Sovereignty and the Global Community

The Quest for Order in the International System

Howard M. Hensel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351148702
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

International normative standards constitute a major influence on the policies of states and other actors in the international system, as well as on the development of the international system itself. This case study-rich volume demonstrates the relevance of international normative ideals and standards, outlining some of the major opportunities for, and the challenges affecting, co-operation among members of the international community. Contemporary problems such as weapons of mass destruction, refugees and internally displaced persons, ethnic conflict, and the environment are all explored in this timely volume. Sovereignty and the Global Community will prove an excellent resource for all interested in issues of sovereignty, sustainable development, resource management and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Chapter 1
Theocentric Natural Law and the Norms of the Global Community

Howard M. Hensel¹

Introduction

Since the beginning of recorded history, human beings have established normative guidelines that delineate appropriate standards for individual behavior and that govern the interaction among individuals and groups within organized communities. In addition, men have also prescribed appropriate guidelines and standards for relations between various communities. Conversely, normative standards have often defined what constitutes inappropriate conduct for individuals and groups within society, as well as concerning inappropriate interactions among various societies. Consequently, while some analysts view norms as simply regularized practices that govern individual behavior, the relations among the members of a particular community, and interactions among various communities, without passing an evaluative judgment on the appropriateness or justice of these standards of behavior, others analysts stress that an evaluative element must necessarily be included in the definition of norms.²

A theocentric perspective on normative standards is consistent with the position taken by judgmentally oriented analysts of norms governing individual and collective behavior. At the most fundamental level, a theocentric approach looks to a divine authority as the source of normative standards for all human behavior or, as Plato observed, "God is the measure of all things". Thus, according to a theocentric conception, both individual and collective behavior is both shaped and evaluated by divinely inspired standards. This conception has been a central component in traditional Western thought extending from Plato and Aristotle, through the Stoics, Middle Platonists, and Plotinus, to the great Christian philosophers and theologians. Theocentric humanism is contrasted with anthropocentric humanism, which looks to human, rather than divine sources in determining appropriate standards for individual and collective behavior. Although many scholars who adopt an anthropocentric perspective subscribe to the concept of absolute standards for individual and collective behavior, others pursuing an anthropocentric approach often come to adopt a relativist perspective, which holds that absolute values and standards of morality do not exist and, thus, moral and religious belief systems are simply predicated on societal custom.³

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the underpinning assumptions, principles, and tenets of theocentric Natural Law and assess its significance in delineating and prescribing normative standards for appropriate individual conduct, the conduct of groups within the community, and relations among the various members of the international system. Following a brief examination of the origins of Western philosophical thought, the chapter will first examine the philosophical assumptions that serve as the foundation for a theocentric perspective on Natural Law. Second, it will analyze the principles and tenets of theocentric Natural Law itself. Third, the chapter will assess the relationship between the principles, tenets, and corollaries of theocentric Natural Law and the definition of normative standards for individual and collective behavior within society. Finally, fourth, the chapter will examine the relationship between theocentric Natural Law and the normative standards that govern the international order.

Origins of Western Philosophical Thought

Theocentric Natural Law has its roots in Western philosophical thought which, in turn, traces its origins to both pre-Platonic Greek philosophy and the Jewish religious tradition. The Jewish religious component of Western thought conceives of a single God who freely created and governs everything in the universe.⁴

