Metaconfederation as a Subject of Global Law of the Future

Novikov Oleg Alekseevich PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of Humanitarian Disciplines, Russian and Foreign Languages, Voronezh State Academy of Sports 394000, Russia, Voronezh region, Voronezh, Karl Marx str., 66, office 1 rum-ili@mail.ru

Nadtochii Igor' Olegovich Doctor of Philosophy Professor, Department of Humanities, Russian and Foreign Languages, Voronezh State Institute of Physical Culture 394000, Russia, Voronezh region, Voronezh, Karl Marx str., 50, office 130 nadto4y.ig@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The norms of international law have historically been, as a rule, a reflection of already established norms that actually regulated relations between its subjects. You should also  It should be noted that the very name "international law" is obviously outdated at the present time, due to its incomplete applicability to the modern realities of global development. The norms of international law have traditionally regulated relations between peoples, while the needs of the modern world at least dictate the need to change the name of this complex of initially interstate norms, which today regulate relations not only between "peoples", but also between a wide range of global actors in their broadest interpretation. And, first of all, it should be done once again (although in a slightly different form than it was done earlier)^[7], to propose another name for the phenomenon we are talking about, namely, global law, which, unlike domestic law, a priori regulates relations between various subjects on a global – global scale.

As is known, the "traditional" subjects of international law are States, state-like entities, nations and peoples fighting for independence, as well as international organizations^[1]. However, at present, science is increasingly talking about the emergence of new subjects of international law ^[5], which, in our opinion, is nothing more than a marker of the process of transformation of the system of norms that we habitually call "international law".

The XXI century, and, in particular, the trends in the development of the global world order in recent years, pose a different task – to identify completely new subjects of the system of norms and principles, which is traditionally called international law. In our opinion, this is due, among other things, to the processes of cross-border migration due to military conflicts, as well as to the process of global digitalization. These processes affect the widest range of international relations. For example, relatively recently we have observed a mass migration of the population from Afghanistan^[6], as well as Syria, Libya and other hot spots of the modern world. The migration of huge masses of people naturally requires the organization of their interaction with each other, as well as the protection of their rights. Migrants, as a rule, do not have the opportunity to create their own state on any territory, but at the same time they are a linguistic, cultural, and often ethnic community.

If we turn to the ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999, which is relatively remote from our days, we note that it was the uncontrolled resettlement of Albanians to the territory of Serbia in different years that gave rise to the infamous Kosovo conflict^[4].  The same, to one degree or another, we can state with regard to the Abkhaz, Karabakh, Transnistrian, North Cyprus and many other ethno-political conflicts originating in different years and continuing to the present. It was the migration of the population due to conflicts in the countries of the original residence of any ethnic groups that triggered destructive processes on the territory of the countries that accepted migrants.

The separation of the territory of one state from another in order to create any ethnic and political enclaves on it seems to us obviously dead-end and destructive, except in cases when this or that territory was not previously inhabited, or the countries governing it were ready to provide it in order for a certain community to create its own on this territory. the state. An example of this kind is the history of the creation of the modern State of Israel. However, its formation has also led to numerous and ongoing conflicts between Israel and neighboring countries. 

In addition, it should be noted that at present the state territory as a factor as a factor of politics and economy is rapidly losing its importance. Although we are not inclined to say that the importance of the territorial factor in the modern system of international relations is completely eliminated, nevertheless, if we compare the combined potential of countries such as Brazil and South Korea, or Kazakhstan and Singapore, then with all the conditionality of comparisons of this kind, it is not difficult to notice that the global economic and political importance of countries in the two above-mentioned pairs it is quite comparable.

In our opinion, another important problem that actualizes the subject we are studying is the issue of the so–called "failed states", or "failed state"^[3]. Most often, these include African countries with relatively weak economic and other potential, burdened with numerous internal problems, having artificial borders, which is associated with the division of peoples, etc. This, in our opinion, is the "primary" "failed state".  

