INTRODUCTION :: Professor Dinh raises the right issue highlighted by the 9/11 Commission: what should be the post-Cold War organizing principle for the global order? Historians may well consider the period between 1989 and 2001 a confused interim, in which it was unclear what would replace the bipolar world. While I agree with Professor Dinh that we now face an altered international landscape rife with transnational problems, the most pressing of which is terrorism, I disagree with his proposition that the solution lies in bolstering patriotism and returning to the primacy of the nation-state. Rather, I contend that these problems beseech us to create additional layers of governance whose jurisdiction will equal the scope of the unmistakably global problems that challenge us. Therefore, I will first outline the basic contours of these new layers of global governance on a practical level. It is then crucial to move to a normative level, within which I will point to the seeds of an emerging global synthesis of values between the East and the West.
Global governance is possible only if there exists a sense of community based on shared values. Therefore, though I agree with Professor Dinh’s diagnosis of the problems, I believe his solution falls far short of what is required if we are truly to end the assault on the safety and moral culture of all the world’s peoples.
April 2014, Vol. 66, No. 2
Sergio J. Campos, Class Actions and Justiciability
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Constitutional Culpability: Questioning the New Exclusionary Rules
Alberto R. Gonzales & Amy L. Moore, No Right at All: Putting Consular Notification in its Rightful Place After Medellin
Kevin J. Lynch, The Lock-in Effect of Preliminary Injunctions
Anne R. Traum, Using Outcomes to Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication
Stephen E. Ludovici, Rule 60(b)(4): When the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Yield to Finality