Elisabeth L Tamedly - Socialism and international economic order (1969), Communism - Books
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
SOCIALISM
AND INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMIC ORDER
By
ELISABETH L. TAMEDLY
The CAXTON PRINTERS, Ltd.
CALDWELL, IDAHO
1969
© 1969 BY
ELISABETH L. TAMEDLY
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 69-11702
Printed and bound in the United States of America by
The CAXTON PRINTERS, Ltd.
CaldwelL Idaho 83605
110400
To my mother and O.R.
FOREWORD
THE CREATION OF AN
efficient institutional framework for regu-
lating international economic relations is one of the fundamental
concerns of economists. Theorists and practitioners recognize
that international trade has been one of the major sources of
economic well-being; they know that no state can renounce such
a wealth-generating activity. Yet, the increase of obstacles to
the interchange of goods and services between nations since
1914 has led to what is generally termed economic disintegra-
tion.
A great deal of literature undertakes to describe and analyze
these various obstacles. However, little effort has been devoted
to the investigation of the fundamental causes of economic dis-
integration—causes that can only be explained by theories and
philosophies that engender changes in the internal economic
and political orders of nations. This study is an inquiry into
these fundamental determinants of international economic co-
operation.
These determinants will be more easily understood if the
primary characteristics of an international economic order are
examined. Two such characteristics can be distinguished. The
first concerns relationships among
individuals
residing in dif-
ferent areas of the world who deal with each other on the basis
of private interests. Clearly, the problem of their economic in-
tercourse on a worldwide level is essentially identical to that
with which any restricted community is faced. This problem
has been solved in the past by the establishment of private law
which delineates certain minimum standards of behavior and is
enforced by the community.
The second aspect of the problem is inherent in the exist-
ence of
sovereign national states.
For centuries, men have at-
tempted to devise a system of international law that could sub-
viü FOREWORD
ject states, as private law subjects individuals, to the rule of
commonly accepted codes and to the judgments of an interna-
tional arbitration agency in cases of disputes between national
governments. All these systems have been frustrated by the fact
that the creation of an international coercive force which would
automatically enter into action when any state refused to com-
ply with the provisions of international law has been regarded
as an inadmissible interference with sovereignty. Even univer-
sal and compulsory recourse to a supranational court is usually
rejected on the same grounds.
Intergovernmental relations therefore have a fundamentally
anarchic character. Ultimately, of course, they, too, constitute
human relationships, but with the difference that they are based
not on a convened standard of right and wrong, but on
power.
It is a country's political and military strength, on the one hand,
and the political and military strength of its opponents, on the
other, that form both the basis and the limit of national aspira-
tions. The last resort is war which, as Karl von Clausewitz said,
is "nothing but the continuation of state policy with other
means."
1
It follows that the theory of international economic order is
concerned with two basically different types of human relation-
ships: those that belong to the private sphere of the individual
and which are amenable to the rule of law—the "dominium"—
and those that are backed by sovereign national power—the
"imperium" (W. Röpke). The essential question to be an-
swered by this theory is whether, and how far, the element of
order
in international relations can be extended over the ele-
ment of
arbitrariness;
the prevalence of peace and stability over
the "assumption of violence."
It is not difficult to see that individual human relationships
are characterized by a tendency toward universalism, as distinct
from the realm of political domination which presupposes a
clearly defined national territory. This universalism is brought
about by the institutional and the specific economic laws which
govern dominium. These economic laws characteristically work
independently of any single human will. They result, via the
price mechanism, in the
coordination
of millions of individual
decisions. Conversely, the very essence of the political sphere
is the reign of human will—that of the stronger (or the majority)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl upanicza.keep.pl
SOCIALISM
AND INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMIC ORDER
By
ELISABETH L. TAMEDLY
The CAXTON PRINTERS, Ltd.
CALDWELL, IDAHO
1969
© 1969 BY
ELISABETH L. TAMEDLY
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 69-11702
Printed and bound in the United States of America by
The CAXTON PRINTERS, Ltd.
CaldwelL Idaho 83605
110400
To my mother and O.R.
FOREWORD
THE CREATION OF AN
efficient institutional framework for regu-
lating international economic relations is one of the fundamental
concerns of economists. Theorists and practitioners recognize
that international trade has been one of the major sources of
economic well-being; they know that no state can renounce such
a wealth-generating activity. Yet, the increase of obstacles to
the interchange of goods and services between nations since
1914 has led to what is generally termed economic disintegra-
tion.
A great deal of literature undertakes to describe and analyze
these various obstacles. However, little effort has been devoted
to the investigation of the fundamental causes of economic dis-
integration—causes that can only be explained by theories and
philosophies that engender changes in the internal economic
and political orders of nations. This study is an inquiry into
these fundamental determinants of international economic co-
operation.
These determinants will be more easily understood if the
primary characteristics of an international economic order are
examined. Two such characteristics can be distinguished. The
first concerns relationships among
individuals
residing in dif-
ferent areas of the world who deal with each other on the basis
of private interests. Clearly, the problem of their economic in-
tercourse on a worldwide level is essentially identical to that
with which any restricted community is faced. This problem
has been solved in the past by the establishment of private law
which delineates certain minimum standards of behavior and is
enforced by the community.
The second aspect of the problem is inherent in the exist-
ence of
sovereign national states.
For centuries, men have at-
tempted to devise a system of international law that could sub-
viü FOREWORD
ject states, as private law subjects individuals, to the rule of
commonly accepted codes and to the judgments of an interna-
tional arbitration agency in cases of disputes between national
governments. All these systems have been frustrated by the fact
that the creation of an international coercive force which would
automatically enter into action when any state refused to com-
ply with the provisions of international law has been regarded
as an inadmissible interference with sovereignty. Even univer-
sal and compulsory recourse to a supranational court is usually
rejected on the same grounds.
Intergovernmental relations therefore have a fundamentally
anarchic character. Ultimately, of course, they, too, constitute
human relationships, but with the difference that they are based
not on a convened standard of right and wrong, but on
power.
It is a country's political and military strength, on the one hand,
and the political and military strength of its opponents, on the
other, that form both the basis and the limit of national aspira-
tions. The last resort is war which, as Karl von Clausewitz said,
is "nothing but the continuation of state policy with other
means."
1
It follows that the theory of international economic order is
concerned with two basically different types of human relation-
ships: those that belong to the private sphere of the individual
and which are amenable to the rule of law—the "dominium"—
and those that are backed by sovereign national power—the
"imperium" (W. Röpke). The essential question to be an-
swered by this theory is whether, and how far, the element of
order
in international relations can be extended over the ele-
ment of
arbitrariness;
the prevalence of peace and stability over
the "assumption of violence."
It is not difficult to see that individual human relationships
are characterized by a tendency toward universalism, as distinct
from the realm of political domination which presupposes a
clearly defined national territory. This universalism is brought
about by the institutional and the specific economic laws which
govern dominium. These economic laws characteristically work
independently of any single human will. They result, via the
price mechanism, in the
coordination
of millions of individual
decisions. Conversely, the very essence of the political sphere
is the reign of human will—that of the stronger (or the majority)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]