In Interesting Times

To say (or write, for that matter) that ‘we live in interesting times’ (and to point out, that this saying originated as a curse – as we are told) has become rather cliché. That is worrisome. After all, for something to become cliché, it needs to be overused to an extent that dulls a once-cherished originality. And, indeed, to assume that the phrase is overused (just as similar phrases are) is not far-fetched: It hardly qualifies as news any longer that we experience some difficulties (politically, economically – that is: if you want to separate the two –, socially – that is: if you want to separate the three, and culturally – that is: if you want to separate the four) at the moment (for quite some time, in fact); difficulties that do render the times we live in ‘interesting’ and to point that out cliché.

Of course: ‘we’, as ‘we’ know, is a ‘difficult’ (not to say: ‘interesting’) concept in its own right, but this may not be the place to go into that. Perhaps, ‘we’’d better proceed, based on an intuitive approximation to communality than going down this well-trodden path; an approximation that would allow us to righteously emphasize that ‘we’ (well beyond the Western hemisphere) were promised so much (and, thus, felt – maybe even still feel – entitled to so much) only a couple of decades ago: history coming to an end (sure enough: there were nuances to that for those who had actually read Fukuyama), making way for an age of peace (as we have always dreamed of), stability (as we have regularly desired), prosperity (as we have never known), freedom (as we have often imagined), and self-complacency (as we have never dared to wish for openly). Instead of that promise being kept, what we got was the 21st century (to be fair: we got the 1990s – a decade that, save for its questionable tastes in fashion and music – indeed gave a glimpse of how it would feel if this promise was fulfilled – at least for some people in some places). And now that a quarter of this century has passed, even (then again, maybe: in particular!) self-complacency seems like a pipe dream.

Given this sobering report as academics, in many cases, we went about raising the question: ‘Where did we go wrong?’ Some of us, then, would come up with answers, finding fault with the inner workings of democracy, decrying economic injustice, pointing at ways illiberal forces were undermining the rule of law etc. etc.; still more, me among them,^[1] would simply lament the fact. Fewer (far fewer) of us dared to raise (or answer) the question: ‘What should be done about it?’. Jorge Núñez is one of them.

In his new book (Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics [Routledge 2024]), Jorge makes a bold claim, arguing that state sovereignty and cosmopolitanism, typically viewed as antagonistic concepts, may indeed be aligned with each other (and quite beneficially so), if only one was to approach them from the right angle. In doing so, as he undertakes to demonstrate based on the example of territorial disputes, one of the core concerns of our age may be dissolved in a legally feasible and factually sustainable manner.

Jorge’s take is as refreshing as it is exciting. And so, I was delighted to accept the invitation to chair a workshop dedicated to his book at the 31st World Congress of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy in Seoul last year with three panellists (Pierluigi Chiassoni, Gabriel Encinas, and Oscar Pérez de la Fuente) closely scrutinizing his theory from various perspectives and Jorge addressing (and typically refuting their concerns).

I am even more delighted that these four participants of our workshop agreed to put down their exchange in writing for the purposes of the mini symposium the ICL Journal is happy to host for Jorge’s book. After all: His voice needs to be heard not only in the seminar rooms where legal philosophers gather. His theory deserves to be discussed widely. The Journal’s Board is pleased to provide a forum for that. Because after all: Even though academics such as Jorge may not single-handedly solve the problems before us, they certainly help us to take steps into a direction that promises a lot by promising less interesting times. At this point, we can hardly ask for more.