Prof. Petersmann and Prof Howse controversy

Posted by Ahmet Mustafa Osam . London Jurist. on April 15, 2003 at 12:01:38:

Why and How the Controversy should become a debate between Professor Petersmann and , Prof. Robert Howse and Professor Philip Alson.

The distinction between and controversy and debate is evidence in moderation of the language and how criticism is conducted.

The controversy between Petermann and House and Petermann and Alson is displayed on the screen within EJIL . The subject of the controversy as far as I am abele to understand concerns, the process of applying Human Rights into worldwide global organisations , for the purpose of liberalization of trade.

What we can deduct , form the said controversy. is very important for two reasons even more so now , as we live in the post cold war, age and age of post ideological polarisation and hogmanail contest between formalist and non formalists.

Firstly, exactitude of social sciences is subject of debate, in which, two opposing views has merit. Thefore and open abate concerning the global trends and global politics and bilateral and multilateral governance within the peripheries of human rights and self determination is relevant, essential and a public services .

Secondly reason why the controversy should become a debate is evidenced by the manner in which it is conducted . Mythology of analysis and evaluation of social sciences is essential for peaceful progress if we are to remain faithful to UN Charter while we reflect on values such as Human Rights and Self Determination primarily instigated by UN Charter. Therefore any critique and criticism must be subject of reasonableness if it is to be fair just and carry moral value. What is the definition of reasonableness? One arrives to a view ,by taking all the relevant facts into consideration with right for all parties to express their views, at the exclusion of the irrelevant facts no matter how important they may be.

Having seen the abstract of Petersmann’s balanced article , I notes a political philosophy which I am familiar with. This is Hobbes theory political theory of state. The very moral justification for moving from State of nature to civil society and submission of all free man, to the authority of the absolute sovereign is security, and equality, with which one may enjoy fruits of his labour . If one wants to argue about this theory, which is constituted by multitude of interrelated compatible components expounded in an opera big as “ Leviathan”, or “De.Cive”. One must criticise every component of his theory, starting with his observation concerning the psychology of the individual, the needs and how individual acquires these needs and how he behaves in collective form . One must criticise the nature of the sovereign body or how it comes into position of power. To call “Contractualist” such as Hobbes John Locke and Rousseau as “Undemocratic dreamers” is not an argument, nor even a controversy . To call Plato enemy of the open society is to insult Socrates and Aristotle . In short evaluation of a theory is only reasonable with another theory which is effectively implemented . One cannot measure temperature with ruler marked in inches.

I note with respect that, Prof. Hawse in his introductory paragraph ,state that it is hard for any own not to agree with the general propositions of the Prof Petersmann but raises doubts, over the applicability of the said propositions to one set of circumstance which are derived from another set of circumstances ,and by opposing generality with specific. On feels that is reasonable to argue about a principal in generality with another opposing principal in generality. Furthermore, the critique has additional burden to prove mainly that ,his case as general proposition is more suitable because it had been put into practice and empirical evidence supports its functionality . Only then is his burden of poof is discharged . Standard of proof faced by the critique is even higher if the proposition argued against has history of application.

The central question in the controversy is ; Can human rights be reconciled in application with economic realities by forma constitutionalist approach to World wide organisations within Global scale? Petersmann as far as I understand is saying that , this it is by giving E U as a sample. On the other hand others are saying that this is not possible without reorganising world order. But then have we not been doing this since 1945 with UN involvement in global politic order and global rule of law and global social and economic values and humanitarian values to render them universal? How successful have been with these multilateral organisations without institutionalism and constitutionalism? Have we achieved any reduction between North and South wealth gap ?

Proper debate will run along the following lines. Yes this is possible if world order evolves in the same manner as the European Nations had evolved since 1945 . Or argue the opposite.

In conclusion firstly ,to argue one theory by reference to specific is not proper testing the components, without ensuring availability of the circumstances in which the theory will work . Secondly Global system of liberalisation is not working, yet E U system of integration of human rights into economic law is working what remains to be seen if duplication of the circumstances which made E U experiment is possible to replicated .
On can argue that if E U is joined By Turkey a vast nation with two thousand year cultural heritage as an alternative to E U , then one can test if E U model and experience has universality and thus global application ,to argue in a different spirit is not debate but cross conversation and a controversy with huge humanitarian consequence.
Ahmet Mustafa Osam Jurist London

Responses:

1. Re: Prof. Petersmann and Prof Howse controversy Ahmet Mustafa Osam London , Jurist 04/16/03 (0)

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:25PM