Is National Legislation Obsolete?
Global challenges require global solutions
With the development of air travel, container ships and modern, digital forms of communication, the world has become a “smaller” place and increasingly more integrated. During the past decades, we have reaped the fruit of international trade and travel, yet our globalized world has also unearthed global challenges that cannot be tackled by local governments. So we may need to rethink the current world order — and probably sooner than later!
Let’s consider a few examples to illustrate the kind of problems that cannot be solved on a national or even regional basis:
- Germs do not respect national borders
As demonstrated quite painfully by the current corona pandemic, germs are quite impolite and insubordinate when it comes to respecting a nation’s borders. So a country can happily pass legislation and take action to contain the virus and protect the population but the virus could come back time and again from countries that do not share that country’s level of counter-measures as long as no vaccine is developed (and they do not sever all ties to these countries). - Our climate is victim to the tragedy of the commons
What was an interesting theory explained with overgrazing of a public meadow in game theory at university has become a gruesome reality for our climate: Individual actors often derive more value from selfish use of a common good than from a behavior that would render the optimal outcome with respect to the overall system (making the selfish approach their dominant strategy in game theoretical terms).
To make this more tangible: I, personally, derive more utility from going to work by car than from the infinitesimal small improvement to the global climate, if I, as only one of roughly 1.4 billion car owners, give up my car.
Or on a larger scale: A country derives more value from producing cheap yet climate-damaging energy than from the small improvement to the global climate, if that country, as only one of 195 countries, refrains from doing so — and yes, I am aware that it’s not fair to deny developing countries what industrialized countries did for generations but honestly, the climate doesn’t care about fairness!
It is a good development that some countries have started to commit themselves to lower greenhouse gas emissions (which means overcoming the tragedy of the commons) but regional initiatives alone cannot solve the problem.
On a more abstract level, this problem not only applies to climate protection but to every global challenge where an individual state would put itself at a disadvantage when taking action to further a “greater good” while most other states don’t. - Responsibility for streams of refugees created by war, oppression and poverty is not sufficiently shared
While I am always a fan of solving a problem at its roots rather than treating its symptoms, the root cause may not always be solvable (at least in the short-run) and symptoms may be of an ad-hoc nature that requires immediate attention.
That is the case for refugee streams created by war, oppression and poverty. Setting questions about the eligibility of individual refugees as well as questions about conditions in refugee camps aside, the question of who takes those refugees in on a permanent basis remains in large parts unresolved.
While from a humanitarian perspective, no refugee with a valid asylum claim should be rejected, there is a sad political reality that no single state can “digest” immigration on a level that exceeds a certain proportion of its own population. This political reality comprises questions of economic viability, preservation of a national identity (which does not stand in contrast to a more globalized governance approach) and successful integration to name just a few.
It follows that the burden of absorbing these refugee streams needs to be shouldered equally — something that was not even achieved between the member states of the European Union so far…
But can we actually change the current world order on a global level?
If we look back in history, the way humans form communities, organize and govern themselves has undergone numerous (r)evolutions. The notion of what constitutes our “realm” and how it should be governed is nothing that is set in stone. It changes through the ages. And while empires that have fallen apart might tell a different tale, I think it’s safe to say that there is a trend towards larger “governance units”. There are many examples of federal systems that consist of a number of states that used to be independent but are now part of a larger nation such as the United States of America, Germany and Austria. In Europe, the European Union even forms an umbrella above 27 nations.
Now if I say: “We need to think and act more globally than on a national or European scale”, you may answer: “But we have the United Nations…”.
And you’d be right! The United Nations are the closest thing we have to a “world government” and have been instrumental in keeping world peace, propagating human rights and fostering international cooperation. Their sustainable development goals are a cornerstone for climate protection and social equality. Yet I have always perceived the United Nations as a rather toothless organization that is only as powerful as its most powerful member states allow it to be with regard to their current interests.
I embrace cultural and ethnological diversity and I respect national sovereignty, I also acknowledge the inefficiencies and complexity that come along with larger systems. So I do not think we should tear down today’s notion a nations. But I think on some level, we need more enforceable international cooperation.
If the United Nations (in their current form) are not the solution and we do not want to dissolve today’s nations, what could a solution look like?
I think the European Union could serve as a role model for an Earth Union, a large-scale federal system with a balance between maintained national sovereignty and a federal world government that can pass foundational legislation that has to be implemented on a national level.
Having said that, the European Union is by no means perfect. There is often criticism concerning an excess of bureaucracy, the European Parliament is not as powerful in relation to the European Commission as national parliaments are compared to their respective executive governments and voter turnout is not as high as it is on national levels. But the idea of the European Union is a good one and for all the criticism out there, it cannot be doubted that the European Union has brought about a period of peace and wealth previously unknown to Europe.
To conclude, if we assumed a “European Union approach”, national legislation would not be obsolete, but it would have to align with international legislation where large-scale international challenges need to be addressed!
