"I represent a party which does not yet exist--the party of . . .civilization. . .There will come from it first a United States of Europe, and then a United States of the World. . . There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."  Victor Hugo.  Democratic world order is an awesome and inspiring  idea. A world community governed in peace and with justice is a profound yet simple concept.  We know what patriotism is.  As US citizens we work for the security and welfare of US citizens, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.  As citizens of the world, by persuasion, we work for the security and welfare of the whole human family, one world, under God, with liberty and justice for all.  

Although the idea of a world community is simple and not new, our past and our present would seem to make a world democracy an unattainable and distant dream.  On the contrary, with God's help, I think our past and our present has a light graced story as well as a dark graced story.  In the sections in this web-site on Ignatian Spirituality and Theological Reflection, I trace more fully what I mean.  Concerning the development of Democratic World Order, two recent major steps in the right direction are agreement on the principle of Responsibility to Protect and the inauguration of the International Criminal Court that can try individuals, both of which I discuss further on in this section.  

A world federation seems idealistic in the near term.  How will we ever get rid of the undemocratic veto in the Security Council when the vetoers can veto a change in the veto?  But how will we ever get rid of the veto if no one says that we ought to?  How can we change the realities of the near term if we don't discuss what is needed in the long term?  We the people need to demand democracy.

By one world we don't mean one government.  A federation has national, state, local governments.  A world government would be limited to global issues such as the environment and have sufficient checks and balances.  A world government would function according to the principle of subsidiarity.  If private groups such as labor unions and corporations can handle a conflict, there is no need for government.  If a lower unit such as a City Council can solve an issue, there is no need for the State or Federal government to be involved.  However if a lower unit such as County government cannot solve an issue adequately, then State and the Federal government steps in.  What we are saying is that there are world-side issues such as global climate change, fair global  trade, war and peace, global economic democracy, that only a world government can address adequately.

By dialoguing and visioning together, perhaps we can clarify what a democratic world order would look like if we had it.  Is democratic world order absolutely necessary?  Is it possible?  What is the teaching of the Catholic Church and other religions on Democratic World Order? Is Democratic World Order part of a Consistent Ethic of Life? What is the light graced story in our pilgrimage to Democratic World Order?  What is the way forward toward making our dream a reality?  The imaginary interview below may help us to begin the dialogue.

When I had a chance to interview an angel the other night,  I got out my tape recorder and thrust the microphone in angel Michael’s direction.

What do you see as the main problem on our earth?

There are so many, it’s hard to say.  I would guess you earth people don’t see the value of law.

But most of us see law as forcing us to pay parking tickets and even income tax.

Yes, but law protects you and your property.  Law promotes the common good.  Since everyone is equal before the law, law addresses disparity of military or economic power. Traffic laws can help you develop a sense of courtesy and consideration of other drivers.  Although economic disparities remain, civil rights laws have helped to lessen racial segregation in the United States.  Although law needs to be accompanied by education and conversion, law itself can teach.

Don’t laws chain us down, repressing our freedom and creativity?

The purpose of law is to channel human creativity, not to repress it.  Laws enacted should be clear and wisely crafted.  Since it costs money to pass laws, publicize and enforce them, there should not be more civil laws than necessary.

Aren’t our courts already jammed to capacity?

Since your courts and jails are over-loaded now, you need to search for other ways of solving especially smaller disputes.  Trials produce winners and losers.  Mediation, arbitration, and meaningful dialogue can often find a better win-win solution in work-place or landlord-renter disputes, divorces, and neighborhood disputes.   Win-win solutions can then by ratified by courts.

Some feel that our present justice system needs to be replaced by what they call “restorative justice.”  Isn’t that another name for the same unwieldy system?

There are dangerous offenders from whom you must defend yourself, but you’re filling your jails with those whose needs can be met in much better ways.  You need to improve your efforts toward adequate education for all, nutritious food, basic health care, full employment, alternative recreational opportunities for all.  There are better ways also of dealing with those who violate the law and those who are victims of violent crime.

Don’t we need to get tough with criminals?

It’s never right to countenance someone committing crimes, but the atmosphere of hatred and revenge that often permeates your criminal justice system is not the way Jesus taught you.

I’m afraid many do not look upon law in a positive light.

Although you need to rethink some of your present attitudes concerning law, your present local, state, and federal laws are better than chaos.

But why single out law as our main problem?

