The Triumph of the "Nation-State": or how the National narrative consolidated the State model

                                             The Bastille's Storming (July 14, 1789)

It is impossible to understand the EU if you forget that European integration started as a way of avoiding inconveniences of “nationalisms” and its tendency to provoke War. 

Since 1648 European history is a history of “States” having overcome the Principle of “Universalism”. The result was a lot of wars as National monarchies looked for Supremacy. Spain from the Peace of Cateau Cambressis (1559) to the Pyrenees Treaty (1659). France from then until the Treaty of Utrecht (1714). The United Kingdom until the appearance of Bismarck’s Prussia and the Second Reich (1871-1914). 

 The States strength was heavily reinforced by the “national” idea. Every state was a nation. French fought Spaniards, and British French. And Germans fought everyone else. The “National narrative” made much more effective the idea of the State, as from being exclusively a way of organizing Public power, it became through nationalism a project of territorial expansion. 

How did the nationalist idea got integrated in the State? How the combination of the two principles became such a powerful force in European history? Through the development of a new concept: the Nation-State model.  In this Lesson we are going to try to understand why and how it was born. A very important point as the European integration process is conceived as a way of overcoming this political and legal model. 

 The Nation state is the result of revolutions. A revolution is a violent way of changing the political, legal, social and economical state of things. As the world changes society, economy, political and legal structures have to adapt to the new circumstances. In some cases the rigidity of a regime made this adaptation difficult. Please read about the Prussian example on pages 53-54, where social rigidity of “Junkers” brought one of the most horrid dictatorships in World history: Hitler and its Nazi regime. Frederick the Great was a great Prussian king and an example of Enlightened Monarch, but he id a very poor job on adapting Prussian social structure in his Realm to new times. 

                                                  Frederick The Great (1740-1786), King o Prussia

 In other cases the upper classes were more flexible in admitting new members as it was the case of the British “gentry”, as since the 16th century it invluded not only Landowning nobility but also merchants and bankers. And then it ended up including the Middle Class and the Working class between 1832 and 1928. And this is why the transformation of the British political constitution was gradual (See pages 54-55).

In most cases, nevertheless, the social, political and legal change was the result of a “Revolution”. Violent rupture was the instrument of change. We will examine today two examples: the American Revolution (1776-1783) and the French Revolution (1789-1799), considering both crucial events from the perspective of the idea of the “Nation”, that was the pretext and the driving force of the rupture with the previous regime. The nationalist narrative united most of the people and moved them to fight and get rid of the Old monarchical regime. 

We will start with the American Revolution (pages 55-64) because American were pioneers in this matter. Revolution in the New Continent was easier because of the specificities of the British Colonial system (pages 56-58). Opposed to the highly centralized Spanish model of colonization were expeditions were organized by the Crown, English colons went to the New World to make business, according to John Locke’s ideas that State of nature should be replaced by a Common organization in order to get wealthier. This is how appeared the concept of “Commonwealth” referred to a social organization (See pages 59-60 and footnotes 88 and 89). 

                                                          John Locke (1632-1704)

 The result was that Spanish kings controlled their colonies while British kings did not. When they tried to do so, as a result of the War with France (1754-1763) it was too late. George III sent a lot of troops to defend his colons, but then he wanted to recover all the money that cost the heavy military intervention. He tried to tax British colons and they rebelled. The result was war (1776-1783) and independence. Something relatively easy as every one of the 13 colonies had its own charter and elective assembly. It was therefore more than doable to transform charters in constitutions and develop a system of representative government.  The most difficult part was to win the War but they could do it because they felt altogether as a “nation”. Read on page 56 the extract of the Declaration of independence of July 4, 1776, specially where it says that Independence is declared by the Representatives of the United States of America in “General Congress assembled” ... “by Authority of the good people”.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence

 The great invention of the rebel British colons in Western constitutional history was the idea of a “Constituent process” convened by the Representatives of the States in a “Congress”, where all together decided how they wanted to be ruled. The Americans invented a new constitutional model based on congresses, written constitutions and declaration of rights (see on page 61 how Virginia Declaration of rights was established 2 months before the Declaration of independence). And all this was possible because it was a very flexible and participative system, enabling them to evolve from the Article of Confederation system to the Federal System as we will see in Teaching guide nr. 9.  And above all because despite the fact that they were 13 independent States, all Americans felt they belonged to ONE NATION. 

 The US Revolution was an important precedent. When George Washington took office as the first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, on the other side of the Atlantic the French Absolute Monarchy was about to collapse. 6 days later were convened the General estates that will bring the French Revolution. 

