions, building instead on (historically) recent developments in cosmology and quantum mechanics. Further to a conceptual analysis of the mechanics of information, energy and entropy, it outlines the emergence, (...) as a result of entanglement and phase transition, of increasingly more complex events – the chemical, biological and ecological – and the conceptually equivalent fields of social sciences or rather “transciences” – the economic, social, political and legal. It is suggested that physics is conceptually equivalent to law, chemistry is conceptually equivalent to politology, biology is conceptually equivalent to sociology, and ecology is conceptually equivalent to economics. The demonstration of these conceptual equivalences, or dualities, calls for further philosophical and conceptual reflection that goes beyond physics and law, which are the underlying focus of the present paper. (shrink)

This paper is a sequel to an earlier introductory article on the international order of boundaries, the conceptual equivalence of physics and law, and the philosophical presuppositions (metaphysics, common sense) underlying the international order and modern philosophy more broadly. The paper develops a philosophical approach that does not engage with any such presuppositions, building on (historically) recent developments in cosmology and quantum mechanics. Further to a conceptual analysis of the mechanics of information, energy and entropy, it outlines the emergence, as (...) a result of entanglement and phase transition, of increasingly more complex events – the chemical, biological and ecological – and the conceptually equivalent fields of social sciences or rather “transciences” – the economical, social, political and legal. It is suggested that physics is conceptually equivalent to law, chemistry is conceptually equivalent to politology, biology is conceptually equivalent to sociology, and ecology is conceptually equivalent to economics. The demonstration of these conceptual equivalences, or dualities, calls for further philosophical and conceptual reflection that goes beyond physics and law, which are the underlying focus of the present paper. (shrink)

In what would become his last interview, Jacques Derrida raised the question about the legacy of his work. What would become of deconstruction after his death? -/- Derrida proposed two contradictory hypotheses: the legacy of deconstruction might be re-invested in a new philosophical undertaking that could produce new intellectual gains, or it might be deposited on a savings account – a dépôt légal – where it would attract only limited legal interest. Derrida suggested that at least part his legacy should (...) be re-invested in the development of a new European concept of international law. -/- This paper is an attempt to explore this hypothetical undertaking by translating the language of deconstruction into the language of international law. It turns out, in the course of this translation, that the relationship between international and domestic law is structured like the distinction between writing and speech – not as a conceptual distinction between equals, but as a conceptual hierarchy. While domestic law has developed organically, embodying the common sense (bon sens, gesunder Verstand) of the people, international law is an artefact, a creation of lawyers and diplomats; while domestic law is a full-fledged system, international law remains primitive – it has no basic norm, no centralized sanctioning system, no prohibition of self-help. It has no totem and taboo. -/- The narrative that supports this conceptual structure is a story of the modern, enlightened concept of civil law, the law of the contrat social. A deconstruction of this conceptual structure produces a new concept of international law that does not embrace a centralized system but challenge, uncertainty and a risk of failure – a law that has no totem and no taboo. (shrink)

The term “international” refers to the movement of resources – goods, services, capital and labor – across international boundaries. Such movement may be voluntary, in which case it qualifies as a socioeconomic phenomenon, or involuntary. Involuntary movement of resources may be small-scale or (socioeconomically) microscopic, or it may be macroscopic – a large-scale transfer of resources over an international boundary. When resources are mobilized on a large scale and without the consent of the target State, the event amounts by definition (...) to an international conflict as it challenges the very ontological foundation of the classic State system – an international boundary. However, in the context of globalization, a shift has occurred from inter-State conflicts to a microscopic form of conflict – often referred to as international “terrorism.” Unlike a classic inter-State conflict, international “terrorism” is not a macroscopic (political) but a microscopic (socio-economic) phenomenon and, as such, a “traveling” conflict: it does not target international boundaries but socioeconomic differences – differences in language, race, ethnicity or religion. As such, international “terrorism” is not only one of the causes of deceleration of globalization, but also a symptom of its systemic failure. While globalization has involved liberalization of cross-border movement of goods, services and capital, it has not involved liberalization of cross-border movement of labor. The root cause of international “terrorism” lies in a systemic denial of socio-economic opportunity. (shrink)