Even while you attempt to reform your present criminal justice system, local, state, and federal law need to be extended to world law.  The human family needs an effective global political structure.  You have a global economy.  You are one human family.  Families cannot live together in harmony unless there is a certain order.  The human family cannot live together without a minimum of global law and order.

Although a minimum of global law and order seems reasonable, such a dream seems so far from our present thinking. 

If you have a disagreement with a friend, do you start punching one another to see who is right?

What about larger groups?

When Kentucky and Ohio had a dispute about who owned the Ohio River, the states didn't mobilize their national guards and say winner takes all.  They abided by the decision of the courts.  If there's a labor-management conflict, you don't pass out machine guns and hand grenades and see who can make the best use of their fire-power.  You bring in mediation and arbitration experts, or take the dispute to court.

What do we do with nations?

A similar process should be followed between nations.   It’s simple.  Why hasn’t someone thought of it before?  If nations have a dispute, they try mediation and arbitration or take the dispute to court.

But we don’t have an effective international court.  Even if the world court makes a decision, who would enforce it?

You earth people need an adequate international authority.  There needs to be a world legislative body to make laws; a judicial body to interpret the laws; an executive body to carry out the laws; an international police body to enforce the laws.

Wow! Wouldn’t that be exposing ourselves to a world dictatorship?

To protect against domination by any group, no one nation would contribute more than 3% of the international peace force.  In the US you couldn’t tolerate a state national guard more powerful than the Federal army.  So the world couldn’t tolerate a national army more powerful than the international peace force.  A world Democracy needs to be strong enough to be effective without being so powerful that it is no longer democratic.

Would that mean the end of the army, navy, and marines?!

Present national armies need to be reduced gradually until their use is mostly for internal order and to help in cases of natural disasters.   Law needs to replace war.   If you make other nations insecure, you make yourself more insecure.  We need common security for all.

Would international law mean the end of national and state law?

By no means.  You take to a higher level only those cases that cannot be handled at a local level. There are world-wide problems that demand a public authority that can operate on a global basis. Care of the environment is a world-wide issue that one nation cannot solve alone.  Acid rain does not stop at the Canadian border as if there were some kind of invisible fence there.  If the earth's forests were restored, you could clean up the planet's atmosphere.  This could be financed by a progressive international tax, according to each nation's and each individual's ability to pay.

I suppose international law would stop atrocities in Israel-Palestine, Columbia, Peru, the Great Lakes Region of Africa, the Sudan –we do have our problems, don’t we?

From an angelic perspective, your life there on earth is simple incredible!  You need to peel off some of your encrusted thought patterns and try something really different.  The first structure that has to change is your minds and attitudes.

Now that we have a global economy, what good are state, even federal laws? Corporations decide what kind of food we eat.

If you earth people don’t have a democratic control of vital decisions that affect all of you, it’s because you’re too busy to stop and think.  You’re terminally ill, and you don’t have time to go to the emergency room.  You need to choose either dominance by a few wealthy individuals, corporations, nations, or choose democracy with liberty and justice for all.

But government is not working well now.  US government lacks a system of proportional representation and our elections are influenced heavily by money.

All law needs to be reformed and infused by the Spirit, but law does work at least partially.  One reason present governments are not working well is that they are in competition with one another to gain and maintain either military or economic superiority or both.  A limited world government to address world-wide issues such as the environment, war and peace, fair trade, equitable distribution of resources will remove present pressure on national governments to solve problems beyond their capability.  When the emphasis is taken from the national common good to the common good of the human family, the strength of law will be able to function more effectively.  Of course, nothing will work if we don't work at it.  Democratic world order is one pillar of five.

I guess we’re a lost cause.

By no means.  When the odds are impossible, the Spirit breaks through! Try reflecting with small values-based and faith-based communities and then sharing the fruit of your discernment with all.  I think you earth people are good at heart.  With God’s help, I think you can turn it around.  Peace.

If you thought our fictional Angel Michael had a point, you might want to accept an important challenge. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 2307) states: "The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life.  Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war."

Such a tall order requires much prayer, reflection, and action, preferably together in small faith-centered groups.  We need adequate external structures.  We also need to change internal structures, our attitude, our values, our ways of thinking.  My own prayer makes me bold enough to propose one path to peace, both local and global peace, a search for peaceful law.

