Divisive Identities: Exploring the Interplay of Personal and Social Identities Ella Neeka Sawhney Author Aimee Zheng Faith Li Editors I. Abstract Personal and social identity, whilst existing as two different entities, combine and interact to form our overall individual identities. Personal identity centres around how an individual’s fundamental beliefs and commitments are shaped by their personal experiences, whilst social identity arises from one’s belonging to various social groups, including one’s social relationships. This essay juxtaposes arguments from Amartya Sen and Bikhu Parekh to argue that our personal and social identities are profoundly intertwined and thus should not be viewed as separate from one another. By drawing on theoretical frameworks and real-life examples, I demonstrate how Parekh’s model offers a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of individual identity which encompasses personal and social dimensions as dynamic entities. Thus, through a critical examination of Parekh’s model and Sen’s respective criticisms, this essay concludes that Parekh’s model, by acknowledging the plurality and diversity of identities as well as the complex interplay between personal and social identities, provides a robust defence of individual identity as comprised of personal and social identities, expertly addressing concerns raised by Sen. II. Introduction Classical problems within this idea of personal identity can be categorised into families. For instance, the persistence problem and the personhood puzzle both focus on questions regarding the continuity and ethical implications of self-identity. I choose to concentrate on ‘The Characterisation Question’ which delves into what comprises our personalities. This question is important as it is one that we grapple with daily, permeating all aspects of our lives. Specifically, I focus on the debate between Parekh and Sen, as I find this debate to have strong implications for understanding individual identity In this essay, I investigate Parekh’s twofold model of individual identity, scrutinising its effectiveness in addressing the concerns raised by Sen. My thesis contends that through his emphasis on plurality and diversity, Parekh efficiently responds to Sen’s concerns about the divisive potential of social identities, ultimately undermining Sen’s criticisms. First, I explore the intricacies of the concept of philosophical (including both personal and social) identity. Next, I explain Parekh’s model and juxtapose it against Sen’s criticisms. I then evaluate whether Parekh’s theory can escape Sen’s criticism of dogmatic sectarianism. Lastly, I debate Sen’s critique of over-conformity to social roles as a result of combining social and personal identity. Prima facie, our identity addresses the ubiquitous question ‘Who am I?’, encompassing the beliefs, ideas and qualities that shape a person’s character. Yet, philosophical identity, namely individual identity, explores the intricacies of how an individual may deduce their identity from their various distinctive features. This individual identity is what “distinguishes” (Parekh, 2009, p. 267) agents, functioning as a “predicate” (Sollberger, 2013) used to describe specific attributes of a subject and identify its differentiators. Individual identity comprises two components: personal (shaped by one’s personal life experiences) and social (arising from one’s belonging in groups or a relationship), according to Parekh (2009). By examining personal identity one can better understand and analyse ‘The Characterisation Question’: ‘What is it that makes me the unique individual I am?’, a question originally termed by Schechtman (2007) who presented ‘The Characterisation Question’ as: “The question of which beliefs, values, desires, and other psychological features make someone the person she is.. [it] concerns identity in the sense of what is generally called… an ‘identity crisis’” (p. 1) My analysis of ‘The Characterisation Question’ throughout the remainder of this essay investigates the features which define one’s personal identity and how they render a person differentiable from others. Moreover, viewing personal identity as “contingent and temporary” (Olson, 2023) suggests that one’s definition of self changes throughout one’s lifetime. For example, an only child’s identity shifts when becoming an older sibling, following their younger sibling’s birth. Hence, personal identity evolves alongside changing exogenous factors and is influenced by introspective processes, such as changing religious beliefs. III. Parekh’s model Parekh’s (2009) model of “overall” (p. 268) identity, alternatively referred to as individual identity, encompasses both personal and social identity. Parekh’s concept of personal identity centres around how an individual’s “fundamental beliefs and commitments” (ibid., p. 267) shape their perceptions of the world and their role within it. This recurrent journey of “self-definition” (ibid., p. 268) permits individuals to make sense of their convictions, including values, beliefs and opinions, thus developing their inner comprehension of personal identity. Moreover, Parekh describes social identity as a key aspect of individual identity, arising from one’s belonging to various social groups. He interprets social identity as “inherently plural” (ibid., p. 267), acknowledging its multi-layered influence on a person’s identity. Social identity includes relationships and groups a person feels they belong to, which play a crucial role in shaping their self-perception. Hence, these interconnected layers contribute to one’s personal identity, allowing social identity to, more broadly, impact individual identity. Yet, an interpretive challenge lies in Parekh’s vague explication of the relationship between personal and social identity, leaving the permeability of the boundary, and the extent of their interaction unclear. These ambiguities in Parekh’s model make it difficult to interpret how personal and social identities coalesce. This is showcased in Parekh’s example of the two teachers: “For one it is nothing but a job that she would readily give up if she got a better one”, for the other “being a teacher means a great deal to her. She identifies with it, sees it as an integral part of who she is and would not even dream of giving it up” (ibid., p. 274) Here, the first teacher is mechanically fulfilling their role, while the other integrates teaching into their personal identity. This quote illustrates the challenge of unravelling the complex, and deeply intertwined web of overlapping personal and social identities. The interpretive challenge concerning Parekh’s claim that may arise here is how individuals navigate their identities and to what extent their social identities integrate into their overall identities. Thus, I acknowledge that there are some tensions within Parekh’s view that are slightly contradictory. Namely, when comparing this difficulty in interpreting Parekh’s view of the interaction between personal and social identities with Parekh’s persistent assertion that our personal and social identities are inherently linked, inconsistencies arise. This is something that I shall discuss further in my discussion of ‘dogmatic sectarianism’. IV. Sen’s concerns Sen (2009) presents three key objections to Parekh’s model of personal and social identity which I outline below: The proposition that “a change in social affiliation would make one a different person altogether” is flawed. Our personal identity shouldn’t be “combinable” with our social identity as our social identities can change, without our overall identity changing (p. 286). “One’s personal identity is not threatened by one’s decision to depart from the activities of others belonging to the same group.” Moreover, over-emphasising our social identity results in a lack of reasoning and mutual understanding between members from different groups (p. 287). “Once the priority of a social affiliation is accepted as an integral part of one’s ‘overall identity’, something substantial is lost.” This leads to a person’s lack of deviation from their group’s views and affiliations (p. 288). Sen critiques Parekh’s viewpoint on the combinability of personal and social identity. Specifically, he faults Parekh for overemphasising the impact of social identity on overall identity, asserting that his view is likely to foster dissent hence contributing to societal divides. Sen (2007, pp. xiii-xiv) further encourages the separation of our social influences from our personal decisions. This derives from his argument that a singular or “dominant” social “classification” may hinder deviation from one’s societal or cultural norms, impeding personal decision-making abilities. He stresses that acknowledging our “pluralit[y] of identity” prevents rigid adherence to social groups so that our personal decisions are not entirely dictated by them. A. Dogmatic sectarianism A key feature of Sen’s (2009, p. 286) first criticism is that Parekh’s model is illogical in strongly combining personal and social identity because this view suggests that a change in social affiliation will result in an entire change of personality. Thus, Sen reasons that, according to Parekh’s model “a change of social affiliation would make one a different person altogether” (ibid.). From this, Sen asserts that a likely consequence is the emergence of “dogmatic sectarianism”, meaning that individuals unwaveringly adhere to a strict set of beliefs which often leads to ignorance towards the views of other groups. This creates a lack of willingness to deviate from these norms, as well as ignorance towards and dismissal of other groups’ perspectives, breeding intolerance and hindering understanding between groups. I applaud Sen for identifying the dangers of dogmatic sectarianism. Specifically, he recognises a person’s reluctance to stray from their group’s collective views can foster strong antagonism towards outsiders with different opinions. For Sen, one must separate their personal and social identities to prevent this phenomenon. He asserts that through uncoupling one’s personal and social identity, one can retain a part of their social identity and remain associated with that social group without sacrificing one’s entire personal identity. Hence, Sen warns against Parekh’s model which arguably sees individuals as rigidly tying their personal identity to their social identity. An example supporting Sen’s reflections involves the separation of personal identity from religious affiliations, which falls within social identity. The consolidation of personal and social identity can lead to “sectarian violence” (ibid., p.287). Per Sen’s second criticism: individuals overly emphasise their religious identity and struggle to find areas of agreement or understanding with other religious groups. This is evident in the Northern Ireland conflict; a strong ethnoreligious divide which created a divergence between Catholics and Protestants (Ferguson, 2016). For the Northern Irish, this rigid adherence to religious groups blurred the lines between religious and social identity, fuelling violence and hostility between them. The entrenchment of religious identity within personal identity demonstrates the risk of overly combining personal and social identities, creating a scenario where separation becomes nearly unattainable. Moreover, one must acknowledge that Sen does not assert that dogmatic sectarianism is an inevitable result of combining personal and social identity. Instead, it is only a possibility that poses a significant threat and should be avoided. Thus, he envisions more than one potential outcome of combining personal and social identity, demonstrating his open-mindedness and nuanced analysis. However, I find that Parekh’s flexible and plural model can escape Sen’s criticism of dogmatic sectarianism. This is because Parekh’s (2009) emphasis on plural identities and his encouragement towards the usage of “plural perspectives” (p. 276) prevents the dominance of one single identity. Parekh’s interpretation allows a person to recognise different aspects of themselves, which combine to influence their overall identity. Sen fails to recognise the potential of Parekh’s model and emphasis on “plural identities” to counteract any dangers of dogmatic sectarianism. Under closer examination of Parekh’s model, his awareness of plural identities can provide an alternative solution to Sen’s criticisms, thus demonstrating his model’s versatility and robustness. Parekh’s ability to respond to Sen’s criticism can be demonstrated by applying his model to the aforementioned example of the Northern Irish conflict. Taking a more pluralistic approach, one can see that his model does not succumb to the pitfalls of dogmatic sectarianism. If Northern Irish citizens embraced a pluralistic understanding of their identities, recognising their shared nationality in addition to their differing religious affiliations, conflict might have been reduced. Thus, mutual recognition of plural social identities allows Parekh to maintain his argument of multifaceted and inter-connected personal and social identities, defying Sen’s criticism that Parekh’s model encourages rigid and unfaltering social divides. Therefore, Parekh expertly responds to Sen’s criticism of dogmatic sectarianism as his pluralistic emphasis and encouragement to recognise our own diverse social identities counteracts Sen’s concern that tying personal and social identities fosters inflexibility. B. Over-conformity and Combinability of Social and Personal Identity Sen’s third point criticises Parekh’s model for its over-emphasis of social identity when combined with personal identity. He argues that excessively coupling our personal identities to societal and cultural norms, renders our personal identity secondary. Consequently, people become compelled to strictly adhere to their social norms, constituting a loss of their personal sense of self. Sen (2009) criticises the apparent “reductionism” of a person’s identity to one aspect of their social identity such as their ethnicity or nationality, (p. 288) which, as Sen believes, arises from combining personal and social identities At first glance, Sen’s argument seems logically valid as over-conforming to one affiliation could correspond with disregarding other aspects of one’s overall identity. Sen terms this “epistemic failure” (ibid.) whereby people cannot understand certain aspects of their identity because one affiliation has taken priority. He illustrates this with the example of different groups such as ‘British Muslims’ in which over-emphasising religious identity “miniature[ises] human beings and their many affiliations” (ibid.). This leads to a neglect of plural identifying elements beyond religion, whereby people are reduced to this “single category” (ibid.). Sen further demonstrates his argument by referencing British Bangladeshis who are merely “defined” (ibid.) as ‘British Muslims’. Although a majority of Bengalis in Britain are Muslim, this reduction disregards the distinct culture of Bengali individuals, which may be secular and not solely defined by their religion, demonstrating how combining personal and social identities oversimplifies the manifold nature of individual identity. Moreover, Sen’s argument is further developed by his assertion that over-simplifying our identities leads people to seemingly lose their innate autonomous abilities. By “reducing” (ibid.) one’s identity, it becomes very difficult for one to perceive their identity outside of their social categorisation, thus obfuscating decision-making and threatening individual autonomy. When an individual’s social affiliations determine their overall identity, they confine themselves to making decisions only within these affiliations. For example, women forced to conform to their societal gender role as homemakers may have to forgo personal endeavours that exist outside of the home. This demonstrates how over-emphasising gender as a social affiliation can confine women and prevent them from exerting their agency. However, I believe Parekh’s model withstands Sen’s criticism by recognising the complexity of our identity, where combined aspects of our identity influence decision-making. Particularly, he acknowledges that there is great “variation” (Parekh, 2009, p. 273) in our perception of what constitutes individual identity. Here, Parekh emphasises the diverse interpretations of our social identities which can be assigned varying importance to different aspects. He specifies people can “define and relate” (p. 274) to their societal roles in various ways, demonstrating an awareness that people may choose to identify with different social identities to varied extents. In the above example, British Muslims can challenge their simplistic categorisation by prioritising their religious identity differently. Consequently, Parekh’s model evades Sen’s criticism of over-conformity by acknowledging social identities as qualitative, rather than objective, with some holding greater significance. Sen argues that, in order to prevent over-conformity, individuals can and should completely separate their personal and social identities. Yet, I cannot deem this as feasible, as I believe that personal and social identity cannot be viewed as two separate entities; instead, they constantly combine and influence one another throughout our lives. Specifically, our personal values are often shaped by our social context and so aiming to separate this largely oversimplifies our complex human identity. For example, growing up adhering to the Sikh faith, I was taught the importance of seva (selfless service) and helping those less fortunate than myself. These values instilled in me a passion for charity and volunteer work, which have become an integral aspect of my personal identity. I thus find that my social identity as a Sikh is deeply intertwined with my personal values and I therefore find it inconceivable to attempt to separate them. Therefore, I find Sen’s proposed alternative to Parekh’s model–in which an individual must divide personal and social identities–incomprehensible in practice. V. Conclusion My essay explored Parekh’s twofold model of individual identity, focusing on its capability to respond to Sen’s criticisms. Firstly, I disputed Sen’s point of dogmatic sectarianism, articulating the ability of Parekh’s pluralistic framework to evade Sen. Next, I asserted that Parekh’s acknowledgement of the differing importance of each social identity refutes Sen’s claim that Parekh’s combined framework leads individuals to over-conform to their social identity above personal identity. Ultimately, I conclude that Parekh’s framework expertly responds to each of Sen’s concerns about the divisive potential of social identities. References Ferguson, N. a. (2016). Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Conflict in Northern Ireland. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory (pp. 215-277). Springer, Cham. Olson, E. T. (2023, June 30). Personal Identity . Retrieved from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/identity-personal/ Parekh, B. (2009). Logic of identity. Politics, philosophy & economics , 267-284. Schechtman, M. (2007). Introduction . In The Constitution of Selves (pp. 1-3). Cornell University Press . Sen, A. (2007). Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. Penguin Books India. Sen, A. (2009). 285The fog of identity. Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 251-352. Sollberger, D. (2013). On identity: from a philosophical point of view. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume , Article number 29.

The Captain and the Doctor: On the Enchantment of Modern Men George LeMieux Author Alexander Gerasimchuk Fatima Avila Editors Though we be on the far side of the world, this ship is our home. This ship is England. Introduction Modern man is lost. He is not home to himself. He lacks the longings that great men once had. While Nietzsche, Rousseau, or Burke might better articulate or explore this problem, I intend to explore how it might be remedied, a possible antidote to our modern poison. From the Western canon, I have identified three such antidotes or rather three figures who might re-enchant the modern man, the man of the democratic age. They are the vanguard of Marx, the conqueror of Nietzsche, and the disciple, which is first constituted Biblically but later in Toqueville among others. I shall conduct this search through the metaphor of a ship’s captain, in this case, Captain Jack Aubrey as depicted in the celebrated series and film Master and Commander , which I will briefly outline. Before that outline is given, I will first justify this metaphor by the virtue of captaincy itself (despite the fact I would shoehorn this favorite film of mine into anything). Then in the aftermath, I will examine these three figures as our “captains.” In this examination, I hope to reveal that modern man may only be enchanted, or at least enchanted to humanity’s benefit, by a disciple. For our captain, only the disciple offers a path that does not self-destruct and looks beyond worldly motivation. A Metaphor Since there is a long and storied history of philosophers making use of the ship and other nautical nomenclature as metaphor for their sophisticated views on man, government, and what other nonsense comes to their minds, I see no reason to deviate from the tradition. For what is better than a ship with captain and crew? She, like her nation, must suffer through trial and tribulation, storm and battle. She must adjust her sails so that she catches the wind but not let loose so much as to rip her masts apart. She must have a rigid hull built to withstand cannon and carronade, but she must also have flexibility, lest the changing temperatures and humidity crack her hull. She must be led by a captain, strong and decisive in his command. Yet he must not be a tyrant. He must court the hearts of his men so that he may win their will. If not, his men will mutiny. The uninspired crew would have no other reason to entertain the otherwise insufferable conditions of life at sea. Indeed, I do think this will be a fitting metaphor. The Captain Captain Jack Aubrey of His Majesty's Royal Navy is a man caught between two worlds, between two times. Behind him is the aristocracy of old: kings, queens, lords, ladies, and government by the few for the many, at least ideally. In front of him stands modernity: merchants, naturalists, revolutions, counter-revolutions, Napoleon, the new world, America, and democracy. Such is the world of Captain Aubrey as depicted in Patrick O'Brian's novel and Peter Weir’s film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Jack is a man of tradition. He respects the Crown. He reads his scripture. He loves his country. Jack’s hero is none other than Duke and Admiral Horatio Nelson, a brave and sturdy man who dies defending his love of king and country. And yet Jack sees his idols, his pillars crumbling. He has witnessed the chaos of the revolutions in France. He holds the Burkean sentiment that it is the modern radicals that “despise experience as the wisdom of unlettered men; [...] they have wrought underground a mine that will blow up, at one grand explosion, all examples of antiquity, all precedents, charters, and acts of parliament. They have ‘the rights of men.’” It is this modern threat with its rights and revolutionaries that is epitomized by the two foils of the film. The first foil is the Acheron —the ship of the modern age. She is at the forefront of naval technological advancement. Her hull is braced by three layers of live oak and white oak, making her near impenetrable for any ship of her class. She is the largest of any frigate built, able to carry more guns, yet also more aerodynamic, “heavier, but faster spite it” (Weir, Collee). In every way, she outclasses the H.M.S Surprise , Jack’s nimble but aging frigate. And where is the Acheron built? Boston. While Peter Weir had the financial sensibility to make the antagonist of the film French, i.e. Acheron , Patrick O’Brian’s ship was called U.S.S Norfolk . It is with this name that the dichotomy O’Brian intended is much clearer. It is the new world and the old world, His Majesty and Mr. President. And the new world is winning. The second foil is not a figure of oak and iron but of flesh and bone. Doctor Stephen Maturin is the ship’s surgeon and a savant of a surgeon he is. He is also a naturist, collecting, diagraming, and recording the various species he encounters on the ship’s voyages. Upon the ship’s travel to the Galapagos Islands, the parallels to the young Darwin are evident. More important, however, than any of this, he is Jack’s best friend. Despite sharing little common interest, much less a common worldview, Jack confides in Stephen what he confides in no one else. Stephen, in turn, voices his dissent to Jack, when no crew member nor officer would otherwise dare. He is both his greatest ally and greatest challenger. He is the check to Jack’s ambition and the prosecutor of his reason. He is the liberal to Jack’s conservatism. He echoes the voices of democracy, of the social contract, and the danger of tyrants. His respect for Jack comes not from his title or station but from how he leads, how he governs. It is Stephen who most quickly becomes the radical, the revolutionary, when Jack steps out of line. The Jack we see at the film’s beginning is willing to die on the hill of order and naval tradition. He is unable to see anything but the objective of his mission. Stephen and even the other officers are unable to go as far. To Jack’s credit, it is his daring and force of will, despite insurmountable odds, that makes him a great captain. In his pursuit of the Acheron , Jack takes risks that make his moves unpredictable and effective; his crew calls him Lucky Jack for a reason. But those risks do not come without their costs, even if Jack is lucky more often than he is not. Eventually, Jack carelessly pursues the Acheron into a storm and loses a man and a mast in the process. Still, Jack does not turn tail, despite Stephen’s pleas. He refits and refocuses. Only by the film's end does Jack reform and he does so not through reasoning but out of his friendship with Stephen. When Stephen is injured in an accident on board (a marine shoots him while aiming for a bird), Jack sends his ship ashore to one of the Galapagos islands instead of continuing his pursuit, likely to his detriment. This act of compassion, as it turns out, is the saving grace of the Surprise. Not only is the Acheron spotted on the far side of the island, but Stephen inspires Jack on how to capture her. While Jack's act of compassion does not separate him from his ideology, it reveals a complexity in his nature. In not letting his warrior-like nature subjugate the other parts of his conscience, Jack demonstrates his command of self, making him a good captain in more ways than one. His compassion for Stephen, despite their differences, allows him to occupy a middle ground between old and the new, between those of high and low station, between those conservative and radical. Despite their differences, Jack and Stephen end their days together with music, with a duet, playing the cello and violin as the Surprise sails into the sunset. Looking at this time and this day, in this new world, one must wonder if such bonding, such good feeling, such balance between the conservative and the liberal is possible. Every day the position of the radical, of the accelerationist, becomes more compelling even to the conservative. In America, the rigging and line that once held hull and sail together have frayed and torn, not in the harshest winds but in their daily use. The physical lines that once held men together are now virtual, connections in the cloud and the internet. These lines between men were once tangible things; now, there are few of these left. The conservative now must ask himself what he intends to conserve and if he is capable of such conservation. With conservatives far to the right, liberals far to the left, and a confused chasm in between, can those old ropes hold society together any longer? Perhaps, it is time to cut the rope. Perhaps, it is time for both right and left to become radical. Or, perhaps, there is faith to be had in those old ropes. Perhaps, there could be a man to renew their strength, reorganize them, and apply a fresh coat of tar to protect them. Perhaps, there might be a man who could tie new ropes without cutting away the old. Is there such a captain for this ship of modernity? Is there a Jack who can reason with the moderns, take heed of their desires but not be dragged off course? What does such a captain look like? The Captain’s Virtue Before one can talk of any mystical quality a good captain must have, one must first talk about his primary obligation, his duty, his vocation. For if this station is not sound in virtue, the metaphor is not fit for its goal. A captain, such as Jack, is the leader of a warship and of its crew. He would not be a good captain if he could not sail, navigate, or command the ship in battle. He must understand every part of his command and responsibility. It was for such reasons that those men who became captains most often started their time at sea from their early teens as Midshipmen, who were responsible for commanding gun crews of sailors twice their age. It is this good practice, of physical strain and tangible purpose, that makes the vocation virtuous. Virtue is not found in sophistry or the professing of morality but in good works and deeds. Both Rousseau and Marx recognized that the “sensible” men of the world are not the magistrates but the “workers” and the “people.” In this way, the captain is a unique station. It is a position that reaches downward to the grit and servitude that is required but reaches up toward order and inspiration. On one hand, a captain must stand amongst his sailors and with his marines facing the enemy, taking with them every shot fired, equally as likely to be impaled by shrapnel and splinter, equally as likely to take grapeshot from a swivel gun, equally as likely to take a cannonball straight through his gut. On the other hand, a captain must reach upward. He must engage in strategy, diplomacy, and negotiation. He takes his orders from admirals, parliament, and the King. He must, with his officers, stand apart and govern the crew, making sure he does not fraternize with them or become too social. He must whip those who are insubordinate. And it is he who gives the parting sermon after his men die in battle. The captain is both above and below, a man who mediates between king and country, between God and his men. Vanguard For Marx, the nature of our captain is clear. He must be a vanguard, a man who can reach from the high to the low, from bourgeois to proletariat, a man who has the means to lead the proletariat to “acquire political supremacy” and “ constitute itself the nation” (Marx 488). The vanguard can not be of the lower classes as they do not hold the means of production or own sufficient property. The vanguard will not be the bourgeois socialist who wants “all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting from them.” That man would not lead nor fight in the “impending bloody conflicts” that the revolution requires. But the captain might. He, by virtue of his practice, gains access to the epistemic standpoint of the working man. He can call his men into battle because he will be in that battle himself, because he will stand in front, with pistol and cutlass in hand, because he knows their plight and their struggle. Yes, the captain might be the perfect vanguard, if he had the disposition and the courage required to lead the revolution. But no vanguard will heal or reinspire the whole nation. He will take the radicals he agrees with and burn the rest. The ideal vanguard may be the captain, the general, or some other man of higher but not so noble station, that comes down to act on behalf of the proletariat. But the unifying captain is, in the root of his position, opposed to such a severing. More fit, would be the treasonous first officer who leads a mutiny against the captain and the remaining loyal officers. To be a vanguard is to be a “slash and burn” farmer who wreaks devastation on the present vegetation so that the soil may be made fertile again. There will be no healing, under the vanguard. Conqueror Then perhaps the captain, who must fight to re-enchant our new world, must be a conqueror. The conqueror does not require a revolution, or at least not an ideological one, for the conqueror has no need for the traditional radical who operates on moral principles. He is not the vanguard who cries out to the poor that they must liberate themselves. The conqueror only asks for good men, inspired to fight for their home and fatherland, inspired to make something more of what they have been given. The conqueror rises in rank and comes to lead a nation because of his proven success on the battlefield. This captain inspires not because of his pleasant sailing or wise words but because he sinks ships. Nietzsche asks “[m]ust the ancient fire not some day flare up [...] More: must one not desire it with all its might.” Is it not blood that would surely wake the modern man from his slumber, wake the animal instinct inside of him? Perhaps the true conservative can only believe that “antiquity incarnate” arises through a conqueror, a superman, a Napoleon. And yet one must ask of Nietzsche, what is to happen after the conquest? What is to happen after one has conquered all he can or has been defeated? What was Napoleon to do, having failed in Russia? What was Alexander to do when he lay sick and dying in his bed? What is left to hold a nation together when the expansion has stopped and the wars have come to an end? How is a conqueror to at last govern his people? If the measure of man’s vitality is only to be strength and victory, then there will be no man who finds purpose in times of peace. When the soldier again becomes the carpenter after his service is done, he must now aspire to be the superman of carpentry. He must strike down all other table builders and door makers in his path if he is to achieve vitality. He will feel not for his fellow man, now that he does not need him to protect his flank or cover his advance. He will be a frustrated and lonely man, who, in his attempted rationalization to maximize his will and vitality, will frantically look around every corner to become the carpenter of all carpenters, betraying every man who gets in his path. Nietzsche might retort that one should not care for the carpenter, for all carpenters are weak men who failed to rise to a higher station. But if one is to build a society, does one not need the carpenter? Would it not be better to be his friend so that he may more willingly and caringly craft one’s furniture? Perhaps Nietzsche thinks that forcing the carpenter to build a chair would be better to maximize the will than to engage in normal transaction or to politely ask him. Society needs carpenters; a ship needs sailors. Neither will run well if every request is made out of threat or a difference in power. Sure power may be unequally distributed among men, and men will surely wield that power to their advantage, but every interaction need not be a Melian Dialogue . No unification of society, no mending of wounds, could ever take place in such a one-dimensional existence. Even if, for but a fleeting moment, conservative and liberal may be united by the fires of war, such a state is only temporary. While the ancient fires may rise again, they may just as quickly die. For all Napoleon was, how many more revolutions and fragile republics followed? There was no remnant of antiquity to build upon. Instead, it was democratic man who, upon the rubble of Europe, raised his new throne. In his time, Tocqueville correctly surmised that democracy would be here to stay: “I think that in the long run, government by democracy shall increase the real strength of society.” While “slave” in its morality, democracy is dominant in its presence. Its practitioners are no longer just the carpenters or even the priests; they are the captains, the generals, the senators themselves. While European antiquity lay unaware, the strength and size of America, of democratic power, grew. “Something that passed unnoticed a century ago now strikes the attention of all.” Now, antiquity not only lacks the popular momentum to overcome the democratic age, but it lacks the strength. If there is to be a man who rekindles the flame of the West, he will not be a conqueror who slays democratic man. He will be a democratic man himself. And What for God? Purposely absent from the mind of Marx’s vanguard and Nietzsche’s superman is the Kingdom of God. Nietzsche and Marx are the archetypes of, as John Courtney Murray would categorize them, “the postmodern atheist”. The post-moderns not only leave God out of their government, philosophy, and science as the moderns do; they actively strike Him out, act against Him, and demonstrate how He cannot exist. The postmodern is offended that a God could exist and (in Marx’s case) allow for so much scarcity, so much evil, or (in Nietzsche’s case) deprive man of his freedom, the will, that makes man human. God, if he exists, is either a tormenter, imprisoner, or both. Nietzsche further declares that the morality man claims to have derived from God, the morality of the Christian and the Jew is the greatest perversion of the natural order: strength and weakness. Good and evil, concepts of vengeful weaklings, invert the true “morality” by which man once lived and should live again. Of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s cases, Nietzsche’s is the stronger. When one eliminates God from the worldly equation, one must also eliminate the morality that came with Him. Marx may claim scarcity is the great evil, but this concept of evil only comes through sympathy for the suffering of others. What is the evil of inequality or greed or a dominant bourgeois class if there is no concern for fellow man? From where does the humanist goodness, ascribed by Marx to the elimination of suffering, originate? Without an order, ordained above and outside by divine authority, there can be no objective good. No worldly cosmodicy is sufficient to prove an objective good. If one’s ultimate goal is “good” for the nation, one cannot look to Nietzsche for a cure; the concept of good is, in fact, part of the disease. But if one looks to Marx, one cannot find a source of good. Therein, the postmoderns are fruitless. And democratic man seems to agree. The true moral plague is that democratic man is not looking for goodness but instead assumes it. The modern atheist does not kill God but walks away from Him. In His absence, he does not search for truth or morality but merely replicates the idea of good that was passed down to him. He imitates, but his imitations, as they are not rooted in the source, are imperfect: bastardized (Murray and Nietzsche agree). He might even hold some personal religious sentiment but will not act on religious conviction. He does not mix the personal with the external world. He will work, govern, and wage war but will never do so in the name of God. He lives as if God does not exist. This … breed says in effect that, since he cannot know what God is, he will refuse to affirm that God is. But this stupidity, one may well think, surpasses that of the idolater. It is not merely an implicit refusal of God; it is an explicit denial of intelligence. The essence of God does indeed lie beyond the scope of intelligence, but his existence does not. It is this modern man—the man who does not deny God but shoves him aside—that has become commonplace. This modern man feels neither the warm light of heaven nor the scorching hellfire below. He wanders in a cold fog, blind, deaf and dumb. He lingers in the cave only seeing shadows of the truth. Because he does not see the source of the light, he assumes there is no source and does not search for it. It is this modern man who must be re-enchanted. Disciple So how is our captain to deal with the moderns, with the Dr. Maturins that now sail aboard every ship? What is he to do with those who synthesize values of democracy and the equality of man but do not acknowledge the creator who created them equally? Thankfully, the modern agnostic, despite his lack of reason in comparison to the Nietzschean, has not yet thrown off his moral yoke. In some ways, he still feels a connection to the world beyond the material. There are yet some embers left to kindle. There are yet men left to kindle them. There is hardly any human action, however private it may be, which does not result from some very general conception men have of God, of His relations with the human race, of the nature of their souls, and the duties to their fellows. Nothing can prevent such ideas from being the common spring from which all else originates. If man is to truly be re-enchanted—to be inspired and given lasting direction—he must look to that only thing which is transcendent, that is not merely of time and matter. If there is ever again to be unity amongst men, there must be unity with their creator. There must be disciples to show us the way. When man has been enchanted, even democratic man, it has been with and through religious spirit, fostered by disciples and prophets. These men once walked among us. These were the men in between God and humanity, Heaven and Earth, men who heard His voice and acted on His will. They were Moses and Abraham and David and Paul and Peter. God even revealed Himself to man in mortal form, in and through man’s pain and flesh. And yet, despite all of these, man’s faith remains weak. The disciples' task is never finished. He may never stop, for if he does, man is quick to forget and quick to lose his way. He will lose himself in the desert, and never find the promised land, his true home, his self. The disciple must be an ever-present and ever-constant reminder of God. The captain, disciple in his most righteous form, has some divine spark, some glint in his eye, some Promethean fire in his bosom that animates bravery and fortitude. The captain calls his men to voyage into the unknown, across the far side of the world. He calls his men to fight for a home that long disappeared behind a horizon last seen thousands of miles ago. He brings together those born across the empire, those who share little, and those who resent much. The duty the captain must call his men to cannot be incentivized with the stuff of the earth. He can promise them no amount of riches or glory among men to keep them steadfast. There is something the captain must awaken in his men that moves their spirits, their souls, guiding them toward something not here attainable. Only manna sent down from upon high can quell a spiritual hunger. And so the Captain must be like Moses, the interlocutor between man and God—newly the interlocular between conservative and liberal. He does not make the manna nor the law in the heavens, but he does transmit them. He walks down from Sinai to deliver to those below. He understands the plight of his crew, the doctor, and the common man, but he does not let them build golden calves. He has ambition but he does not raise towers of Babble; he does not push onward without cause. Where have these disciples gone? Where is Moses to be seen? Who upholds the commandments given from on high? Might it not be the lack of disciples but man who is the problem? Have there been one too many golden calves built in town squares, one too many towers of Babylon raised to the mockery of Heaven? Are there enough ears today willing to hear a sermon, enough lips willing to say a prayer? I contend there are. While the world may not be presently enchanted, there have been moments, glimpses, of enchantment. There was Reagan who stood in the way of the communist threat with his quick wit but mild manner. There was Dr. King who appealed to the heavens, preached to the masses, and marched hand in hand with the persecuted. There was Churchill who looked the devil right in the eye and spat back at him. There was Lincoln who looked over a battlefield and made a promise those men would not die in vain. There was Washington who led his soldiers, served his time, and ceded his throne. It was these disciples that reminded man of himself, of his nature, of his longings. They called upon God, evoked a higher duty, and bound men to each other. They knew that “[r]eligion [...] imposes on each man [...] obligations toward mankind, to be performed in common [...] and so draws him away from thinking about himself.” Like a captain, those disciples, who were fit to suffer, suffered in common with their men when they could have stood afar. Dr. King marched with his men, was imprisoned for them, and died for them. Reagan too took a bullet for his nation, although he fortunately survived. Lincoln, in his service and his stress, aged himself twenty years in the span of four and was assassinated shortly thereafter, giving the last full measure of his devotion. Washington lost battles for months on end in the bitter cold until he found success in a Christmas night attack. Oh, the joy nations will feel when leaders acquire such courage again when they call upon the heavens as they did not so long ago. Oh, they will know that feeling that gathered hundreds of thousands on the National Mall, that mustered the men who crossed the Delaware, that had black and white Union soldiers singing “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah” as they marched surely to their deaths at Fort Wagner. Only then can man come home to himself. Conclusion Who is our captain to be? What direction would we have him take our ship? Must he not be both a man of the people and a man of the elite, a democratic man who still has a touch, a memory in him, of that antiquity, that nobility, that honor of old? Still, he is not the vanguard of the proletariat, for the vanguard is a mutineer hellbent on revolution, not a captain. Neither is he the conqueror, for the captain must govern his ship beyond the rush of battle. He must lead his crew through those many times at sea which are dull and mundane. He must care for his men beyond their use in warfare. He must be selfless because that is what God calls him to be in times of struggle, a disciple who looks upward before he looks onward. But if those fires are ever to rise again, if the trumpet must once again cry its song of battle, the captain must be ready. He must again be simply a man of his trade, a good seaman and a good officer. He must dexterously maneuver his ship, out-sail, and outsmart his opponents. And when he must call for cannon fire, he must know what to cry to his men. He must have their best, not just for him, but for their God, their nation, and their fellow man. JACK - Want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly? CREW- No! JACK- Do you want to call Napoleon your king? CREW- No! JACK- Want your children to sing The Marseillaise? CREW- No! JACK- Mr. Mowett, Mr. Pullings, starboard battery! References Burke, Edmund, et al. Select Works of Edmund Burke: A New Imprint of the Payne Edition. Liberty Fund, 1999. Marx, Karl, et al. The Marx-Engels Reader. Norton, 1978. Murray, John Courtney. “The Problem of God Yesterday and Today.” Georgetown University Library, 1963, library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/1964c. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. On the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, Vintage Books, 1989. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Major Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Two Discourses and the Social Contract. Translated by John T. Scott, The University of Chicago Press, 2014. Tocqueville, Alexis De, et al. Democracy in America. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Weir, Peter, and John Collee. Master and Commander: Far Side of the World. Twentieth Century Fox, Aug. 2001.

