Re: Who is the global sovereign?

My view is that we live in a state of Global Corporate Feudalism (noting
that feudal organizations -- or corporations -- do not value democratic
ideals), where a few "sovereign states" exist. The "sovereign states" are
those who have the military might or allied with coalitions who have the
military might to prevent violent encroachment in their territories or
spheres of influence. Corporations, throught corruption, access to
military triggers of the "sovereign states," and propensity to use
"private" security organization to impose violence and intimidation to
achieve their ends -- access to resources, markets, or capital --
essentially determine the direction of events and the state of the world
today, esoecially by controlling the rule-making authority of "sovereign
states." There is no global body of humane, civilized, just law that
protects individual human beings in the world today. Local bodies of law
protect corporates entities, legally regarded as entities with the same
rights, but not the same moral and legal responsibilities, as people. If
you are a pessimist, you can conclude that, without a counterbalancing
legal system that will send corporate leaders to prision for crimes
against humanity (e.g., Bhopal), Corporate Feudalism is leading mankind
down a path to its own destruction. If you are an optimist, you might
conclude that Corporations, like the Princes at Westphalia in 1648, will
realize that such a body of law -- protecting people, the earth and its
resources, and holding non-human entities responsible for their crimes --
is necessary for ending the essential barbarism of Corporate Feudalism and
a prerequisite for human survival on this earth.

//CJR

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, g kohler wrote:

> "The ultimate subject and sovereign ruler of the world is the transnational 
>corporation," writes Professor McMurtry (Canada) in his article, entitled "The 
>FTAA and the WTO: The Meta-Program for Corporate Rule" (Znet, April 2001). 
> This opinion breaks with existing theory of sovereignty, according to which 
>national governments (or nations or states or the people of  territorial 
>states) are the sovereigns. Sovereign means highest authority or power. Saying 
>that there is a "sovereign ruler of the world" is tantamount to saying that 
>there is a "global sovereign". While the United States (or its government or 
>people) may be a "hegemon" in the world (i.e., a leader of nations), the US 
>government or any other government is not the global sovereign, in McMurtry's 
>opinion. In his opinion, there is a "sovereign ruler" above the US government 
>or above any other government or people, namely, "the transnational 
>corporation."
> 
> McMurtry is critical of this situation. While he observes that there is, in 
>effect, a global sovereign, he is not happy with that. In other words, the 
>global sovereign diagnosed by McMurtry as being the effective global sovereign 
>may not be the legitimate global sovereign. If the "transnational corporation" 
>is the effective, but not legitimate, global sovereign, that raises the 
>important question: Is there actually a legitimate global sovereign? Or, is 
>there none? And if there is one, who is it? Note that this is not an empirical 
>question, but rather a normative one. WS scholar Professor Bornschier writes 
>about the fact that world-systems create their own doctrines of legitimacy - 
>an empirical observation. In contrast, the problem of who, if anyone, is the 
>legitimate global sovereign is a problem of normative theory. Phrasing the 
>question differently, it reads: Who ought to be the global sovereign, if 
>anyone? If not "the transnational corporation", who else?
> 
> I collected various possible statements about "effective" and "legitimate" 
>"global sovereign". See the attached table (one page, htm format). 
> 
> With greetings from Canada, Gernot Kohler
> 
>