                                                              George Washington (1789-1797)

Revolution in France was more difficult because the Ancien regime was old and strong. France had one of the strongest monarchies in the World. This is why French Revolution is such a mess. Among other reasons because Aristocratic and Popular revolutions were contradictory (see page 67).  The key of success was again the idea of “Nation”. American national holyday is on July 4th because that was the day the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed. French national holyday is on July 14th, not because of the Storming of the Bastille on 1789, but because of the Festival of Federation celebrated on July 14th 1790, one year later. When delegations coming from all over France met in Paris in order to celebrate all together that they were ONE NATION.  (Read page 69 about national sovereignty and the origins of “national patriotism”). And this strong narrative was enough to overcome chaos. 

                                         La Fête de la Fédération. Paris 14 July 1790

 The problem was that “nationalism” brought war. The Americans became a new country with 13 States an 1 nation through a terrible war with a lot of cruelty and casualties. The French revolution was saved because the Convention declared  war to absolute monarchies of Austria and Prussia in the summer of 1792. Patriotism saved the revolution, but Revolutionary France became imperialistic and brought Napoleonic Wars. 

 The Nation State idea reinforced the State, but brought violence and tension. And these ideas spread all over Europe during the 19th century. As we will see in Teaching Guide number 5, the history of Europe in this period is the one of  the rising of nations and nationalisms. New nations were the result of War. As Belgium in 1830 or Italy from 1848 to 1869. 

Nation states are the product of war. And this is why Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman developed on May 19, 1950 the idea of an integrated Europe in order to prevent the possibility that European nation-states fought each other. Nationalism had destroyed European states and it was necessary to stand together to face a World controlled by Americans and Russians. And this what the actual EU is forgetting as you will read in Robert Menasses novel “The Capital”. Heavy nationalists –as it is the case of Brexiters- try to destroy the EU. The problem is that the Legal and Political structures of the EU are still ruled by a lot of people that do not feel “Europeans”, but still essentially members of their old nation-states. From this perspective getting rid of the UK could be a good thing for deepening the integration between the 27 remaining Member states. Provided they leave aside “nationalism”.

EXERCISING:

Besides reading pages 53 to 72, understanding concepts and answering the questions, please consider remembering all the dates of the American Revolution, including the 5 dates prior to 1773. Concerning the French Revolution the crucial dates are: 5 May 1789, Constituent Assembly (June-September 1789), Legislative Assembly (October 1791-August 1792), The Convention (September 1792-October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795-November 1799). Also July 14 1790, April 20 1792, August 10 1792, September 20 1792, and September 22 the same year. January 21 1793, July 1793.

Concerning the readings on education. Please read the text “The loving resistance fighter” excerpted from Neil Postman’s “Technopolis”.  We will discuss all this in class. 

The Second step towards the consolidation of the State: getting rid of the Universal approach

                                      Inocencio Xpainted by Velázquez and Bacon

 The Germanic invasion put an end to the unified Western Roman Empire. The geographical area was occupied by different Germanic Nations that became independent kingdoms. The idea of a sole universal emperor was replaced by different kings. Nevertheless people missed the idea of belonging to the same political body. The Germanic nations admired and missed the glorious time of Imperial Rome. Their kings tried to imitate Roman emperors. But most important, the majority of population was of Roman origin. Roman authorities had disappeared after 476 A.D. but there was an institution that survived: the Roman Catholic Church. It was Roman because its head was the Bishop of Rome, that became the “father” of all Christians (Pope). It was Catholic because it was “Universal” (meaning Through everything “kathos-holos” in Greek), as since 380 AD it became the official religion of the Universal Roman Empire. And it was the Church as it was an organization integrated by the “Assembly” (“Ecclesia” in Greek Language) of all Christians. 

Almost the whole Roman population in 476 AD was catholic. This is why their religious authorities, the Bishops, became very powerful. To the point they induced the Germanic Kings to convert themselves and their nations to the new religion. The Church became a very powerful organization. 

The consequence of all this was that despite the diversity of kingdoms there was a religious and spiritual unity under the authority of the Pope, head of the universal assembly (Church) of Christians. It did not matter if you were Roman, Visigoth, Frank, Saxon, Burgundian. Your nation did not matter in the religious field as everyone had the same spiritual narrative. Despite the existence of different “nations”, unity was preserved through religion.

Papacy is an overwhelming institution as it has been there since Saint Peter. More than 2000 years. Which is a hell of continuity. The pope is not the religious leader of the World anymore. Not even for the Westerners, nor the Christians. As besides the Catholics there are Orthodox, Protestants, Episcopalians, and a whole sort of different Christian sects. Nevertheless the Roman Catholic Church is still the most powerful religious organization of the West. And the Pope is one of the World most respected leaders.