The Captain and the Doctor: On the Enchantment of Modern Men George LeMieux Author Alexander Gerasimchuk Fatima Avila Editors Though we be on the far side of the world, this ship is our home. This ship is England. Introduction Modern man is lost. He is not home to himself. He lacks the longings that great men once had. While Nietzsche, Rousseau, or Burke might better articulate or explore this problem, I intend to explore how it might be remedied, a possible antidote to our modern poison. From the Western canon, I have identified three such antidotes or rather three figures who might re-enchant the modern man, the man of the democratic age. They are the vanguard of Marx, the conqueror of Nietzsche, and the disciple, which is first constituted Biblically but later in Toqueville among others. I shall conduct this search through the metaphor of a ship’s captain, in this case, Captain Jack Aubrey as depicted in the celebrated series and film Master and Commander , which I will briefly outline. Before that outline is given, I will first justify this metaphor by the virtue of captaincy itself (despite the fact I would shoehorn this favorite film of mine into anything). Then in the aftermath, I will examine these three figures as our “captains.” In this examination, I hope to reveal that modern man may only be enchanted, or at least enchanted to humanity’s benefit, by a disciple. For our captain, only the disciple offers a path that does not self-destruct and looks beyond worldly motivation. A Metaphor Since there is a long and storied history of philosophers making use of the ship and other nautical nomenclature as metaphor for their sophisticated views on man, government, and what other nonsense comes to their minds, I see no reason to deviate from the tradition. For what is better than a ship with captain and crew? She, like her nation, must suffer through trial and tribulation, storm and battle. She must adjust her sails so that she catches the wind but not let loose so much as to rip her masts apart. She must have a rigid hull built to withstand cannon and carronade, but she must also have flexibility, lest the changing temperatures and humidity crack her hull. She must be led by a captain, strong and decisive in his command. Yet he must not be a tyrant. He must court the hearts of his men so that he may win their will. If not, his men will mutiny. The uninspired crew would have no other reason to entertain the otherwise insufferable conditions of life at sea. Indeed, I do think this will be a fitting metaphor. The Captain Captain Jack Aubrey of His Majesty's Royal Navy is a man caught between two worlds, between two times. Behind him is the aristocracy of old: kings, queens, lords, ladies, and government by the few for the many, at least ideally. In front of him stands modernity: merchants, naturalists, revolutions, counter-revolutions, Napoleon, the new world, America, and democracy. Such is the world of Captain Aubrey as depicted in Patrick O'Brian's novel and Peter Weir’s film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Jack is a man of tradition. He respects the Crown. He reads his scripture. He loves his country. Jack’s hero is none other than Duke and Admiral Horatio Nelson, a brave and sturdy man who dies defending his love of king and country. And yet Jack sees his idols, his pillars crumbling. He has witnessed the chaos of the revolutions in France. He holds the Burkean sentiment that it is the modern radicals that “despise experience as the wisdom of unlettered men; [...] they have wrought underground a mine that will blow up, at one grand explosion, all examples of antiquity, all precedents, charters, and acts of parliament. They have ‘the rights of men.’” It is this modern threat with its rights and revolutionaries that is epitomized by the two foils of the film. The first foil is the Acheron —the ship of the modern age. She is at the forefront of naval technological advancement. Her hull is braced by three layers of live oak and white oak, making her near impenetrable for any ship of her class. She is the largest of any frigate built, able to carry more guns, yet also more aerodynamic, “heavier, but faster spite it” (Weir, Collee). In every way, she outclasses the H.M.S Surprise , Jack’s nimble but aging frigate. And where is the Acheron built? Boston. While Peter Weir had the financial sensibility to make the antagonist of the film French, i.e. Acheron , Patrick O’Brian’s ship was called U.S.S Norfolk . It is with this name that the dichotomy O’Brian intended is much clearer. It is the new world and the old world, His Majesty and Mr. President. And the new world is winning. The second foil is not a figure of oak and iron but of flesh and bone. Doctor Stephen Maturin is the ship’s surgeon and a savant of a surgeon he is. He is also a naturist, collecting, diagraming, and recording the various species he encounters on the ship’s voyages. Upon the ship’s travel to the Galapagos Islands, the parallels to the young Darwin are evident. More important, however, than any of this, he is Jack’s best friend. Despite sharing little common interest, much less a common worldview, Jack confides in Stephen what he confides in no one else. Stephen, in turn, voices his dissent to Jack, when no crew member nor officer would otherwise dare. He is both his greatest ally and greatest challenger. He is the check to Jack’s ambition and the prosecutor of his reason. He is the liberal to Jack’s conservatism. He echoes the voices of democracy, of the social contract, and the danger of tyrants. His respect for Jack comes not from his title or station but from how he leads, how he governs. It is Stephen who most quickly becomes the radical, the revolutionary, when Jack steps out of line. The Jack we see at the film’s beginning is willing to die on the hill of order and naval tradition. He is unable to see anything but the objective of his mission. Stephen and even the other officers are unable to go as far. To Jack’s credit, it is his daring and force of will, despite insurmountable odds, that makes him a great captain. In his pursuit of the Acheron , Jack takes risks that make his moves unpredictable and effective; his crew calls him Lucky Jack for a reason. But those risks do not come without their costs, even if Jack is lucky more often than he is not. Eventually, Jack carelessly pursues the Acheron into a storm and loses a man and a mast in the process. Still, Jack does not turn tail, despite Stephen’s pleas. He refits and refocuses. Only by the film's end does Jack reform and he does so not through reasoning but out of his friendship with Stephen. When Stephen is injured in an accident on board (a marine shoots him while aiming for a bird), Jack sends his ship ashore to one of the Galapagos islands instead of continuing his pursuit, likely to his detriment. This act of compassion, as it turns out, is the saving grace of the Surprise. Not only is the Acheron spotted on the far side of the island, but Stephen inspires Jack on how to capture her. While Jack's act of compassion does not separate him from his ideology, it reveals a complexity in his nature. In not letting his warrior-like nature subjugate the other parts of his conscience, Jack demonstrates his command of self, making him a good captain in more ways than one. His compassion for Stephen, despite their differences, allows him to occupy a middle ground between old and the new, between those of high and low station, between those conservative and radical. Despite their differences, Jack and Stephen end their days together with music, with a duet, playing the cello and violin as the Surprise sails into the sunset. Looking at this time and this day, in this new world, one must wonder if such bonding, such good feeling, such balance between the conservative and the liberal is possible. Every day the position of the radical, of the accelerationist, becomes more compelling even to the conservative. In America, the rigging and line that once held hull and sail together have frayed and torn, not in the harshest winds but in their daily use. The physical lines that once held men together are now virtual, connections in the cloud and the internet. These lines between men were once tangible things; now, there are few of these left. The conservative now must ask himself what he intends to conserve and if he is capable of such conservation. With conservatives far to the right, liberals far to the left, and a confused chasm in between, can those old ropes hold society together any longer? Perhaps, it is time to cut the rope. Perhaps, it is time for both right and left to become radical. Or, perhaps, there is faith to be had in those old ropes. Perhaps, there could be a man to renew their strength, reorganize them, and apply a fresh coat of tar to protect them. Perhaps, there might be a man who could tie new ropes without cutting away the old. Is there such a captain for this ship of modernity? Is there a Jack who can reason with the moderns, take heed of their desires but not be dragged off course? What does such a captain look like? The Captain’s Virtue Before one can talk of any mystical quality a good captain must have, one must first talk about his primary obligation, his duty, his vocation. For if this station is not sound in virtue, the metaphor is not fit for its goal. A captain, such as Jack, is the leader of a warship and of its crew. He would not be a good captain if he could not sail, navigate, or command the ship in battle. He must understand every part of his command and responsibility. It was for such reasons that those men who became captains most often started their time at sea from their early teens as Midshipmen, who were responsible for commanding gun crews of sailors twice their age. It is this good practice, of physical strain and tangible purpose, that makes the vocation virtuous. Virtue is not found in sophistry or the professing of morality but in good works and deeds. Both Rousseau and Marx recognized that the “sensible” men of the world are not the magistrates but the “workers” and the “people.” In this way, the captain is a unique station. It is a position that reaches downward to the grit and servitude that is required but reaches up toward order and inspiration. On one hand, a captain must stand amongst his sailors and with his marines facing the enemy, taking with them every shot fired, equally as likely to be impaled by shrapnel and splinter, equally as likely to take grapeshot from a swivel gun, equally as likely to take a cannonball straight through his gut. On the other hand, a captain must reach upward. He must engage in strategy, diplomacy, and negotiation. He takes his orders from admirals, parliament, and the King. He must, with his officers, stand apart and govern the crew, making sure he does not fraternize with them or become too social. He must whip those who are insubordinate. And it is he who gives the parting sermon after his men die in battle. The captain is both above and below, a man who mediates between king and country, between God and his men. Vanguard For Marx, the nature of our captain is clear. He must be a vanguard, a man who can reach from the high to the low, from bourgeois to proletariat, a man who has the means to lead the proletariat to “acquire political supremacy” and “ constitute itself the nation” (Marx 488). The vanguard can not be of the lower classes as they do not hold the means of production or own sufficient property. The vanguard will not be the bourgeois socialist who wants “all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting from them.” That man would not lead nor fight in the “impending bloody conflicts” that the revolution requires. But the captain might. He, by virtue of his practice, gains access to the epistemic standpoint of the working man. He can call his men into battle because he will be in that battle himself, because he will stand in front, with pistol and cutlass in hand, because he knows their plight and their struggle. Yes, the captain might be the perfect vanguard, if he had the disposition and the courage required to lead the revolution. But no vanguard will heal or reinspire the whole nation. He will take the radicals he agrees with and burn the rest. The ideal vanguard may be the captain, the general, or some other man of higher but not so noble station, that comes down to act on behalf of the proletariat. But the unifying captain is, in the root of his position, opposed to such a severing. More fit, would be the treasonous first officer who leads a mutiny against the captain and the remaining loyal officers. To be a vanguard is to be a “slash and burn” farmer who wreaks devastation on the present vegetation so that the soil may be made fertile again. There will be no healing, under the vanguard. Conqueror Then perhaps the captain, who must fight to re-enchant our new world, must be a conqueror. The conqueror does not require a revolution, or at least not an ideological one, for the conqueror has no need for the traditional radical who operates on moral principles. He is not the vanguard who cries out to the poor that they must liberate themselves. The conqueror only asks for good men, inspired to fight for their home and fatherland, inspired to make something more of what they have been given. The conqueror rises in rank and comes to lead a nation because of his proven success on the battlefield. This captain inspires not because of his pleasant sailing or wise words but because he sinks ships. Nietzsche asks “[m]ust the ancient fire not some day flare up [...] More: must one not desire it with all its might.” Is it not blood that would surely wake the modern man from his slumber, wake the animal instinct inside of him? Perhaps the true conservative can only believe that “antiquity incarnate” arises through a conqueror, a superman, a Napoleon. And yet one must ask of Nietzsche, what is to happen after the conquest? What is to happen after one has conquered all he can or has been defeated? What was Napoleon to do, having failed in Russia? What was Alexander to do when he lay sick and dying in his bed? What is left to hold a nation together when the expansion has stopped and the wars have come to an end? How is a conqueror to at last govern his people? If the measure of man’s vitality is only to be strength and victory, then there will be no man who finds purpose in times of peace. When the soldier again becomes the carpenter after his service is done, he must now aspire to be the superman of carpentry. He must strike down all other table builders and door makers in his path if he is to achieve vitality. He will feel not for his fellow man, now that he does not need him to protect his flank or cover his advance. He will be a frustrated and lonely man, who, in his attempted rationalization to maximize his will and vitality, will frantically look around every corner to become the carpenter of all carpenters, betraying every man who gets in his path. Nietzsche might retort that one should not care for the carpenter, for all carpenters are weak men who failed to rise to a higher station. But if one is to build a society, does one not need the carpenter? Would it not be better to be his friend so that he may more willingly and caringly craft one’s furniture? Perhaps Nietzsche thinks that forcing the carpenter to build a chair would be better to maximize the will than to engage in normal transaction or to politely ask him. Society needs carpenters; a ship needs sailors. Neither will run well if every request is made out of threat or a difference in power. Sure power may be unequally distributed among men, and men will surely wield that power to their advantage, but every interaction need not be a Melian Dialogue . No unification of society, no mending of wounds, could ever take place in such a one-dimensional existence. Even if, for but a fleeting moment, conservative and liberal may be united by the fires of war, such a state is only temporary. While the ancient fires may rise again, they may just as quickly die. For all Napoleon was, how many more revolutions and fragile republics followed? There was no remnant of antiquity to build upon. Instead, it was democratic man who, upon the rubble of Europe, raised his new throne. In his time, Tocqueville correctly surmised that democracy would be here to stay: “I think that in the long run, government by democracy shall increase the real strength of society.” While “slave” in its morality, democracy is dominant in its presence. Its practitioners are no longer just the carpenters or even the priests; they are the captains, the generals, the senators themselves. While European antiquity lay unaware, the strength and size of America, of democratic power, grew. “Something that passed unnoticed a century ago now strikes the attention of all.” Now, antiquity not only lacks the popular momentum to overcome the democratic age, but it lacks the strength. If there is to be a man who rekindles the flame of the West, he will not be a conqueror who slays democratic man. He will be a democratic man himself. And What for God? Purposely absent from the mind of Marx’s vanguard and Nietzsche’s superman is the Kingdom of God. Nietzsche and Marx are the archetypes of, as John Courtney Murray would categorize them, “the postmodern atheist”. The post-moderns not only leave God out of their government, philosophy, and science as the moderns do; they actively strike Him out, act against Him, and demonstrate how He cannot exist. The postmodern is offended that a God could exist and (in Marx’s case) allow for so much scarcity, so much evil, or (in Nietzsche’s case) deprive man of his freedom, the will, that makes man human. God, if he exists, is either a tormenter, imprisoner, or both. Nietzsche further declares that the morality man claims to have derived from God, the morality of the Christian and the Jew is the greatest perversion of the natural order: strength and weakness. Good and evil, concepts of vengeful weaklings, invert the true “morality” by which man once lived and should live again. Of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s cases, Nietzsche’s is the stronger. When one eliminates God from the worldly equation, one must also eliminate the morality that came with Him. Marx may claim scarcity is the great evil, but this concept of evil only comes through sympathy for the suffering of others. What is the evil of inequality or greed or a dominant bourgeois class if there is no concern for fellow man? From where does the humanist goodness, ascribed by Marx to the elimination of suffering, originate? Without an order, ordained above and outside by divine authority, there can be no objective good. No worldly cosmodicy is sufficient to prove an objective good. If one’s ultimate goal is “good” for the nation, one cannot look to Nietzsche for a cure; the concept of good is, in fact, part of the disease. But if one looks to Marx, one cannot find a source of good. Therein, the postmoderns are fruitless. And democratic man seems to agree. The true moral plague is that democratic man is not looking for goodness but instead assumes it. The modern atheist does not kill God but walks away from Him. In His absence, he does not search for truth or morality but merely replicates the idea of good that was passed down to him. He imitates, but his imitations, as they are not rooted in the source, are imperfect: bastardized (Murray and Nietzsche agree). He might even hold some personal religious sentiment but will not act on religious conviction. He does not mix the personal with the external world. He will work, govern, and wage war but will never do so in the name of God. He lives as if God does not exist. This … breed says in effect that, since he cannot know what God is, he will refuse to affirm that God is. But this stupidity, one may well think, surpasses that of the idolater. It is not merely an implicit refusal of God; it is an explicit denial of intelligence. The essence of God does indeed lie beyond the scope of intelligence, but his existence does not. It is this modern man—the man who does not deny God but shoves him aside—that has become commonplace. This modern man feels neither the warm light of heaven nor the scorching hellfire below. He wanders in a cold fog, blind, deaf and dumb. He lingers in the cave only seeing shadows of the truth. Because he does not see the source of the light, he assumes there is no source and does not search for it. It is this modern man who must be re-enchanted. Disciple So how is our captain to deal with the moderns, with the Dr. Maturins that now sail aboard every ship? What is he to do with those who synthesize values of democracy and the equality of man but do not acknowledge the creator who created them equally? Thankfully, the modern agnostic, despite his lack of reason in comparison to the Nietzschean, has not yet thrown off his moral yoke. In some ways, he still feels a connection to the world beyond the material. There are yet some embers left to kindle. There are yet men left to kindle them. There is hardly any human action, however private it may be, which does not result from some very general conception men have of God, of His relations with the human race, of the nature of their souls, and the duties to their fellows. Nothing can prevent such ideas from being the common spring from which all else originates. If man is to truly be re-enchanted—to be inspired and given lasting direction—he must look to that only thing which is transcendent, that is not merely of time and matter. If there is ever again to be unity amongst men, there must be unity with their creator. There must be disciples to show us the way. When man has been enchanted, even democratic man, it has been with and through religious spirit, fostered by disciples and prophets. These men once walked among us. These were the men in between God and humanity, Heaven and Earth, men who heard His voice and acted on His will. They were Moses and Abraham and David and Paul and Peter. God even revealed Himself to man in mortal form, in and through man’s pain and flesh. And yet, despite all of these, man’s faith remains weak. The disciples' task is never finished. He may never stop, for if he does, man is quick to forget and quick to lose his way. He will lose himself in the desert, and never find the promised land, his true home, his self. The disciple must be an ever-present and ever-constant reminder of God. The captain, disciple in his most righteous form, has some divine spark, some glint in his eye, some Promethean fire in his bosom that animates bravery and fortitude. The captain calls his men to voyage into the unknown, across the far side of the world. He calls his men to fight for a home that long disappeared behind a horizon last seen thousands of miles ago. He brings together those born across the empire, those who share little, and those who resent much. The duty the captain must call his men to cannot be incentivized with the stuff of the earth. He can promise them no amount of riches or glory among men to keep them steadfast. There is something the captain must awaken in his men that moves their spirits, their souls, guiding them toward something not here attainable. Only manna sent down from upon high can quell a spiritual hunger. And so the Captain must be like Moses, the interlocutor between man and God—newly the interlocular between conservative and liberal. He does not make the manna nor the law in the heavens, but he does transmit them. He walks down from Sinai to deliver to those below. He understands the plight of his crew, the doctor, and the common man, but he does not let them build golden calves. He has ambition but he does not raise towers of Babble; he does not push onward without cause. Where have these disciples gone? Where is Moses to be seen? Who upholds the commandments given from on high? Might it not be the lack of disciples but man who is the problem? Have there been one too many golden calves built in town squares, one too many towers of Babylon raised to the mockery of Heaven? Are there enough ears today willing to hear a sermon, enough lips willing to say a prayer? I contend there are. While the world may not be presently enchanted, there have been moments, glimpses, of enchantment. There was Reagan who stood in the way of the communist threat with his quick wit but mild manner. There was Dr. King who appealed to the heavens, preached to the masses, and marched hand in hand with the persecuted. There was Churchill who looked the devil right in the eye and spat back at him. There was Lincoln who looked over a battlefield and made a promise those men would not die in vain. There was Washington who led his soldiers, served his time, and ceded his throne. It was these disciples that reminded man of himself, of his nature, of his longings. They called upon God, evoked a higher duty, and bound men to each other. They knew that “[r]eligion [...] imposes on each man [...] obligations toward mankind, to be performed in common [...] and so draws him away from thinking about himself.” Like a captain, those disciples, who were fit to suffer, suffered in common with their men when they could have stood afar. Dr. King marched with his men, was imprisoned for them, and died for them. Reagan too took a bullet for his nation, although he fortunately survived. Lincoln, in his service and his stress, aged himself twenty years in the span of four and was assassinated shortly thereafter, giving the last full measure of his devotion. Washington lost battles for months on end in the bitter cold until he found success in a Christmas night attack. Oh, the joy nations will feel when leaders acquire such courage again when they call upon the heavens as they did not so long ago. Oh, they will know that feeling that gathered hundreds of thousands on the National Mall, that mustered the men who crossed the Delaware, that had black and white Union soldiers singing “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah” as they marched surely to their deaths at Fort Wagner. Only then can man come home to himself. Conclusion Who is our captain to be? What direction would we have him take our ship? Must he not be both a man of the people and a man of the elite, a democratic man who still has a touch, a memory in him, of that antiquity, that nobility, that honor of old? Still, he is not the vanguard of the proletariat, for the vanguard is a mutineer hellbent on revolution, not a captain. Neither is he the conqueror, for the captain must govern his ship beyond the rush of battle. He must lead his crew through those many times at sea which are dull and mundane. He must care for his men beyond their use in warfare. He must be selfless because that is what God calls him to be in times of struggle, a disciple who looks upward before he looks onward. But if those fires are ever to rise again, if the trumpet must once again cry its song of battle, the captain must be ready. He must again be simply a man of his trade, a good seaman and a good officer. He must dexterously maneuver his ship, out-sail, and outsmart his opponents. And when he must call for cannon fire, he must know what to cry to his men. He must have their best, not just for him, but for their God, their nation, and their fellow man. JACK - Want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly? CREW- No! JACK- Do you want to call Napoleon your king? CREW- No! JACK- Want your children to sing The Marseillaise? CREW- No! JACK- Mr. Mowett, Mr. Pullings, starboard battery! References Burke, Edmund, et al. Select Works of Edmund Burke: A New Imprint of the Payne Edition. Liberty Fund, 1999. Marx, Karl, et al. The Marx-Engels Reader. Norton, 1978. Murray, John Courtney. “The Problem of God Yesterday and Today.” Georgetown University Library, 1963, library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/1964c. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. On the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, Vintage Books, 1989. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Major Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Two Discourses and the Social Contract. Translated by John T. Scott, The University of Chicago Press, 2014. Tocqueville, Alexis De, et al. Democracy in America. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006. Weir, Peter, and John Collee. Master and Commander: Far Side of the World. Twentieth Century Fox, Aug. 2001.