Citizens for Global Solutions

We don't have to wait until the full vision is implemented before we begin.  If we begin now, each day we can move one step closer.  We can join practical and active groups like Citizens for Global Solutions. Members of the World Federalist Association and the Campaign for United Nations Reform have united into Citizens for Global Solutions. Citizens for Global Solutions are dedicated to the reform and strengthening of international institutions such as the United Nations and the international Criminal Court. see http://www.globalsolutions.org   (Welcome to our on-line community! Citizens for Global Solutions, a grassroots membership organization, envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.
If you give us your email, it will be used solely by Citizens for Global Solutions to keep you informed when important international issues are hot and in need of a fast grass-roots response.  We're not here to spam you! Every time we send an action alert, we include a link to follow if you want to change your email preferences or to unsubscribe. Visit http://www.globalsolutions.org/ to learn more about international law & justice, the environment, peace & security issues, and more. If you have any questions, email us at: support@globalsolutions.org

                                              Difference between United Nations and a Global World Authority

Although the United Nations has had many significant achievements, the time has come for a Global Democratic Authority.  The UN is a confederation.  Individual citizens have no right to interact with a central organization.  A Global Democratic Authority would be a federation. Individuals whose basic rights are being violated could appeal to the central organization. The Global Democratic Authority could prosecute individuals like Saddam Hussein without going to war against Iraq.  A Global World Authority could have a civilian peace-keeping police force to do what the US is trying to do now in Iraq. In the 1950's when the governor of Arkansas insisted on racial segregation, President Eisenhower didn't go to war with the State of Arkansas but sent in the federal marshals.

Even now if the United Nations had a permanent peace-keeping force, the UN could move into areas where nation states are unable to handle regional conflicts.

Presently resources for the UN come from member states.  Some nations have withheld funds until they get their own way.  Although the total need for taxes would be less because of much less military spending, fairer trade, and a more sane economic system, a Global Authority would have its own independent sources of revenue, including authority to tax individuals and nations according to the principle of ability to pay. 

From 1777 to 1788 the original 13 sovereign states in America operated according to the Articles of Confederation.  Appointment to the Continental Congress and the funding came through the thirteen state governments which focused on their own interests. There was no way to enforce agreements under the Articles of Confederation.  Boycotting the Congress when a state did not get its way was frequent.  In violations of agreements under the articles seven states were printing paper money.  New York had its own customs system.  Lacking good ports of its own, New Jersey had to send its exports through New York or Philadelphia and to pay taxes to both Pennsylvania and New York.  In 1785 Connecticut passed a law that gave its manufacturers an advantage over industries in New York and Massachusetts.  New York had a tariff on Connecticut wood and New Jersey butter.  Philadelphia refused to accept New Jersey money.  About 2000 people were killed in a war between Pennsylvania and Connecticut. 

In 1787 in Philadelphia, a Federal Constitution was drawn up to replace the Articles.  Today we need to formulate and agree upon a new world constitution.  Many draft constitutions have been proposed including The Constitution for the Federation of Earth, created through the efforts of world citizens, politicians, civil society leaders and international lawyers over a period of thirty-three years.  The World Constitution and Parliament Association convened a provisional constitutional convention with 200 delegates from twenty-seven countries. A new Global World Authority could arrest individual citizens for terrorism, violations of basic human rights, or any laws made by the Global Democratic Authority.  No member states could leave the Global Democratic Authority.  Otherwise the Global Authority would be afraid to make decisions nations wouldn't like.  Each nation would retain the right to make its own national laws and keep its own police force.

A Global Democratic Authority would have its own legislative body, a judicial system, an executive body, and a police force.  Individual nations would need to reduce their military forces, keeping only a minimum force for internal security and to keep order during natural disasters.

Dr. David Oughton, PhD

Dr. David Oughton, PhD, Board Member of Citizens for Global Solutions in St. Louis, coauthor with Rabbi Robert Sternberg of Jewish-Christian Relations and the Holocaust, has his doctorate in Peace Studies from St. Louis University, studied at the Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. participant in World Parliament of Religion in Chicago; Capetown, South Africa; and Barcelona, Spain, spoke at Xavier U. in Cincinnati, Ohio on Mar. 7, 2006 on "Democratic World Order"