In this chapter we will see how the fragmentation of the political scene in Europe after the end of the 5th century was counteracted by the rise of a simultaneous universal power. First in the religious field, with the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks to a thorough centralization imposed by the Roman popes. The Eastern Schism in 1054 that brought an independent Orthodox church in Constantinople  was a logic consequence of the fact that the West did not accept the authority of the Byzantine emperors.  But this was counteracted by the rise of the papal power that brought a Western theocracy that was extremely powerful during the 12th and 13th century, as popes decided of everything. And not only as spiritual and religious leaders, as since 754 they had their own territorial domain: The Papal States. 

The popes were so powerful that they decided to break politically with the Eastern Byzantine emperors pushing to the appearance of an independent Western emperor. First with Charlemagne since 800, and with the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, from 962 until 1806 !

                                                      Charlemagne idealized by Durer

 The Western emperors were not alone, as their crowning had to be performed by the popes. It was therefore a dual empire. This was a difficult situation because popes and emperors fought each other for a long time in a harsh struggle. Finally popes and emperors ended up losing most of their power as the “National Monarchies” became the leading powers. But the “imperial idea” that there was a universal power lasted longer. The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation lasted until 1806, but was replaced by the Napoleonic empires of 1804-1814 and 1852-1870. In 1871 Bismarck pushed for the creation of the Second Reich that lasted from 1871 to 1918. And finally Adolf Hitler founded the Third Reich from 1933 to 1945.

                                                   Emperor Mathias towards 1625

 Why do we study the popes and the emperors in the perspective of the formation of the European Union? Because it is important for you to know that the triumph of the State in the European political history has been in a great deal a fight for getting rid of the universal Western approach, opposed to the ideas of “nationalism” and “statalism”.

The "emperors" of the 1st, 2nd and 3d  Reich 

It is extremely interesting that one of the causes of the Brexit was the fact that more than half of the British people, especially the older ones, do miss the British Empire. And unconsciously they believe that becoming fully independent from the European Union will bring back the glorious past of their nation as head of this strange thing called the Commonwealth. Remember that the Queen Elisabeth the II is still surprisingly the head of State of Canada and Australia, among other countries. With not a real power at all, but with a heavy symbolic load and a lot of old British still dream of it. 

This bring us to an important point. The European Union is still essentially only a huge market. It has no soul. No past. We still feel closer to our nation-states, because we have shared a common history and we have a common background. The big problem that the EU face, and you will understand it when you will read Robert Menasse’s The Capital is that Brussels is a strange mixture of people that fight for economic interests but do not share a common political and cultural project. They do not feel proud of belonging to the EU. 

After Brexit the big question is if the 27 remaining Member states will stay united in dealing with the UK or statal private interests will prevail. May be we should remember then that for a long time, despite the fact that Europe was divided in different states, we shared the universal idea that brought our ancestors together in a different level. They felt simultaneously  National and European. But for achieving this today the European Union should develop a more appealing narrative, beyond money and markets. To minimize the temptation of “Chacun pour soi”. 

                                                    The first Roman emperor: Augustus

                                        Napoleon imitating Augustus 18 centuries later

EXERCISING:

This week you have to read pages 30 to 44. Bear in mind the structure of the text. First you will understand how and why the popes became the uniting power of all westerners, despite their “national” origin. Here you have to realize the importance of Gregory I, the Promissio carisiaca, the Cluniac Reform and the Dictatus papae, leading to the Papal Theocracy (pages 30-31). Then you should realize that the decline of the papacy brought the fragmentation of Europe with the Anagni Outrage, The Avignon papacy and the Western Schism that brought the Protestant Reform. The appearance of Gallicanism and Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy creating the Church of England (pages 31 to 33).

 Then you will see how the Papacy brought back to the West the Imperial idea, that remained an essential part of our culture (pages 33-34). 

 The last part of the text deals with how the Territorial monarchies triumphed over Christian Universalism, and this victory required a new narrative for sustaining the legitimacy of the Absolute Monarchs that founded Modern State. With some extremely interesting texts from Machiaveli, Bodin and Hobbes. Read them carefully. (Pages 35-43).

Finally you should realize why the disappearance of a common religious narrative after the Westphalia Treaties in 1648 was the cause of the rise of a Europe integrated by independent states that fought each other in search for Supremacy. A fight that would get tougher with the appearance of the National State model in the 18th century western revolutions. A matter that we will study in Teaching guide number 4.

