by Michael Lee
As the liberal world order collapses, many thinkers are seeking alternative visions of world order. Unfortunately, many of the commonly discussed options have obvious defects: liberal leviathans can become illiberal, world government risks global tyranny, while anarchy poses dangers of its own. In recent years, one group of scholars has sought to revive the libertarian interstate tradition of Hayek (1939). For instance, Deudney’s (2010) vision of republican constitutionalism presents negarchy as a potential alternative to both anarchy and hierarchy and posits the Philadelphian system of early America as an example of this. Brandon Christensen (2021) has taken Deudney’s ideas further, offering a practical means of implementing an interstate federalist system. Christensen argues that states should federate under the United States constitution, forming the basis for a liberal order. Christensen is to be commended for enunciating a logistically practical, clear, and creative proposal for polycentric global governance. At the same time, I am not sure that the proposal as designed can overcome the fear of the loss of sovereignty by the countries to which it is being pitched. Understanding why others might spurn the offer is useful in revising it. Thus, I propose that we consider the reaction of some of the original recipients of the American proposal: Canadians.
[ click here to read the entire essay ]
Michael Lee is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at CUNY-Hunter College. Send him mail: ml1124@hunter.cuny.edu.
Isonomia Quarterly 