"I want to thank Father Ben Urmston, S.J. and Xavier University’s Peace and Justice Programs for asking me to speak about democratic world order as part of the Vision of Hope Series.
I see my topic as the logical conclusion of the other topics in this series (a global ethic, economic democracy, human rights, and non-violence). Speakers in this series are expected to address three questions:
Is it necessary? I will argue that a democratic world federal government is necessary to outlaw war and solve global problems better than the present international system can. If we do not make a fundamental change in the international system, we are likely to see wars or terrorist acts using nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, inhumane laser weapons, and an obscene multiplication of war-fighting robots within the next 50 years. Also, destruction of the earth’s environment is likely to go beyond the point of no-return. The huge resources going into the world’s militaries and the preparation for war must be redirected to promoting the common good.
Is it possible? I will argue that creating a democratic world order is possible but extremely difficult. I will point out the many conditions that must come together to make such a new world order possible.
What is the way forward? I will discuss various proposals for creating a democratic world order in order to create lasting world peace through a system of enforceable world law. I will show that the best means to that goal is a limited, democratic world federal government.

A. The Catholic Church’s Teaching on World Peace
First, I want to show that the Catholic Church’s teaching on world peace calls for creating a democratic world order.
Let’s begin with the Bible. Isaiah and Micah and other prophets of Israel envisioned a time of shalom when people will beat their swords in plowshares and nations will not train for war again.
Jesus taught love of enemies in his Sermon on the Mount in order to build the Kingdom or Rule of God on Earth as it is in heaven, a time of lasting peace, love, and justice.
Early Christians followed Jesus’ example and were pacifists in the Roman Empire until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.
During an age when war was a bloody football game of gaining and losing mileage, St. Augustine of Hippo developed Christianity’s version of the Just War Theory which listed the conditions when a war could be considered just and a regrettable but necessary use of violent force. There must be a just cause, right intention, a declaration by a legitimate authority, proportionality, probability of success, and a last resort before a Christian could participate in a war. During a just war, there must be noncombatant immunity and proportional tactics to restore order and justice.
Christian pacifists have held that peace is a precondition for justice. But the majority of Christians since the 4th century have followed the just war teaching of Augustine and Aquinas because of the belief that justice is a precondition for peace.
Many modern Catholic leaders have wondered whether there can ever be a just war with modern weapons. The counter-population bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo and of course the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War obviously violate the principle of noncombatant immunity even though the victors of any war try to justify such tactics.
Modern Catholic leaders have emphasized the recognition of the unity of the human family. Every human being in every country is a brother and sister to each other under the parenthood of God. The Catholic Church’s theology of peace is based on the need for any community to be organized around the principles of justice, law, and order. Social peace is order based on just enforceable laws.
Many local and national communities are organized by systems of law and justice. But the world community still lacks a system of law and order.
Several Catholic leaders have called for global order and have taught that the present war system needs to be replaced by a public authority, that is, by a world government.
In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, (Peace on Earth) Pope John XXIII said:
“Today the universal common good poses problems of worldwide dimensions, which cannot be adequately tackled or solved except by the efforts of public authority endowed with a wideness of powers, structure, and means of the same proportions: that is, of public authority which is in a position to operate in an effective manner on a worldwide basis. The moral order itself, therefore, demands that such a form of public authority be established.”
In 1965, the world’s bishops at the Second Vatican Council emphasized everyone’s duty to “strain every muscle as we work for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all, and endowed with effective power to safeguard, on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights. But before this hoped-for authority can be set up, the highest existing international centers must devote themselves vigorously to the pursuit of better means for obtaining common security.” (The Church Today, Ch. 5, #82)
This “hoped-for authority” is not an association of national governments such as the United Nations Organization is, but it is rather a world government that can outlaw war.
The American bishops in their 1983 pastoral The Challenge of Peace give their support to the potential of the United Nations Organization but they have also emphasized the need for transforming the UN confederacy of sovereign nation-states into global systems of governance: “Just as the nation-state was a step in the evolution of government at a time when expanding trade and new weapons technologies made the feudal system inadequate to manage conflicts and provide security, so we are now entering an era of new global interdependencies requiring global systems of governance to manage the resulting conflicts and ensure our common security… Mutual security and survival require a new vision of the world as one interdependent planet.” (#242 and #244)
In their 1993 pastoral The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace, the American bishops, after the end of the Cold War, showed a preference for pacifism over just war tradition. The American bishops have emphasized that solving the problem of war is part of the Catholic Church’s consistent pro-life philosophy.
Pope John Paul II also supported a world federation when he taught that “the international community should support a system of laws to regularize international relations and maintain the peace in the same manner that law governs national order.”

