Read on Twitter
states are forming pacts with one another.What's going on?
Well, it illustrates why I describe the US Constitution as an "International Organization" in "Intro to International Relations"
[THREAD]
ICYMI, @GavinNewsom recently referred to California as a "nation-state" https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans
This was a bit odd, because it's a phrase commonly reserved for sovereign members of the international system, namely the members of the United Nations
https://www.un.org/en/member-states/
https://www.un.org/en/member-states/
What came next was the "pact" b/w California, Washington, and Oregon https://twitter.com/GovInslee/status/1249777161549967360
Followed by a similar "pact" of states in the Northeastern US https://twitter.com/QuickTake/status/1249777236632371204
The purpose of these "pacts" is to coordinate state responses to #COVID19 and the restarting of state economies https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1249789233146945536
In a sense, this is unsurprising. After all, governors have been taking the lead in responding to the crisis https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1248981064326012934
But seeing states take so much control into their hands has surprised people. Moreover, it's frustrated @realDonaldTrump https://twitter.com/TwitterMoments/status/1249858667085574144
What this illustrates is a more fundamental point: when push comes to shove within the United States, the individual states have A LOT of control over their own policies.
That's the heart of Federalism, right?
That's the heart of Federalism, right?
Sometimes this is good, such as when states want to stop certain actions that produce "negative externalities" https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-senate-committee-approves-statewide-plastic-bag-tax-exempts-chicago/
But it also frustrates attempts to solve national problems...
...and can enable states to pursue policies that undermine more widely held national principles (h/t @robmickey) https://books.google.com/books?id=yqDwG2MBoNwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paths+out+of+dixie&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyvseA4-foAhXRVs0KHSvOBp0Q6wEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Of course scholars of American Politics have studied Federalism extensively https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00126.x?casa_token=4vl4ARmLGOAAAAAA%3A8QlCcbKcvqwy_Fw_vhPQIRI68WCUMXUdToeICanGwSZx872eP3p7XuIA24VQdLFJh5Fl4SZcWv5W9w
And scholars love leveraging federalism to gain "causal identification" https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/crossborder-spillover-us-gun-laws-and-violence-in-mexico/438E607A07F32D57AF244B61ED38FB28
But US Federalism also useful for International Relations scholars.
This is primarily because the US Federal system is due to a process of keen interest to international relations scholars: when sovereign states choose to "delegate" authority to an international organization.
For an example of IR scholars exploring delegation to international organizations, see... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11558-014-9194-4
...or the variety of contributions here https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KTIbxACnMgYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=delegation,+international+organization&ots=BpNARKS0df&sig=D81EZt4hQRCKPwnEvjEi_CIkFy4#v=onepage&q&f=false
More precisely, , recall that the 13 colonies became 13 sovereign states when they declared independence
But the independent states faced a host of cooperation problems, such as inability to effectively coordinate and pool resources to fund an effective navy https://books.google.com/books?id=3DkX6Uo0gwIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=If%20we%20mean%20to%20be%20a%20commercial%20people&f=false
A way states address problems of cooperation (such as difficulty pooling resources) is to "design" an international organization. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/rational-design-of-international-institutions/29B784E99033C7B3FC0564B96A64FE21
In the words of Koremenos et al, the US Constitution is an international institution with a high level of "centralization" and low "member state control", at least, according to Article 10, for those things explicitly delegated to the national government
Later, this would be the very rationale South Carolina gave for leaving the United States
Of course, we know how that played out
That the US is a good example of sovereign delegation to a supranational organization is why scholars have drawn direct comparisons between the US state system and the European Union.
See @rdanielkelemen...
http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/dkelemen/research/Kelemen_FederalismAndDemocratization.pdf
See @rdanielkelemen...
http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/dkelemen/research/Kelemen_FederalismAndDemocratization.pdf
.. or @ProfKMcNamara for a monetary system perspective https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B58Cgv2amVNcOUFQcmdYNkd5RFk/edit
Of course, we are all very aware of the fragility of that union https://www.vox.com/2020/1/31/21087676/brexit-timeline-boris-johnson-whats-next
In sum, conceptualizing the US Constitution as an International Organization makes clear why US states, faced with an IO failing to facilitate effective coordination and pooling, are now seeking to "regain some sovereignty" by forming alternative arrangements.
[END]
[END]