The European Union Trust Fund for Africa: Understanding the EU’s Securitization of Development Aid and its Implications Migena Satyal Author Jason Fu Sophie Rukin Editors Abstract Migration policies in the European Union (EU) have long been securitized; however, the 2015 migration crisis represented a turning point for EU securitization of development aid to shape migration outcomes from various African countries. In 2015, the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Stability and Addressing Root Causes of Irregular Migration and Displaced Persons in Africa (EUTF) was created at the Valletta Summit on Migration to address the drivers of irregular migration such as poverty, poor social and economic conditions, weak governance and conflict prevention, and inadequate resiliency to food and environmental pressures. The duration of this fund was from 2016-2021. Central to the strategy of the EUTF was addressing “root causes” however, the fund came with security dimensions. Under its objective of improved migration management, the EU directed capital to various security apparatuses in Africa to limit the movement of irregular migrants and prevent them from reaching Europe. This method diverted aid from addressing the existing problems faced by vulnerable populations in the region and contributed to practices and organizations that are responsible for implementing coercive measures to limit movement of migrants and committing human rights abuses. This paper examines the political and ideological motives and objectives behind the EU's securitization of development financing via the EUTF, how it has strategically used the “root causes'' narrative to secure these arrangements, and the ways in which this pattern of interaction is inherently neo-colonial. Introduction: The European Union Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) The European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Stability and Addressing Root Causes of Irregular Migration and Displaced Persons in Africa (EUTF for Africa) was passed in November 2015 at the Valletta Summit on Migration where European and African heads of state met to address the challenges and opportunities presented through the 2015 migration crisis. African and European heads of state recognized that migration was a shared responsibility between the countries of origin, transit, and destination. They were joined by the African Union Commission, the Economic Community of West African States, states parties to the Khartoum and Rabat Process, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and representatives of the International Organization for Migration. The Valletta Summit identified the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement which became the guiding narrative to create and implement the EUTF. The Action Plan of the Summit stated, “the Trust Fund will help address the root causes of destabilization, forced displacement, and irregular migration by promoting economic and equal opportunities, strengthening the resilience of vulnerable people, security, and development.” Therefore, addressing these issues via development aid would limit irregular migration. The European Commission claimed that “demographic pressure, environmental stress, extreme poverty, internal tensions, institutional weaknesses, weak social and economic infrastructures, and insufficient resilience to food crises, as well as internal armed conflicts, terrorist threats, and a deteriorated security environment” needed to be addressed within the EUTF framework. However, the root cause narrative itself was partially based on assumption rather than empirical evidence. Economic data analyzing the correlation between economic development aid and migration show that the two variables have an inverse relationship. Economic and human development increase peoples’ ambitions, competencies, and resources, encouraging them to emigrate. Migration has a downward trend only when a country reaches an upper-middle income level. This concept is also known as a migration hump. Although EU officials were aware of this phenomenon, they ignored the underlying issues of the root causes narrative and proceeded to create the fund. Between 2016 and 2022 the EUTF dispersed approximately EUR 5.0 billion across 26 African countries in the Sahel and Lake Chad, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. This funding was on top of pre-existing EUR 20 billion annual aid from the EU to these geographical regions. Despite packaging the EUTF as development aid and extracting the money almost exclusively from the European Development Fund (EDF), which specifically targets economic, social, and cultural development programs, the EUTF fell within the 2015 European Agenda on Migration, introducing a security dimension to development financing. The EU and African partner countries used a significant amount of aid from the EUTF to bolster migration management initiatives via the funding and strengthening of security apparatuses that are responsible for targeting migrants within Africa, before they could embark on their journeys to European states. Under the EUTF, improved migration management constitutes “contributing to the development of national and regional strategies on migration management, containing and preventing irregular migration, and fight against trafficking of human beings, smuggling of migrants and other related crimes, effective return and readmission, international protection and asylum, legal migration, and mobility.” It includes increasing logistical capabilities by providing capital to train border agents, and bolstering surveillance infrastructure to monitor citizens’ movement, and expanding logistical capacities. In some cases, it also relies on encouraging certain policies in recipient countries to align with the priorities of the donor countries. As shown in EUTF annual reports (Figures 1.1-1.6), there was an increasing diversion of capital towards funding migration management projects in Africa, which came at the expense of economic development projects. By using aid to fund security goals, the EU securitized and politicized development financing. Securitization in migration policy refers to the externalization and extra-territorialization of migration control through border controls and reclassification of various activities like drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and delinquency of migrants as national security concerns. Still, some EUTF funding went towards projects geared at economic development. As stated in the Action Plan and shown in subsequent annual reports, the EUTF implemented programs that promoted job creation, education, entrepreneurship, and building resiliency. However, they also used the money from the development package to strengthen migration management initiatives and shift responsibilities to third countries in Africa, ultimately creating “legal black holes” where European norms about human rights did not apply. Despite the clear evidence of the EU’s contribution to abuses towards African irregular migrants, the EU continues to implement repressive policies through various externalization mechanisms and faulty narratives that have been empirically proven to not work – such as the root causes narrative – in order to further its own interests in the African continent. Research Question The practice of funneling capital toward security-related migration management projects raises the following question: Why has the EU opted to securitize its development aid through EUTF in the aftermath of the 2015 migration crisis? Furthermore, what are the implications of aid securitization in terms of development aid effectiveness, human rights practices, and the EU’s external legitimacy as a normative actor? To answer these overarching questions and understand the promotion and proliferation of migration policies through pacts like the EUTF requires an inward look into the European Union and its political and ideological interests in the migration policy domain. Therefore, I propose that the EUTF was a neo-colonial mechanism through which European member states could further their migration policy priorities into certain African states thereby reinforcing their colonial legacy hierarchies. Methodology First, I will provide background information about the EUTF, highlighting its objectives and strategies for development aid implementation and effectiveness. Then, I will provide quantitative data regarding the dispersion of money from the EUTF to show the increasing investments toward migration management schemes. Understanding these specificities and inherent challenges of the EUTF will contextualize my hypotheses. Next, I will support my hypothesis through case studies of specific EUTF security operations in African countries, analysis of the EU’s previous migration policies, interviews with African and European Union stakeholders about EUTF’s development and impact, and various theories to help explain how the EU navigates its migration policies. Finally, I will assess the implications of aid securitization in both Europe and Africa. My research will rely on official documents from the EU about its migration agenda and policies. It will also use data from academic journals and previous literature that have examined the trajectory of the EU’s migration-development nexus, specifically through the EUTF. Assessing the current nature of the EU’s migration policies will be useful in helping guide future policies. As migration becomes an increasingly salient issue, it is crucial to determine strategies or “best practices” that are humane and sustainable to address it. Adhering to human rights norms should be at the center of these policies. Background The Action Plan of the Valletta Summit was based on five priority domains: Reducing poverty, advancing socio-economic development, promoting peace and good governance. Facilitating educational and skills training exchanges between EU and EU member states as well as the creation of legal pathways of employment for migrants and returnees. Providing humanitarian assistance to countries needing food assistance, shelter, water, and sanitation. Fighting against irregular migration, migrant smuggling, and trafficking. Facilitating the return, readmission, and reintegration of migrants. During Valletta, Martin Schulz, the former President of the European Parliament stated, “By boosting local economies through trade, for example through economic partnership agreements and through ‘aid for trade’ programs, by investing in development and by enhancing good governance people will be enabled to stay where they want to be ‘at home.’” He reiterates that the purpose of the EUTF is not “fight the migrants” but rather, “fight the root causes of migration: poverty and conflict.” This seemingly proactive approach underscores the belief that addressing the primary drivers of migration by promoting development measures will empower people to remain in their respective countries by choice rather than feeling compelled to migrate elsewhere. “Root Causes”: Overlooking Evidence The problem with the EU’s understanding and use of the “root causes” narrative is that it ignores how wage differentials contribute to migratory patterns. Wage differentials refers to the discrepancy in wages for similar jobs due to factors like industry or geography. While development aid can be effective, it is not enough to redistribute wealth and address the deep structural inequalities of the global economy that drive migration to more developed and wealthier countries. Subsequent sections will elaborate further on the adoption of the root causes framing. EUTF Annual Aid Reports (2016-2022) As stated in the Valletta Summit political declaration, the EU was committed to “address the root causes of irregular migration” through the EUTF. However, aid allocation data (Figures 1-1.6) from EUTF annual reports, which highlight the distribution of aid in amount and percentage terms by geographical window and five of the EUTF’s objectives, show an increased prioritization of implementing migration management schemes at the expense of development projects between 2016 and 2022. In 2016 (Figure 1), when EUTF was in the implementation phase, EU officials distributed significantly more funds for economic development projects across North Africa, the Sahel, and Horn of Africa than any other domains which aligned with the root causes narrative that was emphasized at Valletta. In 2017 (Figure 1.1), the allocation for improved migration management significantly increased across the three regions. In North Africa, funding for economic development, strengthening resilience, and conflict prevention was eliminated while EUR 285 million was given to migration management. This pattern is strategic due to the geographic proximity of the region to southern European borders. In 2018 (Figure 1.2), North Africa remained the biggest recipient of migration management funds but did not receive funding for development projects. In 2019 (Figure 1.3), 31.56 percent of total funding was invested in migration management. In 2020 (Figure 1.4), 2021 (Figure 1.5), and 2022 (Figure 1.6), improved migration management projects continued to receive most funding at the expense of other objectives. The funding patterns outlined in these reports show the EU’s increased focus towards its migration objectives. Figure 1: EUTF Projects Approved in 2016 Figure 1.1: EUTF Projects Approved in 2017 Figure 1.2: Projects Approved in 2018 Figure 1.3: Projects Approved in 2019 Figure 1.4: Projects approved in 2020 Figure 1.5: Projects approved in 2021 Figure 1.6: Projects approved in 2022 Taking the background information and data into account, I will prove my hypothesis, explaining why the EU increasingly invested in migration management projects in the following sections. Defining Neo-Colonialism The concept of ‘neo-colonialism; was coined by Kwame Nkrumah’s Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, in which he argues that neo-colonialism is a contemporary form of colonialism that is perpetuated through less traditionally coerciece methods, such as development aid. This theory can be applied when assassing relations and interdependency between former colonial states with formerly colonized states. Interdependence is manufactured by former colonial powers that “[give] independence” to their subjects, only for them to follow up by allocating aid.” They speak about guaranteeing independence and liberation but never implement policies to preserve them in an effort to maintain their influence and objectives via unobstrusive and monetary means rather than directly coercive ones. As a result, these countries’ economic system, and thus their political policy, is “directed from outside” through foreign capital.” EUTF as a Neo-Colonial Instrument In the 19th and 20th centuries, European powers reshaped all aspects of African society, through colonialism, for their own strategic imperatives. These included, but were not limited to, extraction of material resources, manufactured dependency, and assertion of European institutions and policies at the expense of indigenous cultures and institutions. The complete overhaul of pre-colonial Africa interrupted economic and political development in the region and led to its continued structural subordination despite achieving independence from European colonial states in the 21st century. As a result, the repercussions of colonialism have contemporary implications in EU-Africa relations. During the colonial era, colonial powers used military power and additional forms of coercive strategies to assert foreign influence; currently, former colonial powers capitalize on the weaknesses of African countries and use political and economic measures to gain influence. Colonialism never disappeared, but rather, evolved into neo-colonialism. This concept is demonstrated in the framework of the EUTF which, despite being a development aid package and product of a seemingly coordinated multilateral process, imposed conditionalities and security measures on African states to achieve political goals in the field of migration. Under the EUTF, patterns of cooperation between European countries and their former colonies to limit migration are also prevalent, especially in the case of Libya and Niger. These initiatives safeguard colonial-era power structures and undermine the sovereignty of the respective African states. The EU took advantage of its status as a donor institution through three mechanisms that enforced hierarchies between African and European powers: The governance structure,designed to dismiss African stakeholder engagement EU’s imposition of positive and negative conditionalities to certain African states The strategic partnerships between European and African states to implement migration management programs These steps demonstrate the EU’s broader goals to assert their influence in the region’s migration policies by implementing security schemes, jeopardizing the needs of African states and the preservation of human rights in the process. The use of EUTF to conduct such projects signals the “de facto policy purchase” on the African government’s stance on migration. Consequently, African states become an “instrument” for European neo-colonial policies, especially in the migration domain. Eurafrica to Modern EU-Africa Relations The legacy and discourse of colonialism and neo-colonialism are not equal among EU member states. Many European countries were colonial powers, with the exception of Ireland and Malta, along with several central European countries that were subjugated to the authority of larger imperial powers. However, specific past actions hold little significance when discussing the broader nexus between European integration, the European Union, and colonialism. In Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism , Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson argue that there was a vast overlap between the colonial and European projects. Several African countries, under colonialism, have historically played a key role in efforts towards European integration and unity from the 1920s to the 1950s under the geo-political concept of Eurafrica. According to this idea, European integration would only occur through “coordinated exploitation of Africa and Africa could be efficiently exploited only if European states cooperated and combined their economic and political capacities.” The pan-European movement in the interwar period was based on conditions for peace through a “united colonial effort” in Africa. Eurafrica turned into a political reality with the emergence of the European Economic Community (EEC) made up of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany, along with colonial possessions that were referred to as “overseas countries and territories” (OCTs). For the EEC, Africa served as a “necessity,” “a strategic interest,” “an economic imperative,” “a peace project,” “a white man’s burden,” and “Europe’s last chance.” Put differently, “Africa was indispensable for Europe’s geopolitical and economic survival.” Africa became the guiding force of European integration and Eurafrica became a system through which colonial powers could preserve their empires. Eurafrica, in its original form, did not materialize because African countries took back control from European colonial powers, but its legacy is crucial to the development of the EEC and modern EU-Africa relations. Today, the EU describes its relationship with Africa in terms like “interdependence,” and “partnership of equals.” Nonetheless, the EU’s colonial past still plays a significant role in its foreign policy with Africa as it promotes the adoption of European rules and practices in its “normative empires.” The continuation of these empires has cemented core-periphery dynamics of interaction, which ultimately advances European interests, especially in the migration domain. Specifically, the EU’s externalization of border and migration management efforts to transfer the European model of governance to third countries have transformed them into “southern buffer zones” to curtail unwanted migration and enhance Europe’s sense of security. Such measures demonstrate the separation of physical borders from functional regimes in Europe’s fluid borderlands, which are antecedent to imperial practices when control was extended beyond territorial boundaries. These practices are evident in the EU’s security operations through pacts like the EUTF, EU-Turkey Deal, and Operation SOPHIA. These externalization policies ensure the continuity of the vision derived from the Eurafrica project in the 21st century. Conditional aid The EUTF was conditional as it leveraged development aid to finance security-related migration projects and imposed positive and negative conditionalities that were used as leverage for African cooperation. When the European Commission announced its Migration Partnership Framework in 2016, it stated that development and trade policies will use positive and negative conditionalities to encourage cooperation on EU’s migration management projects. The “more for more, less for less” framework embedded into development financing means that “African governments use migration cooperation as a bargaining chip for procuring finance through renting inherent powers of state sovereignty to control entry and exit.” This coercive and concessional method contradicts the nature of cooperation that was emphasized at the Valletta Summit in 2015 and undermines the autonomy of the African states as these conditionalities perpetuate neo-colonial practices. EUTF Governance Structure and Oversight The EUTF was a product of a multilateral decision-making process. However, its governance structure, which limits proper stakeholder engagement from African representatives, signals the EU’s push to prioritize its policies over development in Africa. The European Commission claims that it is taking a bottom-up approach where the EU delegations play a key role in identifying and formulating the EUTF through consultations and dialogues to build partnerships with local stakeholders (civil society organizations, national and local authorities, and representatives). Subsequently, proposals are created by the EUTF for African teams based on EU Commission Headquarters and EU delegations. Then, the proposal is submitted to the Operational Committee for approval. Once approved, the proposals are implemented via EU member states’ authorities, developmental and technical cooperation agencies, civil society organizations, international or UN organizations, and private sector entities. The governance of the EUTF is dependent upon the Strategic Board and Operational Committees for each of the three regions where the EUTF distributed funds. The Strategic Board is responsible for “adopting the strategy of the EUTF, adjusting the geographical and thematic scope of the EUTF in reaction to evolving issues, and deciding upon amendments to the guiding document establishing the internal rules for the EUTF.” The board is chaired by the European Commission and composed of representatives and contributing donors. The Operational Committee is responsible for “reviewing and approving actions to be financed, supervising the implementation of the actions, and approving the annual report and accounts for transmission to the Strategic Board.” In the Board and the Committee, the African partner countries can only act as observers and do not hold decision-making powers. This management framework is ineffective as it is designed to limit the participation of African parties that have more comprehensive knowledge regarding the needs of the continent and areas where funds need to be directed. However, they are structurally silenced. The classification of the EUTF as development aid from the EU to Africa also provided a loophole under which parliamentary oversight was not required. The European Development Fund, which operates outside the EU budget, funded most of the aid, bypassing conventional parliamentary procedures, allowing for swift implementation of the fund. As a spokesperson for the European Commission’s DG DEVCO claimed that simplifying the procedures allows for more flexibility so projects can be implemented earlier. Proponents of the fund believe that the easy implementation process is what makes it advantageous. However, opponents of the fund like Elly Schelien, a member of the European Parliament’s Development Committee, claimed that the EU Parliament has not been given “the right democratic scrutiny” of the fund. The framing of the fund as an “emergency instrument” led to retracted bureaucratic measures to increase effectiveness as project cycles were much shorter than traditional development programming. The consolidation of power to the EU institutions and representatives meant that EUTF projects were “identified at the country level under the leadership of the EU Delegations, discussed and selected by an Operational Committee.” Engagement from African stakeholders and civil society was not required. An interview with a representative from the Operational Committee revealed that EUTF “projects were simply approved without discussion. Negotiations took place upstream between EUTF managers, European agencies, EU delegations, and partner countries.” This form of decision-making amplifies hierarchical structures between European and African representatives. Strategic Partnerships Certain EU member states partnered with African states to implement migration management programs in which they exercised authority over the movement of migrants within Africa, especially in the origin and transit countries. Not only do these policies directly conflict with the EU’s stated commitments regarding development aid and cooperation with partner countries, but the EU’s agenda is antecedent to European empires leveraging local African officials to undertake security operations in the continent. Today, this exploitative relationship is parallel to the EU’s allocation of capital, military equipment, and capacity-building instruments to African representatives who adhere to the needs of EU leaders. This pattern is visible in various projects and funding executed under the EUTF. Though reluctant to enter into such agreements with Europe, African policymakers are forced into a “perpetual balancing act, juggling domestically-derived interests with the demands of external donor and opportunity structures.” This concession stems from inherent power asymmetry between relatively weak and powerful states, upholding colonial legacy hierarchies. Case Studies on Libya and Ethiopia In the following section, I use Libya and Ethiopia as case studies to provide evidence that EUTF’s prioritization of funding migration management projects, increasing policing and surveillance in these countries, and imposing positive and negative conditionalities are reflective of neo-colonial practices to assert dominance over the movement of African irregular migrants. I chose these countries to study because each one falls within one of the two geographical windows and serves either as a popular departure or transit country where the European Union is heavily involved in migration management projects. Libya Libya is a major departure country for migrants from West African countries of origin such as Nigeria, Guinea, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Senegal. Italy demonstrated strategic interest in Libya due to its geographical proximity and colonial legacy. Between 2017 and 2022, the Italian Ministry of Interior (MI) led implementations of various migration management projects that sought to curb the arrival of migrants into Italy. In 2017, MI led the first phase of its project called “Support to Integrated Border and Migration Management in Libya” with a budget of EUR 42.2 million and a EUR 2.23 million co-financing from Italy. The principal objective of this phase was migration management. Focus areas included strengthening border control, increasing surveillance activities, combatting human smuggling and trafficking, and conducting search and rescue operations. The second phase of this project was launched by MI in 2018 until 2024 for EUR 15 million. This phase was focused on capacity-building activities and institutional strengthening of authorities such as the Libyan Coast Guard and the General Administration of Coastal Security. It also advanced the land border capabilities of relevant authorities and enhanced search and rescue (SAR) capabilities by supplying SAR vessels and corresponding maintenance programs. The beneficiaries of this project included 5,000 relevant authorities from the Libyan Ministry of Interior (MoI), Ministry of Defense (MoD), and Ministry of Communications. The indirect beneficiaries include “future migrants rescued at the sea due to the procession of life-saving equipment to Libyan Coast Guard and General Administration for Coastal Security for them to be able to save lives.” Italy’s actions under the EUTF compromise the proper use of development financing tools by diverting them for the use of security-related projects. Its engagement and strengthening of Libyan security apparatuses such as the Libyan Coast Guard also undermine the values of human rights that EU member states claim to promote in their foreign policies as the Libyan Coast Guard is notorious for violating non-refoulment principles and committing human rights violations such as extortion, arbitrary detention, and sexual violence against migrants and asylum seekers. Recognizing brutal actions by the border authorities and the deplorable living conditions in detention centers in Libya, the Assize Court in Milan condemned the torture and violence inflicted in these centers. In November 2017, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights released a statement criticizing the EU’s support for the Libyan Coast Guard as “inhumane” as it led to the detention of migrants in “horrific” conditions in Libya. Despite institutional disapproval of the EU’s and Italy’s involvement in Libya, funding for these security projects continued. Ethiopia While Ehtiopia was never formally colonized, it remained under Italian occupation from 1935-1941 and subsequently fell under (in)formal British control from 1941-1944. The EUTF initiatives in Ethiopia do not show the same patterns of cooperation as seen in Libya and Niger, since Ethiopia served as a key interest to the EU due to its status as one of the main countries of origin, transit, and destination for migrants and refugees. EUTF report from 2016 highlighted that Ethiopia hosts over one million displaced people. It is also the biggest recipient of EUTF funding in the Horn of Africa. Its geographical proximity to countries like Eritrea, Somalia, and South Sudan has vastly affected its migration demographics, making it a focus area for the EU’s development aid under the EUTF. While there pre-existing migration management schemes in Ethiopia, they were concerned with the returns and reintegration of irregular Ethiopian migrants and refugees rather than building up the capacity of various security actors as seen in other regions. This objective was linked with positive conditionalities as the Third Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration links progress in the returns and readmissions field with more financial support for refugees that reside within Ethiopia. Additional projects in Ethiopia were geared towards economic development and focused on addressing the root causes as outlined in Valletta. Some of these initiatives included job creation, providing energy access, healthcare, and education to vulnerable populations which are in line with development cooperation. However, the European Union’s increasing focus on returns and readmission of Ethiopian migrants can decrease revenue derived from remittances which contribute three times more to the Ethiopian economy than development financing. This approach ensures the fulfillment of the EU’s migration interests while undermining Ethiopia’s economic needs. Ethiopian officials also expressed disappointment with the EUTF measures because they were guided by the EU’s focus on repatriation, thereby eroding migration cooperation with Ethiopia. In regards to EU interests in Ethiopia, an EU official claimed: “We can pretend that we have joint interest in migration management with Africa, but we don't. The EU is interested in return and readmission. Africa is interested in root causes, free movement, legal routes, and remittances. We don't mention that our interests are not aligned.” This non-alignment in interests is irrelevant to the EU because it is the more dominant actor and has the power to assert its priorities by using money as leverage. However, this pattern of interaction comes at the cost of losing cooperation with Ethiopian stakeholders and diverging finances from refugee and migrant populations in Ethiopia who need humanitarian assistance. Perspectives from Africa African representatives and ambassadors displayed suspicion about the fund’s motives and called on the EU to fund projects that increase economic opportunities in their respective countries. As Nigerien mayor of Tchirozerine Issouf Ag Maha stated, “as local municipalities, we don’t have any power to express our needs. The EU and project implementers came here with their priorities. It’s a ‘take it or leave it’ approach, and in the end, we have to take it because our communities need support.” Maha’s statement highlights the role the EU plays in shaping the direction of development money and how its priorities overshadow decisions and input from local officials, who are significantly more knowledgeable about the needs of their communities. Despite diverging interests and priorities, African officials concede to their demands because their communities require financial resources to alleviate hardships. President Akufo-Addo from Ghana claimed that “ instead of investing money in preventing African migrants from coming to Europe, the EU should be spending more to create jobs across the continent.” Similarly, Senegalese President Mackey Sall and former Chairperson of the African Union warned that the trust fund to tackle the causes of migration is not sufficient to meet the needs of the continent stating, stated that “if we want young Africans to stay in Africa, we need to provide Africa with more resources.” The allocation of aid to security-related projects comes at the expense of funding genuine development projects that align with the needs of African communities. It also takes advantage of the ‘cash-starved’ governments.” These statements underscore the necessity of the EUTF to direct capital towards structural and sustainable economic development as opposed to combatting, detaining, or returning migrants. However, the EU has not been responsive to these inputs from its African stakeholders despite stressing the importance of cooperation and partnership during the Valletta Summit. Reinforcing Power Imbalances The imposition of European policies and priorities through the EUTF takes advantage of African nations' relatively weaker economic standing and agency, showing that the political and security needs of powerful states and institutions determine where and how development aid is designated. It also shows the continued influence and intervention of European interests into their ostensibly independent former colonial holdings, therefore reiterating Nkrumah’s theory that foreign capital, such as development aid, can be used for the exploitation of developing countries by their former colonial powers. This hypocrisy goes against the EU’s normative approaches to its foreign policy while also continuing to reinforce power imbalances and colonial-era hierarchies between Europe and Africa. Discussion Critically examining the European Union Trust Fund in the broader context of EU-Africa relations demonstrates how EUTF represents a complex intersection of historical legacies, political interests and expediency, and political ideologies that determine attitudes towards migrants and refugees and thus, shape policy outcomes. These factors reinforce each other by showing the multifaceted nature of migration governance. The neo-colonialism lens in my hypothesis provides historical context to show how enduring colonial legacies continue to guide policies today. This lens also forms the basis for discourse about EU-Africa relations because of the visible power imbalances that are sustained through policies like the EUTF which are structurally designed to achieve European political interests at the expense of the needs of African states. As seen through the case studies on Libya, Niger, and Ethiopia, development aid is not always allocated for the benefit of the recipient. Rather, aid can be abused as a political tool to reach the objectives of the donor institutions. Despite the rhetoric of cooperation between stakeholders, preservation of human lives, equal partnership, and addressing root causes, as stated in Valletta, the strategic policy design of the EUTF highlights the persistence of neo-colonialism because it continues historical patterns of exploitation and hierarchies between Europe and Africa. Conclusion The findings in this paper show that EUTF was not merely a development instrument but also a political one that came with negative consequences for African irregular migrants. The securitization of aid along with the EU’s other externalization policies have not effectively solved the problems that have caused the migration crisis. Instead, it has reinforced them. The model of the EU’s migration policies under the EUTF has also created issues beyond the realm of migration. As discussed, it continues to sustain power imbalances between Europe and Africa, shift aid priorities, and undermine development goals.Addressing the migration crisis will require a paradigm shift in the EU migration policy domain. The EU needs to deviate away from a security-based approach to a holistic and rights-based approach. This ideological reform requires the EU to look inward to address its own limitations and failures by recognizing its neo-colonial practices, acting out of mutual rather than political interests, and lastly, collectively humanizing migrants and refugees arriving to Europe for safety and opportunities. Through these measures, the EU and African stakeholders can address the true root causes of migration – which stem from structural global inequalities. References “A European Agenda on Migration.” European Commission. November 2015. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21933/euagendafor-migration_trustfund-v10.pdf Abdelaaty, Lamis. “European countries are welcoming Ukrainian refugees. It was a different story in 2015.” The Washington Post. March 23, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/23/ukraine-refugees-welcome-europe/ Abrahams, Jessica. “Red flags raised over governance of EU Trust Fund projects.” Devex. September 22, 2017. https://www.devex.com/news/red-flags-raised-over-governance-of-eu-trust-fund-projects-91027 “Agreement Establishing The European Union Emergency Trust Fund For Stability And Addressing Root Causes Of Irregular Migration And Displaced Persons in Africa, And Its Internal Rules.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2015. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/4cb965d7-8ad5-4da9-9f6d-3843f4bf0e82_en?filename=Constitutive%20Agreement%20https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/4cb965d7-8ad5-4da9-9f6d-3843f4bf0e82_en?filename=Constitutive%20Agreement%20 Alcalde, Xavier. “Why the refugee crisis is not a refugee crisis.” International Catalan Institute for Peace. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.icip.cat/perlapau/en/article/why-the-refugee-crisis-is-not-a-refugee-crisis/ Allen, Peter. “French politician says country is 'white race' and immigrants should adapt or leave.” The Mirror. September 27, 2015. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-politician-says-country-white-6528611 Bachman, Bart. “Diminishing Solidarity: Polish Attitudes toward the European Migration and Refugee Crisis.” Migration Policy. June 16, 2016. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/diminishing-solidarity-polish-attitudes-toward-european-migration-and-refugee-crisis Ball, Sam. “France’s far-right National Front tops first round of regional vote.” France24. July 12, 2015. https://www.france24.com/en/20151206-france-far-right-national-front-le-pen-tops-first-round-regional-election Boswell, C. “The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy.” International Affairs , 79, no. 3 (2003): 619–639. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2346.00326 Campbell, Zach.“Europe’s deadly migration strategy.” Politico. February 28, 2019. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-deadly-migration-strategy-leaked-documents/ Cantat, Celine. “The ideology of Europeanism and Europe’s migrant other,” in International Socialism 152 ( October 2016). https://isj.org.uk/the-ideology-of-europeanism-and-europes-migrant-other/ Castillejo, Clare.“The EU Migration Partnership Framework: Time for a Rethink?” German Development Institute.” 2017. https://www.idos-research.de/uploads/media/DP_28.2017.pdf Chase, Jefferson. “AfD: From anti-EU to anti-immigration.” DW. October 28, 2019. https://www.dw.com/en/afd-what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-far-right-party/a-37208199 Chebel d’Appollonia, Ariane. Frontiers of Fear: Immigration and Insecurity in the United States and Europe . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012 “CTR - BUDGET SUPPORT - Contrat relatif à la Reconstruction de l'Etat au Niger en complément du SBC II en préparation / Appui à la Justice, Sécurité et à la Gestion des Frontières au Niger.” European Commission. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://eutf.akvoapp.org/dir/project/5651 De Guerry, Olivia and Andrea Storcchiero. “Partnership or Conditionality? Monitoring the Migration Compacts and EU Trust Fund for Africa.”Concord Europe. 2018. https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CONCORD_EUTrustFundReport_2018_online.pdf “David Cameron: 'Swarm' of migrants crossing the Mediterranean.” BBC. July 30, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-33714282 European Commission. “Commission announces New Migration Partnership Framework: reinforced cooperation with third countries to better manage migration.” Media release. June 7, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2072 European Commission. “Fourth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration.” no. 350. June 13, 2017. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/4th_progress_report_partnership_framework_with_third_countries_under_european_agenda_on_migration.pdf European Council. “Remarks by President Donald Tusk at the press conference of the Valletta summit on migration.” Press release. November 12, 2015, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/12/tusk-press-conference-valletta-summit/ “EU Solidarity with Ukraine.” European Council. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-ukraine-invasion/eu-solidarity-ukraine/#:~:text=affordability%20(background%20information)-,Humanitarian%20aid,and%20host%20families%20in%20Moldova . “EU-Turkey joint action plan.” European Commission. October 15, 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_15_5860 Fanta, Esubalew B. “The British on the Ethiopian Bench: 1942–1944.” Northeast African Studies 16, no. 2 (2016): 67-96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/nortafristud.16.2.0067 FitzGerald, David S. “Remote control of migration: Theorising territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 46, no. 1 (2020): 4–22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1680115 Gray, Meral. Amanda, “Learning the lessons from EU-Turkey deal: Europe’s renewed test.” Accessed March 14, 2024. https://odi.org/en/insights/learning-the-lessons-from-the-euturkey-deal-europes-renewed-test/ Hansen, Peo and Stefan Jonsson. Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration . London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. “International Affairs.” European Commission. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/international-affairs_en Islam, Shada.“Decolonising EU-Africa Relations Is a Pre-Condition For a True Partnership of Equals.” Center for Global Development. February 15, 2022, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/decolonising-eu-africa-relations-pre-condition-true-partnership-equals#:~:text=Senegalese%20President%20Mackey%20Sall%20who,need%20to%20provide%20Africa%20with Kabata, Monica and Jacobs, An. The ‘migrant other’ as a security threat: the ‘migration crisis’ and the securitising move of the Polish ruling party in response to the EU relocation scheme.