Demultilateralisation: A cognitive psychological perspective

• Published date: 01 September 2019
• Author: Johann Justus Vasel,Anne Aaken
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12337
• Date: 01 September 2019

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Demultilateralisation: A cognitive psychological

perspective

Anne van Aaken |Johann Justus Vasel*

Abstract

This contribution seeks to illuminate the looming phenomenon of demultilateralisation and the

return of and to the nation state, i.e. closure. Whereas many reasons for opening and closure have

been discussed by Habermas in his eminent essay, we aim at providing an additional dimension, tak-

ing a psychological point of view and analysing this proclivity from a behaviourally informed perspec-

tive. Following a short recapitulation of the evolution towards postnationalism, we briefly sketch the

current phenomenon of demultilateralisation and renationalisation. We then contribute to the cur-

rent debate by providing cognitive psychological insights drawing on well‐researched biases that

offer the greatest potential to explain the current outbreak of closing tendencies, namely prospect

theory, including the endowment effect, framing, the availability bias and so‐called hawkish biases.

This may add an explanatory dimension to why nationalistic politics have become again the beguiling

sanctuary of the people. We attempt to define scope conditions of closure.

1|INTRODUCTION: HABERMAS'S POSTNATIONAL CONSTELLATION

REVISITED.

Jürgen Habermas's eminent essay “The Postnational Constellation”is emblematic for his feisty engagement as a

public intellectual as well as a committed European, but also displays his visionary power and remarkable skills of early

diagnostics. Before many others, he understood that globalisation is not a given and that “familial bonds, religious

communities, urban municipalities, empires, or states can all open and close themselves in relation to their

environments.”

1

Currently, it may be reasonably argued that we are experiencing a time of re‐closure, but it is a

different form of closure than Habermas conceived and envisaged two decades ago. Habermas's contribution

correctly analysed that “[u]nder the changed conditions of the postnational constellation, the nation‐state is not going

------------------------------------------------------- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- ---

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use,

distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

© 2019 The Authors. European Law Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

*Anne van Aaken is Alexander von Humboldt Professor for Law and Economics, Legal Theory, Public International Law and European Law, and Director,

Institute of Law and Economics, University of Hamburg. Johann Justus Vasel is Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute. Anne van Aaken

gratefully acknowledges funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

1

J. Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (MIT Press, 2001), 82.

Received: 4 September 2019 Accepted: 7 September 2019

DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12337

Eur Law J. 2019;25:487–493. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eulj 487