Collisions of Societal Constitutions: Hierarchical Power Arrangements and Horizontal Effects in the Management of Human Rights Regimes

L. Backer
{"title":"Collisions of Societal Constitutions: Hierarchical Power Arrangements and Horizontal Effects in the Management of Human Rights Regimes","authors":"L. Backer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2050180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Societal constitutionalism presents us with alternatives to state-centered constitutional theory. But this alternative does not so much displace as extend conventional constitutional theory as a set of static premises that structure the organization of legitimate governance units. Constitutional theory, in either its conventional or societal forms, engages in both a descriptive and a normative project — the former looking to the incarnation of an abstraction and the later to the development of a set of presumptions and principles through which this incarnation can be judged. Constitutional theory is conventionally applied to states — that is, to those manifestations of organized power constituted by a group of individuals, bounded by a territory, and evidenced by the institution of government. But today a certain measure of disaggregation has managed to manifest a constituting power. Globalization has opened holes in the walls that used to serve to police and protect states and their power authority. Societal aggregations can exist now between borders. Groups of individuals (and not just natural persons) incarnate abstractions of governance and then judge them in ways that are consonant with constitutional theory. These emerging realities have produced societal constitutionalism. But like conventional constitutionalism, societal constitutionalism seeks the comfort of equilibrium and stasis as the basic operating premises of self-constituting governance systems. This paper considers societal constitutionalism in its dynamic element — as a system structures constant adjustment among the constituting elements of a governance unit (whether state, corporation, religion, etc.). After an Introduction, Section I engages in framework setting, focusing on the structures of societal constitutionalism within the logic of globalization. This consideration necessarily frames societies and their constitution from a spatially static and inward looking perspective. That investigation is divided into two parts; first a consideration of societal constitutionalism as a set of parameters for the ordering system of states and non-state actors, and second a brief consideration of the organization of corporate actors within this framework, specifically Apple, Inc. Section II provides an illustration of a societally constituted enterprise operating in three dimensional dynamic governance space. The focus is Apple, Inc.; the context is the enforcement of international human rights norms through the governance activities of Apple Inc. and its supply chain, and the focus are the spaces where systems converge, harmonize and collide; the object is to consider a societally constituted governance unit operating in three dimensional space that is in constant motion, but within which the entity remains stable. Section III then develops the more important characteristics of this new dynamic and permeable constitutional framework. If societies can be understood as subject to certain principles for their inward constitution, to what extent might there be principles that affect the outward expression of inward self-constitution. That consideration requires both an examination of the way in which societally constituted entities may be felt and seen by outsiders, and also the way that expressive communication can have inward affecting consequences. For that purpose, Gunther Teubner’s notions of addiction and chaos and Hans Lindahls notions of spatiality and communication serve as a starting point. The paper concludes where it started — in constitutional theory. It will suggest the need to expand our understanding of constitutional theory beyond incarnation and judgment, to include communication among systems in a complex polycentric constituting universe. It suggests the dynamic consequences of this emerging societal framework of hierarchical power arrangements and horizontal effects for constitutional theory among this amalgam of states and other societally constituted organisms. Final version to be published as “Dynamic Societal Constitutionalism: Transnational corporations’ outward expression of inward self constitution: The enforcement of human rights by Apple, Inc.” in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies.","PeriodicalId":154248,"journal":{"name":"Interorganizational Networks & Organizational Behavior eJournal","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interorganizational Networks & Organizational Behavior eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2050180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Societal constitutionalism presents us with alternatives to state-centered constitutional theory. But this alternative does not so much displace as extend conventional constitutional theory as a set of static premises that