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies , 13, no. 4 (November 13, 2022): 1223-1239 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14782804.2022.2146072 Khakee, Anna. “European Colonial Pasts and the EU’s Democracy-promoting Present: Silences and Continuities.” Italian Journal of International Affairs 57, no 3, (2022): 103-120. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03932729.2022.2053352 Kirisci, Kemal. “As EU-Turkey migration agreement reaches the five-year mark, add a job creation element.” Brookings. March 17, 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/as-eu-turkey-migration-agreement-reaches-the-five-year-mark-add-a-job-creation-element/ Kundnani, Hans. Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire, and Race in the European Project. London: Hurst Publishers, 2023. Langan, Mark. Neo-colonialism and The Poverty of Development in Africa. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Lehne, Stefan. “How the Refugee Crisis Will Reshape the EU.” Carnegie Europe. February 4, 2016. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/02/04/how-refugee-crisis-will-reshape-eu-pub-62650 Liguori, Anna. Migration Law And Externalization of Border Controls. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. Mager, Therese. “The Emergency Trust Fund for Africa: Examining Methods and Motives in the EU’s External Migration Agenda.” United Nations University on Institution on Comparative Regional Integration Studies. 2018. https://cris.unu.edu/sites/cris.unu.edu/files/UNU-CRIS%20Policy%20Brief%202018-2.pdf Mainwaring, Ċetta. “Constructing Crises to Manage: Migration Governance and the Power to Exclude.” At Europe’s Edge: Migration and Crisis in the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2019. https://academic.oup.com/book/32397/chapter/268689331 Maru, Mehari T. “Migration Policy-making in Africa: Determinants and Implications for Cooperation with Europe.” Working Paper 2021/54, European University Institute, 2021. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/71355 Micinski, Nicholas and Kelsey Norman. Migration Management Aid, Governance, and Repression . Unpublished manuscript. Accessed March 14, 2024. “Mission.” EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.operationsophia.eu/about-us/#:~:text=EUNAVFOR%20MED%20operation%20Sophia%20is,poverty%2C%20climate%20change%20and%20persecution . Moravcsik, Andrew. Review of Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire, and Race in the European Project by Hans Kundnani. Foreign Affairs. October 23, 2023. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/eurowhiteness-culture-empire-and-race-european-project Nkrumah, Kwame . Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism . London: Panaf, 1965. Oliviera, Ivo and Vince Chadwick.“Gabriel compares far-right party to Nazis.” Politico. October 23, 2015. https://www.politico.eu/article/sigmar-gabriel-compares-far-right-alternative-for-germany-afd-to-nazis-interview-rtl/ “Objective and Governance.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/our-mission/objective-and-governance_en Pacciardi, Agnese.“A European narrative of border externalization: the European trust fund for Africa story,” in European Security . January 22, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2024.2304723?src=#:~:text=The%20EUTF%20narrative%20portrays%20diaspora,their%20countries%20of%20origin%2C%20so Pare, Celine.“Selective Solidarity? Racialized Othering in European Migration Policies.” Amsterdam Review of European Affairs 1:1. Pages 42-54. https://www.europeanhorizonsamsterdam.org/_files/ugd/79a695_dbd76026a17f488ea00cae358bfebe8d.pdf#page=47 Reilly, Rachael, and Michael Flynn. “The Ukraine Crisis Double Standards: Has Europe’s Response to Refugees Changed?” Media Release. March 2, 2022. https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/ukraine-crisis-double-standards-has-europe-s-response-refugees-changed Rieker, Pernille and Marianne Riddervold. “Not so unique after all? Urgency and norms in EU foreign and security policy.” Journal of European Integration 44, no 4 (September 21, 2021): 459-473. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2021.1977293 Roberts, Bayard, Adrianna Murphy, and Martin Mckee. Europe’s collective failure to address the refugee crisis” in Public Health Reviews, 37, no 1 (2016): 1-5. https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-016-0015-6 Sahin-Mencutek, Zeynep, Soner Barthoma, N. Ela Gökalp-Aras & Anna Triandafyllidou, “A crisis mode in migration governance: comparative and analytical insights,” in Comparative Migration Studies 10, no 12 (March 21, 2022): 1-19. https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878-022-00284-2#ref-CR22 Santos, Mireia F. “Three lessons from Europe’s response to Ukrainian migration.” European Council on Foreign Relations. August 9, 2023. https://ecfr.eu/article/three-lessons-from-europes-response-to-ukrainian-migration/ Schacht, Kira. “EU uses development aid to strongarm Africa on migration.” European Data Journalism. April 13, 2022. https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/eu-uses-development-aid-to-strongarm-africa-on-migration/ Schulz, Martin.“Speech at the Valletta Summit on Migration.” Speech. Valletta, Malta. November 11, 2015. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/former_ep_presidents/president-schulz-2014-2016/en/press-room/speech_at_the_valletta_summit_on_migration.html Shields Martin, Charles, Benjamin Schraven and Steffen Angenendt. “More Development- More Migration? The “Migration Hump” and its Significance For Development Policy Cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa.” German Development Institute. 2017. https://www.idos-research.de/en/briefing-paper/article/more-development-more-migration-the-migration-hump-and-its-significance-for-development-policy-co-operation-with-sub-saharan-africa/ Silver, Laura. “Populists in Europe – especially those on the right – have increased their vote shares in recent elections.” Pew Research Center. October 6, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/06/populists-in-europe-especially-those-on-the-right-have-increased-their-vote-shares-in-recent-elections/ Sojka, Aleksandra. “Supranational identification and migration attitudes in the European Union.” BACES Working Paper no. 02-2021. Barcelona Center for Migration Studies, 2021. “Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel.” European Union External Action Service. European Union External Action Service. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/strategy_for_security_and_development_in_the_sahel_en_0.pdf Support to Integrated border and migration management in Libya – First Phase.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024, Africa, https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/our-programmes/support-integrated-border-and-migration-management-libya-first-phase_en “Support to Integrated border and migration management in Libya – Second Phase.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/our-programmes/support-integrated-border-and-migration-management-libya-second-phase_en Tawat, Mahama and Eileen Lamptey. “The 2015 EU-Africa Joint Valletta action plan on migration: A parable of complex interdependence.” International Migration 60, no. 6 (21 December 2020): 28-42. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imig.12953 Trust Fund Financials.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/trust-fund-financials_en Tusk, Donald. “Valletta Summit on Migration.” Speech. Valletta, Malta. November 2015. European Council. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-summit/2015/11/11-12/ “Valletta Summit, 11-12 November 2015 Action Plan.” European Commission. Accessed March 14, 2023. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21839/action_plan_en.pdf “What is the EU-Turkey deal?” Rescue. March 16, 2023. https://www.rescue.org/eu/article/what-eu-turkey-deal Zaun, Natascha and Olivia Nantermoz. “Depoliticising EU migration policies: The EUTF Africa and the politicization of development aid.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49, no. 12 (May 2023): 2986-3004. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2193711 Zaun, Natascha and Olivia Nantermoz. “The use of pseudo-causal narratives in EU policies: the case of the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.” Journal of European Public Polic y 29, no. 4 (February 28, 2021): 510-529. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2021.1881583#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Commission%20Decision,insufficient%20resilience%20to%20food%20crises'%2C “2016 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2016. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/system/files/2018-10/eutf_2016_annual_report_final_en-compressed_new.pdf “2017 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2017. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/1a5f88be-e911-4831-9c2a-3a752aa27f7e_en?filename=EUTF%202017%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf “2018 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2018. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/fb0737ce-3183-415a-905c-4adff77bfce3_en?filename=Annual%20Report%202018%20%28EN%29%20 “2019 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2019. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/e340b953-5275-43e5-8bd3-af15be9fc17a_en?filename=EUTF%202019%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf “2020 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2020. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/4a4422e5-253f-4409-b25c-18af9c064ca1_en?filename=eutf-report_2020_eng_final.pdf “2021 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2021. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/f3690961-e688-44de-9789-255875979c1b_en?filename=EUTF%202021%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29 “2022 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2022. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/f3690961-e688-44de-9789-255875979c1b_en?filename=EUTF%202021%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29

Schedule F And The Future Of Civil Service Protections Sasha Bonkowsky Abstract Civil service protections in the United States, such as merit-based hiring, employee tenure, and the dismissal appeal , have come under attack in recent years, most notably from former president Donald Trump’s proposed Schedule F that would strip those protections from many federal employees. Under Schedule F, thousands of federal positions would become political appointees who could be dismissed at-will. This paper examines the history and justifications for exempting positions from traditional civil-service protections, as well as the feasibility for Biden’s Office of Personnel Management to forestall Schedule F. I conclude that Schedule F would likely have negative effects on government performance and morale, but that the OPM may not be able to effectively prevent implementation of Schedule F in the event of Trump’s re-election. Throughout President Donald Trump’s administration, he frequently attacked the federal bureaucracy for what he saw as its inefficiency or refusal to enact his policies. He was elected on promises of “draining the swamp” in American government; after the 2016 election, he repeatedly attacked a supposed “deep state” of insider operatives within federal agencies and departments who were ideologically opposed to him and used their positions in the bureaucracy, from which it was hard to dismiss them, to hamstring and block his agenda. Where Trump had appointment power, such as with agency heads or other political appointees, he was quick to remove those he saw as disloyal. However, many of his attacks were limited to mere invective. In the vast American civil service comprising more than two million employees, only 4,000 of those are political appointees that the president can remove at will. And in comparison to other democracies like the UK, France, or Japan, which all have similar civil service systems,, the US actually has many more political appointees. The rest are career employees. Career civil servants are usually hired using a merit-based, competitive examination system, in which all prospective employees are given the same exam, and those meeting or exceeding a particular score are hired. Once in the federal bureaucracy—and after a probationary period of several months to a year—employees usually cannot be dismissed unless they are found to be significantly derelict in their duties, and they can appeal a firing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which can investigate and reinstate an employee if they have been unlawfully dismissed. There are certain exceptions to this process, known as Schedules A through E, but they are only used when the usual processes are deemed “impractical.” In October 2020, Trump signed Executive Order 13957, which would have significantly increased the number of political appointees. It created a new category of positions within the federal bureaucracy—known as Schedule F positions—that would be exempted from regular civil service hiring procedures. Instead of the examination process, the president would be able to handpick employees for positions that fell under Schedule F and dismiss them at will without worrying about an appeal to the MSPB, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in its analysis of the order. President Biden repealed the executive order during his first days in office, writing that it “undermined the foundations of the civil service and its merit system principles.” But such an action is hardly permanent—after all, another future president could easily reissue the executive order. To avoid that, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a proposed rule in late 2023 that would prevent career employees from being excepted under Schedule F or a similar order. The proposed rule also stated that any employee who was reclassified as political appointee would still possess the same protections from being fired and could appeal any dismissal to the MSPB. However, it’s unclear if this proposal will take effect before the 2024 election and a possible transition of power. This paper first examines civil service protections and common exemptions—especially those for current political appointees—in more detail, before turning to the possible effects of Schedule F and attempts to block it. Data from the past 10 years of OPM rulemaking demonstrates that, on average, rules take about a year to be finalized, meaning that if this civil service rule follows the usual timeline, it may be too late to go fully into effect before a Republican president or Republican Congress could repeal it. Civil Service Exceptions The US civil service already allows certain positions to be excepted from the competitive service in five categories: Schedules A, B, C, D, and E. Typically, prospective civil service employees must take a general exam, from which the highest scorers (and those with veteran’s preference) can be selected for hiring. However, this process can be slow, and does not cover specialized knowledge that an agency might require. Positions excepted under one of these schedules can be hired without this usual examination process when it is determined that the exam would make it impractical to recruit adequate numbers of students from qualifying institutions, (under Schedule D), when urgency is required (under Schedule A), or when selecting for particular experience (under Schedule B), among others. Only one schedule deals with political appointments—Schedule C—and it functions most similarly to the proposed Schedule F. Schedule C allows excepted hiring for “positions which are policy-determining or which involve a close and confidential working relationship with the head of an agency or other key appointed officials”. These are often positions like press secretaries for individual bureaus within agencies, White House liaisons, or confidential assistants to secretaries and undersecretaries. There are usually between 1,500 and 1,800 Schedule C appointments at any given time, with 1,725 at the end of the first Bush administration, 1,538 at the end of the Obama administration, and 1,566 at the end of the Trump administration. These political appointments within the civil service didn’t always exist, and like the present-day Schedule F, Schedule C was the subject of significant controversy when it was first carved out in 1956 under the Eisenhower administration. One Democratic senator decried Schedule C as “an attempt to turn the civil service into a Republican grab bag” on the Senate floor, and the Democratic Party platform of 1956 stated that the Eisenhower administration’s policies “reflect prejudices and excessive partisanship to the detriment of employee morale”. The director of the Civil Service Commission defended them in the New York Times , writing that “the American people in 1952 expected your Administration to put into effect your announced policies…it is of the most vital importance that…policy-determining officials should be subject to change with any change in political administration”. Yet despite this public criticism, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed no legislation curtailing or ending Schedule C, and presidents of both parties have made use of Schedule C’s hiring authority. Several restrictions are placed on Schedule C positions and the ways in which they can be assigned. There are no “vacant” Schedule C positions which may be filled at will by the President—instead, any Schedule C positions must be approved by the director of OPM, and OPM’s authorization for those positions is automatically revoked when an employee leaves. Additionally, when requesting Schedule C exception, the head of the requesting agency must submit a statement to OPM that the position was not created in order to detail the employee to the White House—that is, assign them to work in the White House while still being paid by their original agency. This requirement was added after a 1990 GAO report found that Schedule C appointees were being inappropriately detailed to the White House rather than performing the specified duties of their positions. Though Schedule F and Schedule C may appear similar in their creation of low-level, politically appointed positions, the proposed Schedule F category would carve out much broader exceptions to the competitive service. Schedule C restricts its exceptions to appointments of a “confidential or policy-determining” character; Schedule F would allow exceptions to the competitive service for positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy -advocating character.” Policy-making or policy-advocating are much broader terms than merely policy-determining, and their definitions are statutorily vague, meaning they could be applied to a much greater number of employees. The executive order drew its legal basis from Section 7511 of Title 5 of the US Code, which excludes employees “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character” from competitive examination procedures and protection from dismissal. Determination of whether an employee’s job fits these requirements are made by the President and required to be authorized by the head of OPM. This exception, however, had never been put into practice before. The effects of Schedule F implementation are unclear. The executive order was issued in late October 2020, directing that agencies should submit a list of positions that would fall under Schedule F and their reasons for selecting those positions within 90 days (on January 19, 2021). Agencies were also directed to submit petitions to the Federal Labor Relations Authority to determine whether excepted positions under Schedule F would also be excluded from collective bargaining authorities. Few agencies—15 in total, out of over 400 federal agencies—submitted information to OPM, many claiming that they needed more time. Of those, just four agencies submitted names and lists of positions for conversion: the International Boundary and Water Commission proposed converting just 5 employees of its 234, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed 579 employees of its 11,000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed 836 of its 1,166 employees, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed 436 of its 527 employees. One issue is these agencies are not particularly representative of the bureaucracy as a whole—the IBWC and FERC are independent commissions, and OMB is deeply embedded in the White House—and so it remains unclear exactly how many employees would be affected by a future implementation of Schedule F. However, the authors of Schedule F have definite intentions for its use and assumptions of how many employees it might affect. The executive order was largely crafted and written by James Sherk, a member of the Domestic Policy Council focusing on labor policy. In 2017, he submitted a memo entitled “Proposed Labor Reforms,” in which he argued for the possibility that “Article II executive power gives the president inherent authority to dismiss any federal employee. This implies civil service legislation,as well as other protections for federal employees, (such as preventing their dismissal for joining a union) are unconstitutional. If so, the President could issue an Executive Order outlining a streamlined new process for dismissing federal employees”. Three years later, he would see that executive order realized in the creation of Schedule F. At a panel discussion for the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in 2023, he continued to argue in favor of this proposition, saying that “every federal employee should serve at the pleasure of the president”. Given the limited data submitted by agencies, there’s no set number of employees Schedule F might affect. Experts, and Sherk himself, have estimated around 50,000, although Sherk noted the number as a low estimate., In the same NAPA seminar, he said that “I think there's ways you could broaden the scope of the order…I think you could expand it beyond 50,000. Say to like, 200,000. 300,000.” Former Trump administration officials have reportedly “saved lists of previous appointees…as well as career officers they viewed as uncooperative and would seek to fire based on an executive order to weaken civil service protections”, although such lists have not been made public. But having the ability to fire employees, or doing so, doesn’t necessarily mean the administration would be able to fill the positions. The Trump administration was slower than other administrations to nominate officials to key positions, other civil servants rated Trump appointees as less competent than previous Republican administrations or career civil servants, and the Trump administration faced difficulties finding even officials to fill top-level positions. While the Trump administration was able to authorize and fill about as many Schedule C positions as previous administrations, that doesn’t necessarily mean they would be able to fill Schedule F positions given the vastly larger number of them. Besides the numerical scope of its effects, Schedule F was also defended as necessary to improve the efficiency of the federal bureaucracy. The text of the executive order itself cited “long delays and substandard-quality work for important agency projects” as part of its rationale, and stated “agencies need the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees”. Many stakeholders that GAO interviewed acknowledged that the speed of federal hiring should be improved, and that Schedule F would streamline that process; one also told GAO that “employees in Schedule F positions should be…more motivated to quickly and effectively implement the President’s policy agenda”. Criticism of a slow-moving and unresponsive bureaucracy, in which onerous hiring procedures and strict removal protections hamstring the agencies themselves, has been long-standing. Presidents and agencies alike have bipartisanly seen problems in the hiring process and sought to reform it: the US National Performance Review in 1993 wrote that “hiring is complex and rule-bound” in the civil service; a Bush-era report from the Merit Systems Protection Board wrote in favor of reform that would “provide agencies the flexibilities they need to effectively manage” and recommended that OPM should “speed the process” of federal hiring; and the Obama administration in turn issued guidance on simplifying and overhauling the civil service hiring process. The picture is little better in terms of firing underperforming employees: it’s long been understood that civil protections reduce the power of incentives, such that employees in government see little connection between performance and job security. But Schedule F seems unlikely to accomplish these reforms in a way that benefits government performance. Several of the stakeholders which GAO spoke to said that Schedule F could make recruitment of federal employees more difficult, as potential applicants might be leery of taking a Schedule F position if they believed they could be removed after a change in administration or for other political reasons. This is in line with the theory advanced by Gailmard and Patty, which states that civil servants are incentivized to build expertise when tenure provides them the stability to make such an investment. David Lewis writes in his book The Politics of Presidential Appointments, drawing on the example of the OPM in the 1980s and 1990s, that, while “politicization helped change policy,” it came at the expense of “long-term agency capacity and reputation…experienced career professionals left the agency and it was hard to replace them [or] recruit bright young people to work in the agency.” New meta-analysis of the meritocratic civil services on government performances found that associated practices such as tenure or merit-based hiring are broadly associated with stronger government performance and lower corruption. With an eye towards a potential future reissuing of the executive order, authors conclude that “converting career employees to Schedule F and removing their civil service protections is likely to degrade government performance”. Rulemaking To Prevent the Reinstatement of Schedule F The Biden administration and Democrats more broadly share similar concerns about Schedule F’s potential impact on the federal government were it to be reinstated by Trump or another future administration. Congressional Democrats have attempted multiple times to pass bills which would prevent Schedule F’s reinstatement or add amendments blocking Schedule F to must-pass defense appropriation bills. However, their efforts have been blocked by Republicans. Bypassing the legislative method, Biden’s OPM released on September 18, 2023, a proposed rule entitled “Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit Systems Principles,” aimed as a regulatory method to prevent future administrations from reissuing Schedule F. The rule would: allow employees moved from the competitive service to the excepted service to retain their civil service protections unless the employee voluntarily relinquishes them. redefine “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating”—the language which Sherk and the Trump White House relied on to craft the executive order—to mean only non-career, political appointees. allow employees moved from the competitive service to the excepted service to appeal the move to the MSPB. This would, in essence, cut out the heart of Schedule F: removing its legal basis and specifying that converted employees retain tenure protections, such that converting their positions to the excepted service does not make them at-will employees. OPM draws its authority to make these changes from Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the United States Code, specifically 5 U.S. Code § 7514 and 5 U.S. Code § 7504, both sections which give OPM broad discretion to regulate civil service protections for federal employees. OPM also asserts its authority based on 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5) and 5 U.S.C. 1302 to make specific regulations about the procedures of moving employees between the competitive and excepted service, pointing out that OPM has repeatedly exercised that authority in the past (and indeed, regulated that movement in the implementation of Schedule F). The proposed rule closed its 60-day comment period on November 17, 2023, during which time it received 4,096 comments. With the strong support of the Biden administration and the leadership of OPM behind it, the rule is expected to move forward. However, the proposed rule has been the target of criticism by Republicans and people associated with the Trump 2024 campaign—which gives OPM a potential impending deadline. Almost certainly, if Trump wins the 2024 election and the rule is not finalized by his inauguration, he will direct the OPM to drop it; and even a finalized rule could be subject to overturning by a potential Republican Congress under the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a tool that Congress can use to overturn federal regulatory actions, which was enacted as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in 1996. The CRA requires that agencies submit finalized rules to Congress and the GAO 60 legislative days before they take effect: if Congress passes a resolution of disapproval of the rule within that time period and the President signs it, or if Congress passes such a resolution over a presidential veto, then the rule cannot go into effect. Because of the threat (and exercise) of presidential veto power, rules have been overturned under the CRA only immediately following a change in presidential administration, in 2001, 2017, and 2021. However, the deadline for finalized rules to avoid CRA review by a potentially hostile Congress or President is not just 60 days before a new president could be inaugurated (that is, late November). Congress has 60 legislative days to consider rules—and if Congress adjourns sine die during that period, the 60-day period resets in its entirety beginning on the 15th day of the new legislative session, in what’s known as a “lookback” period. In 2017, that meant that the Republican Congress was able to disapprove of rules finalized as far back as May 2016. Thus, in order to be certain that it will go into effect, OPM must finalize its rule by mid-2024. But the question is if it will be able to do so by then. In the 2023 Fall Unified Agenda, published by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OPM specified that it is targeting April 2024 for publication of a final rule. Based on historical precedent, this would provide the rule enough time to avoid reconsideration and potential disapproval from the next Congress. But OPM’s projected timeline may be overly optimistic, given its past timelines in publishing final rules. I collected data on finalized OPM rules between 2023 and 2013 in the Federal Register and examined how long it took between publication of the proposed rule and publication of the finalized rule. Since OPM’s proposed rule at hand of upholding civil-service protections has been defined as “significant” under Executive Order 12866 (likely due to its potential to “raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates [or] the President’s priorities”), I restricted my search to only those rules which were similarly deemed significant, as they require a full review by OIRA that lengthens the rulemaking process. I also did not include OPM rules that were issued only as interim final rules rather than undergoing a full notice-and-comment period. The full list of all OPM rules meeting these criteria and their timelines can be found in Appendix A. Below are the summarized results: FIGURE 1: OPM RULEMAKING AVERAGE TIMELINE Notes: The timeline of OPM rulemaking is defined as the number of days between OPM’s publication of a proposed rule and the publication of a final rule. Several outlier rules took more than three years to be finalized. Data sourced from the Federal Register, 2013-2023. FIGURE 2. OPM RULEMAKING TIMELINE BY YEAR Notes: OPM published no significant final rules in 2017. Data sourced from the Federal Register 2013-2023. On average, it took 473 days between OPM issuing a proposed rule and OPM issuing a final rule. Even after eliminating the major outlier rule that took nearly 6 years to finalize, the data still suggests that it generally takes over a year to finalize a rule after it is proposed. Though the timeline varies slightly year by year, there is no clear pattern that would allow us to infer that the OPM of 2023-2024 finalizes rules significantly faster or slower than the OPM of, say, 2013-2014. If this timeline holds for OPM’s rule undercutting Schedule F, we can project that OPM will finalize the rule sometime in December 2024—too late to avoid a potential disapproval under the CRA. However, one case study of similar civil-service rulemaking demonstrates that potential CRA review is not the same as certain CRA review. On September 17, 2019, the OPM under Trump issued a proposed rule that would more strictly enforce the probationary period before employees were accepted to a competitive service position and sought to streamline civil service removal procedures. In many ways, this rule was a precursor to Schedule F, drawing on the same language and reasoning about an ineffective federal government that couldn’t remove underperforming employees. The rule was finalized on October 16, 2020, a timeline which would have allowed the 117th Congress under unified Democratic control to review and disapprove it. They didn’t. It’s not entirely clear why not: congressional disapproval of rules cannot be filibustered in the Senate, and 20 days after their proposal can be discharged for a floor vote by a minority of 30 Senators. More likely, the Democratic Congress preferred to let rollback occur through the agency processes: there were only three rule disapprovals in total in 2021 of Trump-era rules, but many more were overturned by agencies’ new leaders. But that process takes time, and so it was only in November 2022 when OPM finalized its rollback, meaning the Trump-era changes were in place for almost two full years of the Biden administration. The OPM’s proposed anti-Schedule F rule would likely follow a similar track. An OPM under Trump would certainly seek to undo it, even if the rule is successfully finalized and put into effect without disapproval—but as in the case above, it would likely take them months or years to do so. A rule undoing this one would also be open to legal challenges that an executive order would not be, and the Trump administration faced significant challenges in successful rulemaking. Previous administrations succeeded in roughly 70% of challenges to agency actions, while the Trump administration had a dismal 23% success rate in legal challenges due to bypassing procedural requirements, providing incomplete analyses of policy effects, or taking action which exceeded an agency’s statutory authority. Conclusion Whether or not OPM manages to finalize its rule and put it into effect successfully, the fight over the structure and protections of the civil service is unlikely to end in 2024 or beyond. In recent years, long-held civil service practices of non-politicization and tenure protections that were largely taken as established have come under increasing attack, largely from Republican officials and presidential candidates. In recent years, it’s the executive branch which has been most involved in determining the structure of federal civil service, from the Schedule F executive order to OPM’s proposed rulemaking, and attempts for similar legislation have been blocked or stalled out before making major progress, and research has largely focused on the president’s and agencies’ influence. But Congress has historically been the instrument of major changes to the civil service, from the Pendleton Act to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978—and it’s only recently that Congress has ceded that power to the executive. While research such as this examining the direction, scope, and timing of executive influence over civil service is certainly beneficial given the political context, one potential direction for further research could be an examination of Congress’ role in civil service in the past, and what potential legislative actions would be beneficial in future. References “5 U.S. Code § 7504 - Regulations.” LII / Legal Information Institute , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7504 . Accessed 14 Dec. 2023. “5 U.S. Code § 7511 - Definitions; Application.” LII / Legal Information Institute , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7511 . Accessed 13 Dec. 2023. “5 U.S. Code § 7514 - Regulations.” LII / Legal Information Institute , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7514 . Accessed 14 Dec. 2023. “116th Congress Legislative Calendar.” Ballotpedia , https://ballotpedia.org/116th_Congress_legislative_calendar . Accessed 14 Dec. 2023. Arnsdorf, Isaac, et al. “Trump and Allies Plot Revenge, Justice Department Control in a Second Term.” Washington Post , 6 Nov. 2023. www.washingtonpost.com , https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/ . Bellini, Jason. “Trump’s Tool for Undoing Obama-Era Regulations.” WSJ , 18 Feb. 2017, https://www.wsj.com/video/trumps-tool-for-undoing-obama-era-regulations/DA82F16D-2ED0-47F0-984B-A9A873E2F9A0 . Carey, Maeve P., and Christopher M. Davis. “The Congressional Review Act (CRA): A Brief Overview.” Congressional Research Service , Feb. 2023. Davis Noll, Bethany. ‘Tired of Winning’: Judicial Review of Regulatory Policy in the Trump Era . 4426370, 22 Apr. 2021. Social Science Research Network , https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4426370 . Dawsey, Josh, et al. “In Trump’s Final Days, a 30-Year-Old Aide Purges Officials Seen as Insufficiently Loyal.” Washington Post , 14 Nov. 2020. www.washingtonpost.com , https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-white-house-purge/2020/11/13/2af12c94-25ca-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html . Drezner, Daniel W. “Perspective | How Hard up Is President Trump in Staffing His Administration? Pretty Hard Up!” Washington Post , 19 June 2019. www.washingtonpost.com , https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/how-hard-up-is-president-trump-staffing-his-administration-pretty-hard-up/ . “Employment and Trends - September.” U.S. Office of Personnel Management , Sept. 2013, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/employment-trends-data/2013/september/ . Forum on Schedule F and the Future of the Public Service . Directed by NAPA WASH, 2023. YouTube , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSUY9ito9TM . Friedman, Drew. “Democrats Revive Anti-Schedule F Bill, with a Few Tweaks and a New Name.” Federal News Network , 14 Feb. 2023, https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2023/02/democrats-revive-anti-schedule-f-bill-with-a-few-tweaks-and-a-new-name/ . Gailmard, Sean, and John W. Patty. Learning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch . University of Chicago Press, 2012. GAO. Civil Service: Agency Responses and Perspectives on Former Executive Order to Create a New Schedule F Category of Federal Positions | U.S. GAO . 28 Sept. 2022, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105504 . Lewis, David E. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance . Princeton University Press, 2008. JSTOR , https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rnqz . Lewis, David E., and Mark D. Richardson. “The Very Best People: President Trump and the Management of Executive Personnel.” Presidential Studies Quarterly , vol. 51, no. 1, 2021, pp. 51–70. Wiley Online Library , https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12697 . Makita, Jun. “A Study of the Functions of Political Appointees from a Comparative Perspective.” Asian Journal of Comparative Politics , vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2022, pp. 146–61. SAGE Journals , https://doi.org/10.1177/20578911211036943 . Moynihan, Don. “A Tangible Thing You Can Do Today to Fight Trump’s Takeover of the Federal Government.” Can We Still Govern? , 15 Nov. 2023, https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/a-tangible-thing-you-can-do-today . Moynihan, Donald P. “Public Management for Populists: Trump’s Schedule F Executive Order and the Future of the Civil Service.” Public Administration Review , vol. 82, no. 1, 2022, pp. 174–78. Wiley Online Library , https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13433 . MSPB. “Reforming Federal Hiring - Beyond Faster and Cheaper.” Office of Policy and Hiring , 2006. OIG. “Evaluation of the Department of State’s Use of Schedule B Hiring Authority.” OIG , 2018. OIRA. “View Rule: Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles.” Reginfo.Gov , https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=3206-AO56 . Accessed 14 Dec. 2023. Oliveira, Eloy, et al. “What Does the Evidence Tell Us about Merit Principles and Government Performance?” Public Administration , vol. n/a, no. n/a, June 2023. Wiley Online Library , https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12945 . OPM. “Probation on Initial Appointment to a Competitive Position, Performance-Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions and Adverse Actions.” Federal Register , 17 Sept. 2019, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/17/2019-19636/probation-on-initial-appointment-to-a-competitive-position-performance-based-reduction-in-grade-and . ---. “Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles.” Federal Register , 18 Sept. 2023, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/18/2023-19806/upholding-civil-service-protections-and-merit-system-principles . Peters, Gerhard, and John Wooley. “1956 Democratic Party Platform.” The American Presidency Project , https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1956-democratic-party-platform . Accessed 12 Dec. 2023. Rainey, Hal G. “Perceptions of Incentives in Business and Government: Implications for Civil Service Reform.” Public Administration Review , vol. 39, no. 5, 1979, pp. 440–48. JSTOR , https://doi.org/10.2307/3109918 . Rein, Lisa, et al. “Trump’s Historic Assault on the Civil Service Was Four Years in the Making.” Washington Post , 24 Oct. 2020. www.washingtonpost.com , https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html . “SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 1956.” CIA FOIA , 5 May 2010, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp63t00245r000100180018-2 . Swan, Jonathan, et al. “Biden Administration Aims to Trump-Proof the Federal Work Force.” The New York Times , 15 Sept. 2023. NYTimes.com , https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/trump-biden-schedule-f.html . Swan, Jonathan, and Maggie Haberman. “Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration.” The New York Times , 20 Apr. 2023. NYTimes.com , https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/us/politics/republican-president-2024-heritage-foundation.html . Thompson, James R. “Civil Service Reform Is Dead: Long Live Civil Service Reform.” Public Personnel Management , vol. 50, no. 4, Dec. 2021, pp. 584–609. SAGE Journals , https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020982026 . Trump, Donald. “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service.” The White House , https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/ . Accessed 13 Dec. 2023. Ungar, Bernard L. “Details of Schedule C Employees to the White House.” GAO , 1992. https://www.gao.gov/assets/t-ggd-92-28.pdf United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 2016 . U.S. Government Publishing Office, 1 Dec. 2016. DGPO , https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2016 . United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 2020 . U.S. Government Publishing Office, 1 Dec. 2020. DGPO , https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020 . Wagner, Erich. “Schedule F Architects Say the Plan’s Critics Are ‘Hyperbolic.’” Government Executive , 29 June 2023, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2023/06/schedule-f-architects-plans-critics-hyperbolic/388118/ . ---. “Year of the Living Dead: How Schedule F Continued to Threaten to Upend the Civil Service in 2022.” Government Executive , 28 Dec. 2022, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/12/year-living-dead-how-schedule-f-continued-threaten-upend-civil-service-2020/381257/ . Young, Philip. “Civil Service and Eisenhower Texts.” The New York Times , 1 Oct. 1956, p. 14.