B. The Need for Transforming the United Nations into a Democratic World Federal Government
I am one of the United Nations greatest supporters because it’s the best international organization created so far and also because of its many accomplishments:
(1) The UN has been able to prevent World War III, some smaller wars, and has been involved in 60 peacekeeping missions, 18 of which are still in operation.
(2) The UN is older than the majority of its members. It began with 51 national governments and now 191 national governments belong to this international organization. It has supervised the process of decolonization and helped many countries become organized and stable.
(3) The UN is a recognized center for world debate about world problems.
(4) The UN has promoted democracy within countries and has helped many countries with monitoring free and fair elections.
(5) The UN and its Specialized Agencies have promoted international travel, communication, trade, workers’ rights, education, health, economic development, lower infant mortality rates, and higher life expectancies in many countries of the world.
However, I am also one of the United Nation’s greatest critics because structurally it is weak and ineffective in many ways. Rather than abandoning the UN as some advocates of the United States empire do, I believe that we must make the UN strong and effective by radical reforms.
During the Second World War in which 50 million soldiers and civilians were killed, the United Nations was created to free humanity from “the scourge of war.” But since the UN was formed, 170 wars have taken place. The UN has not eliminated the war system because it is based on the principle of collective security. When it was formed, the concern was how many nations could threaten to gang up on dictators like Hitler in order to discourage them from committing aggression. The Korean War and the first Persian Gulf War were based on this approach.
So the UN’s structure still reflects the problems of the 1930s, not the globally interdependent 21st century.
Both the League of Nations created after the First World War and the United Nations Organization created during the Second World War are based on accepting the principle of national sovereignty which means that there is no higher authority than the national governments. As a result, some conflicts can be resolved only by resorting to war or coercive diplomacy based on military strength. This encourages intense arms races even when there is no actual war.
National sovereignty fitted a time when nations were relatively independent of each other. But now they are interdependent so the very notion of sovereignty must be changed.
There is no higher authority over the nation-states in the present international system so each national government must pursue what it thinks is its own interest regardless of the consequences for the rest of the global community. Also, each national government must build up its military strength to the maximum it can afford or even if it cannot afford it.
The UN system is based on international law which is not enforceable as positive law is. International law is rather an evolving set of rules and treaties about how nation-states should behave in their interactions with each other.
Most nations keep most of their agreements and treaties most of the time. But when national governments, including the United States, feel that their national interest is improved by violating their agreements and treaties, they often do. But international law holds all members of a nation collectively responsible for violations of international law.
The United Nations is a confederacy of national governments. A confederation or league is a loose association of governments who join together for some common purpose. The governments in a confederation retain complete sovereignty.
A confederacy is only as effective as its members, especially the stronger members, want it to be. The UN confederacy is not a world democracy.
The UN is a confederation with no more power or money than its members give it. Some members (including the United States government) have refused to pay their full legal dues whenever they disagree with something the majority of nations want or when they want to keep it ineffective.
The UN has to do its work on a very small annual budget. Every one of the states in the U.S.A. has larger annual budgets than the UN regular budget! The total budget for the entire UN system (including the regular budget as well as the budgets for peacekeeping, the International Court of Justice, and all of the specialized agencies) is $12 billion, or 1/4 of the annual budget for the state of Ohio! Keep in mind that all of the national governments of the world together spend 1 trillion dollars per year on their militaries. The U.S. military budget is half of that or 500 billion.
The UN General Assembly can only pass non-binding resolutions. Its "one nation, one vote" is not democratic or representative of the world's population because each member regardless of the size of its population gets one vote. A majority can pass a resolution that represents only a small percentage of the world’s population and the poorest countries.
The Security Council is composed of fifteen members--ten two-year members and five permanent members (the United States of America, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France) that have a permanent veto. Security Council measures must pass by a three-fifths vote (9 out of 15), without a veto by any one permanent member.
Just one of the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto a resolution concerning world security. The veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council has prevented many initiatives for peace. Furthermore, the permanent members are limited to the big power victors of the Second World War.
The permanent members of the Security Council also just happen to be the world’s largest arms dealers! Many people around the world profit from the war system. Many people's jobs are dependent upon it. It is therefore difficult for most people to imagine a world in which international conflicts are decided by votes and court decisions. They accept this on the local, state, and national levels but have not extended this concept to the world level.
The UN International Court of Justice deals only with the relationships between member nations, not individuals. The International Court of Justice will not hear a case unless the national governments involved agree in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. But even when the International Court renders a judgment against a nation, there is no guarantee that that government will comply with the ruling.
The UN does not have permanent peacekeeping forces. Each time there is a crisis somewhere in the world, a peacekeeping operation must be created by hiring military personnel from member nation-states.
Before 2002, individuals who violated international law were dealt with by temporary ad hoc tribunals that were established by the UN Security Council such as the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Tribunal for Rwanda. These were developed on the principles established at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal which tried Nazi leaders after the Second World War. According to the Nuremberg principles, individuals can be tried for violating international law and cannot use the defense of "I was only following orders."
The problem of creating peacekeeping forces and ad hoc tribunals is like trying to build a fire department after a fire has already broken out. A permanent fire department is a much better system.
One of the most significant developments in international law is the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which began in 2002. This treaty called for the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court for prosecuting individuals who are accused of participating in (1) genocide, (2) crimes against humanity, and
(3) war crimes.
Even though President Bill Clinton signed the ICC Treaty of Rome in 2000, President George W. Bush “unsigned” it in 2002 because the U.S. cannot use its Security Council veto for the ICC. Furthermore, the Bush administration has signed numerous “bilateral immunity agreements” with countries that have ratified the Treaty of Rome in order to make sure that U.S. citizens are not prosecuted by the ICC. The Bush administration has threatened a loss of economic aid in order to encourage countries that have signed the Treaty of Rome to sign these bilateral treaties.
Because the ICC holds individuals responsible for international crimes, it is a step in the right direction.

