Networked Statehood: An Institutionalised Self-Contradiction in the Process of Globalisation?

42 Pages Posted: 5 Nov 2020 Last revised: 16 Mar 2021

See all articles by Angelo Golia

Angelo Golia

Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

Gunther Teubner

Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität

Date Written: November 5, 2020

Abstract

World economy and world science have not yet found a counterpart in a world state and probably never will. However, the contours of a global political system have emerged, which fulfils the functions of statehood at the global level Such systems does not take the form of a uniform corporative-hierarchical collectivity but of a “networked statehood”, i.e. a network of individual states, international organisations and transnational regimes. Relying on social science and legal constructions, this article defines such a concept positively in its components (II.1) and negatively in its difference from other global institutions (II.2). On this basis, two fundamental self-contradictions are analysed: on the one hand, the contradiction between the autonomy of the network nodes and the autonomy of the network as a collectivity in its own right (III.1); on the other hand, the contradictions of various rationalities in the polycontexturality of the network nodes (III.2). The problems of network failure resulting from these contradictions are highlighted (III.3). Despite these contradictions, networking provides considerable advantages for state action: the potentially productive transformation of the contradictions into mere internal tensions (IV.1); opportunities of transversality (IV.2); new relationships between dynamics and resilience (IV.3); iterativity as a new temporalised form of collective decision-making (IV.4). General principles of a future law of networked statehood are then outlined. Such principles build on the fact that the network as a new legal form of action is introduced next to other international institutions (V.1). The future law of networked statehood will then be presented using three legal institutions as examples: loyalty obligations, conflict rules for internal norm-collisions (V.2), and network liability for negative externalities (V.3). Finally, an outlook is given on how networked statehood institutions could deal with the problem of their democratic legitimacy (VI).

Keywords: transnational networks, statehood, globalisation, systems theory, international organisations, transnational regimes

Suggested Citation

Golia, Angelo Jr and Teubner, Gunther, Networked Statehood: An Institutionalised Self-Contradiction in the Process of Globalisation? (November 5, 2020). Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2020-40, Forthcoming in: Transnational Legal Theory, Vol. 12., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3725646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3725646

Angelo Jr Golia (Contact Author)

Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law ( email )

Im Neuenheimer Feld 535
69120 Heidelberg, 69120
Germany

Gunther Teubner

Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität ( email )

Grüneburgplatz 1
Frankfurt am Main, D-60323
Germany
0049 69 71034781 (Phone)
0049 69 798-34405 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/ifawz1/teubner/

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
108
Abstract Views
623
rank
300,857
PlumX Metrics