Neo-colonialismul și actorii săi în ordinea global (Neo-colonialism and Its Actors in the Global Order)

RELAŢII INTERNAŢIONALE ŞI STUDII EUROPENE

 

Neo-colonialismul și actorii săi în ordinea global

(Neo-colonialism and Its Actors in the Global Order[1])

 

Mădălina Virginia ANTONESCU

 

 

 

Abstract:  In this paper, we are trying to analyze the relation between state sovereignty , the Westphalian  state and, on the other hand, the  non-state actors (especially, the transnational companies), that are capable to shape and control forms of economic dominance over new peripheries, in a world based on general, universal and imperative prohibition (inscribed in major documents of international law) regarding imperialism and colonialism, as well as all forms of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism. 

 

Keywords: state sovereignty, globalist order, neo-colonialism, neo-colonial actor, transnational companies

 

   

 

State sovereignty and actors of the globalist order

According to a definition, state sovereignty is the independence of a state in undertaking actions in relation to an external force[2]. Sovereignty is also a principle designating the place where  are born the ability to issue rules and the duty of allegiance, but also the power exercised by the state (setting political goals, drafting decisions) within its borders, without external interference[3].

These two definitions are quite broad in scope, which is why they cannot be applied to the features of the globalist order at the beginning of the 21st century: thus, in the context of the globalist forces, from the proliferation of non-state actors (transnational companies, non-governmental organisations, clubs, groups of persons, more or less institutionalised[4]) to the proliferation and strengthening of unilateral decision-making power (in relation to states) of international organisations specialised in the fields of banking, economy, finances (the IMF[5], the World Bank or groups of industrialised states, such as G7 or G8[6]) that do not function based on a special agreement with specific rights and obligations[7], we can talk about the inclusion of globalist actors in the scope of these definitions. More precisely, the phrase “external forces” or “external interferences” can include not only states, groups of states (organised in more or less institutionalised forms, from international intergovernmental organisations, such as the IMF[8] or the World Bank[9], to informal decision-making groups or forums with composite participation, not only at the level of states, such as the Davos Economic Forum) whose decisions and/or actions generate, directly or indirectly, at the level of concrete political and economic decisions and measures, a series of changes[10] which would not have taken place if the state in question had benefited from its full sovereignty (internal and external, that is at national level, including economically and in its international relations)[11]. The concept of “international relations” has a much broader meaning, including relations between state and non-state actors in the globalist order who exceed the framework of international legal order and, moreover, are within a field which has not yet been regulated by it (as a state-centric right[12]).

Therefore, starting from the above-mentioned definitions of state sovereignty, we can say that we are in the presence of a phenomenon of “neo-colonialism” when “the direct or indirect intervention of external forces or external interferences[13]” affect the content of sovereignty and its concrete exercise by the state in question, on its territory, concerning persons, goods and activities (including economic ones) on its territory or subject to its jurisdiction”[14].

Starting from the second definition, we may say that we are clearly in the presence of a phenomenon of neo-colonialism (in a globalist sense, that is mostly economic[15]) when sovereignty (defined as “the place where are born the ability to issue rules and the duty of allegiance, but also the power exercised by the state”) is affected by external interferences (or, more than that, they illegally substitute themselves for the state and issue rules in its stead, generating a duty for the citizens to obey the new centre of power – the external colonial force – instead of the lawful power exercised by the state). It is clear that we are talking about phenomena of neo-colonialism which have not been rigorously identified or analysed by legal experts or economists at the beginning of the 21^st century. In our opinion, they continue to be either enthusiastic promoters of the forces of globalisation[16] (without thinking of the consequences that these radical globalisation theories have on the future of the nation-state) or the promoters of a rigid state-centrist vision on international law, in which non-state actors and even international organisations such as the IMF or World Bank are seen from a classical, obsolete perspective, being considered “cooperation frameworks of member states” and not active globalist forces, autonomous in relation to states, able to exercise forms of neo-colonialism in the radically changed context (compared to the one of the 20^th century) of today’s international world (marked and profoundly changed by globalisation).

At the beginning of the 21^st century, these phenomena of neo-colonialism can be exercised by: 

– state actors (state-nations, individually or as groups of state-nations which, politically or economically, are highly industrialised states, developing information societies as third wave societies, states that benefit from advanced military technologies, developing knowledge societies specific to the 21^st century) forming the First World”[17].

– secondary actors (international intergovernmental organisations, derived from the will of states, but which gradually fall outside the scope of their trusteeship system, transforming either into hegemonic decision-making centres of a member state, or into integration organisations, by transferring sovereign attributes from member states to a supranational political and legal level)[18]

– non-state actors[19] (international NGOs, individuals, transnational companies,  groups of interests, clubs, associations, various periodic forums attended by a composite audience – partly at the level of state representation, partly as globalist actors – directors of banks, corporations, various notable persons, the media etc.)[20].