Read also the foot notes in order to understand the concepts and answering the questions of pages 49 to 51 in your Class Notebook. 

Concerning the dates this week is a little harder as you should learn a few more than in precedent weeks: 590-604, 754, 800-843, 962-1806, 1054, 1075, 1303, 1521, 1527, 1534, 1540, 1572, 1618-1648, 1804-1814, 1852-1870. 1871-1918, 1929, 1933-1945 

Concerning your reading about education: no new assignment, but review your notes on the readings of previous weeks. And be ready to discuss all this in class. 

HOW TO DO A BOOK REPORT/ANALYSIS

A book analysis is a very useful tool to store what you have read throughout your studies. Book analysis requires reading with pencil and taking notes, especially for compulsory books. In order to have a better understanding of how to do a book analysis, the example used is Middle England by Jonathan Coe, compulsory book for the course.

I. Technical information:

Technical information comes directly from the book, it doesn’t require a personal effort. For the students reading in Kindle, please consult your fellow students or me. I will gladly give you the information needed.

- TITLE: 

Middle England.

ATTENTION!!! The title always in italics when written in your computer. Underlined if handwritten.

If the title of the book contains a sub-title, please write it too.

- AUTHOR: 

Jonathan Coe.

- DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION: 

2018.

You will find this information in the very first pages of the book, usually on the left page before dedications or quotes.

ATTENTION!!! If you are reading a translation, date of publication will be the one in the country of origin.

Example: Middle England, translated from English, first published in UK in 2018. Spanish translation published in 2019.

- PUBLISHER:

If you read the book in English, you should write Viking 2018, if you read it in Spanish, Anagrama 2019. 

If the book belongs to a specific collection, please write it too.

Example:  Anagrama has published El corazón de Inglaterra in the collection “Panorama de Narrativas”. 

In your book analysis, you will write:

Publisher: Editorial Anagrama, colección: Panorama de Narrativas.

II. Complementary information:

- ON THE AUTHOR (MOST RELEVANT HINTS):

This information requires a little research on your part.  Please avoid copy and paste from Wikipedia or Google!!! An original presentation will be appreciated not to mention plagiarism which is a very serious offence.

Here are some tips you could use:

- Man or female.

- Nationality.

- Year of birth.

- Is he/she a professional writer? Does he/she have another job? 

- Is it his/her first work of fiction? 

- Has he/she received any award for this book? For other books? Please write only the most relevant, not a list of awards and especially the ones connected with our book.

- LITERARY GENRE:

Comedy, Drama,  Horror fiction, Romance, Satire, Historical, Realist, Science-fiction, Political,… 

If you consider that the book belongs to several genre, please write it duly explained.

Example: you may consider that Middle England is a satire with a realist perspective.

ATTENTION: You have to choose the main genre. 

- THE SETTING:

Where is the book located? In what historical context?

Example: Middle England spans on a period of time that starts in 2010 and finishes in 2018. XXIst century.

- MAIN CHARACTERS:

In this section, you have to write on the main characters of the book, their names, professions, their social context (i.e.:Benjamin Trotter is aspiring to publish his book), and also relationships between them. 

III. Summary and Personal Opinion:

- SUMMARY:

The summary will contain the novel’s basic facts. 

- PERSONAL APPRECIATION:

Basically, it is writing whether you have liked the book or not, whether you would recommend it or not. Your opinion must be duly justified, a yes or no is not admissible. 

You can also write a sentence that has stricken you and discuss it.

You may grade the book, too. 

The first step towards the consolidation of the State: National monarchies

This famous engraving that the French artist Abraham Bosse created for the first edition (1651) of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan has been since then the best visualization of what the "state" means. A crowned figure handing a sword -as a symbol of power- on its right hand, and a sceptre in its left-symbolizing sovereignty-  with on top the inscription "Non est potestas super terram quae comparetur ei" (There is no power on earth to be compared to him), extracted from the Bible, concretely from the Book of Job 41, 24. 

In today's blog entry we will study the Teaching guide number 2 of your materials, dealing with the origins of the Western State. The word "State" in its actual sense was used for the first time by  Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), the famous author of The Prince, a set of recipes of how to remain in power, disregard to any considerations concerning legality or legitimity. A training manual for heads of State or Government. 

