Strange that the list keeps silence, well...
> From: Jozsef Borocz <jborocz@orion.oac.uci.edu>
> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> > I also prefer MULTIPLICITY of bourg.democr.states integrated by
> > voluntarily accepted GLOBAL LEGAL SYSTEM over all kinds of visible and
> > invisible mafias that seem to be first in grasping benefits of any World
> > State Power.
J.Borocz:
> First of all, who the heck (??? NR) advocated the mafia? Did you read what I
wrote? >
it's misunderstanding by Mr.Borocz, not mine. He advocated
world state in comparison to int.legal system and I noted here that being Main
beaurocracy, world state would be more vulnerable for misusing (corruption,
f.e. by mafia, emperial ambitions, etc) than existing state beaurocraties.
> What Gospodin Professor Dr. Rozov calls (excuse me for replacing the
> capitals with lowercase letters)
being a member of wsn for more than two years I am deeply dissapointed to meet
such mode of speech in international academic communication. Is it normal
here now? or really the list needs now some kind of moderation?
> a global legal system either (1) has
> coercive power to enforce laws,
which can be transfered to nation states
and/or specialized international organizations (Court of Justice, UN forces,
etc)
> (2) is territorially defined
what for?
>and (3) is > legitimate,
perfectly right
>in which case it is a state, or any one of those
>does not
> apply, in which case you have the same as before, an interstate system
> (which, with all the legal jingo of international law didn't exactly stop
> two world wars, hundreds of local wars, military invasions, occupation,
> counter-occupation, imperial state formation, colonialism, the shooting
> of civilian aircraft, genocide, etc.) or a mafia.
>
too many things into one sack,
law never stops anything, it is just a legal instrument for legal struggle
for real social forces (including states, soc. movements, etc)
Principles of international law played significant role in ending medieval
military nightmare, served as a basis for coalitions against main aggressors
in Europe of XIX-XX, such as Napoleonic France, Germany in WW1 WW2.
UN with its Charter, Assembleys and Security Council was created after WW2.
Who would dare to say that UN, its structures and law-like principles did
not help significantly in saving us from nuclear WW3 in 50-60-70th?
Can we forget that decolonization of 60th occured with curiously small
military conflicts and vitims in created international regime?
Right, that intern. legal system cannot give absolute guarantees against
cited social disasters, but where are reasons that new world state would give
better quarantees?
> Furthermore, I would appreciate if you were kind enough in not confusing an
> analytical point (i.e., my insistence that legality cannot exist without a
> public authority to enforce the law) with a political program which you
> seem to attach to my posting.
well, I see now that Mr.Borocz has a non-vulnerable and non-falsificable
analytical-critical position free of any own pragmatic suggestions but ready
to attack any suggestions by others.
(political program) of world socialist state which as I know is widely spread
among Western left intelligentsia, including WS scholars and wsn members.
> > Further comments on the problem
> > State or Law?
> No, thank you. No further comments. None at all.
I really wonder about the silence of the list.
I see several possible answers.
1) Has WS tradition and wsn really transformed into critical-analytical
'normal science' with complete impotence in global-progressive-pragmatic
area? Only in this case discussion of preferable strategies for our global
can occur out of interest here.
2)Maybe trivial conformism is the reason, and nobody wishes to debate with
(I think that it is the worst that Chris can expect from the list)
3) Maybe there are well empirically and theoretically based
arguments proving
that any movement towards humanistically-ecologically oriented
deep modernization and enforcement of international legal system
is useless and is not worthy for discussion.
In fact I prefer namely the 3rd possibility. So, where are these
arguments?
Mr.Borocz:> "And-a the same-a to you too-a." (Jim Jarmusch: _Down by Law_)
To be sincere I don't wish to speek any more with Mr.Borocz, at least until
his non-polite personal attacks are replaced by real meaningful
arguments.
Nikolai S. Rozov