Rewriting the Antitrust Setlist: Examining the Live Nation-Ticketmaster Lawsuit and its Implications for Modern Antitrust Law Katya Tolunsky Author Malcolm Furman Arjun Ray Editors I. Introduction On November 15, 2022, the music industry witnessed an unprecedented event that would become a turning point in discussions about ticketing practices and market dominance. Millions of devoted Taylor Swift fans were devastated when they failed to secure tickets for the highly anticipated Eras Tour. The ticket release sparked chaos, with fans enduring hours–even days–on Ticketmaster’s website, battling extended delays, technical glitches, and unpredictable price fluctuations. Despite their unwavering persistence, many “Swifties” were left empty-handed. This high-profile debacle ignited a firestorm of criticism from politicians and consumers alike, who questioned Ticketmaster’s apparent lack of preparedness for the overwhelming demand. While not an isolated incident of consumer dissatisfaction, the scale of this event and the passionate outcry from Swift’s fan base catapulted long-standing issues with ticket availability, pricing, and fees into the national spotlight. The “Swift ticket fiasco” became a catalyst for broader scrutiny of Ticketmaster’s business practices. Lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups called for investigations into the company’s business model, while accusations circulated about Ticketmaster leveraging its market power to stifle competition and maintain high fees. This perfect storm of events set the stage for a renewed examination of antitrust concerns in the live entertainment industry, bringing the anticompetitive practices of Live Nation-Ticketmaster into the public political and legal spotlight. On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment (the merged company) for allegedly violating the terms of a 2010 settlement, which required Ticketmaster to license its software to competitors and prohibited Live Nation from retaliating against venues that use competing ticketing services, and engaging in anticompetitive practices. The DOJ’s complaint argues that Live Nation has used its control over concert venues and artists to pressure venues into using Ticketmaster and to punish those that don’t, effectively excluding rival ticketing services from the market. the DOJ is suing Live Nation-Ticketmaster for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and monopolizing markets across the live concert industry. This suit raises important questions about the application of the Sherman Act and the evolving approach to antitrust enforcement in the United States. At the heart of this case lies a fundamental clash between two competing philosophies of antitrust enforcement. For decades, the Chicago School approach has dominated American antitrust law, focusing narrowly on consumer welfare through the lens of prices and economic efficiency. However, a new perspective has emerged to challenge this framework. The “New Brandeis” movement, named after Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and championed by current FTC Chair Lina Khan, advocates for a broader understanding of competition law that considers market structure, concentration of economic power, and impacts on democracy—not just consumer prices. As this movement antitrust movement gains prominence and momentum, the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case represents a critical test for the application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act in the digital age. The outcome of this case will set important precedents for how antitrust law is applied to companies that dominate multiple interconnected markets. This paper seeks to analyze the evolution of antitrust law in the context of this Live Nation-Ticketmaster lawsuit. First, this paper details the 2010 LiveNation/Ticketmaster merger, the extensive criticism of this merger, and the terms of the merger. Second, this paper delves into the relevant history of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the evolution and enforcement of antitrust and monopoly law in the last one hundred years. Additionally, to illustrate the scope of anticompetitive behavior and ways in which past antitrust cases have been prosecuted, the paper examines several notable cases concerning Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Third, this paper explores the recent shift in approach, characterized by the New Brandeis movement, to antitrust law and the broader debate surrounding the purpose and scope of antitrust enforcement. Lastly, this paper seeks to situate the Live Nation-Ticketmaster lawsuit in the context of this debate and analyze the implications and potential outcomes of this suit. Ultimately, this paper seeks to show that the DOJ’s original approval of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger in 2010 with behavioral remedies was inadequate in preventing anticompetitive practices and protecting consumer interests, and that structural remedies (such as breaking up the company) are necessary to restore effective competition in the live entertainment industry. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger in 2010 and its subsequent negative impact on consumers and the live entertainment industry serve as an excellent example to illustrate the insufficient nature of the traditional consumer welfare-focused antitrust enforcement in addressing the complexities of modern markets, particularly in industries like live entertainment where vertical integration can lead to subtle forms of anticompetitive behavior. By examining how Live Nation's market power is reinforced through its data advantages and “flywheel” business model, this paper demonstrates why traditional antitrust frameworks struggle to address such modern competitive dynamics. Ultimately, this paper argues that the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case demonstrates the need for a broader interpretation and more aggressive enforcement approach of antitrust law, aligning with the New Brandeis approach. II. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster Merger: Antitrust Considerations and Regulatory Response In 2010, Live Nation, the world’s largest concert promoter, merged with Ticketmaster, the world’s dominant ticketing platform. At the time of the merger, Ticketmaster held an effective monopoly in the ticket sales market, with an estimated 80% market share for concerts in large venues. In 2008, Live Nation launched its own ticketing platform, positioning itself as a rival to Ticketmaster by offering competitive pricing, leveraging its existing relationships with venues and artists, and promising to reduce service fees. This direct competition in ticketing, combined with Live Nation's dominant position in concert promotion, posed a significant threat to Ticketmaster's monopoly, which the merger would eliminate. Critics argued that the merger would lead to higher ticket prices, reduced competition, and a worse experience for consumers. In his 2009 testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Senior Fellow for the American Progress Action Fund David Balto said, “Eliminating a nascent competitor by acquisition raises the most serious antitrust concerns…By acquiring Ticketmaster, Live Nation will cut off the air supply for any future rival to challenge its monopoly in the ticket distribution market.” Despite this widespread criticism of the proposed merger and its potential consequences, the DOJ approved the merger. However, the DOJ still recognized the potential threats and consumer criticism of the merger. In response to these concerns, the DOJ referred to the limits of antitrust enforcement, noting that the DOJ’s role is to prevent anticompetitive harms from mergers, not to remake industries or address all consumer complaints. In a speech delivered on March 18th, 2010, titled “The Ticketmaster/Live Nation Merger Review and Consent Decree in Perspective,” Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Christine A Varney said: “Our concern is with competitive market structure, so our job is to prevent the anticompetitive harms that a merger presents. That is a limited role: whatever we might want a particular market to look like, a merger does not provide us an open invitation to remake an industry or a firm’s business model to make it more consumer friendly…In the course of investigating this merger, we heard many complaints about trends in the live music industry, and many complaints from consumers about Ticketmaster. I understand that people view Ticketmaster’s charges, and perhaps all ticketing fees in general, as unfair, too high, inescapable, and confusing. We heard that it is impossible to understand the litany of fees and why those fees have proliferated. I also understand that consolidation has been going on in the industry for some time and the resultant economic pressures facing local management companies and promoters. Those are meaningful concerns, but many of them are not antitrust concerns. If they come from a lack of effective competition, then we hope to treat them as symptoms as we seek to cure the underlying disease. Where such issues concern consumer fairness, however, they are better addressed by other federal agencies.” Varney’s statement delineates a narrow view of the DOJ's role in merger review, focusing primarily on preventing specific antitrust violations rather than addressing broader consumer concerns or industry trends. This approach suggests that the DOJ saw its mandate as limited to addressing anticompetitive harms directly related to the merger, rather than using the merger review process to address wider industry problems or consumer dissatisfaction that fall outside the scope of antitrust law. The merger itself included both horizontal (direct competitors merging) and vertical (different levels of supply chain merging) integration concerns. The DOJ approved the merger with certain conditions: Ticketmaster had to sell Paciolan (its self-ticketing company), Ticketmaster had to license its software to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), and most importantly, LiveNation was prohibited from retaliating against venues that use competing ticketing services. In the merger settlement, the DOJ stated that they would monitor compliance with the agreement for ten years and establish an Order Compliance Committee to receive reports of concerning behavior from industry players. The DOJ also emphasized the importance of industry participation in monitoring and reporting potential violations of the agreement or antitrust laws. These conditions were intended to address the most immediate competitive concerns raised by the merger. Thus, the DOJ primarily relied on behavioral remedies rather than structural changes, an approach that would later be criticized as insufficient to prevent anticompetitive practices. Structural changes, in contrast, could have involved more drastic measures such as requiring the divestiture of certain business units, breaking up the merged entity into separate companies, or imposing limitations on the company's ability to operate in multiple segments of the live entertainment industry. These types of structural remedies aim to fundamentally alter the company's market position and capabilities, rather than merely regulating its behavior. In addition, the reliance on industry self-reporting and time-limited monitoring also raised questions about the long-term effectiveness of these measures. In retrospect, the DOJ’s approach to the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger exemplifies the limitations of traditional antitrust enforcement in addressing complex, vertically integrated industries. By focusing on narrow, immediate competitive effects and relying heavily on behavioral remedies, the DOJ underestimated the long-term impact of the merger on market dynamics in the live entertainment industry. This case would later become a touchstone in debates about the adequacy of existing antitrust frameworks and the need for more comprehensive approaches to merger review and enforcement. III. The Sherman Act and the Evolution of Antitrust Jurisprudence The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was a landmark piece of legislation that emerged from the economic and political turmoil of the late 19th century’s Gilded Age. This era saw rapid industrialization and the rise of powerful trusts and monopolies that dominated key industries such as oil, steel, and railroads. These business entities, through their immense economic power, were able to stifle competition, manipulate prices, and exert immense influence on the political process. Public outcry against these practices grew, with farmers, small business owners, and laborers demanding government action to curb corporate excess. In response to these concerns, the Sherman Act became the first federal legislation to outlaw monopolistic business practices, particularly by prohibiting trusts. A trust in this context was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies would transfer their shares to a single set of trustees, receiving in exchange a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. This structure allowed for the concentration of economic power that the Act sought to prevent. The Sherman Act outlawed all contracts and conspiracies that unreasonably restrained interstate and foreign trade. Its authors believed that an efficient free market system was only possible with robust competition. While the Act targeted trusts, it also addressed monopolies – markets where a single company controls an entire industry. While the Sherman Act broadly addresses anticompetitive practices, Section 2 is particularly relevant to analyze the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case as it directly pertains to monopolization. Section 2 of the Sherman Act specifically prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracies to monopolize. Essentially, it outlaws the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through unfair practices. However, it’s important to note that the purpose of Section 2 is not to eliminate monopolies entirely, but rather to promote a market-based economy and preserve competition. This nuanced approach taken by Section 2 recognizes that some monopolies may arise from superior business acumen or innovation, and only seeks to prevent those achieved or maintained through anticompetitive means. The Sherman Act laid the foundation for antitrust law in the United States, reflecting a societal commitment to maintaining competitive markets and limiting the concentration of economic power. Its passage marked a significant shift in the government’s role in regulating business practices and shaping the economic landscape. While the Sherman Act laid the groundwork for antitrust law in the United States, it was supplemented by two important pieces of legislation in 1914: the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Clayton Act expanded on the Sherman Act by prohibiting specific anticompetitive practices such as price discrimination, exclusive dealing contracts, tying arrangements, and mergers that substantially lessen competition. The Federal Trade Commission Act created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent regulatory agency to prevent unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts or practices in commerce. Together, these Acts addressed some of the Sherman Act’s limitations and provided more specific guidelines for antitrust enforcement, further solidifying the government’s commitment to maintaining competitive markets. The distinction between the Clayton Act and Sherman Act is particularly relevant to understanding the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case. Section 7 of the Clayton Act governs merger review, requiring pre-emptive intervention to prevent mergers that may substantially lessen competition. In contrast, Section 2 of the Sherman Act addresses anticompetitive conduct by existing monopolists. The 2010 Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger was reviewed under Clayton Act Section 7’s forward-looking standard, while the 2024 case challenges ongoing anticompetitive conduct under Sherman Act Section 2. This dual application of antitrust law to the same company highlights the complementary yet distinct roles of merger review and monopolization enforcement. The early enforcement and interpretation of the Sherman Act were shaped by landmark cases that helped define the scope and application of antitrust law. In Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911), the Supreme Court established the “rule of reason” approach to analyzing antitrust violations. This case resulted in the breakup of Standard Oil, demonstrating the Act’s power to dismantle monopolies. The Court held that only “unreasonable” restraints of trade were prohibited, introducing a more limited interpretation of the Act. The “rule of reason” approach meant that the Court would consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether a particular restraint of trade was unreasonable. The case also established that the Sherman Act should be interpreted in light of its broad policy goals rather than strictly construed. This approach had a significant impact on future antitrust enforcement. It allowed for a more flexible and adaptive application of the Act, enabling courts and regulators to address new forms of anticompetitive behavior as markets evolved. This interpretive framework empowered enforcers to look beyond the literal text of the Act and consider the overarching aims of promoting competition and protecting consumer welfare. As a result, antitrust enforcement could more effectively respond to changing economic conditions and business practices, particularly as industries became more complex and interconnected in the 20th century. Later, in United States v. Alcoa (1945), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit further refined the interpretation of the Sherman Act. Judge Learned Hand’s opinion clarified that merely possessing monopoly power is not illegal; rather, the Act prohibits the deliberate acquisition or maintenance of that power through exclusionary practices. Alcoa thus established an important distinction between achieving monopoly through superior skill, foresight, and industry, which is lawful, and maintaining it through anticompetitive conduct, which violates the Act. These cases illustrate the evolving understanding of the Sherman Act, moving from a strict interpretation to a more nuanced approach that considered market dynamics and the effects of business practices on competition. The mid-20th century saw a significant shift in antitrust enforcement characterized by a structural approach that focused on market concentration and firm size. This era, roughly spanning from the late 1930s to the early 1960s, was characterized by a prevailing view among federal antitrust authorities, economists, and policymakers that high market concentration was inherently harmful to competition. The passage of the Celler-Kefauver Act in 1950, which strengthened merger control, exemplified this approach. Influenced by economists from the Harvard School of industrial organization, particularly Joe Bain, antitrust authorities presumed that market structure determined conduct and performance. This “structure-conduct-performance” paradigm, central to the Harvard School's approach, posited that industry structure (like concentration levels) directly influenced firm behavior and market outcomes. This led to aggressive enforcement actions, including the breakup of large firms and the blocking of mergers that would have significantly increased market concentration. However, by the mid-1960s, antitrust thinking began to evolve, considering both market structure and firm conduct. This shift was reflected in the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case United States v. Grinnell Corp. , which established the modern two-part test for monopolization. The Grinnell test requires proof of both “the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market” and “the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” This test, while still considering market power, introduced a focus on how that power was obtained or maintained. While the earlier era did consider power acquisition to some extent, the Grinnell test formalized and emphasized this aspect. It required a more comprehensive examination of a firm’s conduct and its effects on competition, moving beyond the primarily structural approach that often presumed anticompetitive effects from high market concentration alone. The Grinnell test has since been widely applied in monopolization cases under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, reflecting a more nuanced approach that aims to preserve competition without necessarily eliminating all monopolies. This evolution in antitrust enforcement demonstrates a move towards balancing concerns about market structure with considerations of firm conduct and efficiency. However, this balanced approach would soon give way to a more dramatic shift in antitrust philosophy that prioritized economic efficiency above other considerations. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Chicago School of Economics profoundly influenced the trajectory and scope of antitrust law and policy in the United States. This approach, led by economists and legal scholars such as Robert Bork, Richard Posner, and George Stigler, represented a significant shift in antitrust thinking. The Chicago School advocated for the “consumer welfare” standard as the primary goal of antitrust policy. This approach focused on economic efficiency and lower prices for consumers, rather than protecting competitors or maintaining a particular market structure. They argued that many practices previously considered anticompetitive could actually benefit consumers through increased efficiency. For example, Chicago School theorists argued that many mergers, even those that increased market concentration, could lead to efficiencies that benefit consumers. These efficiencies could manifest in several ways: through economies of scale that reduce production costs and potentially lower prices; through improved resource allocation that enhances product quality or variety; or through increased innovation. The Chicago School contended that these efficiency gains could outweigh potential negative effects of increased market concentration, ultimately resulting in net benefits for consumers in the form of lower prices, better products, or increased innovation. This led to a more lenient approach to DOJ merger review, with a higher bar for proving that a merger would harm competition. Vertical mergers (between companies at different levels of the supply chain) were viewed particularly favorably, as they were seen as potentially efficiency-enhancing. The Chicago School was skeptical of claims that vertical integration or vertical restraints (like exclusive dealing arrangements) were inherently anticompetitive. They argued that these practices often had pro-competitive justifications and should be judged based on their economic effects rather than per se rules. The Chicago School was driven by a strong belief in the self-correcting nature of markets. This thinking greatly influenced antitrust enforcement agencies and courts during the Reagan administration and beyond. It led to a significant reduction in antitrust enforcement actions and a higher bar for proving anticompetitive harm. This shift represented a move away from the structural approach of the mid-20th century towards a more economics-focused, effects-based analysis of competitive harm. Antitrust attorney William Markham offers a scathing critique of the consumer welfare standard’s impact on antitrust enforcement. He argues that since the late 1970s, courts have adopted increasingly restrictive antitrust doctrines based on this standard, which he views as misnamed and harmful to consumers. Markham contends that these doctrines have allowed various forms of monopolistic and anticompetitive practices to flourish unchecked. He states that the standard permits such practices “so long as the offenders take care not to charge prices that are demonstrably and provably supracompetitive.” This critique highlights how the narrow focus on consumer prices under the consumer welfare standard may overlook other forms of competitive harm. It’s important to understand this context when examining more recent developments and debates in antitrust law, including the challenges posed by digital markets and the arguments of the New Brandeis movement. IV. Judicial Interpretation of Section 2: Key Cases and Anticompetitive Practices To better understand how Section 2 of the Sherman Act has been applied in practice, it’s important to examine key antitrust cases that have shaped its interpretation and enforcement. These cases not only illustrate various types of anti-competitive practices but also demonstrate the evolution of antitrust thinking, particularly the rising influence of the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard and subsequent challenges to this approach. Anticompetitive practices can take many forms, including refusals to deal, predatory pricing, tying, and exclusive dealing arrangements. Their legality often depends on specific facts, market conditions, and the prevailing economic theories of the time. This section examines several landmark cases that highlight these practices and trace the trajectory of antitrust law from the mid-1980s through the early 2000s, a period marked by significant shifts in antitrust philosophy and enforcement approaches. The 1985 Supreme Court case Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. marked a significant development in antitrust law’s approach to refusal to deal practices, a type of anticompetitive behavior where a firm with market power declines to do business with a competitor. The case involved Aspen Skiing Company, which owned three of four ski areas in Aspen, CO, discontinuing a long-standing joint lift ticket program with Aspen Highlands, the owner of the fourth area. While the Chicago School approachgenerally viewed refusals to deal as permissible, the Court in this case took a different stance. It ruled that this refusal to continue a voluntary cooperative venture could violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, as it lacked any normal business justification and appeared designed to eliminate competition. This decision, occurring early in the ascendancy of the Chicago School, demonstrated a willingness to consider factors beyond short-term consumer welfare in antitrust analysis. Justice Stevens’ opinion emphasized the importance of intent in determining whether conduct is “exclusionary,” “anticompetitive,” or “predatory,” introducing a more contextualized approach to assessing market behavior. While not fully embracing the consumer welfare standard, the Court did consider the impact on consumers, noting that the joint ticket was popular and its elimination inconvenienced skiers. This case thus represents a crucial step in the evolution of antitrust law, bridging the gap between earlier, more aggressive interpretations of the Sherman Act and the more economics-focused analyses that would follow. It expanded the scope of antitrust enforcement by establishing that, in some cases, even a unilateral refusal to deal could be considered anticompetitive. Aspen Skiing set the stage for later cases dealing with complex market dynamics, particularly in industries where control over key resources or platforms can significantly impact competition – a concept that becomes increasingly relevant in the digital age and in cases like the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger. As antitrust thinking continued to evolve, the influence of the Chicago School became more pronounced, as evidenced in subsequent landmark cases. This shift was reinforced by changes in the Supreme Court’s composition during the 1970s and 1980s, with appointments by Presidents Nixon and Reagan bringing more conservative justices to the bench who were often sympathetic to Chicago School economic theories. This changing court composition, coupled with the growing academic influence of the Chicago School, contributed to the changes in antitrust jurisprudence. The 1993 Supreme Court case Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. marked a significant move in the treatment of predatory pricing claims, reflecting the growing dominance of the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard. Predatory pricing occurs when a firm prices its products below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of the market, allowing the predator to later raise prices and recoup its losses. In this case, the Brooke Group accused Brown & Williamson of predatory pricing in the generic cigarette market. The Court established a two-pronged test for predatory pricing: (1) the plaintiff must prove that the prices are below an appropriate measure of cost, and (2) the plaintiff must demonstrate that the predator had a “reasonable prospect” of recouping its losses. This stringent standard, making predatory pricing claims extremely difficult to prove, clearly reflects the Chicago School’s skepticism towards such claims against firms. The Court’s reasoning prioritized short-term consumer benefits (lower prices) over long-term competitive concerns, embodying the consumer welfare standard. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion explicitly cited Chicago School scholars, demonstrating how economic theory had come to dominate antitrust jurisprudence. This case illustrates how the Chicago School approach narrowed the scope of antitrust enforcement, potentially allowing some anticompetitive practices to escape scrutiny if they resulted in short-term consumer benefits. In the context of cases like Live Nation-Ticketmaster, this ruling underscores the challenges in proving anticompetitive behavior when short-term consumer benefits are present. The rise of the digital economy in the late 1990s and early 2000s presented new challenges to antitrust enforcement, leading to a reconsideration of established doctrines. While the Chicago School’s influence remained strong, the emergence of new technologies and business models began to test the limits of its consumer welfare-focused approach. The United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001) case marked a pivotal moment in antitrust law’s application to the emerging digital economy, introducing new considerations for tying and monopoly maintenance in software markets. Tying occurs when a company requires customers who purchase one product to also purchase a separate product, potentially leveraging dominance in one market to gain advantage in another. The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly in the PC operating systems market by tying its Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system and engaging in exclusionary contracts with PC manufacturers and Internet service providers. This case challenged the Chicago School's typically permissive view of tying arrangements, which often saw them as enhancing efficiency from a consumer welfare standpoint. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Microsoft had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, finding that Microsoft’s practices, in aggregate, served to maintain its monopoly power by stifling competition from potential disruptors like Netscape’s browser and Sun’s Java technologies. While the court’s analysis still employed the consumer welfare standard, it showed a willingness to consider a broader range of anticompetitive effects, including harm to innovation and potential future competition. This approach reflected a nuanced evolution of antitrust thinking, acknowledging the unique characteristics of software markets and the rapid pace of technological change. Microsoft set important precedents for how antitrust law could be applied to fast-moving technology markets and platform economies, influencing later cases involving tech giants and potentially informing the analysis of platform-based businesses like Live Nation-Ticketmaster. It demonstrated that even in the era of Chicago School dominance, courts could adapt antitrust principles to address new forms of market power in the digital age. The resulting settlement, which imposed behavioral remedies rather than structural ones, sparked ongoing debates about the adequacy of traditional antitrust tools in addressing the unique characteristics of digital markets. Despite the more comprehensive and context-specific approach in Microsoft , the influence of the Chicago School remained strong, as demonstrated in the next significant case. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (2004) significantly narrowed the scope of antitrust liability for refusal to deal, revisiting and limiting the principles established in Aspen Skiing . In this case, Trinko, a law firm and Verizon customer, alleged that Verizon had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by providing insufficient assistance to new competitors in the local telephone service market, as required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled in favor of Verizon, significantly limiting the circumstances under which a refusal to deal could violate antitrust law. Unlike in Aspen Skiing , where there was a history of voluntary cooperation, the Court emphasized that firms, even monopolists, generally have no duty to assist competitors. This ruling clearly reflects the Chicago School’s skepticism towards government intervention in markets and its focus on efficiency over other competitive concerns. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing firms to freely choose their business partners, arguing that forced cooperation could reduce companies’ incentives to invest and innovate. This aligns with the Chicago School’s concern about “false positives” in antitrust enforcement – the idea that overly aggressive antitrust action might mistakenly punish pro-competitive behavior, potentially discouraging beneficial business practices. By setting a high bar for refusal to deal claims, the Trinko decision further constrained the reach of antitrust law, potentially allowing monopolists more leeway in their dealings with competitors. By setting a high bar for refusal to deal claims, the Trinko decision further constrained the reach of antitrust law, potentially allowing monopolists more leeway in their dealings with competitors. This legal environment, which emphasized a narrow interpretation of anticompetitive behavior, set the stage for future mergers that consolidated market power across related industries. The 2010 approval of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger is a prime example of how this permissive approach to antitrust enforcement allowed for the creation of a vertically integrated entity with unprecedented control over the live entertainment industry. This case exemplifies how the Chicago School approach may have inadvertently created blind spots in antitrust enforcement, particularly regarding the long-term effects of monopoly power on innovation and competition. These cases collectively demonstrate the complex evolution of Section 2 application across various industries and business practices. From the nuanced approach in Aspen Skiing , through the height of Chicago School influence in Brooke Group and Trinko , to the adaptation to new technological challenges in Microsoft , they illustrate how antitrust law has grappled with changing economic theories and market realities. The cases show a clear trajectory of increasing influence of the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard, but also reveal moments of resistance or adaptation to this approach when confronted with novel market dynamics. The Microsoft case, in particular, marks a significant point in this evolution, demonstrating how courts began to recognize the unique challenges posed by the digital economy. By examining these cases, it is possible to trace how the interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act has shifted over time, reflecting changing economic theories and market realities. This evolution provides crucial context for understanding current debates about antitrust enforcement, particularly in rapidly evolving digital markets, and sets the stage for the emergence of new approaches like the New Brandeis movement. In considering the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case, this historical context helps to understand the complex landscape of antitrust enforcement and the challenges in addressing anticompetitive behavior today. V. The New Brandeis Movement: Redefining Antitrust for the Modern Era The landscape of antitrust enforcement is undergoing a fundamental shift as new perspectives challenge long-held assumptions about competition law. The limitations of the Chicago School approach, particularly evident in cases like Microsoft and Trinko , have sparked a reimagining of antitrust’s fundamental purposes and tools. As University of Michigan Law Professor Daniel Crane noted recently, “the bipartisan consensus that antitrust should solely focus on economic efficiency and consumer welfare has quite suddenly come under attack from prominent voices [from the political left and right] calling for a dramatically enhanced role for antitrust law in mediating a variety of social, economic, and political friction points, including employment, wealth inequality, data privacy and security, and democratic values.” At the heart of this antitrust approach evolution lies a debate between the traditional consumer welfare-focused approach and the emerging New Brandeis movement. For decades, the standard approach has emphasized consumer welfare as the primary goal, focusing on economic efficiency and preventing practices that directly harm consumers through higher prices, reduced output, or decreased innovation. This framework has generally led to a more permissive attitude toward mergers and a higher bar for finding antitrust violations. In contrast, the New Brandeis movement, championed by figures like FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan, advocates for a broader understanding of antitrust law’s goals. This perspective, sometimes critically dubbed “hipster antitrust,” contends that enforcement should consider additional factors such as market structure, the distribution of economic power, and the impact on workers, small businesses, and political democracy. The movement’s proponents have been particularly vocal about the need to reassess antitrust approaches in the context of the digital economy, expressing concern over the power wielded by large tech platforms. Lina Khan, a prominent figure in contemporary antitrust discourse, has developed an extensive body of work articulating the principles of the New Brandeis movement. In her article “The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Debate,” Khan outlines this approach, which draws inspiration from Justice Louis Brandeis’s support of “America’s Madisonian traditions—which aim at a democratic distribution of power and opportunity in the political economy.” The movement represents a significant departure from the Chicago School of antitrust thinking. While the Chicago School emphasized efficiency, prices, and consumer welfare, the New Brandeis approach advocates for a return to a market structure-oriented competition policy. Key tenets include viewing economic power as intrinsically tied to political power, recognizing that some industries naturally tend towards monopoly and require regulation, emphasizing the structures and processes of competition rather than just outcomes, and rejecting the notion of natural market “forces” naturally leading to optimal economic outcomes or consumer welfare, instead understanding markets as fundamentally shaped and structured by law and policy. In her article “The Ideological Roots of America’s Market Power Problem,” Khan further critiques the current antitrust framework, arguing that it has weakened enforcement and allowed high concentration of market power across sectors. She asserts that addressing this issue requires challenging the ideological underpinnings of the current framework, writing, “Identifying paths for greater enforcement within a framework that systematically disfavors enforcement will fall short of addressing the scope of the market power problem we face today.” Ultimately, Khan and other New Brandeis proponents argue for a fundamental rethinking of antitrust’s goals and methods, advocating a return to its original purpose of distributing economic power and preserving democratic values. Building upon her critique of current antitrust frameworks, Khan has written extensively about the unique challenges posed by big tech companies, arguing that traditional enforcement methods are inadequate to address their market power. In her influential article “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” Khan contends that the current antitrust framework is ill-equipped to tackle the anticompetitive effects of digital platforms like Amazon. These platforms, she argues, can leverage their market power and access to data to engage in predatory pricing, disadvantage rivals, and entrench their dominance. Khan writes in the abstract, “This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to ‘consumer welfare,’ defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output.” The article explains that despite Amazon’s massive growth, it generates low profits, often pricing products below cost and focusing on expansion rather than short-term gains. This strategy has allowed Amazon to expand far beyond retail, becoming a major player in various sectors including marketing, publishing, entertainment, hardware manufacturing, and cloud computing. Khan argues that this positions Amazon as a critical platform for many other businesses. She further elaborates, “First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.” Khan argues that in platform markets like Amazon's, predatory pricing can be rational even if product prices appear to be at market rates. This is because the goal is not immediate profit, but rather to rapidly expand market share and establish dominance. The company can sustain short-term losses or razor-thin margins on product sales because the real value lies in becoming the dominant platform, which can lead to long-term profitability through various means such as data collection. Traditional antitrust doctrine, however, often assumes that below-cost pricing is irrational unless the company can quickly recoup its losses through higher prices, which may not apply in these complex, multi-sided markets. This creates a “paradox” where Amazon’s practices may be anticompetitive, yet they escape scrutiny under existing regulations. To address Amazon’s market power, one of Khan’s major suggestions includes restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles to its more structure-oriented approach. Khan’s influential academic critiques of current antitrust frameworks, particularly her analysis of Amazon’s market power, laid the groundwork for her approach as FTC chair, where she has sought to translate these ideas into concrete enforcement actions. Since Lina Khan’s appointment as chair of the FTC in 2021 by President Joe Biden, the agency has embarked on a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, challenging some of America’s largest corporations and implementing significant policy shifts. This new direction has yielded mixed results and sparked debates about the future of competition policy in the United States. Khan’s FTC has increased scrutiny of Big Tech, filing an amended antitrust complaint against Facebook (Meta) that challenges its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and suing to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing competition concerns in the video game industry. The agency has also initiated actions against other tech giants like Amazon. Under Khan’s leadership, the FTC has implemented stricter merger enforcement, including a more aggressive approach to reviewing mergers, particularly vertical mergers. The agency withdrew the 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines, signaling skepticism towards vertical integration, and revised merger guidelines in collaboration with the Department of Justice. There’s also been an increased focus on “killer acquisitions” where large companies buy potential competitors. Khan has emphasized structural remedies over behavioral ones, advocating for more dramatic interventions like breaking up companies in certain cases. Additionally, recognizing the growing importance of data as a competitive asset, the FTC has integrated privacy and data protection concerns into its antitrust approach. For instance, the agency pursued a case against data broker Kochava for selling sensitive geolocation data, highlighting how control over user data can contribute to market power and potentially anticompetitive practices in the digital economy. The implementation of Khan’s approach has seen both successes and setbacks. Partial victories include the FTC v. Facebook (Meta) case, where the court allowed a revised complaint to proceed, and the FTC v. Illumina/Grail case, where the agency successfully challenged a vertical merger, albeit on largely traditional antitrust grounds. However, the FTC faced a setback when its attempt to block Meta’s acquisition of Within Unlimited was rejected. Ongoing challenges persist as courts have shown varying degrees of receptiveness to the expanded view of antitrust harm. As of April 2024, there had been no definitive high-level court ruling fully endorsing or rejecting the New Brandeis approach, with many decisions still relying heavily on the consumer welfare standard. Khan also faces political opposition and challenges to her rule-making initiatives. While Khan has successfully shifted the FTC’s focus towards more aggressive antitrust enforcement and brought increased attention to issues like data privacy and labor market effects, the legal and practical adoption of the New Brandeis philosophy remains a work in progress. The evolving legal landscape sets the stage for analyzing how future cases, such as potential actions against Ticketmaster, might proceed under this new, more expansive view of antitrust enforcement. VI. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster Case: A Critical Analysis of Market Power and Competitive Effects In May 2024, the DOJ, in addition to 30 state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Ticketmaster “for monopolization and other unlawful conduct that thwarts competition in markets across the live entertainment industry.” More specifically, the DOJ accused Live Nation for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In a subsequent press release, the DOJ highlighted several key issues resulting from Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s conduct. The DOJ argued that the company’s practices have led to a lack of innovation in ticketing, higher prices for U.S. consumers compared to other countries, and the use of outdated technology. Further, the DOJ asserted that Live Nation-Ticketmaster “exercises its power over performers, venues, and independent promoters in ways that harm competition” and “imposes barriers to competition that limit the entry and expansion of its rivals.” The lawsuit, which calls for structural relief – primarily the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster – aims to reintroduce competition in the live concert industry, offer fans better options at more affordable prices, and create more opportunities for musicians and other performers at venues. The DOJ claims Live Nation-Ticketmaster uses a “flywheel” business model that self-reinforces its market dominance. This model involves using revenue from fans and sponsorships to secure exclusive deals with artists and venues, creating a cycle that excludes competitors. The complaint outlines several anti-competitive practices, including: partnering with potential rival Oak View Group to avoid competition, threatening retaliation against venues working with competitors, using long-term exclusive contracts with venues, restricting artists’ venue access unless they use Live Nation’s promotion services, and acquiring smaller competitors. The DOJ argues these practices create barriers for rivals to compete fairly. Live Nation Entertainment is the world’s largest live entertainment company, controlling numerous venues and generating over $22 billion in annual revenue globally. The DOJ’s action aims to address these alleged monopolistic practices in the live entertainment industry. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said, “We contend that Live Nation uses illegal and anti-competitive methods to dominate the live events industry in the U.S., negatively impacting fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators. This dominance leads to higher fees for fans, fewer concert opportunities for artists, reduced chances for smaller promoters, and limited ticketing options for venues. It’s time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.” Beyond traditional market control, Live Nation’s monopolistic position is further entrenched by its significant data advantages, which raise additional competitive and privacy concerns. Through its ticketing operations and venue management, Live Nation amasses vast amounts of consumer data, including purchasing habits, musical preferences, and demographic information. This data not only enhances Live Nation’s ability to target marketing and adjust pricing strategies but also creates a major barrier to entry for potential competitors who lack access to such comprehensive consumer insights. Moreover, the company’s control over this data raises privacy concerns, as consumers may have limited understanding of how their information is being used or shared across Live Nation’s various business segments. These issues mirror broader debates in the digital age about the role of data in maintaining market power, with parallels to concerns raised about tech giants like Google and Facebook. As such, any antitrust action against Live Nation must consider not only traditional measures of market power but also the competitive advantages and potential privacy implications of its data practices. This aspect of the case underscores the need for antitrust enforcement to evolve in response to the increasing importance of data in modern business models. Notably, the DOJ focuses on Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s anticompetitive tactic of threatening and retaliating against venues that work with rivals. In the press release, the DOJ writes, “Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s power in concert promotions means that every live concert venue knows choosing another promoter or ticketer comes with a risk of drawing an adverse reaction from Live Nation-Ticketmaster that would result in losing concerts, revenue, and fans.” This directly violates the terms of the 2010 merger agreement, in which LiveNation was prohibited from retaliating against venues that use competing ticketing services. Considering that the current lawsuit’s main goal is the breakup of Ticketmaster and Live Nation, there exists an undeniable irony that the DOJ is seeking to undo their own actions (approving the merger in 2010). The head of Jones Day’s antitrust practice Craig Waldman said, “The DOJ is breaking out a really big gun here — seeking to blow up a company that was created with its approval. That looms large even though the DOJ has and will continue to try to frame Live Nation’s conduct as going well beyond the scope of the merger.” In hindsight, it is clear that the DOJ’s approval of the 2010 merger was an egregious mistake. Vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute Diana Moss said, “The Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger was allowed to proceed in 2010, but the decision was an abject failure of antitrust enforcement. Instead of blocking the merger, the DOJ required the company, then with an 80% share of the ticketing market, to comply with ineffective conditions.” The continued anticompetitive practices and market dominance of Live Nation-Ticketmaster after the approved merger demonstrate that behavioral remedies were insufficient to protect competition. As such, structural remedies, specifically breaking up the company, are necessary to restore competition in the live entertainment industry. That extensive pushback and criticism of the merger took place at the time of its approval highlights the limited scope and approach of antitrust enforcement, particularly when it comes to mergers. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case will proceed in New York’s Southern District, known for its slow litigation process, potentially delaying a trial until late 2026. In its defense, Live Nation argues that it does not hold a monopoly, claiming that its profit margins are low and that ticket prices are influenced more by factors like artist popularity and secondary ticketing markets than by its own practices. Live Nation contends that the efficiencies achieved by merging with Ticketmaster benefit the industry by offering better services and prices compared to separating the companies. The company emphasizes that its vertical integration—combining promotion and ticketing services—creates a more efficient and artist-friendly business model. Live Nation also asserts that the secondary ticketing market, rather than its own practices, is primarily responsible for high ticket prices. The case will scrutinize whether the efficiencies claimed by Live Nation justify its market control or if the harm to competition outweighs these benefits. The DOJ’s push for a breakup, and refusal to settle for anything less than a breakup, reflects the relative success of the New Brandeis movement, particularly when considering the FTC’s revised merger guidelines in collaboration with the DOJ. When analyzed through the lens of the Grinnell test, Live Nation’s conduct clearly meets both prongs for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. First, Live Nation undoubtedly possesses monopoly power in the relevant markets of concert promotion and ticketing. With an estimated 80% market share in ticketing for major concert venues and its dominant position in concert promotion, Live Nation far exceeds the typical thresholds courts have used to identify monopoly power. The company’s ability to impose high fees, dictate terms to artists and venues, and persistently maintain its market position despite widespread consumer dissatisfaction further evidences its monopoly power. Second, Live Nation has willfully acquired and maintained this power through exclusionary practices, not merely through superior products or business acumen. The DOJ’s complaint outlines numerous anti competitive tactics, including threatening retaliation against venues that use competing services, leveraging its control over artists to pressure venues, and using long-term exclusive contracts to lock out competitors. These practices go well beyond legitimate competition based on merit. Moreover, Live Nation strategic acquisitions of potential competitors and its alleged collusion with Oak View Group to avoid competition further demonstrate its willful maintenance of monopoly power. The company’s “flywheel” business model, while potentially efficient, serves to entrench its dominance across multiple markets in ways that foreclose competition. Thus, Live Nation’s conduct satisfies both prongs of the Grinnell test, strongly supporting the DOJ’s case for illegal monopolization. It’s important to note, however, that while the Grinnell test remains a fundamental framework cited in monopolization cases, its application in modern antitrust law has evolved and become more nuanced. In recent decades, courts have increasingly used the Grinnell test as a starting point rather than a definitive standard. The test is now supplemented with more sophisticated economic analyses. Therefore, while the Grinnell test will likely be referenced in the Live Nation case, the court's analysis is expected to be more comprehensive, potentially incorporating more recent precedents and economic theories to fully capture the nuances of Live Nation’s market position and conduct. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case illuminates several fundamental limitations in current antitrust doctrine. First, the case demonstrates how the Chicago School’s permissive approach to vertical mergers, embedded in Clayton Act enforcement, systematically underestimates the long-term competitive threats posed by vertical integration in platform markets. Second, the case exposes the inherent weakness of behavioral remedies in addressing vertical merger concerns. The failure of the 2010 settlement’s behavioral conditions—despite their specificity and ongoing oversight—suggests that such remedies are fundamentally inadequate for controlling the conduct of vertically integrated firms with substantial market power. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the case reveals the challenging burden facing regulators under Section 2 of the Sherman Act once a vertically integrated entity has established market dominance. Even with clear evidence of exclusionary conduct, proving harm under current Section 2 doctrine requires navigating complex questions about market definition and competitive effects that may not fully capture the subtle ways in which vertical integration can entrench market power. The Consumer Welfare Standard, which has dominated antitrust analysis since the 1980s, is inadequate in fully capturing the anticompetitive harm caused by Live Nation’s practices. While this standard primarily focuses on consumer prices and output, it fails to account for the multifaceted nature of competition in the live entertainment industry. Certainly, the high ticket prices and fees imposed by Live Nation are relevant concerns under this framework. However, this narrow focus obscures the broader and more insidious effects of Live Nation’s market dominance. For instance, the standard doesn’t adequately address the reduced choices faced by venues, who often feel compelled to contract with Live Nation for fear of losing access to popular acts. Similarly, it fails to capture the constraints placed on artists, who may find their touring options limited by Live Nation’s control over major venues and promotion services. The standard also struggles to account for the barriers to entry the industry created by Live Nation’s vertically integrated structure and exclusive contracts, which stifle potential competitors and innovative business models in the ticketing and promotion markets. Moreover, the Consumer Welfare Standard’s short-term focus on prices neglects long-term impacts on innovation, diversity, and the overall health of the live entertainment ecosystem. It fails to account for how one company’s dominance can lead to less diverse music options and harm smaller venues and independent promoters who are crucial for supporting new artists. By focusing mainly on short-term price effects, the standard overlooks the broader, long-term damage to competition in the industry. This limitation of the Consumer Welfare Standard in the Live Nation case underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to antitrust analysis, one that aligns more closely with the broader concerns of the New Brandeis movement. Building on the limitations of the Consumer Welfare Standard and the evolving application of the Grinnell test, it becomes clear that a more comprehensive approach to antitrust enforcement is necessary in the Live Nation case. The failure of the 2010 behavioral remedies further underscores this need. Despite prohibitions on retaliatory practices and requirements to license ticketing software to competitors, Live Nation has continued to dominate the market and engage in exclusionary conduct. This persistence of anticompetitive behavior, even under regulatory oversight, demonstrates that more robust, structural solutions are required. In retrospect, it is evident that the DOJ should have never approved the merger in the first place, as the vertical integration of Live Nation and Ticketmaster created a entity with unprecedented market power and clear incentives for anticompetitive behavior. In light of these considerations, the DOJ should argue for a full structural separation of Live Nation and Ticketmaster as the primary remedy. This breakup would reintroduce genuine competition into both the concert promotion and ticketing markets, addressing the root causes of Live Nation’s market power more effectively than behavioral conditions. To ensure a competitive landscape post-separation, the court should also consider supplementary measures. These could include prohibiting exclusive deals with venues and imposing limits on the percentage of a market’s concert promotion that Live Nation can control. By advocating for these comprehensive structural changes, the DOJ can align its approach with the more aggressive, market structure-focused enforcement advocated by the New Brandeis movement. This approach not only addresses the immediate concerns in the live entertainment industry but also sets a potential precedent for future antitrust cases in similarly complex, vertically integrated industries. It recognizes that in today’s interconnected markets, protecting competition requires looking beyond short-term price effects to consider the broader ecosystem of industry participants, from artists and venues to emerging competitors and consumers. VII. Conclusion The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case serves as a stark illustration of the inadequacies of traditional antitrust enforcement in addressing the complexities of modern markets. The DOJ’s original approval of the 2010 merger, despite widespread criticism and concerns, highlights the limitations of the consumer welfare-focused approach and the ineffectiveness of behavioral remedies in curbing anti competitive practices. The subsequent dominance of Live Nation in the live entertainment industry, characterized by its “flywheel” business model and alleged exclusionary practices, demonstrates the need for a more comprehensive and aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement. This case represents a critical juncture in the evolution of antitrust law, potentially marking a shift towards the more expansive view advocated by the New Brandeis movement. The DOJ’s pursuit of structural remedies, specifically the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, signals a recognition that protecting competition in today’s interconnected markets requires looking beyond short-term price effects to consider the broader ecosystem of industry participants. As such, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for future antitrust enforcement, particularly in industries characterized by vertical integration and data-driven market power. It may set a precedent for how antitrust authorities approach complex, multi-faceted monopolies in the digital age, potentially reshaping the landscape of competition law for years to come. Ultimately, the Live Nation case underscores the urgent need for antitrust law to evolve in response to the changing nature of market power, ensuring that it remains an effective tool for promoting competition, innovation, and consumer welfare in the 21st-century economy. References Abad-Santos, Alex. “How Disappointed Taylor Swift Fans Explain Ticketmaster’s Monopoly.” Vox. Last modified November 21, 2022. https://www.vox.com/culture/2022/11/21/23471763/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-monopoly. Abbott, Alden. “Will the Antitrust Lawsuit against Live Nation Break Its Hold on Ticketmaster?” Forbes. Last modified May 28, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/aldenabbott/2024/05/28/will-the-justice-departments-monopolization-lawsuit-kill-live-nation/. Abovyan, Kristina, and Quinn Scanlan. “FTC Is ‘just Getting Started’ as It Takes on Amazon, Meta and More, Chair Lina Khan Says.” ABC News , May 5, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ftc-started-takes-amazon-meta-chair-lina-khan/story?id=109928219. “Antitrust Law Basics – Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Thomas Reuters. Last modified May 17, 2023. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/antitrust-law-basics-section-2-of-the-sherman-act/. “The Antitrust Laws.” U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed December 20, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=The%20Sherman%20Antitrust%20Act,or%20markets%2C%20are%20criminal%20violations. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 JUSTIA (10th Cir. June 19, 1985). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/472/585/. “A Brief Overview of the ‘New Brandeis’ School of Antitrust Law.” Patterson Belknap. Last modified November 8, 2018. https://www.pbwt.com/antitrust-update-blog/a-brief-overview-of-the-new-brandeis-school-of-antitrust-law. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 JUSTIA (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 1993). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/209/. “Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act : Chapter 1.” U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1#:~:text=Section%202%20of%20the%20Sherman%20Act%20makes%20it%20unlawful%20for,foreign%20nations%20.%20.%20.%20.%22. “Court Rejects FTC’s Bid to Block Meta’s Proposed Acquisition of VR Fitness App Developer.” Crowell. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/court-rejects-ftcs-bid-to-block-metas-proposed-acquisition-of-vr-fitness-app-developer. “Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department Release 2023 Merger Guidelines.” Federal Trade Commission. Accessed December 18, 2023. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/federal-trade-commission-justice-department-release-2023-merger-guidelines. Hovenkamp, Herbert. “Framing the Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis.” University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School 168, no. 7 (2020). https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3115&context=faculty_scholarship. Hovenkamp, Herbert J. “The Rule of Reason.” Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repositary , 2018. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2780&context=faculty_scholarship. Jones, Callum. “‘She’s Going to Prevail’: FTC Head Lina Khan Is Fighting for an Anti-monopoly America.” The Guardian , March 9, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/09/lina-khan-federal-trade-commission-antitrust-monopolies. Katz, Ariel. “The Chicago School and the Forgotten Political Dimension of Antitrust Law.” The University of Chicago Law Review , 2020. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/chicago-school-and-forgotten-political-dimension-antitrust-law. Khan, Lina. “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” The Yale Law Journal 126, no. 3 (2017). https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox. Khan, Lina. “The Ideological Roots of America’s Market Power Problem.” The Yale Law Journal 127 (June 4, 2018). https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ideological-roots-of-americas-market-power-problem. Khan, Lina. “The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Debate.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9, no. 3 (2018): 131-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpy020. Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Has a Long Set to Play against Live Nation-Ticketmaster.” Law360. Last modified May 23, 2024. https://www.crowell.com/a/web/4TwXzF6sFW49adb3eTjznR/doj-has-a-long-set-to-play-against-live-nation-ticketmaster.pdf. Layton, Roslyn. “Live Nation's Anticompetitive Conduct Is a Problem for Security.” ProMarket. Last modified June 25, 2024. https://www.promarket.org/2024/06/25/live-nations-anticompetitive-conduct-is-a-problem-for-security/. Levine, Jay L. “1990s to the Present: The Chicago School and Antitrust Enforcement.” Porterwright. Last modified June 1, 2021. https://www.antitrustlawsource.com/2021/06/1990s-to-the-present-the-chicago-school-and-antitrust-enforcement/. Markham, William. “How the Consumer-Welfare Standard Transformed Classical Antitrust Law.” Law Offices of William Markham, P.C. Last modified 2021. https://www.markhamlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/How-the-Consumer-Welfare-Standard-Transformed-Classical-Antitrust-Law.final_.pdf. McKenna, Francine. “What Made the Chicago School so Influential in Antitrust Policy?” Chicago Booth Review. Last modified August 7, 2023. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-made-chicago-school-so-influential-antitrust-policy. Office of Public Affairs - U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets across the Live Concert Industry.” News release. March 23, 2024. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert. “Sherman Antitrust Act.” Britannica. Accessed August 5, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Sherman. “Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890).” National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act. “The Ticketmaster/LiveNation Merger: What Does It Mean for Consumers and the Future of the Concert Business?: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights (2009) (statement of David A. Balto). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/balto_testimony_02_24_09.pdf. Treisman, Rachel. “Taylor Swift Says Her Team Was Assured Ticket Demands Would Be Met for Her Eras Tour.” npr. Last modified November 18, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137465465/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-klobuchar-tennessee. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 JUSTIA (Apr. 17, 2018). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-2/. “U.S. v. Microsoft: Court’s Findings of Fact.” U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact. Varney, Christine A. “The TicketMaster/Live Nation Merger Review and Consent Decree in Perspective.” Speech presented at South by Southwest, March 18, 2010. U.S. Department of Justice. Last modified March 18, 2010. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/ticketmasterlive-nation-merger-review-and-consent-decree-perspective. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, 540 JUSTIA (Oct. 2003). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/398/.