The Greek philosophical tradition had its origins approximately six centuries B.C. among the Ionians, concentrated in the city of Miletus, and in the Greek cities of southern Italy. The Milesians focused their attention on the concept of matter, and speculated as to how the sensible world was created from matter. They believed that underpinning that process was a force or law of redistribution and balance and felt that this power was the ruler of the universe.⁵ The Italian school of thought, revolving around the philosophical thoughts of Pythagoras (c. 571-497 B.C.), stood in sharp contrast to the focus and ideas of the Milesians, but was closely related to the Orphic movement.⁶ The Pythagoreans believed that the human intellect has the power to comprehend unchanging, eternal truth and that it is the intellect that makes the human soul something divine.⁷ Subsequent pre-Classical Greek philosophers drew upon these Milesian and Pythagorean roots. Heraclitus (fl. c. 504-501 B.C.), of the Ionian city of Ephesus, asserted that perpetual conflict between and the transformation of all sensible things in the material world was a universal law. He held that, within this constantly changing world of fluctuating appearances, of which true knowledge is not possible, the only possible stability was predicated upon the tension between equal and opposing forces. Underpinning this world of flux, however, was said to be a principle or law of measure and order, based upon the harmony created by opposite tensions, referred to as Logos.⁸ Meanwhile, other pre-Classical Greek thinkers moved toward the concept of a Divine, Eternal being. Xenophanes of Colophon (fl. c. 540-539 B.C.) conceived of God as "one, acting as a whole, immovable, governing all things by the power of his thought, and, . . . an immanent all-pervading world soul".⁹ Parmenides of Elea (fl. c. 501-492 B.C.) in southern Italy, was not only the first Greek thinker to base his propositions on logically reasoned argument, but in addition, drawing upon the Pythagorean heritage, he also stressed that impressions derived from the senses are an unreliable delusion. He maintained that, in order to attain true knowledge, one must aspire, through human powers of reason, to understand the single reality, which is unchanging, immovable, comprehensive and homogeneous.¹⁰ Parmenides' successors, the Pluralists, identified elementary entities or bodies, which they believed were moved and aligned by a separate moving force or forces. By separating the cause of movement from that which is moved, the Pluralists anticipated future emphasis upon a Divine force that formed and governs the universe. One of the principle Pluralist thinkers, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (c. 500-428 B.C.), was the first to conceive of the force that causes all subsequent motion, creates all things, and which directs the universe as an Intelligence or Mind.¹¹

Socrates (469-399 B.C.) drew upon and combined many of the ideas developed by the Greek thinkers who preceded him. Drawing upon the Orphic and Pythagorean traditions, Socrates maintained that it is the soul that defines the human being. It is the moral and intellectual personality of the human being and is, therefore, responsible for human behavior. Hence, since man's identity is derived from his soul, the nature of his soul, the degree to which his soul is good or bad, determines the degree to which he is a good, happy individual or a bad, unhappy person. Thus, for Socrates, a human being's primary responsibility was the care of his soul and his goal should be to make his soul as good as it possibly can be. In a broader sense, Socrates argued from a teleological perspective, holding that Divine, intelligent powers govern the universe and direct it toward a good end. Consequently, since Socrates believed that all things are ordered toward good ends, there is a good toward which man is also destined. Therefore, the way to achieve man's natural good, a healthy soul, is for the soul to know goodness. Only through knowledge of goodness, generally, and moral goodness, specifically, can man act rightly. Indeed, for Socrates, "virtue is knowledge of the good; right action follows inevitably from right knowledge," and, conversely, all evil actions are based upon ignorance. Although Socrates did not attempt to specifically define goodness, he stressed that goodness was universal and unchanging.¹²

The great thinkers of Greco-Roman philosophy, extending from Plato and Aristotle, through the Stoics and Middle Platonists, and culminating in the writings of Plotinus, drew upon this pre-Platonic heritage of Greek philosophical thought. Subsequently, Christian thinkers drew upon the separate heritages of Greco-Roman philosophic thought and the Jewish religious tradition, illuminated, in turn, by Scripture and Revelation, in such a way as to serve as the principle sources of Christian thought. It is the theocentric perspective, however, which provides a common unifying thread that unites the various individual components of the broad and often diverse expanse of the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition. The concept of theocentric Natural Law is, in turn, the direct product of that broader theocentric perspective central to the Western philosophical heritage.