structure the organization of legitimate governance units. Constitutional theory, in either its conventional or societal forms, engages in both a descriptive and a normative project — the former looking to the incarnation of an abstraction and the later to the development of a set of presumptions and principles through which this incarnation can be judged. Constitutional theory is conventionally applied to states — that is, to those manifestations of organized power constituted by a group of individuals, bounded by a territory, and evidenced by the institution of government. But today a certain measure of disaggregation has managed to manifest a constituting power. Globalization has opened holes in the walls that used to serve to police and protect states and their power authority. Societal aggregations can exist now between borders. Groups of individuals (and not just natural persons) incarnate abstractions of governance and then judge them in ways that are consonant with constitutional theory. These emerging realities have produced societal constitutionalism. But like conventional constitutionalism, societal constitutionalism seeks the comfort of equilibrium and stasis as the basic operating premises of self-constituting governance systems. This paper considers societal constitutionalism in its dynamic element — as a system structures constant adjustment among the constituting elements of a governance unit (whether state, corporation, religion, etc.). After an Introduction, Section I engages in framework setting, focusing on the structures of societal constitutionalism within the logic of globalization. This consideration necessarily frames societies and their constitution from a spatially static and inward looking perspective. That investigation is divided into two parts; first a consideration of societal constitutionalism as a set of parameters for the ordering system of states and non-state actors, and second a brief consideration of the organization of corporate actors within this framework, specifically Apple, Inc. Section II provides an illustration of a societally constituted enterprise operating in three dimensional dynamic governance space. The focus is Apple, Inc.; the context is the enforcement of international human rights norms through the governance activities of Apple Inc. and its supply chain, and the focus are the spaces where systems converge, harmonize and collide; the object is to consider a societally constituted governance unit operating in three dimensional space that is in constant motion, but within which the entity remains stable. Section III then develops the more important characteristics of this new dynamic and permeable constitutional framework. If societies can be understood as subject to certain principles for their inward constitution, to what extent might there be principles that affect the outward expression of inward self-constitution. That consideration requires both an examination of the way in which societally constituted entities may be felt and seen by outsiders, and also the way that expressive communication can have inward affecting consequences. For that purpose, Gunther Teubner’s notions of addiction and chaos and Hans Lindahls notions of spatiality and communication serve as a starting point. The paper concludes where it started — in constitutional theory. It will suggest the need to expand our understanding of constitutional theory beyond incarnation and judgment, to include communication among systems in a complex polycentric constituting universe. It suggests the dynamic consequences of this emerging societal framework of hierarchical power arrangements and horizontal effects for constitutional theory among this amalgam of states and other societally constituted organisms. Final version to be published as “Dynamic Societal Constitutionalism: Transnational corporations’ outward expression of inward self constitution: The enforcement of human rights by Apple, Inc.” in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies.
社会结构的碰撞:人权制度管理中的等级权力安排和水平效应
社会宪政为我们提供了以国家为中心的宪政理论的替代方案。但这种选择与其说是取代了传统的宪法理论,不如说是扩展了传统的宪法理论,作为一套静态前提,构建了合法治理单位的组织。宪法理论,无论是传统形式还是社会形式,都参与了一个描述性和规范性的项目——前者着眼于抽象的化身,后者着眼于一套假设和原则的发展,通过这些假设和原则,可以判断这种化身。宪法理论通常适用于国家——也就是说,适用于由一群个人组成的有组织权力的表现形式,这些权力以领土为界,并以政府机构为证据。但今天,某种程度的解体已经成功地显示出一种构成力量。全球化在过去用来监督和保护国家及其权力权威的墙壁上开了洞。社会聚集现在可以存在于边界之间。个人群体(而不仅仅是自然人)体现了治理的抽象,然后以与宪法理论一致的方式对其进行判断。这些新出现的现实产生了社会宪政主义。但与传统宪政一样,社会宪政寻求平衡与停滞的舒适,作为自我构建的治理体系的基本运行前提。本文从社会宪政的动态要素——作为一个治理单元的构成要素(无论是国家、企业、宗教等)之间不断调整的制度结构来考虑社会宪政。在引言之后,第一部分进行了框架设置,重点关注全球化逻辑下的社会宪政结构。这种考虑必然从空间静态和内向的角度来构建社会及其构成。调查分为两个部分;首先考虑社会宪政作为国家和非国家行为体排序系统的一组参数,其次简要考虑在此框架内企业行为体的组织,特别是苹果公司。第二节对社会构成的企业在三维动态治理空间中的运行进行了说明。焦点是苹果公司(Apple, Inc.);背景是通过苹果公司及其供应链的治理活动来执行国际人权准则,重点是系统融合、协调和碰撞的空间;其目的是考虑在不断运动的三维空间中运行的社会构成的治理单元,但实体在其中保持稳定。第三节接着阐述了这个新的充满活力和渗透性的宪法框架的更重要的特征。如果社会可以被理解为服从于其内在构成的某些原则,那么在多大程度上可能存在影响内在自我构成的外在表现的原则呢?这种考虑既需要检查社会构成的实体可能被外人感受到和看到的方式,也需要检查表达性交流可能产生内向影响的方式。为此,Gunther Teubner关于成瘾和混乱的概念以及Hans Lindahls关于空间性和交流的概念可以作为出发点。本文总结了它的起点——宪法理论。它将表明我们需要扩展我们对宪法理论的理解,超越化身和判断,包括在一个复杂的多中心构成宇宙中的系统之间的交流。它表明了这个新兴的社会框架的动态后果,等级权力安排,以及在国家和其他社会构成的有机体的混合中对宪法理论的横向影响。最终版本将以“动态社会宪政:跨国公司对内自我宪法的外在表达:苹果公司对人权的强制执行”发表在《印第安纳州全球法律研究杂志》上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信