One Planet, One Oklahoma: Exploring a Framework for Assessing the Feasibility of Localized Energy Transitions in the United States Anna Hyslop Author Arjun Ray Arthur Shamgunov Benjamin Levy Editors Abstract Net-zero energy transitions, necessitated by the threat of climate change, need to occur on an international scale. However, powerful economic lobbies and political stagnation often mar the negotiation processes driving national and international action. In this context, local communities become increasingly important in achieving widespread emissions reduction objectives. This analysis centers on exploring a framework that evaluates the feasibility of net-zero energy transitions in U.S. localities. The framework highlights the technological and political feasibility of transitioning the electricity and transportation sectors of a given municipality. While such a framework does not capture the entirety of a community’s energy system, it nonetheless serves to address two sectors that dominate emissions production and energy usage. I apply this framework to the suburban community of Norman, Oklahoma, to both highlight the value of such analysis and to provide important information to local officials in my community. By collecting information from administrative and primary sources, this study documents forecasted decreases in the cost of renewable energy sources, residual emissions abatement technologies, and energy storage solutions for Norman. Further, an analysis of the local transportation sector reveals that the costs associated with public transit improvements—an important component of decarbonization in the transportation sector—generally ranged from 0.01-5.1% of the City’s 2023 budget (excluding national high-speed rail enhancements, which involve cost-sharing between local, state, and federal governments). I also examined the political feasibility of this transition, documenting the partisan preferences that may hinder clean energy implementation. My findings suggest that while technology costs may decrease, political opinion could hinder clean energy transitions in Oklahoma. The model of analysis employed throughout this study presents significant opportunities for further exploration of localized energy transitions in suburban areas and college towns, two types of municipalities often left out of transition scholarship. At the end of March in 2023, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a Synthesis Report covering the burgeoning climate crisis. The report served as the sixth installment in a series designed to inform international climate negotiations with updated scientific findings. Within the first ten pages, the IPCC reaffirmed common scientific consensus, declaring that “human activities, principally through the emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming.” Increasing global temperatures pose threats to people throughout the United States. Coastal communities in states like Texas and Florida have experienced a greater volume of flooding in part due to sea level rise resulting from climate change. Out West, Zhuang et al. (2021) found that “anthropogenic warming…contributed at least twice as much natural variability to the rapid increase of fire weather risk” observed in the record-breaking fires of 2020 in California, Washington, and Oregon. These two studies, as a part of a growing academic literature, demonstrate the variability found in the impacts of climate change across geographies. The United States, for its part in contributing to the crisis, produced 6.0 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalents (Gt CO2eq) of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022, making up 11.2% of total global emissions. This makes the U.S. the second-largest global emitter behind China–which produced 15.7 Gt CO2eq in 2022–and puts it in the top ten global emitters per capita. With a population of approximately 4 million people, Oklahoma produces about 2% of the U.S.’s share of global emissions. Total emissions data for Norman, Oklahoma—home to the University of Oklahoma and the subject of this analysis—does not currently exist. If Norman, like many American cities, does not individually contribute much to the climate impact of the entire United States, then why does the possibility of a localized energy transition and a net-zero future for this municipality merit discussion? First and foremost, local communities play a critical role in achieving national carbon neutrality as they can overcome federal policy inertia. After the release of the first IPCC report in 1990, several transnational associations of municipalities–including Local Governments for Sustainability, Climate Alliance, and Energy Cities–were formed to help cities pursue climate targets in the face of “strong economic lobbies [that] were blocking national and international climate policies.” By belonging to these organizations, cities are granted legitimacy and support from other municipalities in pursuing localized climate policy action. Rutherford and Coutard (2014) further acknowledge the capability of cities to pursue climate work despite national gridlock, stating that “cities may have a window of opportunity for action on energy transitions by their distinctive…political and/or sociotechnical contexts compared with those at a national level.” The ability of cities to pursue sustainability work despite national constraints presents a compelling argument for exploring a local energy transition. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions—and the systems that lead to their release into the atmosphere—exist at local, regional, and national levels. Municipalities regularly make decisions regarding transportation, energy consumption, and land-use planning, three sectors that contribute heavily to total U.S. emissions. Collier and Löfstedt (1997) point out, however, that the financial and legal capacities of a city to enact local change vary greatly by location. Regardless of such limitations, changes at the community level contribute to broader national decarbonization objectives. The Biden Administration supported this argument in its long-term climate strategy, citing the importance of non-federal leadership—including municipalities—in reaching domestic carbon neutrality by 2050. Even smaller, suburban cities like Norman possess the power to radically reshape local transit and energy policy, addressing both its local carbon footprint and national carbon contributions. Third, Oklahoma—and Norman by extension—cannot escape the impacts of the climate crisis. The South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center predicts an average high temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit by midcentury without significant action to reduce emissions. The Fifth National Climate Assessment expands on these projected temperature increases, forecasting negative economic and public health consequences. The authors observed with high confidence that warmer temperatures and increasingly erratic weather patterns will “force widespread and costly changes” to the employment of Oklahomans. Additionally, climate change will result in increased water scarcity, animal extinction, and declining public health as extreme heat events become more common in the south-central United States. Tropical diseases and heat-related deaths are projected to increase in the warming region. Other public health impacts have already been observed in Tulsa, where the expansion of eastern red cedars—associated with longer pollen seasons—resulted in a 205% increase in allergic pollen intensity. Although the consequences of climate change borne by Oklahomans are largely not self-inflicted, we still bear responsibility for addressing our carbon footprint. Assessing Norman’s current capacity to transition to carbon-free consumption may encourage further action within Oklahoma’s cities, as only Oklahoma City currently pursues sustainable policy initiatives. Finally, analyzing the feasibility of an energy transition within Norman may spark further discussions about an energy transition in Oklahoma at large. Our local context incorporates both the resources of a nationally-recognized research institution and heavy dependence on the automobile. This combination of factors should make Norman—and other suburban college towns—a subject of interest. Drewello notes the importance of university partnerships in assessing “unique local situations” and generating innovative solutions. With access to the University of Oklahoma and its faculty, Norman offers a great opportunity for building a model to inspire a statewide or regional energy transition. Furthermore, our dependence on the automobile mirrors that of other suburban communities within the state; accordingly, any assessment of Norman’s potential for changes in the transportation sector can provide a framework for similar analyses within Oklahoma. In the Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions , Miller et al. (2022) call for the systematic “mapping” of the policies, processes, and pathways needed to achieve regional carbon neutrality. The study offers a novel framework for analyzing the feasibility of net-zero localized energy transitions in the United States. Though Norman, Oklahoma, is used merely as an example of the application of this framework, the case study provides a model for similar analyses to be conducted in other localities. I focus on establishing this underlying framework for a local energy transition by assessing the current energy system and analyzing the technological and political feasibility of achieving a net-zero future in Norman. To conduct this assessment, I researched administrative, academic, news, and primary sources to gather cost estimates of different technologies. I also analyzed national and state-level assessments of public opinion on renewable energy development to understand the transition’s political feasibility. The remainder of this paper outlines the definitions and criteria used throughout the study, with an in-depth examination of Norman’s current energy system following soon after. Then, I offer an assessment of both the technological and political feasibility of pursuing an energy transition. My general conclusions from this research follow the feasibility assessments. I. Outlining the Energy Transition: Definitions and Criteria In this section, I provide an overview of several proposed definitions of energy transitions, as well as the objectives that such transitions seek to achieve. I then articulate this study’s interpretation of a net-zero energy transition and my justification for selecting such a definition. Finally, I conclude with an explanation of the criteria by which I will assess feasibility in later sections of this paper. Prior academic work provides many definitions that explain the fundamentals of energy transitions. Araújo (2022) postulates that basic energy transitions involve a “considerable shift in the nature or pattern of how energy is used within a system, including the type, quantity, or quality of how energy is sourced, delivered, or utilized.” Zinecker et al. (2018) offer a simpler yet similar definition to Araújo, defining energy transitions as “shifts… [in] the way people produce and consume electricity using different technologies and sources.” Drewello builds on the foundations provided by Araújo and Zinecker et al. to postulate that an energy transition “is nothing less than a revolutionary restructuring of the entire energy supply in the sectors of electricity, heat, and transportation.” Here, Drewello points out specific sectors involved in a transition. These three definitions articulate the basics of an energy transition, defined in this study as a fundamental, multi-sectoral shift in both the consumption and production of energy towards a net-zero future. A net-zero future achieves maximum emissions reductions while using carbon capture technologies to remove any residual emissions. Accordingly, net-zero transitions involve deploying renewable energy technologies–like solar, wind, and nuclear power facilities–at scale. I elected to study the feasibility of a net-zero energy transition with a framework inspired in part by the literature. In evaluating Norman’s current energy sector, I focus on two of the sectors highlighted by Drewello: electricity and transportation. These sectors compromise 53% of U.S. emissions, with transportation at 28% of the total. Although Norman may not observe the same trends in emissions as the greater United States, addressing emissions in these two sectors is of great national importance and should be relevant to an energy transition in Norman as well. The decision to focus on the electricity and transportation sectors represents the first layer of my analytical framework. The second layer consists of considering both the technological and political feasibility of making net-zero transitions in each sector. Sovacool and Geels (2016) provide justification for these considerations. They divide the elements of an energy transition into three “interrelated” categories: “the tangible elements of socio-technical systems…actors and social networks…[and] socio-technical regimes.” In practice, these three dimensions prove difficult to distinguish from each other, but still roughly suggest a division between the intangibles and the tangibles of energy transitions. This study understands political feasibility to be the intangibles of transitions—namely, public support for clean energy development–and technological feasibility to be the tangible elements of an energy transition, most notably the costs associated with shifting to renewable energy and developing emissions reduction techniques. II. Norman Now: Our Energy Today Of the 90 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity generated in Oklahoma in 2023, 40 million MWh (or around 44%) of this generation came from renewable sources. Norman hosts two primary electric utilities: Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) and Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (OEC). OG&E provides generation, transmission, and distribution services across Oklahoma and parts of western Arkansas. While public data listing the number of OG&E customers in Norman is not currently available, it serves approximately 888,800 customers across its service territory. OG&E reports that 60% of the utility’s generation capacity comes from natural gas, 30% from coal, and 10% from renewable sources. This data also incorporates OG&E’s power purchases, which account for 58% of OG&E’s total generation portfolio. OG&E purchases this power from other producers in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). As a member of SPP, OG&E’s energy could come from any generation site within the regional transmission organization (RTO) at any given time. SPP’s generation mix in 2022 consisted of 37.5% wind, 33.3% coal, 20.9% natural gas, and 8.3% of energy produced from other sources. This data mirrors SPP’s generation mixes from 2020 and 2021. In 2020, SPP produced 31.3% of its power from wind, 30.9% from coal, and 26.6% from natural gas. In 2021, 35.6% of SPP’s power came from coal, 34.6% from wind, and 20% from natural gas. Instead of generating its own power, OEC operates an electricity distribution business. OEC purchases its power from the Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC), a generation and transmission provider. WFEC possesses a diverse fuel mix, generating 30% of its power from renewable sources and 11% from coal and natural gas. Additionally, WFEC imports 42% of its electricity from SPP. Power purchased from the Grand River Dam Authority, Oneta Power Plant, and Southwestern Public Service provided the final 17% of WFEC’s generation mix in 2022. The complexity of power generation networks, exemplified by OG&E and OEC, makes it difficult to determine Norman’s exact energy landscape based on public data alone. Future applications of this framework may run into similar challenges due to public data limitations. OG&E’s and OEC’s connections to SPP mean that consumers in Norman could theoretically receive energy from anywhere in SPP at any given time. However, some consumers have a limited degree of choice in deciding where their electricity comes from. OG&E customers can opt-in to receiving power from the utility’s solar farms, while OEC allows its customers to purchase renewable energy certificates that support renewable generation. These programs are naturally limited in scope, and data regarding the number of customers choosing to participate in these initiatives is not currently available. While I cannot accurately provide a detailed picture of Norman’s electricity provision, I can use SPP generation data to construct general assumptions. As mentioned previously, the largest share of SPP’s electricity production came from wind power, indicating that Norman could theoretically receive a notable amount of our electricity from that source. This assertion can be extrapolated to other cities within SPP’s 14-state service territory, assuming that a city’s serving utility maintains membership in SPP and that SPP’s generation portfolio remains consistent across states. This second assumption, however, cannot be verified by publicly-available SPP data; as such, the statement remains largely speculative. Decarbonizing the electricity sector requires a combination of multiple technologies. Regardless of the combination, however, a net-zero transition necessitates either elimination or removal of the emissions from coal and natural gas power plants that supplied over 50% of SPP’s generation in 2022. Power plant emissions can be reduced through a replacement of generation fuels—in this case, via renewable energy—or a deployment of smokestack emissions-reduction technologies. Emissions that cannot be addressed through the replacement of generation fuels or other reduction technologies must be removed through carbon capture. The costs of these options are explored in depth in the “Technological Feasibility” section of this paper. An assessment of Norman’s current transportation sector consists of analyzing both private and public transportation. Oklahoman workers display a strong dependence on private forms of transit, with 77.8% driving alone to work in 2022. In comparison, 68.7% of U.S. residents display a similar commuting pattern. Furthermore, 9.4% of Oklahomans carpool and 0.3% use public transportation to get to work. Nationally, 3.1% of people use public transit and 8.6% carpool. Evidently, passenger vehicles predominate Oklahomans’ commutes. These vehicles are overwhelmingly gasoline-powered. Though data specific to cars owned by Normanites is not available, of the 4,287,900 total vehicles registered in Oklahoma, 83% are powered by gasoline. 0.5% of cars registered in the state are fully electric, while 0.8% are plug-in hybrid electric and 1.3% are hybrid electric. These trends reflect larger national patterns, as 85% of vehicles registered in the United States are gasoline-powered, while 1.2% are fully electric. Norman’s public transportation consists of five fixed bus routes, operated by EMBARK Norman, which serve local destinations six days a week. EMBARK Norman also partners with EMBARK OKC to provide weekday commuter service to Oklahoma City. Intracity service is free and the commuter route to Oklahoma City costs $3 per adult and $1.50 for qualifying riders. Buses are scheduled at least every hour on four out of the five routes. The Norman fixed-route fleet consists of 10 compressed natural gas (CNG) buses, 2 electric buses, and 1 diesel-powered vehicle. The paratransit fleet uses 9 CNG buses, 2 diesel buses, and 3 gasoline-powered shuttles. Additionally, the University of Oklahoma possesses four bus routes on its campus. Norman also has an Amtrak station, with service ending in Oklahoma City. In this study, I also include biking as a form of public transportation. In 2022, only 0.2% of Oklahomans biked to work. Given that much of Oklahoma lacks biking infrastructure, this finding is unsurprising. Current data on the number and type of bike lanes within Norman is not readily available. However, given Norman’s possession of bike-friendly infrastructure, we may safely assume that Norman’s commuter biking statistics are higher than the Oklahoma average. III. Technological Feasibility The exploration of Norman’s electricity and transportation sectors reveals the community’s overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels. In this section, I use estimated costs of different clean energy technologies as a metric for assessing the technological feasibility of a net-zero transition in Norman. My study of electricity-related feasibility primarily concerns the costs associated with increasing the share of low-carbon energy sources in power generation, incorporating power storage methods, and abating residual emissions. In the transportation sector, I consider different scenarios in which the City of Norman improves public transportation. I do not focus on action taken by individual Normanites (commonly termed “reductions in demand”), as such action falls outside the scope of the analysis I hope to provide. Evaluating the technological feasibility of a power-sector transition in Norman begins with an understanding of the costs associated with alternative energies. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) “combines technology cost and performance parameters, capital expenditures, operations and maintenance costs, and capacity factors” into a statistic that helps researchers, government agencies, and private companies predict the costliness of different forms of energy per MWh generated. The LCOEs for various sources of energy in Cleveland County—where Norman is located—in 2023 dollars are reported in Table 1. Table 1: Data from NREL (2020); Lewis et al. (2022); IEA (2020). All costs—including cost projections—are in 2023 dollars, with inflation adjustment calculations made based on OECD (2024) data. County-level costs for key renewable energy technologies like solar and wind are expected to experience significant declines by 2050, while the costs of traditional fossil fuel generation facilities are expected to increase. Across the board, the median costs associated with renewable sources of energy in Cleveland County are expected to drop by 2050. Gas-induced power plants, on the other hand, are expected to experience cost increases, regardless of whether these plants incorporate carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques into plant practices. Unlike gas-powered plants, however, coal is expected to experience cost declines, but will likely remain more expensive than solar, wind, nuclear, or even gas-powered generation. This insight is significant, as coal generation produces more emissions than natural gas and renewable resource generation. Since the county-level statistics parallel the patterns observed in state-level analysis (not pictured), I observe that the comparatively-high costs will likely discourage the use of coal within Oklahoma, reducing the state’s emissions. Decreases in renewable energy costs for Cleveland County, depicted in Table 1, indicate that our electricity sector may feasibly transition to renewable energy. However, the data provided for county-level costs by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) neglects to mention an increasingly-popular form of alternative energy: hydrogen power. The fuel is expected to play a critical role in decarbonizing personal transportation. Currently, steam methane reforming (SMR), a process dependent on fossil fuels, dominates hydrogen production in the United States. The implementation of CCS with SMR practices is expected to increase the LCOE of hydrogen production, but still maintains the “highest potential for low-cost clean hydrogen supply.” Transitioning to sources like wind and solar also requires measures to manage their intermittent nature. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are touted as the solution to the need for power storage. NREL reports that costs of utility-scale LIBs within Cleveland County will decrease approximately 53% by 2050, making the reality of incorporating this technology into a transitioned power grid increasingly plausible. This assertion is further supported by the declining prices of renewable power sources, allowing greater amounts of capital to be allocated to power storage instead of generation. Addressing residual emissions—those that cannot be easily reduced through the previously-discussed strategies—necessitates the usage of carbon capture technologies. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves removing carbon dioxide at its emission source. NREL already provides a Cleveland County LCOE for CCS in the context of natural gas generation, placing the 2020 LCOE at $60.06 and expecting a $68.3 LCOE by 2050. Global estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) further contextualize this data. Globally, the LCOE for CCS ranges from 17.87-143.02 USD per ton of carbon dioxide captured. Direct air capture (DAC), another emissions-reduction technology, captures carbon dioxide after its release into the atmosphere. The technology generally costs more than CCS, with global LCOE estimates ranging from 160.9-411.19 USD per ton captured. NREL’s forecasted costs to 2050 are helpful in evaluating the feasibility of a net-zero power sector transition. Such forecasting, however, remains difficult to find for transportation improvements. Instead, I rely on the costs associated with different public transit improvement scenarios that Norman explored in fiscal year 2023 (FY23). Table 2: Data from City of Norman (2021); City of Norman (2022); City of Norman (2024); Taylor Johnson at the City of Norman; Lazo (2023); Feigenbaum (2023). All costs are adjusted to 2023 dollars using data from OECD (2024). In 2021, the Norman City Council approved the Go Norman Transit Plan, a document detailing different transportation improvements anticipated for Norman’s bus system. Adding an additional bus route, Route 113, requires nearly $9 million in capital and operational investments. Increasing route frequency for two of the current bus routes entails expenditures of between $8.21-$8.91 million, depending on route length and the number of buses needed to achieve frequency improvements. Improving the frequency of Route 111 stops from a 30-minute to the ideal 15-minute frequency necessitates $11.55 million from the City. These frequency improvements are intended to make public transit options competitive with the convenience and consistency offered by single-passenger vehicular transport. Expanding route service often demands adding additional buses to the City’s fleet. To gather information on the historical costs of purchasing CNG and electric buses, I contacted Taylor Johnson, the Transit and Parking Program Manager for the City of Norman. Mr. Johnson offered information on the current fixed-route fleet and the previous costs of purchasing individual electric and CNG buses. One fixed-route CNG bus cost the City $639,741.79 in 2023 dollars, whereas an electric bus cost over $1 million in the same year. The cost estimates specific to certain route improvements cannot accurately predict the expected future costs of similar improvements. However, this information still provides an important overview of what such improvements may entail. Regardless of future inflation or specified costs associated with different projects, improvements to Norman’s bus system will cost millions of dollars to implement. As mentioned in the “Norman Now: Our Energy Today” section, Norman possesses one Amtrak station with service to Oklahoma City. Finding a cost estimate for adding additional rail lines or increasing train speed in Oklahoma is not currently feasible; therefore, I turned to two case studies of these improvements in other areas. Amtrak anticipates increasing the speed of the Washington-to-Boston route with new trains. This project, originally proposed in 2011, costs $3.11 billion in 2023 dollars. The proposed Dallas-to-Houston Amtrak project, involving the development of completely-new rail lines, costs a whopping $33.6 billion in 2023 dollars. Support for the development of additional Amtrak lines through Norman would need to occur at the state level; after all, as the two currently-proposed projects demonstrate, Amtrak projects are extremely expensive and involve multiple municipalities. While it is unlikely that Amtrak will expand coverage in Oklahoma in the near future–given the minimal demand for such infrastructure–this discussion still offers important context for comprehensive public transit considerations in the state. Bike infrastructure serves as the final area of analysis within the public transportation sector. For this exploration, I use data from an Association of Central Oklahoma Governments grant received by the City for air quality improvements. Adding two bike lanes cost the City $11,497.99 in total. Details on the length and cost of each individual bike lane were not provided by the City. Table 3: Data from City of Norman (2021); City of Norman (2022); City of Norman (2023); City of Norman (2024). *The “Actual Public Transit Expenditures” for FY24 have yet to be released; accordingly, I provided the City’s current estimate. During FY23, the City of Norman proposed and passed a $225,785,971 budget. As exemplified in Table 2, the costs of transportation improvements under Norman’s control ranged from 0.01% of the budget to 5.1% of the budget. Given the trends in public transit spending observed in Table 3, the budget typically allows enough flexibility for only one of the transit improvements detailed in Table 2 to occur. This finding suggests that substantial improvements to Norman’s public transit system will likely occur slowly, unless the City’s spending patterns change. The technology exists to support a net-zero energy transition. The challenge, then, comes with the cost of such technologies. As the NREL forecast predicts, renewable energy sources will likely continue to decline in cost, encouraging utilities to adopt these forms of energy for power generation. Additionally, both long-term energy storage solutions and residual emissions reduction technologies are anticipated to experience declining costs. Norman’s electricity sector, therefore, could realistically experience a clean energy transition in the coming decades, contingent on utility adoption of necessary technologies. The feasibility of adjustments to Norman’s transportation sector proves incredibly difficult to predict due to the challenge of obtaining cost forecasting data. Regardless of this limitation, the scenarios explored demonstrate realistic costs for the City, although the pace at which such projects are pursued may be slower than desired. IV. Political Feasibility In this study, political feasibility is more challenging to quantify and anticipate than technological feasibility. By its very nature, public opinion is dynamic, and the individuals surveyed often possess opinions that do not fit cleanly into prescribed party affiliations or expectations. Furthermore, creating an accurate measure of political support for an energy transition proves difficult, considering the complexity of interacting components in such a transition. Given these constraints, I focus this section on a broad investigation of the views on renewable energy development that are associated with national and statewide partisan identifications while acknowledging the complexity of these affiliations. I also highlight studies specific to Oklahoma that offer valuable insights into the nuances of support for a carbon-neutral energy transition. According to the Pew Research Center, 31% of Americans currently support the complete phasing out of fossil fuels across the United States, compared to the 68% that support the use of a fossil fuel and renewables mixture. This belief does not necessarily conflict with the net-zero transition proposal, as carbon capture techniques could theoretically support the strictly-limited use of fossil fuels. Regarding renewable energy development, 74% of Americans highlight this type of development as “the most important energy priority for the U.S.” when compared to “expanding [the] production of fossil fuels.” Evidently, national support for a net-zero future depends on the specific limitations of that energy transition. Attempting to break down support for the transition by political party causes further difficulties, as the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans do not always follow expectations. For example, 58% of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents believe that fossil fuel expansion should operate as the U.S.’s top energy priority, but 70% of this group still support the development of more solar farms. 90% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents give renewable energy priority over fossil fuels, but 51% “oppose phasing out fossil fuels completely” for right now. The responses to these questions do not clearly indicate partisan support for a net-zero future. For additional clarity, Kennedy et al. asked respondents about their opinions regarding the complete phase-out of fossil fuels. 87% of Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents reported a belief in the need to use a mix of fossil fuels and renewables in the near-term, while 51% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning respondents reported the same. Understanding national party positioning on the phase-out of fossil fuels, a component of net-zero energy transitions, contextualizes an analysis of Oklahoma’s current partisan makeup. As of January 15th, 2024, approximately 52% of Oklahoman voters are registered with the Republican party, while 28% are registered Democrats and 19% are registered Independents. However, these affiliations do not directly indicate voters’ position on energy transitions. Generally, 57% of American Republicans believe the U.S. should never stop using fossil fuels, a viewpoint likely shared by many Oklahoma Republicans given the historical importance of the fossil fuel sector within the state. Republican State Representatives and Senators also dominate our legislature. Only 20% of seats in the Oklahoma House and 16% of seats in the Senate belong to Democrats. The prevalence of the Republican party, when considered in the context of national survey data, indicates that political support for renewable energy development at the state level is likely low. The Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (IPPRA), based at the University of Oklahoma, surveyed 3,564 Oklahoma residents to gather “advice and guidance on how to develop socially sustainable solutions to water, carbon, and infrastructure problems in Oklahoma." This study revealed that 92% of the Democrats surveyed believe that greenhouse gas emissions are causing average global temperatures to rise, compared to the 38% of Oklahoma Republicans believing the same. Additionally, only 28% of Republicans surveyed believe that global warming has resulted in changes to Oklahoma’s weather patterns. In the context of Republican domination in the Oklahoma House and Senate, these findings further indicate that political support for measures addressing GHG emissions and climate change is likely minimal. Within Cleveland County, 47% of registered voters identify as Republicans, 30% identify as Democrats, and 22% identify as Independents (Cleveland County Election Board 2024). This data does not reveal Norman’s specific situation, as it includes registered voters throughout the entire county. Under such circumstances, I choose instead to refer to the state-level data described in the preceding paragraph. Using the data available to me, I provided an initial assessment of the political climate in Oklahoma. In doing so, I offer a broad overview of the expected political feasibility regarding a net-zero energy transition. My analysis of the state-level situation, contextualized in the presence of national polling data, indicates that support for the phase-out of fossil fuels in Oklahoma likely remains low. These findings cannot be directly applied to Norman’s specific local context. Further public opinion research should be conducted to determine the opinions of Normanites and their City Council members on the topic. Given the challenges in conducting this political analysis for Norman, similar obstacles may appear when applying this model to other municipalities. V. Conclusion Throughout this study, I offered and explored the applications of a particular model for analyzing the feasibility of localized energy transitions in the United States. Here, I will summarize the model and discuss the implications of both the framework and the case study I used to evaluate the framework. I derived the model of analysis employed throughout this study from observations of both U.S. emissions data and literature concerning energy transitions. I wanted to ensure that a localized energy transition focused on the sectors with the largest greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.; thus, I chose to focus on the electricity and transportation sectors. This selection was reaffirmed within the literature, as explored in “Outlining the Energy Transition: Definitions and Criteria.” The next level of my analysis focused on evaluating the technological and political feasibility of transitioning each sector. I separated the discussion of technological feasibility by sector and highlighted the costs associated with clean energy developments accordingly. In the political feasibility section of my analysis, I largely focused on generalized public opinion data surrounding an energy transition due to the limited availability of data related to electricity and transportation decarbonization specifically. I articulated this framework of analysis through my case study of Norman, Oklahoma. The assessment of technological feasibility generally reflects declining costs in renewable technologies across Cleveland County, the United States, and the world. These declining costs appear to indicate that decarbonization in Norman is feasible. Given Oklahoma’s geographical conditions and expected cost declines, solar and wind energy could drive a transition away from fossil fuel dominance. Declining costs of utility-scale batteries will help mitigate the intermittent nature of these two sources. Additionally, nuclear energy possesses significant promise in helping Norman to achieve net-zero, especially given the apparent political support for nuclear energy within the state legislature. During the 59th regular session of the Oklahoma legislature, both the House and Senate passed Senate Bill 1535, which amended the Oklahoma Low Carbon Energy Initiative to include nuclear energy. The support for this legislation, however, does not mean that the legislature or the Public Utilities Commission will prioritize clean energy over fossil fuel interests in the future. Thus, predicting an energy transition in Norman remains exceedingly difficult. With regards to transportation, the City possesses the ability to fund both bike lane and bus route improvements, as costs for these advances ranged between 0.01-5.1% of the City’s 2023 budget. These costs are in line with the total amount of actual public transit expenditures made by the City in prior years. Improving and adding regional high-speed rail lines, however, proves increasingly expensive and is outside of the City’s regulatory purview. Accordingly, the City can realistically pursue localized public transit improvements over the next couple of years, ideally leading to decreased dependency on personal automobiles within Norman. The political preferences of Oklahomans possess a strong bearing on the overall feasibility of pursuing net-zero energy transitions. Republican domination in both the Oklahoma House and Senate indicates that statewide measures supporting energy transitions remain unlikely, especially given the general Republican stance on climate change and renewable energy versus fossil fuels. Data for Norman specifically cannot be found; accordingly, future research can focus on evaluating public opinion within the municipality. The difficulties present in ascertaining the feasibility of an energy transition in Norman reflect the limitations of the model I developed. First, this model does not cover all components of a municipality’s energy sector, leading to inconclusive predictions regarding the feasibility of total localized decarbonization. Second, the model relies on forecasting cost data, which is generated via a naturally uncertain practice. Third, the limited availability of publicly-accessible data—the backbone of this framework and my observations in Norman—weakens the conclusivity of assertions made using the application of the model to a given local context. This third component can be addressed in future uses of the model by obtaining access to private company and government data. Future applications of a similar framework possess ample opportunity for improving and innovating based on the foundation provided in this research. Regardless of its limitations, this model possesses significant implications for planning processes and improvements within my local community. Local strategic energy plans, which often possess decarbonization as a primary objective, rely on the type of in-depth analysis conducted throughout this report to accurately ascertain the current realities and future possibilities of local energy systems. Communities can use the model explored here as a guide in strategic energy plan development. Within Norman specifically, this paper provides critical analysis absent from the City’s long-term planning processes and suggests the need to develop some type of energy plan within the municipality. Climate change threatens all of humanity, regardless of one’s proximity to a coastline or dry zone. Addressing this crisis and preventing its exacerbation entails decarbonization across our energy systems. Throughout this study, I explored a framework to assess local energy transition feasibility and applied it to my local community. In doing so, I hope to encourage greater localized action in Norman and in the United States at large. References Amtrak. “Norman, Oklahoma.” https://www.amtrak.com/stations/nor . Araújo, Kathleen M. “The Evolving Field of Energy Transitions.” In Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions , edited by Kathleen Araújo, 1-17. London, UK: Routledge, 2022. Bulkeley, Harriet, and Kristine Kern. “Local Government and the Governing of Climate Change in Germany and the UK.” Urban Studies 43, no. 12 (November 2006): 2237–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43198331 . Campus Area Rapid Transit. “Maps.” 2022. https://www.ou.edu/cart/maps . City of Norman. “Budget.” 