The secondary "failed state" can be attributed, in our opinion, to those problematic states that pursue (or carried out) policies that do not correspond to the modern realities of international relations, and, in particular, were guided in their daily activities by imperial or other similar ideologies that led them to the triumph of archaic principles of society and the state, and, in particular, to the assertion of the primacy of force in domestic and foreign policy, the actual refusal of the state from the monopoly on the use of force and its social functions, etc. A striking example of this kind of country was, in our opinion, Libya during the reign of Muammar Gaddafi (1969-2011), which, instead of completing the construction of the Libyan nation and effective the state carried out a broad territorial and ideological expansion^[2]. It is obvious that this path – the path of imperial and (or) ideological self–assertion, is a dead end for the countries of the modern world and naturally entails their fragmentation in the future and, possibly, a new re-establishment - departure from the status of "failed state".

If we talk about global digitalization, we note that the phenomena of the Internet and social networks have already changed public life and are a priori capable of radically transforming its fundamental principles, in particular, the "binding" of a certain social (in the broad sense of the word) community to the territory.

It should also be noted that at present, within the framework of international law (we use the usual name here), there is an insoluble contradiction between its two key principles. This is the principle of the nation's right to self-determination and the principle of inviolability of State borders.  Unfortunately, both in the theory of modern international law and in its practice, the existence of this contradiction is considered as a kind of irremediable a priori given.

We believe that in the future there will be an inevitable rejection of the principle of inviolability of state borders due to their disappearance. In our opinion, any community of people united by common goals and principles, regardless of its location on a certain territory, is a political entity and has the right to self-determination, which, for its part, should be understood as non-interference of other political entities (other communities) in internal relations developing within this community.

In the process of globalization and strengthening of cross-border ties, the formation and strengthening of the above-mentioned communities, united by social, cultural, linguistic, ethical, corporate and other principles, is irreversible. An example of such a community, obviously in need of protection of its rights, are the above-mentioned citizens of Afghanistan (including former ones) who left their country after the establishment of the Taliban regime in it. The international community did not consider it necessary to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan in order to divide it into heterogeneous politically independent parts, which, nevertheless, does not negate the need to protect the rights of Afghan migrants.

It is also important to emphasize that migrants from Afghanistan do not belong to any one nation. Obviously, we observe the contours of their potential unification outside the national, cultural or linguistic, in other words, the traditional "state-forming" foundation. We can say the same about the waves of emigration from South Africa or Zimbabwe that took place in the past, after the collapse of apartheid regimes there, etc.

It should also be noted that in modern large states in the process of their development, in the case of "abstraction" of the authorities from solving the problems of regional imbalances, an increasing number of contradictions accumulate: cultural, economic, social, ethical, etc. This fact not only does not cancel, but also actualizes the problem of protecting the rights of all the mentioned population groups, which can be resolved by consolidating individuals within the framework of new – extraterritorial communities.

Based on the above, we propose as a promising vector for future research the study of the phenomenon of global meta-federations, which, in our opinion, are the prototype of the main, if not the only subject of global law of the future.

The root "meta-" denotes, in this case, the complexity of the internal structure of the subjects of global law and the possibility of using this term to describe subjects outside their territorial "binding", and the concept of "confederation" emphasizes the most free principles of the internal structure of the entities we have designated-communities. Accordingly, the existence of meta–federations as a full-fledged and main subject of global law entails a change in its forms, while preserving the essence - a principled approach to regulating relations between its subjects.

The term "metaconfederation" itself is not, in our opinion, a kind of "constant". On the contrary, its correction within the framework of the above-mentioned discourse seems possible. However, the fact that the subjects of global law of the future will not be tied to any territory is, in turn, a fact of very high probability. At the same time, a number of principles of the system that is currently called international law, and in particular, the principle of inviolability of state borders, will obviously be abolished.