C. The Proposals for Creating a Just Global System of Enforceable World Law
The original states of the United States of America were associated under the Articles of Confederation before they formed a federal constitution. During the 1780s American colonists debated the proposal to transform the Articles of Confederation into a federal system that would join state governments under a federal constitution.
In 1789, the United States of America was created as a national federation in which the state governments make and enforce laws that apply within their territory and the federal government makes and enforces laws that apply to individuals in all the states and to the relationship between the various states.
Since joining the national federation, Ohio and Kentucky do not have to call out the National Guard and fight to resolve a conflict over their border or another disagreement. Such conflicts can ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
When the governors of Arkansas and Alabama did not want to end racial segregation in their states, the people of Arkansas and Alabama did not have to be bombed. The federal police intervened to make sure that federal laws were enforced. If necessary, the governors could have been arrested.
A similar debate is now needed about transforming a weak and ineffective UN confederacy into a limited democratic world federation of national governments. This means going from the present system of international laws that are difficult to enforce to a new system that would create, enforce, and adjudicate world law.
World Law is the kind of law that would exist if there were a world government. World law would be like civil law that exists within nation-states but it would apply to individuals everywhere in the world, not just in one nation-state.
In order to create world law, there would need to be a world parliament or legislature to make the laws, a world executive to supervise the enforcement of world laws, a world police force to arrest individuals who violate world laws, a world system of courts to try those accused of violating world laws, and a world prison system to incarcerate those found guilty of breaking world laws.
A world federation of nations would not be a unitary state or the only government in the world. Local, state, and national governments would continue to exist and make laws for their jurisdiction.
A limited democratic world federation would need a world constitution that would specify the responsibilities and powers of the federation as well as the rights and jurisdiction of nations. A world federation’s constitution should also include a bill of rights and responsibilities for every world citizen.
A world federation would need a division of powers and checks-and-balances (just as the U.S. federal government has) in order to prevent the possibility of a world dictator. In order to prevent the possibility of a world dictatorship, the world executive should not be an individual person but a committee of representatives from around the world.
A federation or union is a strong association between governments in which member states retain internal sovereignty but not external sovereignty. A democratic world federation is thus a better system than the present UN confederacy of national governments.
The main argument for creating a limited democratic world federation is to eliminate "the scourge of war" that is destructive of human life, property, and the natural environment.
War is "large-scale violent conflict between organized groups which already are governments or which seek to establish their own government over some territory." There are two different kinds of war--international (between nation-states) and intranational (within nation-states such as a secessionist war, a civil war, or a revolutionary war).
Even though there have been wars throughout human history, war is neither inevitable nor necessary. Contrary to Freudian assumptions, war is not part of human nature. War is not about violent individuals but about training individuals to be part of violent groups. War is now part of the present international system of sovereign nation-states.
If you drop the word “violent” from the above definition, you end up with a definition for politics. Conflicts between individuals and groups are natural but using violence to resolve them is not.
Non-violent conflict between organized groups means that conflicts are resolved by votes, elections, and court decisions, not by bombs and the continuation of the war system. A democratic world order would mean “justice for all” and not just for the privileged people or groups.
The present war system is also extremely costly; world military expenditures are over one trillion dollars per year (1 million dollars per minute). Even one-tenth of that amount could feed, house, educate, and provide basic needs for every human on this planet! There is therefore a need to replace the present international system that involves war and threats of war with global democracy. Struggles for power would be political and judicial rather than military.