2021. https://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-06/fye_22_budget_book_-_adopted.pdf . City of Norman. “Budget.” 2022. https://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-07/fye_23_adopted_budget_book_optimized-1.pdf . City of Norman. “Budget.” 2023. https://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-08/fye_24_budget_book_-_final_adopted_compressed_web-complete.pdf . City of Norman. “Budget.” 2024. https://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07/fye_25_adopted_budget_book_hyperlinks.pdf . City of Norman. “Go Norman Transit Plan.” 2021. https://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-07/Go%20Norman%20Transit%20Plan%20-%20Final%20Report%20with%20Appendices%20%28reduced%29.pdf . City of Norman. “Norman bike lane projects underway.” 2022. https://www.normanok.gov/news/norman-bike-lane-projects-underway . City of Norman. “Transit Bus Operations.” 2023. https://www.normanok.gov/residents-visitors/transit-parking/transit-bus-operations . City of Oklahoma City. “adaptokc.” 2020. https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18882/637299972915330000 . Cleveland County Election Board. “Voter Registration Statistics.” 2024. https://www.clevelandcountyelectionboard.com/voter-registration/voter-registration-statistics . Climate Watch. 2020. “Historical GHG Emissions.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions . Collier, Ute, and Ragnar E. Löfstedt. “Think globally, act locally: Local climate change and energy polities in Sweden and the UK.” Global Environmental Change 7, no. 1 (April 1997): 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(96)00025-8 . Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Pagani, F., Banja, M., Muntean, M., Schaaf E., Becker, W., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Quadrelli, R., Risquez Martin, A., Taghavi-Moharamli, P., Köykkä, J., Grassi, G., Rossi, S., Brandao De Melo, J., Oom, D., Branco, A., San-Miguel, J., Vignati, E. “GHG emissions of all world countries.” Publications Office of the European Union (2023): doi:10.2760/953322. Dixon K.W., A.M. Wootten, M.J. Nath, J. Lanzante, D.J. Adams-Smith, C.E. Whitlock, C.F. Gaitán, R.A. McPherson. “South Central Climate Projections Evaluation Project (C-PrEP).” South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center . Norman, OK (2020): https://doi.org/10.21429/12gk-dh47 . Dodson, Jago. “Suburbia under an Energy Transition: A Socio-technical Perspective.” Urban Studies 51, no. 7 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013500083 . Doherty, Carroll, Jocelyn Kiley and Bridget Johnson. “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” Pew Research Center , October 5, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/10/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release-updt.pdf . Drewello, Hansjörg. “Towards a Theory of Local Energy Transition.” Sustainability 14, no.18 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811119 . Emelianoff, Cyria. “Local Energy Transition and Multilevel Climate Governance: The Contrasted Experiences of Two Pioneer Cities (Hanover, Germany, and Växjö, Sweden).” Urban Studies 51, no. 7 (2014): 1378–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26145801 . Feigenbaum, Baruch. “Texas Central High-Speed Rail: A 2023 Update.” Reason Foundation , March 2023. https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-central-high-speed-rail-2023.pdf . Hafner, Manfred and Michel Noussan. “Technologies for the Global Energy Transition.” In The Geopolitics of the Global Energy Transition , edited by Manfred Hafner and Simone Tagliapietra, 177-202. Springer, 2020. Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (IPPRA). “Public Survey on Socially Sustainable Solutions for Water, Carbon, and Infrastructure Resilience in Oklahoma.” University of Oklahoma , 2021. https://crcm.shinyapps.io/s3ok . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Summary for Policymakers." In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , edited by Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero, 1-34. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2023. doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001. International Energy Agency (IEA). “Energy Technology Perspectives 2020—Special Report on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage: CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions.” 2020. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/181b48b4-323f-454d-96fb-0bb1889d96a9/CCUS_in_clean_energy_transitions.pdf . International Energy Agency (IEA). “Global Hydrogen Review 2023,” 2023. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ecdfc3bb-d212-4a4c-9ff7-6ce5b1e19cef/GlobalHydrogenReview2023.pdf . Kennedy, Brian, Cary Funk, and Alec Tyson. “Majorities of Americans Prioritize Renewable Energy, Back Steps to Address Climate Change.” Pew Research Center , June 28, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/majorities-of-americans-prioritize-renewable-energy-back-steps-to-address-climate-change/ . Lazo, Luz. “The 5 higher-speed rail projects taking shape in the U.S.” Washington Post , August 30, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/08/30/us-high-speed-rail-projects/ . League of American Bicyclists (LAB). “Bike Friendly State Report Card: Oklahoma.” 2019. https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/BFS%20Report%20Card_2019_Oklahoma.pdf . Levetin, E. “Aeroallergens and climate change in Tulsa, Oklahoma: Long-term trends in the south-central United States.” Frontiers in Allergy 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2021.726445 . Levin, Kelly, Taryn Fransen, Clea Schumer, Chantal Davis and Sophie Boehm. “What Does ‘Net-Zero Emissions’ Mean? 8 Common Questions, Answered.” World Resources Institute . Last modified March 20, 2023. https://www.wri.org/insights/net-zero-ghg-emissions-questions-answered . Markard, Jochen and Daniel Rosenbloom. “Phases of the Net-Zero Energy Transition and Strategies to Achieve It.” In Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions , edited by Kathleen Araújo, 102-23. London, UK: Routledge, 2022. McPherson, R.A., P.A. Fay, S.G. Alvarez, D. Bertrand, T.L. Broadbent, T. Bruno, A. Fares, B. McCullough, G.W. Moore, B. Moorhead, L. Patiño, A. Petersen, N.G. Smith, J.L. Steiner, A. Taylor, and T. Warziniack. Ch. 26. “Southern Great Plains.” In: Fifth National Climate Assessment . Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program , Washington, DC (2023). https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH26 . Miller, Clark A., Yiamar Rivera-Matos, Angel Echevarria, and Gary Dirks. “Intentional and Responsible Energy Transitions.” In Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions , edited by Kathleen Araújo, 353-70. London, UK: Routledge, 2022. Musick, Nathan. “Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States.” Congressional Budget Office, 2023. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-12/59345-carbon-capture-storage.pdf . National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). "Levelized Cost of Energy." State and Local Planning for Energy , 2020. Accessed on March 25, 2024. https://maps.nrel.gov/slope . OGE Energy. Form 10-K for OGE Energy Corp . Washington, DC: 2022. OG&E. “Renewables.” https://www.oge.com/wps/portal/ord/energy-solutions/renewables/ . Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). “Electric Utility.” Last modified November 29, 2023. https://oklahoma.gov/occ/divisions/public-utility/electric-utility.html . Oklahoma Electric Cooperative (OEC). “Powering Up.” 2023. https://okcoop.org/poweringup_may23/. OEC. “The Benefits of Renewable Energy.” https://okcoop.org/renewables/ . Oklahoma House of Representatives. “Representatives.” 2024. https://www.okhouse.gov/representatives . Oklahoma Senate (Senate). “An Overview of the Oklahoma Senate.” 2024. https://oksenate.gov/senate-overview . Oklahoma State Election Board. “Current Registration Statistics by County.” 2024. https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/elections/voter-registration-statistics/2024-vr-statistics/vrstats-county-jan15-2024.pdf . Rutherford, Jonathan, and Olivier Coutard. “Urban Energy Transitions: Places, Processes and Politics of Socio-Technical Change.” Urban Studies 51, no. 7 (2014): 1353–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26145800 . Southwest Power Pool (SPP). 2020 Annual Report . 2021. https://www.spp.org/documents/66229/2020%20spp%20annual%20report.pdf . SPP. 2021 Annual Report . 2023. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7a0bb6a6a8584cc3b0d87ccd78c63a7e . SPP. 2022 Annual Report . 2023. https://www.spp.org/Documents/70194/2022%20Annual%20Report%20-%209.26.23.pdf Sovacool, Benjamin K. and Frank W. Geels. “Further reflections on the temporality of energy transitions: A response to critics.” Energy Research & Social Science 22 (2016): 232-7. Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC). Annual Report . 2022. Williams, S. Jeffress. “Sea-Level Rise Implications for Coastal Regions.” Journal of Coastal Research (2013): 184–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23486512 . U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “Oklahoma Transportation Data for Alternative Fuels and Vehicles.” Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2023. https://afdc.energy.gov/states/ok . U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “Vehicle Registration Counts by State.” Alternative Fuels Data Center , 2023. https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicle-registration . U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2023. “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Clean Hydrogen.” https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/20230523-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Clean-Hydrogen.pdf . U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). “State Transportation by the Numbers.” Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2022 . https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/state-transportation-statistics/state-transportation-numbers . U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Electricity Data Browser.” 2023. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/ . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer.” Last updated on August 18, 2023. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#allsectors/allsectors/allgas/econsect/all . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Last updated on February 23, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions . U.S. Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Department of State. “The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050.” Washington, DC: 2021. Zhuang, Yizhou, Rong Fu, Benjamin D. Santer, Robert E. Dickinson, and Alex Hall. “Quantifying Contributions of Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Forcings on Increased Fire Weather Risk over the Western United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 45 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111875118 . Zinecker, Anna, Philip Gass, Ivetta Gerasimchuk, Purva Jain, Tom Moerenhout, Yuliia Oharenko, Anissa R. Suharsono, and Christopher Beaton. “Just Energy Transitions—Action Needed for People and the Climate.” In Real People, Real Change: Strategies for Just Energy Transitions . International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD ) (2018). http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep21983.3 .

How Are You the Same Person as When You Were Ten: Favoring the Brain Criterion View over Animalist and Neo-Lockean Views Henry Moon Author Matthew Wong Daniel Coffield Editors I. Introduction I am the same person as when I was ten years old—this is common intuition [1]. In another sense, as I have a different body and psychology, it seems that I cannot be the exact same person as I was when I was ten years old [2]. In this paper I ask how exactly we were the same people when we were ten. This question is equivalent to asking what the persistence conditions for “an entity of our kind” to remain the same over time: call these diachronic persistence conditions [3]. In asking this question, we ask two separate questions (1) What should “entities of our kind” refer to? (2) What are the persistence conditions for these entities? First, I review the literature regarding the two most popular theories of personal ontology, or the study of what we are. In doing so, I will then introduce the brain criterion based on egoistic concern—the special concern about one’s future that arises from anticipation of continued existence. Providing justification in ontological coherence and ethical plausibility, I submit that the brain criterion is the superior ontology. In the second half of this paper, I will be responding to objections to the brain criterion, specifically regarding persistence by considering commonplace thought experiments. As a synthesis from these objections, indeterminacy thesis and multiple occupancy will be defended as part of the paper’s overall argument. II. What Should "Entities of Our Kind" Refer To? To determine the persistence conditions for some entity, one must start by specifying exactly what that entity is. I say this because whether entities can survive events is subsequent to what the entity is. For example, a square cannot survive being stretched in one axis whereas a rectangle can, because a square is defined must have four sides of equal length. This is to say, the persistence conditions of a square are informed by its ontology. In the same way, the persistence conditions for a person depend on personal ontology. Despite this, much of the contemporary literature on personal identity seems to treat personal ontology as a secondary question. Instead, the focus has been placed upon a gamut of thought experiments [4]. To this, in "What Are We”, Eric Olson blames “the unserious air of many discussions of personal identity” on this lack of focus on personal ontology [5]. There are two dominant answers to the persistence question: neo-Lockeanism and Animalism [6]. Neo-Lockeanism is the view that we are creatures with certain psychological traits essentially [7] Animalism says we are human animals essentially; we are identical with our human bodies. Each view is associated with at least one ontology. Neo-Lockean theory most popularly claims that we are constituted by our animal bodies or that we are temporal parts of our animal body. Most neo-Lockeans would not say we survive a permanently vegetative state, despite our animal bodies being able to survive, and to a neo-Lockean, this is an example of how we differ from our animal bodies. Animalists simply state that we are our human bodies; if our bodies were to enter a permanently vegetative state, we would enter that state as well. Neo-Lockean views lack the “metaphysical leg up” that ontologically focused views like animalism have [8]. Contrastingly, animalism often ignores normative concerns [9]. Despite this trade off between normativity and ontology, when we refer to others, we do not do so as moral agents and organisms separately, but as one unified forensic unit: otherwise this would be absurd [10]. Parfit also touches on similar ideas when he sets out two requirements that a theory of personal identity must satisfy [11] : (1) Whether a future person will be me must depend only on our intrinsic properties. It cannot depend on what happens to other people. (2) Since personal identity is of great importance, whether a future person is me cannot depend on a trivial fact. Parfit also seems to segregate requirements on the basis of (1) a strict ontological concern and (2), an ethical concern. What idea we have converged upon seems to be this: an account of personal identity (and thus, ontology) must be, as Olson puts it, both “ontologically coherent as well as ethically plausible” [12] In the following sections I will forward an account of personal ontology which describes entities of our sort as a human animal under two constraints: (1) That the entity has certain traits that warrant continuous egoistic concern (2) That the entity is the spatial part of a human animal in which (1) necessarily and sufficiently obtains (i.e part of the brain) Evaluating the contemporary two main theories of personal identity, along with our own as delineated above, I will recommend this account of personal ontology to have best fulfilled the need to be ethically plausible and ontologically coherent. A. Ethical Plausibility I propose that to say an account of personal ontology is ethically plausible is to say that it reasonably includes all entities that our normative and ethical concerns refer to when we use the everyday pronouns of ‘I’, ‘you’ or ‘we’, and reasonably excludes all entities that do not. Further, if it is said that you and I are ‘entities of our sort’, we can expect that normative claims which apply to you would also apply to me. We start with cases where the brain-criterion provides for a necessary liberalization of inclusivity. First, in contrast to animalism, brain views allow for entities of our kind to survive after brain transplantation. The common intuition that follows is that after the brain is transplanted into another person’s head, the entity follows with it [13]. Animalists must maintain that because the human organism is left behind and dies during the process of transplantation, we must die along with it. This is a strikingly unintuitive statement to endorse. On the other hand, because physical continuity of the brain is maintained and is presumably enough to warrant egotist function once transplanted, the brain criterion successfully represents the intuition that we would survive after transplantation. Second, in contrast to neo-Lockean continuity, we are able to account for individuals who lack meaningful psychological-connectedness, yet we must still include them as one of us. Jeff McMahan illustrates that in cases of Alzheimer’s, neo-Lockeans seem to imply that the individual ceases to exist and becomes a sort of “post-person.” [14] This is because insofar as a case of Alzheimer’s progresses so that almost no function of memory remains, neo-Lockean theories suggest that this is a case where the psychological connection is broken, and individuals cannot survive [15]. When considering the ethical plausibility of this, we suspect that instead, we would still consider the Alzheimer’s patient an entity of our sort, and that our normative claims and duties would still apply to them. Concretely, if the Alzheimer’s patient was my mother, just because she lacks psychological connection does not mean she is not “one of us”. In contrast to the brain criterion based on egoistic concern, as long as there is brain continuity supporting the function of egoistic concern, we may say the entity is one of us. For example an Alziemer’s patient still has egoistic concerns because she considers actions not as disconnected events that will only impact an entity similar but identical to herself (and that she exists only for a brief moment before her psychological connection deteriorates) but that her actions will influence her future. Note the difference here is that egoistic concerns need not be a degree of psychological unity in which even a semblance of qualitative identity is sufficiently obtained [16]. We see this when we consider two statements, that normatively we take as non-mutually exclusive: My mother has not been the same person recently and does not remember me. That woman who does not remember me is my mother. The first statement expresses our intuition that people can change drastically, even to the point where psychological unity according to a neo-Lockean would be lost. The second statement, however, speaks to our intuition that numerical identity can survive far more liberally, when considering strict psychological relation, than a neo-Lockean claims. Indeed, the exclusionary policy of the brain criterion is the most ethically plausible. There are also cases where the brain criterion restricts cases necessarily. The main difference between neo-Lockean views and general brain-views is that the brain-criteria explicitly requires a physical contingency. This is to say, a sufficient part of the brain which is necessarily part of a living being must remain continuously. From this, we can locate cases that should be excluded, such as that where an entity can survive a total loss of body. Neo-Lockeanism generally endorse teletransportation as an event in which we can survive. Despite whatever prima facie intuitions we may have, consider you were being transported, but a replica of an entity at some point B was created while you were still alive. Thus, you are not the entity at point B, and for there to be one entity, you must have been destroyed at point A [17]. Moreover, Animalist views consider a fetus and an individual in a permanently vegetative state to also fall under our general normative conventions, as they are simply stages in the human animal’s development. Extreme views notwithstanding, common ethical norms tell us otherwise: we have intuitions that it is permissible to kill an early stage fetus, for example, where we do not for toddlers [18]. This is a difference that Animalists do not account for. This difference is crucial in ontology: we say it is permissible to kill a week-old fetus because at that point it more closely resembles an unconscious collection of cells than the entity we normatively refer to we say “you” or “I”. The ethical norms about “entities of our sort” that Animalism implies do not match our commonly held ones; thus, we cannot say an Animalist conception of persons is ethically plausible. Considering both comparisons to neo-Lockean and Animalists views, it is only by using the definition of brains with egoistic concern that we can arrive at a superior ontology. B. Ontological Coherence To say that a theory is ontologically preferable to any other is to say that it answers key issues concerning personal ontology at as little cost in way of unfortunate implications that one must accept. In evaluating the seven main personal ontologies, Olson generally considers one issue as most important: the thinking animal problem. The thinking animal problem is the following argument: (P1) Presently sitting in your chair is a human animal. (P2) The human animal sitting in your chair is thinking. (P3) You are the thinking being sitting in your chair. (C) Therefore, the human animal sitting in your chair is you. The crux of the thinking animal argument is that insofar as rejection of P1-P3 requires us to accrue the cost of, as Olson puts it, an “impenetrable” [19] ontology, we must conclude that we are human-animals. By proving that we can escape this conclusion, we can prove the brain criterion is preferable to neo-Lockean theories which fall victim to the argument. I will now defend the second constraint using a generalization of the thinking animal problem: (P1) There is a spatial part of a human currently located where you are. (P2) The spatial part currently located where you are is thinking. (P3) You are the thinking being located in your chair. (C) Therefore, the spatial part of a human where you are is you. Note that this argument is analogous to the thinking-animal-argument so that we may adopt its conclusion. The difference is that the conclusion is such that we must be spatial-parts of the brain, some that we can be essentially reduced to a part of the brain. Note that any spatial part of an animal with greater inclusivity than what is necessary for a thinking part to think will fall trap to this argument, given the animal with greater inclusivity contained a non-essential part was incorrectly considered essential. This is to say that the argument implies “you” are identical to infinite smaller spatial-parts unless “you” refers to the smallest possible spatial-part of an animal which thinks. This smallest possible part is the only part that is not affected by the argument since, any less inclusive and the animal loses the property of thinking, so P2 falls, making the argument inapplicable. Dualist theories notwithstanding, this smallest spatial-part of a thinking animal must refer to some part of the brain, and so we have proven our second constraint on animalism. To conclude, this makes animalism and the brain criterion at least equal in ontological coherence, which combined with a brain criterion advantage in ethical plausibility allows us to recommend over the other theories. III. What Should “Entities of Our Kind” Refer To? Given we have answered first question of this paper, there are two main objections specifically to how the brian criteria persist : 1. That the brain-criterion is unnecessary and insufficient 2. That the brain-criterion is necessary but insufficient In this section, I will deal with both of these objections, and in doing so maintain that Brain Criterion is both sufficient and necessary. A. Unnecessary and Insufficient Parfit’s “combined spectrum” shows that any account based on “empirical fact” will have cases of indeterminate identity [20][21]. This is because any empirical criteria, such as psychological or physical continuity operate on a spectrum of absolute similarity to no similarity. If that is true, then there are cases on that spectrum where it seems that the connectedness between two entities is indeterminate to whether they are the same entity. Consider our brain criterion: existence is guaranteed in the case of 100% paradigmatic brain-function, and guaranteed false in the case of no function. However, there are cases in-between whereby it is indeterminate that consciousness is present: it is hard to see an argument for consciousness given 2% function, but what of 12% or 24%? There are two possible conclusions we can make of this: That indeterminacy cannot exist, and so some “further-fact” must be considered [22]. Or, we must allow for cases where indeterminacy arises. If we accept the consideration of a “further fact” in indeterminate cases, this implies the same further fact could determine the answer to the persistence question in any other case. What rejecting cases of indeterminacy entails is accepting a “further fact” ontology, such as immaterialism. I will comment that even if we cannot assuage the issue of indeterminacy, it may be preferable than to contend with the burden of proving dualism and other theories associated with immaterialism. In our paper’s defense of the brain criterion, indeterminacy would not mitigate claims that it should be recommended over animalism or neo-Lockean views –– both rely on empirical criteria. Yet as a foundational argument, I will contribute a defense of indeterminacy. Note that indeterminacy in things other than the existence of people is uncontroversial and common, for example, given a tallness spectrum where 7ft is guaranteed to be tall and 4ft guaranteed not to, there must be indeterminate cases of tallness in between. However, indeterminacy seems to be unreasonable when it comes to issues of persistence. Bernard Williams provides a thought experiment where one has to imagine that entity X, which is indeterminately identical to me, will be tortured tomorrow if indeterminacy is true. Does it follow that the feeling of great pain will be indeterminately felt by me? Noonan points out that this merely illustrates the “very great unnaturalness of this way of thinking” that is present in these cases, not that the cases themselves are unnatural [23]. Note then because it must be accepted that indeterminacy exists in other contexts, we must simply prove that indeterminacy in persistence is also acceptable. Many metaphysical arguments have been offered to this end; I will propose a practical one: to assume that issues of persistence must have determinate answers where other reducible substances do not is to assume there is something irreducible about selves. This begs the question on whether there selves are reducible in the first place, and thus we have no reason to reject indeterminacy in persistence. B. Necessary but Insufficient A hemispherectomy is a procedure where one half of the cerebrum is removed. Despite having half their brain removed, patients that undergo hemispherectomy expect to survive the operation. Our intuitions indicate they have good reason to make this assumption: we treat postoperative entities as the same people, and indeed, as their brain hemisphere adapts to serving the role of two, often cognitive function is returned as well [24]. In other words, if I receive a hemispherectomy, theoretically there seems to be enough brain continuity so that the resulting person is me. However, the reality is that whether you survive is indeterminate. If the brain criterion is necessary and sufficient in the light of indeterminacy, we must prove that for all conclusions that could be made, but are unobservable, there is still ethical plausibility and ontological coherence. If I end up in surgery or even if it is indeterminate that surgery kills me, the discussion ends here. Things are more complicated if you survive. Given that we can accept the transplantation of the cerebrum while maintaining continuity, it can be said that transplanting half of a brain also continues the entity. However, in a case there are two candidates, both sharing physical continuity of a human animal in which egoistic concern is retained, it seems that the brain criterion is insufficient to prove persistence which entity persisted. There are three interpretations to this case [25]. (a) I do not survive. (b) I survives as either candidate-A or candidate-B (c) I survive as both First consider (a), commonly referred to as the “non-branching view” [25]. Notice that I would survive if one half was destroyed, but in the case of both being preserved, I die. This seems immediately strange: How is double success considered a failure? Given the symmetry of the problem, (b) is incoherent as well, considering facts about both candidates are equal. We must then turn to (c), the only case in which brain continuity is sufficient. To avoid implicating that candidates A and B are the same, I forward that candidates A and candidates B are distinct entities that were once spatially coincident within the original, or multiple occupancy[26]. Given that either (a) or (b) are both untenable, the implication is that if one wants to reject “further fact” accounts, multiple occupancy must be endorsed [27]. Two things must be proven for us to adopt this: It does not affect the ethical plausibility of the theory It does not affect the ontological coherence of the theory If these two requirements are met, we will have a theory that sans fission preserves our original account and considering fission, will have the most realistic account in approaching it. C. Ethical Plausibility Let us first consider ethical plausibility. Firstly, given that pre-fission agents are unified, there is no change from our original theory. Moreover, the fact that an entity undergoes fission later down the road would not retrospectively change the normative considerations we give to the pre-fission entity. Does our criterion provide the most ethically plausible account of entities post-fission? Consider your spouse undergoing the fission operation. We may measure the ethical plausibility by considering how each post-fission theory affects your duties to your spouse. If (a) is true and whether your spouse lives if there is no second transplant but dies if fission takes place, if there is a gap in time between when half your spouse’s cerebrum is removed, and when it is transplanted into a host body, do you have marital duties toward your spouse during that gap where the second transplantation did not occur, but that these duties disappear the second the operation is successful? That our duty to people should be as arbitrary as the existence of another person seems strange. Strange conclusions are also reached when (b) is considered – why would you have the martial duty to love and be faithful to one of your spouse candidates and no qualms abandoning the other? If we maintain that it is immoral to abandon our duties on arbitrary facts, so (b) is also not a viable conclusion. (c) is the only scenario which is compatible with our conventional moral ideas. Yet it is also true that our commitments to our spouse are not exactly the same: they are, in a way, inflated. I must now commit to caring and providing for two bodies instead of one, being affectionate and loving to two bodies instead of one. However, while our duties to our spouse now split between two people is a commitment that is inflated, it is inflated based upon ideas we already accept as a posteriori moral—compare this to duties suddenly appearing and disappearing based on arbitrary facts. Consider a situation where your spouse is experiencing a mental health crisis. As a result of going through this situation, it is your duty to be more sensitive around them, spend more time and energy tending to their care etc—in other words, your commitment has been inflated. However, we accept this as a natural part of our duty because we hold a duty to a loved one in a difficult situation, despite having our commitments inflated. In the same way, our duties to a spouse do not change on account of this strange situation happening to them; duty is not situational. This is the principle that only multiple occupancy can reach, given all other seniors change duty based on the arbitrary details. Thus, being that it would be most accurate to say you have a duty to both, multiple occupancy is the most ethically plausible interpretation. What may be suspect is the impact on personal ontology. Multiple occupancy does not affect the arguments for ontological coherence we have laid out before if committing to its thesis does not require committing to additional burdens. We may prove this by considering each ontological assumption that our original theory could operate under and prove how multiple occupancy is compatible with the original metaphysical assumptions. Thus, if each assumption that is compatible with our original theory is also compatible with multiple occupancy, we can say that the original theory’s ontological coherence was not affected. There were two metaphysical assumptions we could make in which our account of personal ontology retained: that four dimensionalism was true, and that four dimensionalism was false. Under the assumption of four dimensionalism, the two separate entities after the fission operation are just temporal parts of the original entity that simply stand spatially distinct. This stands unproblematic among thinkers who accept four dimensionalism [29]. However, we require an account with the original metaphysical assumptions free of four-dimensionalism. Note that multiple occupancy seems absurd because common sense counting would suggest that 1 person becomes 2 people. We may resolve this by suggesting that it is possible to count 2 people before the fission operation as well. Before the operation, a singular entity is counted because counting was done by “spatio-temporal coincidence” rather than counting by identity [30]. This itself is also acceptable: if we can say that we can be identical to some entity that is not spatio-temporal coincident with us, as we do in everyday language when we say “my past self" or my “future self,” we are saying that identity and spatio-temporal coincidence represent two different things. Thus, given multiple occupancy can be integrated within either framework without necessitating a revision of our fundamental metaphysical assumptions, we can say it has not impacted the ontological coherence of the original theory. When we consider that both the ethical plausibility and ontological coherence has been preserved, while multiple occupancy is highly counter-intuitive, it must be accepted. IV. Conclusion In answering how we are the same person as when we were ten, I have considered two important questions in personal identity: what “we” are, which is a question of personal ontology, and how "we" persist. I have evaluated the merits of the brain criterion based on egoistic concern against both Animalism and Neo-Lockeanism, arguing that it is this paper’s variant of the brain criterion which best encompasses both ethical and ontological considerations when answering what “we” are. Then, I have argued that the persistence criteria which follow from the proposition that we are brains is necessary and sufficient, on the basis that one rejects a further fact ontology. What follows is the question of multiple occupancy, which seems quite counter intuitive when considering prima facie. However, multiple occupancy as I have proven, remains the only solution to deal with the cases of fission satisfyingly. Footnotes [1] Francisco Muñoz et al., “Spatio-Temporal Brain Dynamics of Self-Identity: An EEG Source Analysis of the Current and Past Self,” Brain Structure and Function 227, no. 6 (2022): 2167–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-022-02515-9 . [2] There is quite a lot of unintended semantic conflation in discussions of personal identity. Even the label by which we refer to it almost assumes person essentialism. When I use the term “person”, I refer to the colloquial usage, not the neo-Lockean kind, unless explicitly stated. Moreover, in usages where “person” may be easily conflated, I have substituted the more neutral “self” or “selves”. This is why I refer to the persistence questions with the set of rather than . Most clearly neutral is the term “entities of our sort”, which I have tried to use most often, but selves serves the same purpose with less of a word count cost. [3] Harold W. Noonan, Personal Identity (London: Routledge, 2019), 85-86 [4] David Shoemaker and Kevin Tobia, “Personal Identity,” The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology, 2022, 542–63, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198871712.013.28, 9. [5] Eric Todd Olson, What Are We?: A Study in Personal Ontology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), v. [6] David Shoemaker and Kevin Tobia, “Personal Identity” [7] Eric T. Olson, “Personal Identity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal [8] David Shoemaker and Kevin Tobia, “Personal Identity,” [9] Ibid [10] Marya Schechtman, Staying Alive: Personal Identity, Practical Concerns, and the Unity of a Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 49-56 [11] Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 267. [12] Gendler, Tamar Szabo and Olson, Eric T, The Human Animal. (Philosophical Review, 1999) [13] Nichols, Shaun, and Michael Bruno. “Intuitions about Personal Identity: An Empirical Study.” Philosophical Psychology 23, no. 3 (2010): 293–312. doi:10.1080/09515089.2010.490939. [14] Jeff McMahan, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 47 [15] Lukas J Meier. “Memories without Survival: Personal Identity and the Ascending Reticular Activating System” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, no.5 (2023): 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad028 [16] Two things are qualitatively identical if they share all their properties, and numerically identical if they are not two, but one. [17] McMahan, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life, 57 [18] Steinbock, Bonnie. “Abortion.” The Hastings Center, February 22, 2024. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/abortion/ . [19] Olson, What Are We?: A Study in Personal Ontology, 214. [20] Noonan, Personal Identity, 18 [21] Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 236 [22] Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 210 [23] Noonan, Personal Identity, 191 [24] Noonan, Personal Identity, 5 [25] Parfit, Reasons and Persons, 248 - 253 [26] Noonan, Personal Identity, 18 [28] Noonan, Personal Identity, 140 [29] Olson, “Personal Identity” [30] Noonan, Personal Identity, 139

