In his book Between Two Ages: The 21st Century and the Crisis of Meaning, futurist Van Wishard introduces globalization this way:
Sir Fred Holye was an eminent British mathematician and astronomer. He made a remark in the 1940’s that was prophetic: “Once a photograph of Earth, taken from the outside, is available, a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.” That photograph was taken in 1969 from the moon, and it provided a visual symbol of globalization for humanity. Globalization [is] the long-term effort to integrate the global dimensions of life into each nation’s economics, politics and culture. In my judgment, this is the most ambitious collective experiment in history.
Thus far, most of the globalization action has been along cultural and economic lines, while the law has remained mostly aloof. That will end: the law will become increasingly globalized.
Globalization is a megatrend, which one source defines as follows:
Mega trends are global, sustained and macro economic forces of development that impact business, economy, society, cultures and personal lives thereby defining our future world and its increasing pace of change.
Megatrends cut a wide swath; lesser trends derive from them and follow in their wake. Legal trends deriving from the megatrend of globalization will realign law beyond the federal and state distinctions we’re used to, adding new regional and supranational lines as in the European Union. Along the way, globalization will substantially reshape several practice areas, beginning with commercial, intellectual property, immigration, environment, natural resources, banking, and tax. In general, international law will step out of its esoteric shadows into mainstream prominence.
The implications of legal globalization are tough to get your head around. It’s useful to keep a few things in mind:
A trend is not a destination; it’s a vector, the direction and magnitude of which are rarely known at the time. Trends take us to surprising places, known only after the fact.
In the arena of law, globalization will require choice. Pop culture and technology readily cross political and geographic borders; the law will need to be deliberate about how it does so.
The law is culturally resistant to change, therefore its participation in globalization will likely be driven by national or international activating incidents or disruptive technologies that make embracing it no longer optional.
Van Wishard sees a big upside to globalization:
If it succeeds, humanity may enter an epoch of opportunity and prosperity for a greater proportion of the earth’s inhabitants than ever before.
A global civilization will be a human civilization in a far higher sense than any that has ever been before, as it will have overcome the constricting social, ethnic and national limitations of the past.
But there’s a corresponding downside:
If [globalization] fails, it could retard progress in some nations for generations.
The birth pangs of such a new consciousness will bring infinite suffering as familiar attitudes and institutions fall away.
There is no doubt that the globalization of law will see its share of both “opportunity and prosperity,” “birth pangs” and “infinite suffering.” We’re in for it, one way or another.