V.A. Heiskanen

This (revised) paper engages in a novel philosophical construction without any engagement to the philosophical presuppositions of modern philosophy – metaphysics and common sense. Coining the term “white metaphor,” which is neither a proper concept nor a genuine metaphor but has a physical equivalent (a white "hole," or a state prior to big bang and inflation), and contrasting it with a black hole, the paper expands on historically recent developments in cosmology and quantum mechanics, in an attempt to locate the limits of observation and communication and, by extension, the philosophical boundaries of science. These boundaries – marked by a black hole and white metaphor – are both critically scientific and radically novel rather than given as a matter of metaphysics or self-evident as a matter of common sense. In the process, the paper elaborates on the physics and the concept of information, phase transitions of energy and entropy, the mechanics of gravitation and the direction of time, the concept of event, quantization of time, the physics and the concept of entanglement, and the quantitative and qualitative measurement of information. It goes on to outline the emergence, as a result of entanglement and phase transition, of increasingly more complex – chemical, biological and ecological – events and the conceptually equivalent fields of social sciences or rather “transciences” – economic, social, political and legal. The relevant correlations (between both space/time and sciences/transciences) are illustrated in the two annexes.

The paper engages in a novel philosophical construction without any engagement to the philosophical presuppositions of modern philosophy – metaphysics and common sense. Coining the term “white metaphor,” which is neither a proper concept nor a genuine metaphor, and contrasting it with a black hole, the paper expands on historically recent developments in cosmology and quantum mechanics, in an attempt to locate the limits of observation and communication and, by extension, the philosophical boundaries of science. These boundaries – marked by a black hole and white metaphor – are both critically scientific and radically novel rather than given as a matter of metaphysics or self-evident as a matter of common sense. In the process, the paper elaborates on the concepts of space and time, the physics and the concept of information, phase transitions of energy and entropy, the mechanics of gravitation and the direction of time, the concept of event, quantization of time, the physics and the concept of entanglement, and the quantitative and qualitative measurement of information. It goes on to outline the emergence, as a result of entanglement and phase transition, of increasingly more complex – chemical, biological and ecological – events and the conceptually equivalent fields of social sciences or rather “transciences” – economic, social, political and legal.

In what would become his last interview, Jacques Derrida raised the question about the legacy of his work. What would become of deconstruction after his death? Derrida proposed two contradictory hypotheses: the legacy of deconstruction might be re-invested in a new philosophical undertaking that could produce new intellectual gains, or it might be deposited on a savings account – a dépôt légal – where it would attract only limited legal interest. Derrida suggested that at least part his legacy should be re-invested in the development of a new European concept of international law. This paper is an attempt to explore this hypothetical undertaking by translating the language of deconstruction into the language of international law. It turns out, in the course of this translation, that the relationship between international and domestic law is structured like the distinction between writing and speech – not as a conceptual distinction between equals, but as a conceptual hierarchy. While domestic law has developed organically, embodying the common sense (bon sens, gesunder Verstand) of the people, international law is an artefact, a creation of lawyers and diplomats; while domestic law is a full-fledged system, international law remains primitive – it has no basic norm, no centralized sanctioning system, no prohibition of self-help. It has no totem and taboo. The narrative that supports this conceptual structure is a story of the modern, enlightened concept of civil law, the law of the contrat social. A deconstruction of this conceptual structure produces a new concept of international law that does not embrace a centralized system but challenge, uncertainty and a risk of failure – a law that has no totem and no taboo.

The term “international” refers to the movement of resources – goods, services, capital and labor – across international boundaries. Such movement may be voluntary, in which case it qualifies as a socioeconomic phenomenon, or involuntary. Involuntary movement of resources may be small-scale or (socioeconomically) microscopic, or it may be macroscopic – a large-scale transfer of resources over an international boundary. When resources are mobilized on a large scale and without the consent of the target State, the event amounts by definition to an international conflict as it challenges the very ontological foundation of the classic State system – an international boundary. However, in the context of globalization, a shift has occurred from inter-State conflicts to a microscopic form of conflict – often referred to as international “terrorism.” Unlike a classic inter-State conflict, international “terrorism” is not a macroscopic (political) but a microscopic (socio-economic) phenomenon and, as such, a “traveling” conflict: it does not target international boundaries but socioeconomic differences – differences in language, race, ethnicity or religion. As such, international “terrorism” is not only one of the causes of deceleration of globalization, but also a symptom of its systemic failure. While globalization has involved liberalization of cross-border movement of goods, services and capital, it has not involved liberalization of cross-border movement of labor. The root cause of international “terrorism” lies in a systemic denial of socio-economic opportunity.

The paper addresses the philosophical presuppositions underlying the concept of the “international system.” It suggests that the international system is not a system in any technical sense of this term, but rather a static order – an international order – founded on international boundaries. Nor is there any place in reality that corresponds to the term “international” or, more broadly, the “international plane.” The international plane is a state analogous to the quantum state in physics – a quantum state writ large. In reality, the international plane is reducible to an international event taking place on an international boundary. The international order of boundaries, in turn, is ultimately rooted in common sense and metaphysics – the two founding positions of modern philosophy.