 

Understanding colonialism and neo-colonialism from the perspective of the principle of state sovereignty

 

According to the legal literature, state sovereignty is, in a world marked by conflicts and inequality of power and resources, the best rampart for defending their identity, their rights as states, their independence and dignity[21]. A sovereign state is considered to be the main instrument for implementing the new rules of international law, for which it is internationally accountable[22].

For a correct understanding of the phenomena of colonialism and neo-colonialism, we think it is relevant to recall the content of the political-legal concept of “sovereignty”: as the supreme power of state on the subjects located on its territory and as freedom from the action of other states (internal and external aspect of sovereignty)[23].

Authors of international law converge towards admitting that a state’s sovereignty is made up of three important elements: the right to domestic independence, the right to equality and independence in the relations with other states and the right to self-determination. Concerning a state’s internal sovereignty, we must recall that no other authority (in that connection, we are talking about “territorial sovereignty”) shall be exercised on a state’s territory. According to authors of international law, this dimension of a state’s sovereignty includes the exclusive right of that state to adopt laws and regulations applicable on its territory, the right to ensure all aspects of state organisation, the right to determine freely various issues of political, economic, social and cultural life[24].

The sovereign state exercises this essential capacity over all persons and goods subject to its jurisdiction, as well as over the activities exercised on its territory.

Especially from the perspective of globalist order and proliferation of non-state actors, but also of the strengthening of the economic and financial decision-making role of international financial institutions and international organisations (including regarding the strengthening of their power in relation to member states), it is important to recall the fact that a key element of state sovereignty is economic sovereignty[25], that is “the orientation and management of national economy according to the options freely chosen and assumed by each state[26]” (obviously, by complying with the rules of international law and ius cogens).

This is essential in order to correctly understand the new forms of colonialism[27] that continue to be practiced during 21^st century[28], in a world that, politically and legally, has decreed ever since the end of the 20^th century the collapse of colonial systems and placed the phenomenon of colonialism[29] itself under international legal prohibition.

It is important to add the opinion of legal authors concerning the relations between states, from the perspective of state sovereignty; thus, other states may legitimately be concerned with the compliance by another state of its internationally assumed commitments and of rules of international law (since sovereignty is not absolute) when it exercises sovereign attributes on its territory, on persons, goods and activities on its territory or subject to its jurisdiction. But what is essential is that states cannot lawfully substitute themselves, under the current international law, for another state concerning the activities of adopting and implementing its laws or the orientation and management of its economic activity[30].

Also regarding a state’s economic sovereignty, according to the legal literature, it does not preclude the state in question from exercising certain powers of its sovereignty beyond the limits of its territory (for instance, exercising certain sovereign rights in the contiguous area of its territorial seas, on the continental plateau or in the exclusive economic area)[31].

Or, neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism are forms of domination and exploitation of countries and peoples, which constantly, permanently and brutally affect (unlike interventions or interferences, which have a temporary nature) the economic sovereignty of the latter. These forms of intervention can be exercised in the globalist order both by traditional actors [states, especially highly industrialised states or states which own on their territories the offices/headquarters of transnational corporations (TNCs)] and globalist actors (TNCs, international media, international financial institutions etc.)[32].

 An action carried out by traditional actors and by non-state actors, that breaches full permanent sovereignty of a state over its natural resources and wealth, of which, according to current international law, every people is free to dispose, without any pressure, constraints or interference, falls within the category of (economic) neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, thus falling within the scope of the general, broad prohibition in current international law. Moreover, the legal safeguard of international compliance with the economic sovereignty of all countries can be found ever since 1962, being enshrined by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of  14 December 1962, but also by Resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974, by which the fact that “every state has and shall freely exercise full permanent sovereignty, including possession, use and disposal, over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities” is internationally recognised.

 

The prohibition of colonialism and neo-colonialism: the legal framework in force at international level

 

In the United Nations Legal Order, consolidated at the end of 20^th century, numerous international documents of universal and imperative value, opposable erga omnes[33] (since they refer to ius cogens)[34] clearly enshrine, both directly and indirectly, the prohibition to exercise colonialism and neo-colonialism[35], together with other phenomena associated with the idea of domination, inequality and exploitation of peoples in international relations (hegemony, imperialism[36], racism).