The Brown University Journal of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (JPPE) is a peer reviewed academic journal for undergraduate and graduate students that is sponsored by the Political Theory Project and the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Society Program at Brown University. The Brown Journal of Philosophy, Politics & Economics Volume VII, Issue I scroll to view articles Featured Articles Philosophy Body Ethics: Moving Beyond Valid Consent Christine Chen Non-Self Through Time Anita Kukeli Divisive Identities Exploring the Interplay of Personal and Social Identities Ella Neeka Sawhney The Captain and the Doctor George LeMieux Read More PoLitics The European Union Trust Fund for Africa: Understanding the EU’s Securitization of Development Aid and its Implications Migena Satyal A Death Sentence Beyond Death Row: Helling v. McKinney and the Constitutionality of Solitary Confinement Hallie Sternblitz Rewriting the Antitrust Setlist: Examining the Live Nation-Ticketmaster Lawsuit and its Implications for Modern Antitrust Law Katya Tolunsky Read More Economics Read More Not Paying income tax timely leads to significant financial losses for the governments. What design changes could be made to tax collection policy to minimize these delays? Aryan Midha One Planet, One Oklahoma: Exploring a Framework for Assessing the Feasibility of Localized Energy Transitions in the United States Anna Hyslop Applications for JPPE will resume in the fall! See Available Positions

Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict Is secession a viable solution? Tathyana Mello Amaral Brown University Author Miles Campbell Ryan Saadeh Ethan Shire Editors Fall 2018 This paper assesses the viability of secession as a possible solution for the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in the creation of weak and unstable states that sought to establish their identity and place in the world. It triggered a wave of pervasive ethno-nationalism in Eastern Europe, led to a number of lasting military conflicts, and brought about the question of self-determination of minor ethnic groups like the Armenians, Chechens, and Kosovians. The Yugoslav Wars marked an important turning point in the history of the post-Soviet region because it resulted in the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in 2008 and created legal precedent for separatist groups. While the right to secede offers an answer to the resolution of ethnic conflicts, some scholars and theorists find it troubling. [1] The dispute between Georgia and ethnic Ossetians of the Transcaucasian region, now known as South Ossetia, highlights how the right to secede is still a point of controversy in international law. Historical Background: Nature of the Conflict Though the enmity between ethnic Georgians and ethnic Ossetians dates back to the 13th century when Ossetians were driven South from the Northern Caucasus Mountains to Georgian territory, it greatly intensified during the Soviet period.[2] During this period, South Ossetia was an autonomous administrative unit within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR). As historian George B. Hewitt discusses, language policy was an important point of contention between the ethnic groups since Georgia pursued discriminatory policies against its ethnic minorities.[3] The Soviet Union’s early language policy granted a lot of freedom to ethnic groups as part of a “nativization” effort that sought to liberate and win over oppressed peoples. By the late 1930s, however, fears of emerging nationalism within the federation led to a change in policy to one of “Russification”. Georgia, however, was exempted from such policies until 1953 since its leader Joseph Stalin was a Georgian native. In 1936 Georgian was declared a state language and Georgianization became the policy of the day. In 1938 the state imposed the Georgian alphabet on the Ossetian language and prohibited minority language schooling, causing great tensions between the government and the ethnic minorities.[4] When the Russification policies reached the Georgian SSR, the Georgian Nationalist Movement proposed the 1988 Draft Language Law which aimed to oblige ethnic minorities to master the Georgian language.[5] These Georgian language policies, along with other discriminatory practices, thus created deep resentment among South Ossetians towards Georgians. It is important to note that the small state of Georgia is home to other separatist ethnic minorities, including Abkhazians in the West and Adjarians in the South. Although the Abkhazian-Georgian conflict has paralleled the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict since 1991 when violent conflict first erupted during the Georgian independence movement, this paper will exclusively focus on the South Ossetian conflict. The violent experience of the 1990s was a culmination of hundreds of years of conflict. Political scientist Stefan Wolff writes that “South Ossetians wanted to preserve and remain within the Soviet Union. The Ossetians believed that their survival as ethno-cultural communities distinct from the Georgian majority would be in acute danger in an independent Georgian state.”[6] The relationship between Russia and South Ossetia was reinforced by the fact that ethnic Ossetians had their own autonomous republic within Russia, namely North Ossetia-Alana. With the support of Russia, the South Ossetian separatists managed to put up a strong resistance against the Georgians.[7] In June 1992, shortly after the election of former Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze as Georgian president, a ceasefire was signed in Sochi under Russian supervision.[8] The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) sent a mission composed of troops from Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia, and North Ossetia to facilitate negotiations toward a political agreement.[9] The OSCE mission successfully maintained peace until 2003 when President Mikhail Saakashvili rose to power through the popular Rose Revolution, and made the restoration of Georgian territorial integrity a major goal of the new government.[10] The administration’s policy led to a violent flare up in 2004 when the government cracked down on a symbol of interethnic cooperation: the Ergneti Market.[11] Though the black market was a major point of contraband trade, the introduction of a harsh taxation system in the market, as a part of Saakashvili’s anti-contraband operation, significantly harmed Georgian relations with Ossetians. The market was one of the only sites of direct interaction between the two ethnic groups. Relations were made even worse by the fact that one of the targeted groups in this operation was comprised of local officials and businessmen who profited from Russian and Ossetian trade connections.[12] Violence erupted during and after the shutting down of the market. Even more detrimental to interethnic relations, in 2006 it became public that the smuggling operation still existed, but that it was now run but the ruling Georgian elite.[13] The closing of the Ergneti Market was labeled a “missed window of opportunity” for conflict resolution by academic Doris Vogl. She argued that “during the rigorously implemented state-building process of the early Saakashvili government, the informal Georgian-Ossetian relations immediately lost momentum.”[14] The events of 2004 polarized and radicalized both Georgians and Ossetians and intensified the clashes between the ethnic groups in the prelude of the war of 2008. Though Georgia offered South Ossetia federal status in 2004, the leadership rejected this possible resolution.[15] Georgian policies in the early 2000s allowed Russia to offer more substantial and public support to the separatist Ossetians. Russia distributed passports to ethnic Ossetians and intensified political, economic and military ties with the separatist region. Arguably even more important, Russia observed growing relations between Georgia and Western powers like the United States. Georgia received 1.3 billion dollars of American financial aid and oversaw the construction of BP operated Baku–Supsa oil pipeline which runs through Azerbaijan and Georgia.[16] As Georgia began to pursue NATO membership, Russia was threatened by the possibility of having the Western coalition present in its own backyard. Svante E. Cornell and S. Frederick Starr comment that before the 2008 war, “Georgia was moving rapidly toward Euro-Atlantic integration, and was doing so at a time when an increasingly assertive Russian foreign policy was being shaped by sphere of influence-thinking.”[17] With fears of further NATO expansion and growing US presence in the Caucasus, Russian policy was driven by global security concerns, dynamics of European and global geopolitical power. Also significant is the fact that dominant Western powers such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France supported and legitimized the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in February 2008. This allowed President Putin to cite the “Kosovo precedent” when signing a presidential decree on April 16th that established political, economic and social relations with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[18] Rising tensions between the two sovereign nations resulted in a five day war in 2008. Controversy surrounds who actually initiated the war on August 7th 2008,[19] as reports by the European Union and the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center agree that while Georgia made the first move, Russia significantly increased the number of troops and armaments in Abkhazia, and later in South Ossetia in the prelude to the war.[20] After five days of violent conflict, Georgia and Russia agreed to sign an armistice and engaged in peace talks sponsored by the European Union, the United Nations and OSCE. Russian military troops remained in South Ossetia in order to prevent Georgia from recovering the territory.[21] On August 25th, Russia recognized the sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Western powers and institutions such as NATO, the European Union, and the United Nations strongly condemned this move as they believed it undermined the sovereignty of the Georgian state. In response, Georgia ceased all diplomatic relations with Russia. This made the peace process slow and ineffective as the co-sponsored EU-UN-OSCE talks in Geneva were the only mechanism for multilateral talks.[22] Since 2008, Russia has increased governmental, economic and social ties with the secessionist regions. The administrative border between South Ossetia and Georgia has also been pushed southwards and since the summer of 2015, South Ossetian-held territory includes a section of the Baku-Supsa pipeline. As Andrews Higgins puts it, the secessionist region is part of Russia’s “Frozen Zone”, which includes areas under Russian control that officially belong to neighboring states, such as Georgia’s Abkhazia, Moldova’s Transnistria, and Ukraine’s Crimea. Higgins also adds that these regions are “useful for things like preventing a NATO foothold or destabilizing the host country at opportune moments.”[23] Issues with the Secession of South Ossetia In his essay “The Cracked Foundations of the Right to Secede”, law professor and political scientist Donald Horowitz outlines a set of assumptions that are made about secessionist states which justify the right to secede. This right assumes that secession will produce a “homogenous successor” that will “respect minority rights,” and where “republican democracy is viable.”[24] It also assumes that secession will “result in a diminution of conflict.”[25] The case of South Ossetia can be analyzed as a natural secessionist experiment of history because the region has been a de-facto independent state for many years. The question then arises: have these assumptions materialized in the case of South Ossetia? In short, they have not. As Horowitz points out, secession “merely proliferates the arenas in which the problem of intergroup political accommodation must be faced.”[26] In the case of Georgia, ample evidence shows that ethnic conflict continues to haunt both Georgia and the de-facto independent state of South Ossetia. There were many reports concerning violations of human rights from both sides during the 2008 war. For example, a Human Rights Watch report showed that there was intentional destruction of Georgian villages by Russian-South Ossetian troops.[27] The majority of ethnic Georgians who resided in South Ossetia fled during the August 2008 conflict, but an estimated 20,000 still live in the disputed territory.[28] The Ministry for Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia reported that there were 34,274 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from South Ossetia as of October 2014.[29] A UN survey shows that 56.9% of IDPs from South Ossetia are unable, but would like to return to their place of origin in cities like Tskhinvali, Znauri, Java, and Shida Kartli. This demonstrates how interethnic accommodations have failed to unfold with the creation of a separate state. Additionally, with no access to the territory except in preparations for the Geneva Discussions, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Georgian authorities have been unable to implement conventions regarding rights of refugees, stateless persons, and IDPs.[30] Russian troops regularly detain Georgian civilians for illegal crossings of the “administrative boundary line” (around 320 villagers were detained in 2015 alone).[31] In fact, the Freedom House Organization states that ethnic Georgians are barred from returning to the region unless they “renounce their Georgian citizenship and accept Russian passports.”[32] Therefore, the freedom of movement of Georgian citizens is constantly threatened in South Ossetia. In July 2017, the South Ossetian authorities also shared plans “to abolish the Georgian language schooling in the region’s ethnic Georgian populated areas beginning from the 2017/2018 academic year.”[33] The language policy proposed by the South Ossetian government recalls the discriminatory policies Ossetians were subjected to at the hand of Georgians during the Soviet period. Regarding the meaningful political participation of ethnic minorities, the Freedom House states that ethnic Georgians have refused or been barred from participating in the electoral process.[34] Freedoms of expression and of organization are also threatened.[35] As Horowitz argues, the treatment of this new ethnic minority is highly discriminatory. Therefore, in the case of South Ossetia, secession does not create a homogenous successor nor does it guarantee the respect of minority rights. In the case of South Ossetia, secession does not seem feasible unless the authorities make a commitment to guarantee the rights of its ethnic minorities. But, as Horowitz warns, “guarantees of minority protection in secessionist regions are likely to be illusory.”[36] While South Ossetia is considered a de-facto independent state, the viability of an independent republican democracy in South Ossetia is questionable when considering its high dependence on Russia. Historians Andreas Gerrits and Max Bader argue that “the economic and intergovernmental linkages with Russia … directly undermine the autonomy of the region.”[37] With a dual executive system, South Ossetia maintains political institutions based on those of Russia. The 2011 presidential election demonstrates the grip of Russia on the region’s politics and shows how the South Ossetian political process is highly susceptible to Russian influence. When a candidate who criticized strong ties with Russia won the popular vote, the Supreme Court annulled the results. Elections were repeated in 2012 with four new candidates, all pro-Russia.[38] As a result of the bilateral agreements signed in 2009, 2010, and 2015 that established economic, governmental and military links between Russia and South Ossetia, South Ossetia developed a high level of dependence on Russia.[39] Russia is South Ossetia’s only relevant trade partner, the ruble is the official currency, and South Ossetia’s imports and investments are exclusively from Russia.[40] More significantly, 91% of South Ossetia’s government budget is made up from Russian financial aid.[41] These limitations arguably derive from a lack of international recognition and from the consequences of the 2008 war. However, as Russian economist Mikhail Delyagin states, “South Ossetia does not exist as an independent economic entity due to its small size and extremely low-level management,” as well as due to its reliance on Russia’s long-term military presence to protect its territory.[42] As a result of this significant dependence on Russian aid, South Ossetia does not have a sustainable future as an independent nation. Another assumption that can be contested is that secession will lead to a diminution of violent conflict. This inevitable reality is highly flawed because devolution merely turns domestic conflicts into international ones. While a political divorce has not officially occurred, South Ossetia has been de-facto independent for at least 10 years. Though ethnic enmities linger, the recent history of the conflict shows how ethnic conflicts can mutate into primarily geopolitical ones when separatist movements thrive. University of Edinburgh Professor Emeritus John Erickson writes that the implications of Georgia’s Western push “are consequently dire for those [including high level Russian officials] who insist doggedly that the post-Soviet ‘space’ in its entirety, encompassing the former states of the Soviet Union, is and must remain a closed Russian geopolitical preserve.”[43] For Russia, the possibility of NATO encroachment on the South Caucasus precludes any significant decision concerning the separatist regions. As historian David J. Smith argues, German Chancellor Angela Merkle sealed the region’s fate when she said that the resolution of internal conflict was a prerequisite for NATO membership.[44] From that moment onwards, South Ossetia became a pawn in Moscow’s foreign policy strategy, described by Svante Cornell as a “revival of a classically modern, Realpolitik culture of security.”[45] The South Ossetian “secessionist” experience, along with that of other separatist states in Eastern Europe, illustrates how ethnic conflicts can be used to further geopolitical interests of powers like the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet space. The internationalization of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict shows how secession does not necessarily lead to a diminution of violence. Therefore, the failure of South Ossetia to protect the minority rights of ethnic Georgians, its continued dependence on Russia, and likely mutation of ethnic conflicts into geopolitical ones suggests that secession is not a viable solution for this conflict. Implications There are no clear answers to Georgian-South Ossetian conflict. Though the director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies Cory Welt argues that “the reintegration of South Ossetia…poses no challenges to conventional understandings of democracy and human rights,” as time passes, the collective consciousness of both South Ossetians and Georgians acquires increasingly negative perceptions of the opposing ethnic group, making future interethnic cooperation difficult to achieve.[46] Additionally, the social linkage between South Ossetia and Russia continues to grow through the Russian domination of the media, the use of Russian as the lingua franca, and the promotion of educational exchange programs.[47] A symbolic link also comes from the large Ossetian diaspora in North Ossetia, an autonomous region within Russia. Thus, South Ossetia’s reintegration into Georgia becomes more unlikely by the day. With most citizens having dual citizenship to South Ossetia and Russia, further integration of South Ossetia into Russia can be anticipated. While Russia has not stated that it will pursue the annexation of the territory, its aggressive support of South Ossetia has managed to destabilize the region, prevent Georgia from joining Western organizations such as NATO. Moreover, through its involvement in Georgia, Russia has reasserted its influence in the Caucasus region. If secession occurred and South Ossetia was recognized as independent state by the international community, Russia would be encouraged to engage in even more aggressive foreign policy in the post-Soviet sphere of influence, possibly resulting in a domino effect of secessionist movements and a higher occurrence of violent conflicts. Georgia is a multiethnic country with two separatist movements (the experience of Abkhazia is very similar to that of South Ossetia), so the secession of one region would likely lead to that of the other. The disputed territories make up about one quarter of the Georgian territory, which means secession would severely destabilize the already weak country. The fear of a domino effect, not only in Georgia, but in other disputed territories that are currently under Russian control (i.e.: Crimea and Donbass, Ukraine; Transnitria, Moldova), is already a reality shaping international geopolitics. If the right to secede is accepted in relation to the South Ossetian dispute, the legal precedent set by Kosovo’s independence will be reaffirmed. With Russia’s “Frozen Zone” in mind, the emergence and legitimization of separatist movements of small and unsustainable regions can lead to the expansion of Russian sphere of influence in the post-Soviet territory and the further polarization of the present international political dynamics. Conclusion Peace talks and conflict resolution efforts have proven ineffective for almost 25 years, since both sides are committed to achieving predetermined preferential outcomes.[48] Both sides have been haunted by the impatience of political leaders such as President Saakashvili and by a lack of trust from both sides due to the lack of interethnic communication. But, most of all, the sides have been haunted by a pro-separatist Russian mediator. Cory Welt writes that Russia’s “function as a ‘hegemonic balancer’ interposed between conflicting parties resulted in the establishment of a level playing field for negotiations, allowing Abkhazia and South Ossetia to consider themselves equals to Georgia, not subordinates.”[49] While Georgia attempted to reach an acceptable political solution, the support from a major power endowed separatist group with a decisive sense of confidence and security that hindered the resolution of the conflict. Meanwhile, Western states and institutions failed to devise a coherent response to Russian policies that threaten stability and Europe’s own interests in the region. The de-facto independence of South Ossetia encountered a continued threat to rights of ethnic minorities, a strong dependence on Russia, and the quick escalation of violence in 2008 due to the internationalization of the conflict. The region’s experience thus supports the argument that secession is not a viable solution for ethnic conflict in the Caucasus. Endnotes [1] Donald L. Horowitz, “The Cracked Foundations of the Right to Secede,” Journal of Democracy, 11. [2] George Hewitt, Discordant Neighbours: A Reassessment of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian Conflicts, (Leiden: 2003), 22 -23. [3] Hewitt, 41. [4] Sonya Kleshik, "I Am My Language: Language Policy and Attitudes Toward Language in Georgia" (Master's thesis, Central European University, 2010), 11 - 12 [5] Hewitt, 57 – 58. [6] Stefan Wolff, "Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia," Encyclopedia Princetoniensis. [7] Ibid. [8] Ibid. [9] Marietta Konig, "The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict ," OSCE Yearbook 2004 (Hamburg: 2004), 242. [10] Ibid, 238. [11] Doris Vogl, "Missed Windows of Opportunity in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – The Political Agenda of the Post-Revolutionary Saakashvili Government (2004-2006)," Failed Prevention: The Case of Georgia (Vienna: 2010), 68 – 71. [12] Vogl, 70. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid, 72. [15] Wolff. [16] Cory Welt, “Balancing the Balancer: Russia, the U.S., and Conflict Resolution in Georgia,” Global Dialogue 7, no. 3-4 (Summer/Autumn 2005), 24. [17] Svante E. Cornell and S. Frederick Starr, eds., The Guns of August 2008: Russia's War in Georgia (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015), 4. [18] Ibid, 7 – 8. [19] "The Blame Game," The Economist, October 03, 2009. [20] Ibid; Cornell, Popjanevski and Nilsson, “Russia’s War in Georgia”, 23 – 24. [21] Luke Hardinng and Jenny Percival, “Russian troops to stay in Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” The Guardian, September 09 2008. [22] Wolff, "Georgia”. [23] Andrew Higgins, “In Russia’s ‘Frozen Zone,’ a Creeping Border With Georgia,” The New York Times, October 23 2016. [24] Horowitz, “Cracked Foundations,” 8. [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid, 9. [27] Up In Flames: Humanitarian Law Violations and Civilian Victims in the Conflict over South Ossetia (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009). [28] "World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: Ossetians," Minority Rights Group International. [29] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Intentions Survey On Durable Solutions: Voices Of Internally Displaced Persons In Georgia, June 2015. [30] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report Universal Periodic Review: Georgia, January 2015. [31] Vicenews, The Russians Are Coming: Georgia’s Creeping Occupation, VICE News, November 04, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv00Weif0Sw . [32] “Freedom In The World: South Ossetia," Freedom House, 2016. [33] Georgian Schools to be Abolished in S. Ossetia," Civil.Ge, July 28, 2017. [34] “Freedom In The World: South Ossetia”. [35] Ibid. [36] Horowitz, 6. [37] Andre W. M. Gerrits and Max Bader, "Russian Patronage Over Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Implications for Conflict Resolution," East European Politics 32, no. 3 (July 19, 2016). [38] “Freedom In The World: South Ossetia”. [39] Gerrits and Bader, “Russian Patronage”. [40] Ibid. [41] Paul Rimple, “Economics Not Impacting Russian Support for Georgian Separatists,” Eurasianet.org, February 13, 2015. [42] Mikhail Delyagin, "A Testing Ground for Modernization and a Showcase of Success," Russia in Global Affairs, March 8, 2008. [43] John Erickson, “Russia Will not be Trifled With: Geopolitical Facts and Fantasies,” in Geopolitics: Geography and Strategy, ed. Colin S. Gray and Geoffrey Sloan (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 1999), p. 260. [44] David J. Smith, "The Saakashvili Administration’s Reaction to Russian Policies Before the 2008 War," in The Guns of August 2008: Russia's War in Georgia (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015), 126. [45] Cornell and Starr, The Guns of August 2008, 196. [46] Cory Welt, “Balancing the Balancer: Russia, the U.S., and Conflict Resolution in Georgia,” Global Dialogue 7, no. 3-4 (2005), 12. [47] Gerrits and Bader, “Russian Patronage”. [48] Oksana Antonenko, "Failures of the Conflict Transformation and Root Causes of the August War," Failed Prevention: The Case of Georgia (Vienna: National Defence Academy and Bureau for Security Policy at the Austrian Ministry of Defence, 2010), 83. [49] Welt, “Balancing the Balancer,” 2. References Antonenko, Oksana. "Failures of the Conflict Transformation and Root Causes of the August War." In Failed Prevention: The Case of Georgia, 79-93. Vienna: National Defense Academy and Bureau for Security Policy at the Austrian Ministry of Defense, 2010. "The Blame Game." The Economist. October 03, 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/14560958 . Cornell, Svante E., and S. Frederick Starr, eds. The Guns of August 2008: Russia's War in Georgia. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015. Cornell, Svante E., Johanna Popjanevski, and Niklas Nilsson. Russia’s War in Georgia: Causes and Implications for Georgia and the World. Singapore: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, August 2008. Delyagin, Mikhail. "A Testing Ground for Modernization and a Showcase of Success." Russia in Global Affairs. March 8, 2008. Accessed August 19, 2017. http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_12538. Erickson, John. “Russia Will not be Trifled With: Geopolitical Facts and Fantasies.” Geopolitics: Geography and Strategy. Colin S. Gray and Geoffrey Sloan ed. (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 1999). "Freedom In The World: South Ossetia." Freedom House. 2016. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/south-ossetia. "Georgian Schools to be Abolished in S. Ossetia." Civil.Ge. July 28, 2017. http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=30309. Gerrits, Andre W. M. , and Max Bader. "Russian Patronage Over Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Implications for Conflict Resolution." East European Politics 32, no. 3 (July 19, 2016): 297-313. Goble, Paul A. "Russian 'Passportization'." The New York Times. September 09, 2008. Accessed August 17, 2017. https://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/russian-passportization/?_r=0. Hardinng, Luke and Jenny Percival. “Russian troops to stay in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” The Guardian. September 09 2008. Hewitt, George. Discordant Neighbours: A Reassessment of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian Conflicts. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Higgins, Andrew. “In Russia’s ‘Frozen Zone,’ a Creeping Border With Georgia.” The New York Times. October 23 2016. Jentzsch, Greg. "What are the main causes of conflict in South Ossetia and how can they best be addressed to promote lasting peace." The BSIS Journal of International Studies (2009). Kleshik, Sonya . "I Am My Language: Language Policy and Attitudes Toward Language in Georgia." Master's thesis, Central European University, 2010. Konig, Marietta . "The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict ." OSCE Yearbook 2004 (Hamburg: 2004). Rimple, Paul. “Economics Not Impacting Russian Support for Georgian Separatists.” Eurasianet.org. February 13, 2015. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Intentions Survey On Durable Solutions: Voices Of Internally Displaced Persons In Georgia. June 2015. http://www.refworld.org/docid/55e575924.html UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees For the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Compilation Report Universal Periodic Review: Georgia. January 2015. Up In Flames: Humanitarian Law Violations and Civilian Victims in the Conflict over South Ossetia. New York: Human Rights Watch, 2009. Vicenews. The Russians Are Coming: Georgia’s Creeping Occupation. VICE News. November 04, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv00Weif0Sw. Vogl, Doris. "Missed Windows of Opportunity in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – The Political Agenda of the Post-Revolutionary Saakashvili Government (2004-2006) ." In Failed Prevention: The Case of Georgia, 59 - 77. Vienna: National Defence Academy and Bureau for Security Policy at the Austrian Ministry of Defence, 2010. Welt, Cory. “Balancing the Balancer: Russia, the U.S., and Conflict Resolution in Georgia.” Global Dialogue 7, no. 3-4 (Summer/Autumn 2005), 22-36. Wolff, Stefan. "Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia." Encyclopedia Princetoniensis. "World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: Ossetians." Minority Rights Group International. http://minorityrights.org/minorities/ossetians/.

Philosophy Body Ethics: Moving Beyond Valid Consent Christine Chen In The AugenBlick, Not the Moment A Heideggerian Critique of Temporal Inauthenticity Lukas Bacho Non-self through time Anita Kukeli FEATURED SECTION The Captain and the DoctoR On the Enchantment of Modern Men George LeMieux The Influencer Issue The Link Between Commodification and Well-Being on Social Media Enya Willems HOW ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON AS WHEN YOU WERE TEN Favoring the Brain Criterion View over Animalist and Neo-Lockean Views Henry Moon Divisive Identities Exploring the Interplay of Personal and Social Identities Ella Neeka Sawhney Philosophy Archives Vol. IV | Issue II From Sex to Science: The Challenges and Complexity of Consent The Challenges and Complexity of Consent Matthew Grady Shoring Against Our Ruin An Investigation of Profound Boredom in our Return to Normal Life Virginia Moscetti Unwitting Wrongdoing The Case of Moral Ignorance Madeline Monge Vol. IV | Issue I The Necessity of Perspective A Nietzschean Critique of Historical Materialism and Political Meta-Narratives Oliver Hicks The Growing Incoherence of our higher values Aash Mukerji Can Pascal Convert the Libertine? An Analysis of the Evaluative Commitment Entailed by Pascal’s Wager Neti Linzer Authenticating Authenticity Authenticity as Commitment, Temporally Extended Agency, and Practical Identity Kimberly Ramos Vol. III | Issue II KIERKEGAARD'S ADVICE ON THE UNCERTAINTY OF DEATH: The 'right' way is the pathless way Margherita Pescarin Teotl vs. tao Comparing Tlamatinime and Taoist Thought Richard Wu Punishment Human Nature, Order, and Power Ezekiel Vergara Happening on "polished Society" Towards a Theory of Progress and Corruption Alexa Stanger More than just a thought crime? A Retributivist View of Hate Crime Legislation Travis Harper Khadi Capitalism Gandhian Neoliberalism and the Making of Modern India Ria Modak Cause, causation, and multiplicity A Critique of E. H. Carr's "Causation in History" Kyu-hyun Jo Civil Disobedience and Desert theory of punishment Vance Kelley Tribes and tribulations Character as Property in Survivor Jasmine Bacchus Vol. III | Issue I A GRAVITY MODEL OF CIVIC DEVIANCE Justice, Natural Duties, and Reparative Responsibilities Woojin Lim CAN YOU RATIONALLY DISAGREE WITH A PREDICTION MODEL? Nick Whitaker The PANACEA PROBLEM Indifference, Servility, and Kantian Beneficence Benjamin Eneman Vol. II | Issue II Respect for the Smallest of Creatures An Analysis of Human Respect for and Protection of Insects Grace Engelman The Moral Futility of Contempt A Response to Macalester Bell’s Hard Feelings in the Era of Trump Jessica Li In Favor of Entrenchment Justifying Geoengineering Research in Democratic Systems Samantha M. Koreman Vol. II | Issue I Realism, Perspective, and the Act of Looking A Comparison of Chinese Cinematic Representations of the Second Sino-Japanese War Isaac Leong The Duty to use drones In Cases of National Self-Defense Lina Dayem Vol. I | Issue II Moral Manipulation A Kantian Take on Advertising and Campaigning Sylvia Gunn Health/Disease Distinction Normative Uses Margot S. Witte Statelessness A Contradiction in International Law with Asymmetrical Regional Solutions Samantha Altschuler Vol. I | Issue I Transcendental Self Reconceptualizing the Idea of the Self within Western Philosophy: The Existence-Reason Binary and the Nonrational Transcendental Self Jennifer Kim A More Perfect Union Inclusive Norms and the Future of Liberal Unity Benjamin Seymour

FULL ISSUES Vol. VI | Issue I < Scroll to view Download Vol. V | Issue II < Scroll to view Download Vol. V | Issue I < Scroll to view Download Vol. IV | Issue II < Scroll to view Download Vol. IV | Issue I < Scroll to view Download Vol. III | Issue II < Scroll to view Download Vol. III | Issue I < Scroll to view Download Vol. II | Issue II < Scroll to view Download Vol. II | Issue I < Scroll to view Download Vol. I | Issue II < Scroll to view Download Vol. I | Issue I < Scroll to view Download