After having understood the idea of "nation" as a powerful fiction, a useful narrative to make as many people as possible to believe they belong to the same human body leading them to act together beyond their own individuality, the state is a much more abstract concept. This is why initially the idea of State was embodied in the person of a King, as a sole repository of power, that is a monarch: from the Greek words "monos" (one) and "cratos" (power). In fact the king, as Bosse's engraving suggests, visually is integrated by a multitude of individuals (the "nation"). But the state does not appeal to cultural or linguistic identity or feelings as "nation" does. The State appears as an "organization" that overcome the explosion of power caused by the Feudal model of society. The kings no longer rule over a "nation" (german or roman) but over a whole territory, and the royal status came to be hierarchically posited above all social powers: nobility, the clergy,local oligarchies,cities, religious sects. Kings became the only responsibles to maintain the order created by God.

 Philip II Augustus (1179-1223) was not called any longer "Rex Francorum" but "Rex Franciae". And ruling over an expanding territory required a strong and developed administration with specialized "officials", a permanent and professional army and an institutionalized body of  royal judges. And this costed money that Royal administrators levied from taxes. The result of all this was that the power of the king increased exponentially. 

What you will find surprising is that this rising power of European monarchs was not contested by the population. The French Revolution has portrayed absolute monarchs as tyrants. This was not true. Absolutism as a concept was not widely opposed and the monarch's supreme authority went largely unquestioned. Why? Because the rising power of the kings did pacify largely everyday life as opposed to the highly unstable times of Feudality. Monarchical authority dominated all the dissenting groups and bodies who so far had aspired to play a political role. People all over Europe started realizing that royal absolute governments were more orderly and efficient than the previous ones under feudalism. The State appeared for "practical" reasons. 

On top of that, Absolute monarchs were instilled with the mercantilist ideas of the Modern Age which endorsed the protection of "national economies" and favored the promotion of "national" prosperity. Of course this was above all true concerning the  Bourgeois elites of merchants, bankers and manufacturers and most of the populations were less happy. But on the whole they were far better off with a strong monarchy that gave the usually far more legal security that nobles in the scattered feudal society. 

This is why this "national monarchies"that started in the Latter Middle Ages (XI to XV centuries) and had their Golden age during the XVI and XVIIth consolidated the "state" that Machiavel had discovered intuitively, and will ruin definitely the Universal Model in the period 1648-1776 as we will see next week. The Westphalia Treaty of 1648 that put and end to the horrid religious conflict calle the Thirty year war opened up the European political space to an Europe of "states" in which popes and emperors had very little to do. 

EXERCISING:

You should start reading pages 17 to 24, including the footnotes, and try to understand concepts and answer the questions of pages 27 and 28. Do it by handwriting in your Class Notebook.

Concerning the dates of pages 25: the most important ones are:  966, 978, 1151, 1223, 1270, 1348, 1461, 1513, 1651 and 1661, as they are crucial to our history. Read carefully as well the other ones in order to get the whole picture of the evolution of the National monarchies. Look especially to the different Assemblies of Estates. Think of the difference between the words "estate" and "State".

On the other hand I would like you to continue reading about education. Please proceed further with the text of Abraham Flexner "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge" in pages 321-324 and read Steve Job's Speech of June 2005 (Text nr. 7) in pages 340 to 344.

Be ready to discuss all this in class. 

The idea of Nation is it incompatible with European integration?

The European Union includes different "Nation states". It has been possible because the idea of "nations" and "states" has entered into decline. We need to know where both ideas came from. Why they became important and if they are still valid to face the XXIst century World.

 This week we shall start with the origins of "nations", a very complex concept as it has many different meanings. Please consider, for instance, the difference between "nation" and "nationalism". This last term is today playing an important role in our World. As show Independentists movements all over Europe: in the UK, in Belgium, in Spain, in Hungary and Poland, in Italy and even Germany. Nationalism is jeopardizing European integration, and it is important to understand why.

 Lets bring only one example. National pride has a lot to do with the origin of Brexit, as a majority of British Citizens look straight backwards into the idea of their glorious imperial past and that feeling of National pride has prevailed over economic considerations. This is a good point for starting your reflection on nations and nationalisms as opposed to the idea of curtailing national sovereignty that implies European integration. Heart and brain still move often in opposite directions.  

EXERCISING: 

You should start reading pages 7 to 12, and try to answer the questions of pages 14 and 15. Do it by handwriting in your Class Notebook. 

Concerning the dates of page 13: the most important ones are: 378, 382, 395, 476 496 and 590-604, as they are crucial to our history. Read carefully as well the other ones. 

Read quietly as well  the footnotes. Specially 7, 8 and 10. 

On the other hand I would like you to start your readings about education. In order to make you think about what is the use of you sitting in the university benches. I would recommend you to read the opening text of Nietzsche in page 3, about the sense of studying history. And then get to the first part of the Text of Abraham Flexner "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge" in pages 320-321.

Be ready to discuss all this in class. 