First of all, we must refer to an indirect prohibition of the forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism at international level:

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the principle of non-intervention[37] in the domestic affairs of a state;

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the principle of sovereign equality of rights among all states;

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the right of all peoples to self-determination[38];

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the principle that States shall settle their international disputes exclusively by peaceful means in such a manner that international security, peace and justice are not endangered;

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the principle that all signatory States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter;

–          through the enshrinement, in the UN Charter, of the obligation of all States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter.

All these clear regulations, made indirectly (implicitly regarding the prohibition of the forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism in the relations among states) are adopted and consolidated in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, according to the UN Charter[39]. This legal document of universal and imperative value erga omnes (since it contains ius cogens) mentions elements from the substance of the above-mentioned principles and duties of states. Their analysis results in the identification of the international prohibition, according to UN standards and values, of the forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism.

For instance, in the context of the principle of states refraining in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, this declaration mentions (including concerning forms of exercising colonialism and neo-colonialism) the following: “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence” (correlated with the statement in the Preamble of the Declaration, that “the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to the promotion of international peace and security”, but also with another statement in the preamble, that “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law and its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality”).

The most indirect references (that is by regulating a principle of international law) to the prohibition concerning colonialism and neo-colonialism are related to the regulation of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, from the above-mentioned Declaration. There are clearly precise obligations of States, of universal and imperative value[40], with an incidence on the shaping of the prohibitory scope, in the relations among states, on the phenomena of colonialism and neo-colonialism:

– every state shall bring a speedy end to colonialism, having regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned, bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of this principle and a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the UN Charter.

By this express obligation, clearly addressed to all States in the above-mentioned international document, the essence of colonialism and neo-colonialism (“systematic, constant actions of subjugation, domination and exploitation of peoples or states by other states”) is implicitly stated. Moreover, a triple perspective on this phenomena, namely the provisions of the UN Charter, human rights and the principle of sovereign equality of states  and peoples’ right to self-determination, is expressed.

In the „General Part”, the above-mentioned Declaration recognises the principles of the UN Charter, also embodied in the Declaration; it admits they “constitute basic principles of international law”, calling upon all states “to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles”.

Therefore, these are examples of some indirect legal bases which are part of the legal and political prohibitive scope of colonialism and neo-colonialism, including for the century that has just begun.

Concerning the shaping of the scope of direct prohibition of the phenomena of colonialism and neo-colonialism, there are many international documents expressly prohibiting them, among which we mention the following:

–          United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) – Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples – adopted on 14 December 1960, during the 15^th session (1960) of the United Nations General Assembly[41]

–          United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX) – Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty – adopted on 21 December 1965, during the 20^th  session (1965) of the United Nations General Assembly 

–          United Nations General Assembly Resolution 34/103 – Declaration on the inadmissibility of the policy of hegemonism in international relations, adopted on 14 December 1979.

–          United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 – Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, considered to be the text codifying peoples’ right to self-determination, having an obvious decolonising basis (since, from this perspective, the holders of the right to self-determination are only “the peoples in the colonies or other non-self-governing territories whose status is different from the one of the territory of the state that administers them or who are subject to discriminatory governance”[42].

–          The two international Covenants on human rights, adopted in 1966 – Article 1 of both legal documents referring to ”all peoples”[43] (without making any distinction between peoples who were subject to the process of European colonisation and the other peoples, thus enshrining this right universally, not restrictively).

The substance of this right is a universal one (with erga omnes opposability), providing a powerful and concrete legal safeguard to states and peoples against the phenomena of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, both in the relations among them, but also in their relations with globalist actors. Thus, according to the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, peoples’ right to self-determination is given a broad legal definition: it is understood as the right of peoples “freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. The definition of this right is a broad and flexible one and it can operate successfully as a legal safeguard (being enshrined in the UN Charter) also in the globalist order, so that it can protect peoples in their relations with the great powers, with other states wishing to exercise forms of neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism over them, but also with other globalist actors (NGOs, informal groups and other types of actors).

According to the legal doctrine, the above-mentioned right is a permanent, imprescriptible right, granted without any historical or spatial conditions or related to certain categories of peoples[44] (according to the Western perspective of the countries which had empires and exercised forms of colonialism over certain peoples).

