Compromise And International Politics

Compromise has an important role in both domestic and international politics. This blog looks at the limits to compromise.

International politics: the models
 
There are three main perspectives influential in viewing the structure of international and global politics. In the first, there is the concept of a global order where individual states operate under a common canopy of supranational institutions and values. In the second, the international order is comprised of national states in whose national interest it is to cooperate and avoid conflict. Supranational institutions act as their agents. The third brings in all actors, private and public, in whose interest it is to network together from the global level to the local. They engage with both state and supranational institutions as potential networking partners.
 
In current circumstances it is the second perspective that seems to prevail - a plurilateral world where states are the dominant players, the common canopy has faded, and networks are being decoupled.
 
The domestic connection
 
In a world where nation states are the dominant players the nature of the domestic regime becomes all-important for international co-existence. In this context it has long been held that two features of a regime are conducive to international harmony. The first is a commitment to free trade. The second is democracy. Trade enables different countries to find their own areas of mutual economic advantage and to build trust in relationships. Democratic countries are seen as less likely to go to war because governments have to win re-election and body bags are not vote winners.
 
In present circumstances both of these suppositions seem to carry much less weight. Trade and international supply chains are increasingly seen as related to national security concerns or bring unwanted dependencies. They also may be seen as vehicles for ‘unfair competition’ in the form of national subsidies or low environmental standards and disregard for human rights norms. At the same time democratic values are under pressure as a new authoritarianism infects previously democratic countries including the US and some European states. With trade and democracies no longer providing a stable foundation for the international order, other values rise in importance.
 
Tolerance, accommodation and moderation
 
For democracies to function well at the domestic level certain values are of crucial importance. There must be a level of tolerance for internal differences even if fundamental values are not shared; there must be ways found to give space in order to accommodate difference and views may need to be moderated in order to find accommodation and tolerance. These values are found in practical form in such conventions as ‘losers’ consent’ where those on the losing side of electoral choices accept the electoral authority of those whose views they disagree with. 
 
With the weakening of other forms of international tie, such values have also become critical at the international level. An international order where nation states are the key actors will require tolerance for views that are not universally accepted, the accommodation of differences and moderation in pressing national interests. ‘Live and let live’ rather than insistence on universal values becomes the guiding norm.
 
Compromise
 
Tolerance, moderation and accommodation may all require compromises to be made. The question that arises is whether there are any limits to such compromises and ‘live and let live’. If there are limits, the question is how to formulate and apply them. 
 
In the domestic context democracies provide a number of important procedures and institutional protections that encourage compromise. Policy change tends to occur gradually, power alternates, parties debate, and the different branches of government, including judiciaries and epistemic agencies, each may have their own say. At the international level a parallel infrastructure has been eroded by the decline of multilateralism and its processes and institutions.
 
The weakening of the multilateral infrastructure encouraging compromise at the international level makes conflict more likely and also sharpens the question of where the limits to compromise arise. 
 
The limits of compromise
 
At a highly theoretical level two suggestions have been put forward as setting the limits to compromise. 
 
Outlaw states   
 
One suggestion (associated with John Rawls) is that the need for compromise does not apply to ‘outlaw’ states. ‘Outlaw’ states are those that do not conduct themselves and relationships with others according to the norms of public reason.
 
The difficulty with this criterion is that the norms of public reason are not universally accepted. Not everyone accepts the same standards of reasoning or regards the same reasons as ‘good’ reasons. There are fundamental differences in beliefs and values around the world. Compromises may well be justified even with those states who reason according to different standards and values. 
 
‘Rotten compromises’
 
A second suggestion (associated with Avishai Margalit) is that the value attached to compromise does not apply in the case of ‘rotten’ compromises. According to Margalit, ‘rotten’ compromises are those for example that allow for crimes against humanity and the flouting of basic human rights. For example, it would be justified to intervene with force against a country committing genocide against its neighbours or against part of its own population.
 
The difficulty with this criterion is that there may be differences of view about what constitute crimes against humanity and ‘rotten’ compromises. 
 
We see conflict in the Ukraine, Gaza and with Iran. In each case all parties to the conflict fear ‘rotten’ compromises. In addition, each party to the conflict is likely to regard its opponent as an ‘outlaw’ state or would-be state in the case of Israeli views of a Hamas controlled Palestine.
 
‘Peace’ as an absolute value
 
It may be argued that unless clear limits are set on where compromise is justified and where it is not then a higher value is being placed on peace or peaceful co-existence. Margalit takes the position that ‘rotten’ compromises may be justified in order to avoid war. This would not contradict the longstanding case that there are circumstances where war is just – for example in combatting Nazi Germany. But it places the burden of proof on those who are prepared to break the peace and argue that a war is justified.
 
Conclusion: no clear limits
 
Today’s plurilateral world is an unstable one. The acceptance of difference and the need to find accommodation of difference is critical. At the same time, the uncertainties also motivate a desire to have clear definitions of what constitutes international behaviour where accommodation and compromise is not justified. There are no such clear public boundaries. Individuals have to arrive at their own moral judgements. How far they should be prepared to argue in public for them depends again on the value attached to moderation and accommodation.