I have recently attended to a Conference about Ancient Greece Federalism and while I was listening I realized that when try to fit Ancient evidence to today's theory (I called it present-perspective glasses) we are doing an treefold comparison: 1- modern facts, 2- modern theory and 3- Ancient evidence (facts/therory).
The first element of the treefold comparisons is the description of today federal states: the way federal states function today ( Keil &Alber 2020; Buhler et.al 2017). Modern theory is the second element of the comparison (Anderson 2008; Keil &Alber 2020; Buhler et.al 2017). It is both an abstraction of the functioning of these states and a synthesis of the constitutional norms which gives us information on how we expect that these states behave.
And we have a third element which is the way we think that Ancient Greece Politeia functioned. It can be deducted from evidence that shows how politeia worked or how politeia was supposed to work or a mixture of both (Kaja Harter-Uibopoo 2002). As evidence on ancient greece is scarse it is difficult to create theory on the basis of so few facts or deduct facts on the basis of a so fragmented theory. So I noticed that sometimes we just mix the information we find to make ourselves an image of the past.
If I am right, in the Conference Harter-Uibopoo said she wanted to check whether the Acheian Koinon at the begining of the second century BC had a rol on the peaceful conflict resolution between its members. This is what we expect now of Federal States. She had the evidence of many arbitrations regarding territorial dispute between poleis, so she extracted a theory on how the arbitration functioned in Ancient Greece. She did not have a conclusive answer to her question.
I think that a further level can be explore for this study. In the first place we need to bear in mind that a Koinon is not a state in terms of definition and complexity. As far as I understood from the lessons, sometimes and on some issues the koinon behaves as a state (security and war), sometime as an international organisation (hospitality, friendship, diplomacy, etc), and sometimes is absent (economic issues). There is much flexibility on what is external o internal in the koinon and rigidity in modern Federal States.
On the other hand arbitration as a method to solve conflicts that seems to precede koinon. I think that one of its strength (which is still today a defining component of arbitration) is that contending parts can choose the arbitrors. This is why they trust the method and this is one of the reasons that they may accept to compel on the decision.
I don't think it is easy for the Koinon to change the theory and the norms regulating the basis of such an antic institution by limiting the choices of judges or imposing the Koinon as a judge. Monopolising the judging capacity wuoldn't be a violation of the institution itself? From a modern theory the answer to this question is "no" because federal institutions monopolise the conflict resolution of the component parties. But if we forget modern theory and we check evidence? International arbitration is used very widly to solve private (and international) disputes on many relevant issues. Pasture is not an issue any more but multinational companies operating in one country may agree to solve their disputes on The London Court of International Arbitration instead of national courts in the same way that Epidauro and Hermione chose Mileto and Rodi to solve an economic issue (that at the time was also territorial) that was solved considering the economic perspective because it concluded allowing both parties to use the land for economic purposes.
I think that when we analyse the past using the present perspective glasses we should be constantly aware on the fact that we are doing a treefold comparison. In this case, we could compare moderm theory with ancient theory of arbitration to understand what is similar and what is different since they are very similar institutions. I found that the more salient difference can be find in the differences of the political units (states vs polis) and the moderm theoretical separation between mediation and arbitration which we find in the present and but was not so in the past.
In the same wat we could also compare modern real functioning with ancient real functioning and we can see again many points in common but in the present we can see further professionalization and the presence of institutions created with the specific aim of offering impartial arbitration.
Of courses, further research is needed on this issue.
Bibliography
George Anderson (2008) “Federalism. An Introduction”. Chapter 1. Oxford University Press.
Hanns Bühler/Susanne Luther/Michael Siegner (eds.) (2017)0” Federalism And Conflict Management”. International Munich Federalism Days.
Kaja Harter-Uibopoo (2002). "Ancient Greek approaches towards alternative Dispute resolution" Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution
ùKaja Harter-Uibopoo (1995). “Un confronto tra Epidauro ed Hermione. Per una risoluzione pacifica dei conflitti interstatali attraverso gli arbitrati” Grazer. Beitrage Universita di Graz. Traduzione Valentina
Soeren Keil & Elisabeth Alber (2020) Introduction: Federalism as a Tool of Conflict Resolution, Ethnopolitics, 19:4, 329-341, DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2020.1795469
Commenti
Posta un commento