Introduction
Competing perspectives on global issues often derive from conflicting worldviews. Two key texts that examine clashing worldviews in international law and politics are Payne’s Global Issues: Politics, Economics, and Culture (2017) and Henderson’s Understanding International Law (2024). This essay will summarize and reflect on the tensions between nationalism and universalism presented in these works.
Summary
In global issues that Payne deals with, he indicates the confrontation between nationalism-based and universalism-based worldviews. Firstly, as globalization becomes more rampant, the existence of unique national identities and traditional belief systems is being eroded. This has triggered dissatisfaction among nationalist groups that aim to shield local traditions from external cultures. Thereby, globalization is a hawkish element to the local cultures. In his work, Payne illustrates the discordance embedded within the phenomenon of universalism as proponents of its implementation crusade for generally accepted values and a universal code of ethics, in contradiction with the adherents to pluralism and diversity. Nationalists believe in the power of patriotism and pursuing common national interests, whereas universalists propose globalism and the unity of the human race, superseding nationality. Pluralists, who emphasize self-determination and holding the wealth of the world’s cultural varieties together, are considered pluralists. (Payne, 2017)
To the same extent, Henderson takes various views on the worldviews and the basis of international law into account. The natural law – Holmes has highlighted the positive law argument. Natural law adherents argue that international law should flow from universal moral ethics, which are the primary values above and above the sovereignty of states. To positivists, this stipulates that international law is from contracts based on beneficial outcomes that enforce rights between sovereign states. During the conflict, positions regarding human rights begin to be opposed to the relevant sovereignty issues. However, the universalists suggest that the international law system is the one that realizes moral values. However, positivists should negate this by utilizing the consensus among people and government forces (Henderson, 2022).
Following his admission that there is a lack of harmonization between Western and pre-modern thinking systems, he grasps the clashes that evolve on governance, human rights, and economic policies. He discusses that the main non-Western groups see the “whole” values as the Western ones, which were presented as universal and the ones the West imposed on them in the Article. Hence, the resentment against globalization insinuates that it has turned into the modern version of Western imperialism, which aims to suppress local cultures (Payne, 2017). Similar to the point, Henderson outlines the discrepancies between Catholic and Islamic law. A lot of Muslim countries regard international law as favoring Christian and liberal values. This finds a universal concept of law acceptance hard to achieve as long as Islamic laws are not acknowledged (Henderson, 2024).
Reflection
These themes make me think that this harmony of universalism with pluralism must be localized in the developed world to create a globalized world. As Payne argues, upholding human rights ideals must be achieved through mutual discourse and not by forceful imposition of principles. Trimming away internal values and traditions is unacceptable to other people and means trying to insert moral values from wealthier countries through the power of money. Thus, similarly to Hendersen, in his contribution to the Dilemma, he advocates for international law to have universal moral principles that most states can accept. Still, it should also leave small margins for reasonable differences and state consent. Consequently, their problems do not exist in a vacuum; hence, they must have some agreed norms and values. While this is appealing, uniformly-imposed universalism may inflict a resurgence of nationalism (Henderson, 2020).
The roots of reconciliation are seeking common humanity and the viewpoints of different cultures. International law should contain universal values like peace, human dignity, and international solidarity. However, other elements can be diverse, too. We achieve greater interdependence and thus have to assume that fully relativist pluralism would be a problem (Ikenberry, 2018). However, cultural insensitivity built into the ideals of universalism creates another hurdle on the path to cultural unity. An ongoing dialogue and searching for shared ideas give us a path to the needed balance of unity and diversity. However, distilling contrasting perspectives and coming up with solutions are usual attributes of global politics and its legal consequences.
Conclusion
In sum, the areas with conflicting perspectives are among the complicating factors in most global issues. Nationalism and universalism should be worked out as globalization keeps on increasing. With a mindful compromise respecting “shared values” and “pluralism” alike, we can walk the so often treacherous path of coexistence. Worldwide organizations must bear universal ethics or be flexible enough to coexist with different ideologies. The advocacy for intercultural awareness, which can be realized in identifying shared rather than conflicting outlooks, is one power tool to improve relations between opposing perspectives. Therefore, there will be no end to the Dilemma between universalism and pluralism, and this Dilemma will be a continuous task.
References
Henderson, C. W. (2024). Understanding international law (10th ed.). Leiden Press.
Payne, R. J. (2017). Global issues: Politics, economics, and culture (5th ed.). Pearson.
Ikenberry, G.J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2020.1776185
write