THE ASCENDANCY OF CAPITAL OVER NATION-STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ARENA: A HISTORICAL-MATERIALIST PERSPECTIVE ON REDEFINING HORIZONTALITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Elliot Goodell Ugalde
{"title":"THE ASCENDANCY OF CAPITAL OVER NATION-STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ARENA: A HISTORICAL-MATERIALIST PERSPECTIVE ON REDEFINING HORIZONTALITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW","authors":"Elliot Goodell Ugalde","doi":"10.55574/qkmd5003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Orthodox international law (IL)—primarily legal positivism, assumes a horizontal legal order. In adopting a Hobbesian understanding of the international arena, legal positivists assert that no sovereign supersedes that of any individual nation state; therefore, states hold each other legally culpable in a horizontal manner 1 and international legal institutions derive authority from state-consent. However, this document aims to challenge the adherence of orthodox IL to a horizontal legal order by demonstrating how capital effectively acts as a defacto sovereign in the international arena, imposing IL top-down onto states as subordinate legal actors. This claim is corroborated by Antony Anghie's postcolonial legal assertion that IL has historically served as a Trojan horse for furthering colonial ambitions. 2 Additionally, the Marxian concept of primitive accumulation, which situates colonialism within a larger project of capital accumulation, provides further theoretical backing for this perspective. Thus, this paper posits that the orthodox conception of IL as a horizontal system of equal sovereign states is inadequate, and instead proposes a paradigm in which capital acts as a de-facto sovereign, enforcing a vertical hierarchy undergirding international legal relations. This scholarly analysis will blend Marxian analysis with the empirical historical examples posited by Anghie, offering an in-depth examination of the manner in which colonialism dynamically influences and continually restructures the very fabric of IL. 3 Ultimately, considering the implications of nation-states being subservient to the normative prescriptions of IL, coupled with the understanding that these laws are fundamentally influenced by a larger colonial project, and acknowledging that this colonial project is inherently embedded within a broader structure of capital acquisition as per the theory of primitive accumulation; it can be posited that nation-states, through their subservience to IL, are ultimately guided by capital, thus, do not operate in a horizontal, International arena.","PeriodicalId":113895,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law, Ethics, and Technology","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law, Ethics, and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55574/qkmd5003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Orthodox international law (IL)—primarily legal positivism, assumes a horizontal legal order. In adopting a Hobbesian understanding of the international arena, legal positivists assert that no sovereign supersedes that of any individual nation state; therefore, states hold each other legally culpable in a horizontal manner 1 and international legal institutions derive authority from state-consent. However, this document aims to challenge the adherence of orthodox IL to a horizontal legal order by demonstrating how capital effectively acts as a defacto sovereign in the international arena, imposing IL top-down onto states as subordinate legal actors. This claim is corroborated by Antony Anghie's postcolonial legal assertion that IL has historically served as a Trojan horse for furthering colonial ambitions. 2 Additionally, the Marxian concept of primitive accumulation, which situates colonialism within a larger project of capital accumulation, provides further theoretical backing for this perspective. Thus, this paper posits that the orthodox conception of IL as a horizontal system of equal sovereign states is inadequate, and instead proposes a paradigm in which capital acts as a de-facto sovereign, enforcing a vertical hierarchy undergirding international legal relations. This scholarly analysis will blend Marxian analysis with the empirical historical examples posited by Anghie, offering an in-depth examination of the manner in which colonialism dynamically influences and continually restructures the very fabric of IL. 3 Ultimately, considering the implications of nation-states being subservient to the normative prescriptions of IL, coupled with the understanding that these laws are fundamentally influenced by a larger colonial project, and acknowledging that this colonial project is inherently embedded within a broader structure of capital acquisition as per the theory of primitive accumulation; it can be posited that nation-states, through their subservience to IL, are ultimately guided by capital, thus, do not operate in a horizontal, International arena.
资本在国际法律舞台上对民族国家的优势:从历史唯物主义的角度重新定义国际法中的横向性
正统国际法——主要是法律实证主义——假设了一种横向的法律秩序。采用霍布斯对国际舞台的理解,法律实证主义者断言,没有主权取代任何单个民族国家的主权;因此,各国以横向方式相互追究法律责任1,国际法律机构的权威来自于国家的同意。然而,本文件旨在通过展示资本如何在国际舞台上有效地充当事实上的主权,将IL自上而下地强加给作为从属法律行为体的国家,从而挑战正统的IL对横向法律秩序的遵守。Antony Anghie的后殖民法律主张证实了这一说法,即IL在历史上一直是进一步实现殖民野心的特洛伊木马。2此外,马克思的原始积累概念将殖民主义置于更大的资本积累项目中,为这一观点提供了进一步的理论支持。因此,本文认为,将国际法作为平等主权国家的水平体系的正统概念是不充分的,并提出了一种范式,在这种范式中,资本作为事实上的主权,强制执行支撑国际法律关系的垂直等级制度。这种学术分析将马克思主义的分析与Anghie提出的经验主义历史例子相结合,对殖民主义动态影响和不断重构国际法的方式进行深入研究。最终,考虑到民族国家服从国际法规范性规定的含义,再加上这些法律从根本上受到更大的殖民计划的影响,并且承认这个殖民计划是固有地嵌入在一个更广泛的资本获取结构中根据原始积累理论;可以假设,民族国家通过对国际资本的服从,最终是由资本引导的,因此,它们不是在一个横向的国际舞台上运作的。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信