Finally we will watch a TED by Yuval Noah Harari in which he explains simply why the "Sapiens" we have ended up dominating the World. Nations and Nationalism have played an important part on this process. We are going to see why.

El planeta primero

De Sydney a Vancouver, de París a Pretoria, de Nueva York a Buenos Aires, en todo el planeta más un millón de jóvenes han dejado de ir al colegio para manifestarse en la calle. Y todo por culpa de una adolescente sueca afectada por el síndrome de Asperberger  llamada Greta Thunberg (2003) que en el verano de 2018 empezó a dejar de ir a clase los viernes para manifestarse en Estocolmo ante el Parlamento sueco para concienciar al mundo del dramatismo del cambio climático y obligar a los políticos a reaccionar. Su combate prendió y Greta ya ha hecho un TED y ha pronunciado un discurso en la ONU, concretamente en diciembre de 2018, en el COP 24 celebrado en Katowice (Polonia). “Por su culpa” los adolescentes se han cabreado en el mundo entero y han decidido tomar medidas. En Estados unidos ha surgido el movimiento Huelga climática infantil, fundado por 5 adolescentes entre 12 y 17 años; y otros 21 adolescentes han presentado la primera demanda judicial contra el Gobierno norteamericano por no protegerlos de los daños que supone el uso de los combustibles fósiles. Una demanda que ha sido admitida a trámite.

Mucho ruido y pocas nueces

 El cabreo de los jóvenes está justificado. Porque los síntomas del calentamiento climático, tantas veces debatido entre quienes creen en él y los que opinan que es un cuento chino, empiezan a ser cada vez más claros. Si atendemos, por ejemplo, a la drástica reducción de la masa de hielo de los polos y a la subida del nivel de los océanos. Y es que ¿cómo no va a haber calentamiento global si unos 120.000 aviones diarios surcan los cielos del planeta… cada día?

El verdadero problema es que, junto a los políticos, dominados por el cortoplacismo electoral, los juristas tampoco están a la altura, a pesar de que existe una nueva área jurídica llamada Derecho medioambiental que va a cumplir medio siglo de existencia. El problema es que esta nueva área jurídica se inscribe en el ámbito internacional, y hoy por hoy, como sabemos, el único derecho que funciona de modo eficaz es el estatal ya que son los estados los que tienen los medios para imponerlo por la fuerza si es necesario. El derecho internacional está plagado de buenas intenciones pero queda muy a menudo en agua de borrajas. Porque no hay un legislador global, un tribunal aceptado por todos o un policía del planeta. Ni siquiera en la Guerra de las Galaxias gracias a que Luke Skywalker hace lo que puede para luchar contra el Imperio y evitar que controle todo el universo. En la realidad del mundo de hoy los 193 estados-nación de la ONU son soberanos y aceptan lo que les conviene. Por eso cuando se trata de un problema “internacional” solo puede recurrirse a los tratados, que en definitiva son contratos entre naciones soberanas y que como tales se cumplen no porque exista una autoridad superior sino porque cada estado firmante está por la labor. Desde luego en el ámbito del cambio climático y del calentamiento global cada estado arrima el ascua a su sardina y por ello el indispensable derecho medioambiental es a menudo tan ineficaz.

 La Manga del Mar menor en 2019

 Desde la firma en 1992 del Tratado Conferencia Marco de Naciones Unidas para el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC), todos los años representantes de todo el mundo se reúnen con grande alharacas para conseguir pocos resultados. Como la montaña que parió un ratón. El famoso parto de los montes de la fábula de Esopo que sigue rondando por la Tierra desde hace 2500 años. Con un ejemplo lo entenderás mejor, el tan aireado Protocolo de Kioto de 1997, es un bluff, porque, de entrada, no se unen a él ni China ni Estados Unidos, porque en teoría entró en vigor en el 2005 y acabó en 2012, aunque no se sabe si se prorrogó realmente en el 2011, porque en el 2012 se salió Canadá, y porque en el 2015 aún sigue teniendo fecha de caducidad, pues tras firmarse el Acuerdo de París, este solo entrará en vigor en el 2020, aunque está por ver si será más eficaz. No te asustes lector si todo esto te parece un lío. Porque lo es. Es un batiburrillo y, sobre todo, es muy poco efectivo. Mucho ruido y pocas nueces, parafraseando la famosa obra de Shakespeare (Much ado about nothing).

