europe supranational

I am proposing…..that no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity….
President Woodrow Wilson, address to the Senate, 22nd January 1917 (speech known as Peace without Victory)

The doctrine of outright national sovereignty implies international anarchy, since it means that every sovereign nation is a law unto itself.

The mirage of sovereignty

What is the real spirit and purpose of the European project? Surely it is more than economic efficiency, the opening-up of markets, the proliferation of commerce. The European dream embraces a loftier vision. It offers a modern antidote to the ancient curse of international anarchy, which has wrought so much disaster throughout history, and especially in the last century.

We are accustomed to the idea that every nation or people is entitled to sovereignty or, if you prefer, self-determination. Indeed, this notion was one of the great mantras of the twentieth century, enshrined in President Woodrow Wilson's famous declaration of 1917, quoted above. Today, many people still believe that Wilsonism is the only acceptable state of affairs. They feel that if any 'people' is not fully independent, its condition must be a detestable servitude. But, in practice, the doctrine of full sovereignty for every 'people' is riddled with difficulties.

The basic problem is to determine which groups of people actually are distinct 'peoples'. As one writer has put it, are the Cockneys a nation? That is pushing the question towards absurdity; yet Cockneys do, after all, have a highly distinctive argot of their own, with its missing aitches and its rhyming slang. And it is often argued that having its own language is one of the characteristic features of a people or nation.

Another big problem with the doctrine of sovereignty is that, even if we can agree upon which groups of people are 'peoples', we inevitably find that they do not live in distinct, exclusive, clearly marked-out spaces. In South Africa, the proponents of apartheid tried to make them do so; as might be expected, that never worked. Elsewhere, peoples and tribes quarrel and fight interminably over who should have sovereignty over which square miles.

So the dream of every 'people' having outright sovereignty over its own clearly-defined piece of territory is hardly practicable, and attempts to realise that dream lead to endless strife.

The rule of law among nations

Be you never so high, the Law is above you : that famous epigram comes from Thomas Fuller, a seventeenth-century English clergyman and historian who had a talent for pithy sayings. Others of his are Let not your will roar, when your power can but whisper and Good clothes open all doors. Most of us readily accept Fuller's words of wisdom on the law, provided it means the rule of law within our own countries. We want none of the anarchy that erupts when individuals or groups within a country set themselves above the law.

Yet we are loath to endorse the same principle at international level. People find it hard to accept that the Law should be above England, or France, or Israel, or Argentina, or Nigeria; let alone that God's own Country, the United States of America, should bow to the dictates of international law. So Americans decline to recognise the International Criminal Court; the English jeer at the Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg; in 2005, French and Dutch nationalists helped to derail a proposed new constitution for the European Union.

It should be obvious that the doctrine of outright national sovereignty implies international anarchy, since it means that every sovereign nation is a law unto itself; it is above the law. Here is a great paradox : the people who are keenest on the need for 'law and order' within their own countries are often the most dogmatic defenders of national sovereignty. They do not, apparently, believe in law and order on the international scene.

But there are many powerful arguments for supranational order; let us glance at just a few of them.

Two or more nations (or peoples) claim the same piece of territory, and cannot negotiate a compromise between themselves : rather than go to war, they should be obliged to accept the arbitration of an international court. Refusal to abide by its decisions (contempt of court) should expose them to serious enforceable penalties.

National governments that abuse their own citizens should be liable to prosecution in an international court. Traditional sovereignty means that, within its own territory, a government can do as it pleases until its own citizens throw it out; with some governments, out-throwing can be extremely difficult. The principle of national sovereignty implies that, had he refrained from invading other countries, Hitler (aged 56 in 1945) could have misruled Germany with impunity for decades.

An international authority should have power to impose minimum environmental standards; any country that falls short of the minima should suffer restraints on its trade. For otherwise, in international markets, bad environmental practice drives out good. Industries in countries that do not care about pollution, or have not yet learned to control it, have low costs; in a world of freely competitive trade, they can destroy the industries of countries whose higher standards impose higher costs. Some economists see nothing wrong with this; others display a little common sense.

We need worldwide coordination of procedures for the pursuit, conviction and punishment of terrorists and other criminals. Many forms of crime are international, so justice needs to be supranational. No country should be entitled to refuse extradition of suspects wanted for trial before the International Criminal Court.

From empire to co-operation

In the past, there was a practical alternative to international anarchy; it was called empire. One dominant nation ruled over many others. It is normal now to despise imperialism. Yet, at the very least, it generally prevented quarrelsome tribes from fighting each other; surely a more than trivial benefit. Moreover, the better empires spread civilised values and economic progress. Many African peoples, once under European flags, live in far worse conditions now that they are independent.

But there is no way back. The old imperial model is unworkable today, because peoples no longer willingly bow to a foreign power over which they have no control; and because no nation now has both the will and the means to play the difficult and onerous role of the great civilised emperor.

Today, the only feasible supranational order is a cooperative one, in which each member state is subject to a common framework of laws, but also has a share in the creation and administration of those laws. The European Union is the world's first example of such a structure.

The eastern Europeans recently released from the Russian empire have followed a course quite different from that of the African states that quit the British empire half a century ago. The Africans, following the mood of the times, demanded total independence; and many of them have made a terrible mess of it. By contrast, east European countries have chosen to join the European Union, which makes stringent demands on standards of democratic practice and economic management, but which provides in return solidarity and practical help.

Here is the commonwealth of the future, a new kind of civilised international order, free from the old imperial dominance of nation over nation that hitherto was the only alternative to anarchic sovereignties. Never mind the naysayers! Europe has its problems; what else can you expect when a large group of diverse nations with a long history of strife is feeling its way, with few precedents to guide it, towards a novel form of amicable partnership? But this new Europe, whatever its difficulties, is a fresh concept in international relations, an example to inspire the world.