Foundations of Theocentric Natural Law

Theocentric Natural Law rests upon a series of critical assumptions. First, a theocentric approach to Natural Law is ultimately predicated upon the conviction that there exists a Divine Being or hierarchy of Divine Beings. Second, it is predicated upon the belief that there are Divinely generated, stable and unchanging, universal realities that, in turn, constitute the objects of true knowledge. Third, it assumes that there exists an Eternal Order governed by Eternal Law. Fourth, a theocentric approach views humans as essentially rational, social beings. Relying upon their own powers of reason alone or with the assistance of Divine guidance and revelation, human beings possess the intellectual capacity, moral character, and strength of will to, if they so choose, act in such a way as to acquire that amount of true knowledge of the universal truths as is humanly attainable. They also have the capacity, insofar as humanly possible, to realize their essential being, spiritually unite with the Divine Being, and thereby fulfill themselves as humans. Each of these four critical assumptions will be examined sequentially in this section of the chapter.

Conceptions of the Divine Being

A central theme extending throughout Classical Greek philosophy, through Stoicism and Platonism of the Roman period, and into Christian thought, has been the quest to at least approach an understanding of the Divine Being. Indeed, conceptualization of the Divine is a vital component in subsequent theocentric efforts to define Natural Law. Specifically, throughout history, thinkers have attempted to answer such vexing questions as: how did the universe first come into existence; what are the origins of matter; is there a pattern which serves as a guide and standard for both things created and the behavior of those things and, if it exists, what are its origins and where does it reside; is there a force or Being which guides the universe and, if so, toward what, if any, end?

Plato (427-348 B.C.) was one of the greatest philosophers of the ancient world, indeed, of all time. In his conception of the Divine, Plato distinguished between the pattern of the universe, the universe's moving and directing cause, and the preexisting material that composes the universe.¹³ Building upon both Pythagorean and Socratic teachings, Plato believed that there is a pattern for the universe that provides the universal, standard template for the whole of creation. He maintained that "there exists a world of eternal realities, 'Forms' or 'Ideas,' entirely separate from the world our senses perceive, and knowable only by the pure intellect". These eternal, universal Forms, are seen as "realities existing 'themselves by themselves,' independently of the minds which know them or the things which 'participate' in them". Collectively, the individual Forms are both caused by and contained within a supreme, all-inclusive, universal Form, which Plato refers to as the Good. Plato stressed that these universal Forms and, ultimately, the Good are unchanging and stable realities and, as such, provide universal definitions that constitute the whole body of true knowledge. In addition to providing the ideal archetypes for all things, the Forms serve as permanent, objective standards that individuals and the community must use to guide their behavior. Thus, individually, each Form is ultimately derived from the Good. Collectively, the Forms constitute a harmonious, organic whole, the Good, which is more than merely the sum of the individual Forms in that it is the cause of both the individual Forms, as well as human knowledge of their reality. For Plato, the Form of the Good is "One," the first, most fundamental, and final principle and explanation of all reality. It is the Form of the Good that serves as the pattern of the universe. This Good might be interpreted as Plato's God, but it is not a God who moves and governs the universe.¹⁴

Drawing upon Anaxagoras' concept of a Mind as the moving force behind all things, the Pythagorean concept of the soul as divine, and Socrates' teleological conviction that an intelligent power or powers direct the world to good ends, Plato held that the moving and ruling force of everything in the universe, the central principle of both life itself and motion, is the immortal, perfect, rational, self-moving, and ruling Soul. For Plato, the Soul serves as both the self-moving and intelligent power that directs the universe toward its good end by aligning it as perfectly as possible with the Forms and,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Theocentric Natural Law and the Norms of the Global Community
• 2 Constraints on Sovereignty in the Chemical Weapons Convention from the Perspective of International Law
• 3 The Challenges of Sovereign Borders in the Post-Cold War Era's Refugee and Humanitarian Crises
• 4 Environmental Treaty Compliance and Southern State Sovereignty
• 5 The Politics of Negotiation: A Comparative Study of Dayton and Rambouillet
• 6 New Models of Sovereignty for Contested States: Some Empirical Evidence of Non-Westphalian Approaches
• 7 Regional Governance Beyond Territorial Sovereignty: A Cooperation Model for the Sustainable Use of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers
• 8 The Search for Innovative Procedures: The OSCE Approach to Conflicts in the Former Soviet Area
• 9 International Adjudication and Conflict Management
• 10 Epilogue
• Index