The Myopia of the Handmaidens: International Lawyers and Globalization II. A Franco-American Duel?: Comparing the Approaches of Sur and Reisman7 At first glance, the approaches taken by Michael Reisman8 and Serge Sur9 would appear to be premised on radically different diagnoses of the existing situation and to give rise to strongly divergent prescriptions. But on closer analysis, the distance between the two seems to be not nearly so great. The principal thrust of Reisman's analysis is that the state, in one form or other, is here to stay. He invokes an impressive array of factors which will contribute to this result, and notes the irony involved in the fact that the very success of globalization provides much of the impetus to protect and reinforce the role of states as `exclusive territorial communities' and as `primary organizations and value providers'. In this respect, his analysis does not differ fundamentally from that of Sur who portrays globalization and fragmentation of the state as complementary and reinforcing developments. Sur sees a resilient and adaptable state, albeit one that seems content to be little more than a vehicle for United States hegemony. In some respects, at least, the differences between the two analyses are a matter of mood rather than of competing perceptions of what is happening. Where they part company most dramatically is in their respective appreciation of the resulting outcomes. A commentator is tempted to explore the extent to which the different perspectives might be attributed to the respective nationalities and associated world-views of the two authors. But while a reasonably strong case for consistency with national stereotypes could probably be made, this would grossly oversimplify the significance of two very rich and innovative analyses. Neither author dwells in any detail on the specificities of international law and both assume that neither traditional footnote-laden international legal scholarship nor close doctrinal analysis will carry us very far in our quest to understand the broad significance of current developments. 7 This article is based upon comments made on papers presented by Sur and Reisman at the symposium jointly organized in Paris in March 1997 by the Faculty of Law at the Université de Paris II-Panthéon and the Editors of the European Journal of International Law. 8 Reisman, `Designing and Managing the Future of the State', 8 EJIL (1997), at 409. 9 Sur, `The State between Fragmentation and Globalization', 8 EJIL (1997). at 421.
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:38PM