       We notice that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 34/103 – Declaration on the inadmissibility of the policy of hegemonism in international relations – apparently provides quite a broad definition of the phenomena of colonialism and neo-colonialism (it does not refer strictly to states, unlike the definition of hegemonism laid down in the previous paragraph in the Preamble of the same Declaration, which is seen only as a “manifestation of the policy of a State, or a group of States”). Thus, according to the above-mentioned Declaration, colonialism and neo-colonialism are included in the same category as imperialism and racism (including zionism and apartheid), being “forces which seek to perpetuate unequal relations and privileges acquired by force and are, therefore, different manifestations of the policy and practice of hegemonism”. Therefore, although initially the definition of these phenomena seemed to be a “broad” one, in the end it must be limited (in the state-centrist vision of the Declaration) to the scope of the relations between states and groups of states (through the express reference to the legal definition of hegemonism). Accordingly, in this Declaration, colonialism and neo-colonialism are seen from a state-centrist perspective which today, in the 21^st century (in the globalist order of more and more diverse and powerful non-state actors and in the age in which the Westphalian order foundation is eroding, under the pressure of these actors, rivals of state-nations), has become a rigid and obsolete legal framework (from the perspective of the possibilities to extend international accountability, necessary for state and non-state actors and for their actions which actually fall within the scope of colonialism and neo-colonialism or economic colonialism).

Despite all these deficiencies, the above-mentioned legal grounds (direct and indirect) remain in force, regardless of the globalist order marked by the proliferation and rise of non-state actors, representing a solid and universal legal safeguard for the compliance with the state sovereignty principle[45] in the framework of this cultural, economic, political heterogeneous and transnational order.

 

 

Bibliography:

ARNAULT, Jacques, Procesul colonialismului,  translated by I. Băluş, Ed. Ştiinţifică Bucureşti, 1960

BRAFMAN, Ori; BECKSTROM, Rod A., Steaua de mare și păianjenul, translated by Iuliana Raluca Hiliuță, Ed. All, București, 2004

CHIRILĂ, Marian, ”Suveranitatea şi dezvoltarea economică independentă”, in Suveranitatea şi progresul, Nicolae Ecobescu (coord.), Ed. Politică, Bucureşti, 1977

CARREAU, Dominique, Droit international, Pédone, Paris, 1999

COOPER, Robert, Destrămarea națiunilor. Ordine și haos în secolul XXI, translated by Sebastian Huluban, Ed. Univers Enciclopedic, București, 2007

DIACONU, Ion, Tratat de drept internațional public, vol.I, Ed. Lumina Lex, București, 2002

EVANS, Graham; NEWNHAM, Jeffrey, Dicţionar de Relaţii Internaţionale, translated by Anca Irina Ionescu, Ed. Universal Dalsi, București, 2001

GEAMĂNU, Grigore, Drept internațional, vol. II, Ed. Didactică și Pedagogică, București, 1983

GORRA-GOBIN, Cynthia, coord., Dictionnaire des mondialisations, Ed. Armand Colin, Paris, 2006

HELD, David; MCGREW, Anthony; GOLDBLATT, David; PERRATON, JonathaN, Transformări globale. Politică, economie și cultură, translated by Ramona-Elena Lupașcu, Adriana Ștraub, Mihaela Bordea, Alina-Maria Turcu, Polirom, Iași, 2004

HIRST, Paul, Război şi putere în sec. 21, translated by Nicolae Năstase, Ed.  Antet, s. l., 2001

KHANNA, Parag, Lumea a Doua. Imperii și influență în noua ordine globală, translated by Doris Mironescu, Polirom, Iași, 2008

KUMAR Malhotra, Vinay, International relations, Anmol Publications, New Delhi, 1993

MEISTER, Albert, ”Le système transnational”, Civilisations, L’Institut International des Civilizations Differentes, Bruxelles, No.1-2, 1975

MIGA-BEȘTELIU, Raluca Drept internaţional. Introducere în dreptul internațional public, Ed. All, București, 1998

MILLER, David, coord., Enciclopedia Blackwell a gândirii politice, translated by  Dragan Stoianovici, Humanitas, Bucureşti, 2006

NAISBITT, John,  Megatendințe. Zece noi direcții care ne transformă viața; translated by Constantin Coșan, Ed. Politică, București, 1989

PACTET, Pierre, Institutions politiques, droit constitutionnel, Armand Colin, Dalloz, Paris, 2002

ROCHE, Jean-Jacques, Relations internationales, LGDJ, Paris, 2005

SMOUTS, Marie-Claude; BATTISTELLA, Dario; VENNESSON, Pascal,  Dictionnaire des relations internationales. Approches. Concepts. Doctrines, Dalloz, Paris, 2006

ȘERBĂNESCU, Ilie, Corporaţiile transnaţionale, Ed. Politică, Bucureşti, 1978

TAKACS, Ludovic; NICIU, Marțian, Drept public, Ed. Didactică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1976

TAMAȘ, Sergiu, Dicţionar politic, Instituţiile democraţiei şi cultura civică, Ed. Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 1993

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Resolution 2625 (XXV), adopted on 24 October 1970, during the 25^th session, 1970

VRABIE, Genoveva, Drept Constituțional și instituții politice contemporane, Ed. Ștefan Procopiu, Iași, 1993