JUSTICE - No. 65

14 No. 65 JUSTICE by the experience of countries like Korea, China and India. 7 Israel’s economy is a good case in point. During the first three decades of its existence, under governments inspired by socialist ideologies, the country adopted a protectionist import policy with high customs tariffs, as well as a myriad of non-tariff barriers. This policy was based on the belief that only through protection from imports and by generous government subsidies could the young state build up a striving industry. However, politicians failed to understand that under such conditions industries are not likely to be competitive. The prices of their products were bound to be high and their quality low. The chances of industries with these constraints being suited for export, bringing much needed foreign currency into the country, were very slim, and would have been likely to remain forever a burden on the public purse. As a result, Israel suffered from a chronic lack of foreign currency and a deficit in its trade balance. Only after the government began to liberalize its foreign trade policy in the late 1970s, and also adopted other internal economic reforms aimed at freeing the economy from excessive intervention and a choking bureaucracy, did the country experience impressive growth figures and a significant surge in the standard of living. 8 This, in turn, has contributed to the attractiveness of immigration to Israel for Jews around the world and for returning Israelis. A strong economy also serves as a critical component of Israel’s national security. If the COVID-19 pandemic will usher in a“new era of economic self-reliance,” as predicted by Modi, and if, as Donald Trump has declared before the UN General Assembly: “the future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots,” then all of the above achievements may be wiped out, and we may find ourselves in a world of closed borders and nationalistic governments, unable to cooperate for the better good of humanity. Indeed, globalization is not only about free movement of people and resources. It is also about enhanced cooperation between states toward solving global problems. Tackling global warming requires, for instance, coordinated international efforts. This is also the case for fighting international terrorism. The post-World War II era has seen the establishment of a myriad of multilateral organizations enabling states to cooperate for the greater good of humanity in fields such as international trade, foreign investment, food security, protection of the environment, human rights and the promotion of the rule of law. In a world of anti- globalization sentiments and growing nationalism, where a superpower like the United States is showing the way by withdrawing from numerous international organizations or by paralyzing multilateral dispute settlement mechanisms (e.g., the WTO Appellate Body), such cooperation becomes more difficult. This is not to say that, leaving the pandemic aside, all of these organizations are functioning well and that they could not benefit from improvement. Some of them, indeed, have become the victim of excessive politicization; others need structural reforms. These must be addressed. The solution, however, cannot be in bringing international cooperation and independent, objective dispute resolution to an end. The world needs more, not less, international cooperation, as the problems we face are increasingly global. Scientific and technological progress, to mention just two fields, would not be where they are without international cooperation. It is hard to imagine a world where scientists are prevented from cooperating with their peers in other countries and where all scientific discoveries and technological development would be confined within national borders and kept hidden from the global community. Do we want to live in a world where each country faced with a natural disaster or grave humanitarian crisis is left to cope by itself, with no coordinated help from the outside, or in a world where international disputes could not be resolved by international tribunals, and where crimes against humanity could be committed with impunity? If the world were to return to a Hobbesian state of nature with no international rules and no international cooperation, and where each country was left to fend for itself, a natural state of bellum omnium contra omnes (war of all against all), life of man may indeed become “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” as predicted by Hobbes. 9 7. Until 1991, India had practiced extremely protectionist policies. Since it embarked on the path of liberalization of its foreign trade policies, it has seen a steady growth of its GDP with an annual average of 6% to 7%. The per capita income also nearly trebled during the last two decades. See IBEF, “Foreign Trade Policy of India,” IBEF (July 2020), available at https://www.ibef.org/economy/ trade-and-external-sector 8. Since 1995, Israel’s economy has grown by 45% in real terms, more than the OECD average of 41%. 9. Thomas Hobbes, L EVIATHAN P ART I, ch.13, p. 62.