 Es verdad que también hay que valorar que influye en la inoperatividad del derecho medioambiental el que a nivel mundial las opiniones estén dividas sobre si resulta o no útil. Para algunos hay avances notables en la lucha  contra el cambio climático porque desde el año 1970 en que se inicia la reacción jurídica contra los gases que provocan el “Efecto invernadero”, el combate de unas pocas y aisladas decenas de asociaciones raíz (grassroots) o comunidades de base, se ha convertido en una lucha planetaria que moviliza a millones de personas en todo el mundo. Y ello ha acabado por tener consecuencias que se traducen en resultados tangibles.

 La educación medioambiental se ha convertido en una parte insustituible y estandarizada del curriculum escolar. Y económicamente hablando la industria destinada a controlar la polución, solo en Estados Unidos, factura en torno a los 200.000 millones de dólares anuales, generando un millón y medio de empleos. El derecho medioambiental ha tenido además un impacto positivo en la medida en que en Norteamérica, por ejemplo, el aire, el agua y el suelo están hoy más limpios que estaban en 1970, lo cual es muy meritorio teniendo en cuenta el tremendo crecimiento económico experimentado desde entonces. Según datos de la Agencia de Protección del Medioambiente norteamerican (Environmental Protection Agency)  al iniciarse el nuevo Milenio, si adicionamos las emisiones de los 6 principales elementos que polucionan el aire, sus niveles habrían descendido desde 1970 un 25%, a pesar de que en ese mismo período el consumo de energía ha aumentado un 43%, los kilómetros recorridos en coche por los conductores norteamericanos un 149%, y el PNB norteamericano un 160%. A lo que hay que añadir que dos tercios de las aguas que son objeto de vigilancia medioambiental permiten que la gente pesque y nade en ellas, cuando hace apenas tres décadas eran cloacas a cielo abierto.

 Otros analistas, en cambio, son mucho menos optimistas, cuando no directamente mucho más pesimistas. Para ellos en su medio siglo de desarrollo el Derecho medioambiental ha tenido muy poco impacto a la hora de frenar la degradación ecológica del planeta. Toda la batería de medidas jurídicas adoptadas por el Gobierno de los En Estados Unidos desde 1970 para proteger el medioambiente y las instituciones creadas con este fin no han logrado evitar que haya desaparecido el 53% de los humedales (wetlands) y el 90% de los bosques originarios (old growth forrests), que 9000 especies estén en riesgo de extinción, o que no se pueda pescar en el 44% de los ríos norteamericanos. Sencillamente porque siguen vertiéndose anualmente en el aire, el agua y el suelo dos millones de toneladas de productos químicos tóxicos. 

Y la Tierra no es la única afectada, pues también sufre las consecuencias de la destrucción medioambiental la salud humana. De entrada porque, actualmente el 95% de la población mundial tiene un alto riesgo de sufrir cáncer de pulmón, debido a las toxinas que flotan en el aire que respiran. Un estado de cosas que ha favorecido el surgimiento de una literatura de gran calado ecológico, que pone en evidencia el daño que el ser humano está infligiendo al planeta, como Annie Proulx en su libro El bosque infinito (2016) o la sátira ecologista de Jonathan Franzen Libertad (2010).

Este colosal daño a la Tierra y a sus habitantes tiene su origen en la Revolución industrial, aunque cuando realmente se acelera exponencialmente es durante los últimos 30 años; período que los medioambientalistas llaman la Era moderna del derecho medioambiental (Modern Era of Environmental Law), caracterizado porque en él los ecosistemas se han reducido en un 33% y los humanos ya hemos consumido irreversiblemente un tercio de los recursos naturales del Planeta. Y en estas condiciones a la pregunta de si funciona el Derecho medioambiental hay que contestar con un rotundo "no". Como mucho podría hablarse de éxitos pequeños, pero valorada en su conjunto la destrucción provocada por la actividad industrial ha sobrepasado con mucho la eficacia de la batería de normas jurídicas que protege el medioambiente. Por eso se ha podido afirmar, expresivamente, que desde el punto de vista de la salvaguarda ecológica las leyes e instituciones medioambientales son el bastón en el que se apoya la Humanidad mientras camina hacia su propia destrucción.    

Cambio de prioridades

  Desde la perspectiva de la historia jurídica lo que está claro es que hoy se está poniendo en tela de juicio que el hombre pueda ejercer un dominio absoluto sobre la naturaleza. La polución, la deforestación, la sobreexplotación agrícola están degradando el planeta a marchas forzadas y por ello estamos en un punto en el que hay cada vez más gente convencida de que el derecho debe anteponer la protección del planeta a los intereses económicos del hombre. El cambio climático y el agotamiento de las reservas naturales hacen que los dogmas del crecimiento económico y el mantenimiento del nivel de vida pasen a un segundo plano y prevalezca la necesidad de salvar la Tierra.

