Rethinking International Constitutional Order: The Auto-immune Politics of Binding Without Binding

Abstract

The article proposes a deconstruction of Ikenberry’s theory of constitutional order via binding institutions. I argue that binding institutions are founded and conserved through an ‘arbitrary exercise of power’ which takes the form of an originary performative violence. The binding institutions become more or less legitimate as a result of retroactively effacing the originary violence. I also argue that the binding institutions are inherently auto-immune to their own logic and rules and that this condition makes the binding of constitutional order a binding without binding, that is, a binding which is marred with undecidability and hence an impossible politics of aporia. The latter is, however, the possibility condition for invention, change and transformation of the binding institutions beyond mere adjustments and adaptations to new contexts. I am thus calling for a recognition of the chance that inheres in the politics of aporia, the chance that would make continuously possible responsible decisions within a recast form of ‘binding institutions’. This implies that we need to rethink both the very notion of ‘binding’ as well as the logic of founding and conserving international order through binding institutions. In doing so, we would avoid creating a dichotomy between ethics/responsibility and politics since we would necessarily speak of responsibility (a responsibility which is much more than just a programme of cost—benefit calculation) as inherent to the decisions (through originary performativity) that found and legitimate the order. To this end, our thinking and analysis should be one of restlessly riding a ‘negotiating’ shuttle between possible theoretical formulations of world order and the impossibility of closing the theorising process.