As a non-native English speaker I need some help with correct terms.
I want to distinguish between two forms of international regimes:
THE FIRST one I would tentatively label SUPRANATIONALITY. An example of
a supranational system is the EU. A supranational regime has the right
to pass laws and make legislation on a very broad area of issues, and
these rules are binding and above correponding nationally decided laws
and rules. The main point in distinguishing supranationality compared
with what will be described below, is that s. implies
1) the general right to make binding decisions without beforehand
having specified the issue that shall be regulated, and
2) Such decisions are binding for a given nation within the system,
even when it is against them.
THE SECOND international regime is what I would tentatively call
"voluntary issue-oriented binding cooperation" ( VIOBC, but I am asking
you guys if there exists a specific term for this in English). VIOBC
implies that a nation voluntarily decides to abide by an international
agreement which regulates a (more or less) specific problem/issue/field.
Examples are Interpol, the Montreal protocol to fight CFC gases, the
international agreements for Post and Telecommication systems. There
exists a very large number of such agreements/organs/rules.
The UN has elements of both supranationality and VIOBC. The same holds
for GATT. But I would say that the new GATT agreement with the WTO
(World trade Organization) to implement it, is a step towards more
supranationality and less VIOBC.
My view in brief is that I am generally against supranationality, but
very much for more VIOBC as a way to solve problems that does not stop
at the national border.
A problem in the discourse here in Norway is that the supporters of EU
membership do not distinguish between the two above defined
qualitatively different ways to meet the needs for international
coordinated action. They simply say that those who oppose EU membership
are against "international cooperation". To some degree calculated
demagoguery, but also lack of clear thinking on their behalf.
I would like comments to my definitions and distinction between the two
terms, and especially help with the sought-after term for what I have
had to call VIOBC.
BTW, latest opinion polls (yesterday and the day before) re EU
membership in Norway are (in percent):
YES NO
poll 1 : 27 45
poll 2 : 33 48
More news are that the EU membership referendum will take place
on Nov 28., this was announced by Ms Brundtland (the PM) on Tuesday.
This is just two weeks after Sweden. The EU supporters in Norway by this
procedure hope that a possible YES in Sweden will influence the
undecided in Norway to vote YES. We NO people in Norway look at this as
a dirty trick, comparable to using loaded sentences in opinion polls to
get a biased result. Our proposal was to hold the referendums on the
same date, which would have been perfectly possible. This was of course
ignored by the power elite in Norway. Our second proposal was that if
it came to Norway's referendum being after Sweden's, then the only fair
solution would be to wait a couple of months, to eliminate the
possibility of bias due to bandwagon effects in the weeks after a
possible Swedish YES. This was also turned down.
It should, however, be pointed out that the EU-supporters in Norway are
taking a chance. Their tactics may backfire: Today there is still a NO
majority in the Swedish polls, albeit with a smaller margin than in
Norway. If this keeps and Sweden says NO, everybody in Norway agrees
that a referendum in our country two weeks later will result in an
overwhelming NO vote.
Cheers,
-----------------------------------------------
| Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) |
| Department of Engineering Cybernetics |
| The Norwegian Institute of Technology |
| N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY |
| |
| phone +47 73 59 43 58 |
| fax +47 73 59 43 99 |
-----------------------------------------------