Y algo está cambiando. Los esfuerzos a nivel global pueden ser decepcionantes –porque entre otras cosas el derecho es considerablemente ineficaz a nivel internacional-, pero si dividimos el mundo en áreas geográficas las cosas no están tan mal. Es un lugar común afirmar que los Estados Unidos son la bestia negra del cambio climático y que los norteamericanos son los campeones de la degradación del planeta. Sin embargo lo que se olvida es que, paradójicamente, fue el gobierno federal norteamericano el primero en crear organismos públicos destinados a proteger el medio ambiente. Concretamente fue el denostado presidente Nixon (1969-1974), el del escándalo Watergate, quien creó en 1970 la Agencia de Protección del medioambiente (Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA) y la Administración Nacional oceánica y Atmosférica (National Oceanic and Atmosferic Administration, NOOAA). Dos organizaciones  que cuentan con una importante red territorial de sedes y miles de funcionarios pagados con cargo a los impuestos de todos los norteamericanos. Los europeos tardamos la friolera de 20 años más -hasta 1990- en crear una Agencia europea del medioambiente.

CUESTIONES:

1. ¿Qué es el “efecto invernadero?

2. ¿En qué país y cuando se inicia la protección del medio ambiente?

3. Explica la frase siguiente: desde el punto de vista de la salvaguarda ecológica las leyes e instituciones medioambientales son el bastón en el que se apoya la Humanidad mientras camina hacia su propia destrucción.

4. ¿A partir de cuándo la lucha contra el medioambiente empezó a ser eficaz? ¿Qué acontecimiento de la Guerra fría justificó la alarma medioambiental en la población?

5. ¿Cuál es la principal dificultad jurídica que plantea la protección y defensa del medioambiente? 

6. ¿Por qué en Europa es donde hoy el derecho protege más eficazmente el medioambiente?  

7. Explica qué es la “constitucionalización” del medio ambiente.

8. ¿En qué medida los derechos humanos ofrecen una protección contra el cambio climático? Sitúate en un plano jurídico

9. ¿Cómo pretende el capitalismo luchar contra el calentamiento climático? 

HACIA UN DERECHO DESHUMANIZADO

Hasta ahora hemos considerado el derecho como un producto de la sociedad humana. El primer capítulo de este libro se llama el animal jurídico porque los humanos se impusieron a las demás especies animales gracias a su rico lenguaje y a su poderoso sentido social, dado que somos los únicos seres vivos capaces de convivir en grandes grupos colectivos. El extraordinario progreso de los humanos como especie se basa en que el homo sapiens es el único animal que tiene la capacidad de conectar entre sí a un grupo elevado de individuos. Gracias a que somos capaces de compartir narrativas ficticias como una sociedad anónima, un estado o una nación, pero también a que hemos desarrollado un método avanzado de resolver nuestras disputas: el derecho, gracias al cual evitamos que un conflicto pueda degenerar en guerra. A eso dedicamos nuestro segundo capítulo, en el que dejamos claro que no puede haber sociedad sin derecho. La sociabilidad es la base de la superioridad humana, y el derecho el instrumento indispensable para que esta capacidad organizativa perdure. Los griegos son la base de la cultura occidental, pero esta habría desaparecido de no haber sido por el derecho romano. En última instancia pues es gracias al derecho que el homo sapiens ha conquistado el planeta.

Llegados a este punto sin embargo es necesario advertir que en el siglo XXI esta premisa básica de que el derecho es cosa de humanos se está tambaleando. Por tres motivos. Primero porque hoy se discute cada vez más que el ser humano sea más importante que el planeta. Segundo porque no está claro que los animales deban ser considerados seres inferiores al hombre. Y, tercero, porque la ciencia está en vías de crear seres mucho más operativos que los humanos, lo que entraña el peligro de que el homo sapiens se convierta en una especie inferior, subalterna en el mejor de los casos, irrelevante en el peor.

 Es crucial en definitiva saber si el hombre seguirá siendo o no el objeto prioritario del derecho. Porque la naturaleza y los animales se conviertan en intereses prioritarios de la protección jurídica, o porque las máquinas, robots y computadoras al desempeñar cada vez más las funciones que antes estaban exclusivamente reservadas a los hombres pueden acabar sustituyéndolos. Y en estas condiciones no resulta descabellado pensar que llegue el día en el que el derecho no tenga como objeto prioritario proteger a los seres humanos, sino a otros intereses superiores.

Es lo que vemos en las tres entradas siguientes: El planeta Primero, Animales jurídicos y El derecho en la era de Frankenstein