In order to determine global policy, votes would be counted instead of weapons and military forces. Nations within a world federation would not need to establish deterrence (strength and defense through military power) by arms races, nuclear weapons, policies of "mutual assured destruction" ( M.A.D.), other weapons of mass destruction, or military forces. Military forces would no longer have so much influence on domestic politics and government spending. One proposal would be to cut a percentage of all military weapons and forces each year under verifiable inspections. The process could stop or accelerate depending on the cooperation of all nations.
National governments (just like state governments within the U.S.A.) would only need weapons for internal control of their population and for the ability to arrest individuals who violate national laws. The world federation of nations would only need a lightly-armed world police force in order to arrest individuals who violate world law. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction could be eliminated because there could be laws to prohibit individuals from producing or possessing them.
For its needed revenue, the world federation could tax corporations that benefit from the oceans and other common areas of the planet. It could tax international travel and trade. It could tax individual world citizens. But if an individual’s national taxes were greatly reduced because of drastic reductions in defense spending, then the world tax would not increase the amount of tax that individuals currently pay. I think it would be much cheaper.
Here are some auxiliary arguments for creating a limited democratic world federation:
1) There is a need to regulate the global economy. Global safety laws, laws protecting workers' rights, supervision of free trade between nations, and a global currency would benefit every country's national economy. Global corporations would not be able to find places where they can pollute the environment, keep workers from forming unions, and avoid taxes by playing national governments off against each other.
2) There is a need to avoid ecological disaster by protecting "the commons": the planet's air and atmosphere, the oceans, Antarctica, and outer space. Rain forests could be bought and managed as world parks. Laws could be enforced against individual polluters.
3) There is a need to protect human rights better. A world federal constitution would need to include a "Bill of Rights" (which could be based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights treaties.
4) International organized crime such as terrorism and drug trafficking (involving over 500 billion dollars a year) can better be solved by a world federation than by the individual efforts of some nations. Individuals guilty of these crimes could be arrested, prosecuted, and punished for violating world law.
5) A democratic world federation would help non-democratic nations to democratize. Even under the present international confederation, stable democratic countries do not go to war against other stable democratic countries. Furthermore, stable democratic countries do not kill their own citizens in groups. But even if every country in the world becomes a stable democracy, a federation of nations is a better system to solve global problems than a confederacy.
How can such a democratic world federation come about? There are several possibilities:
One possibility is to gradually improve and reform the UN system and make it more democratic. This could be done with a system of weighted voting in the General Assembly.
For example, Richard Hudson created the Binding Triad proposal in which votes would be counted three times in the UN: based on membership, population (with a cap of 15%), and contribution to the UN (with a cap of 15%). A proposal would become binding on all members whenever 2/3 of the UN members having at least 51% of world population and contributing at least 51% of the UN budget vote positively. Other similar systems for weighted voting have also been proposed for both the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
Another possibility is to create regional federations such as the European Union. No one could have predicted that after hundreds of years of warfare and two world wars that France and Germany would agree to live under a common federation. After enough regional federations exist, then a world federation could be created that would united the various regional federations.
Another possibility would be to create a federation of democratic nations and then invite other nations to join as they democratized and fulfilled certain qualifications. This would be an incentive for non-democratic nations to democratize.
Another possibility is that joining a democratic world federation will help non-democratic countries to democratize. Democracy can advance not only from the bottom up but also from the top down.
A world federation was impossible during the Cold War from 1950 to the 1990. But now another possibility would be if enlightened American leaders would promote the idea that a world federation be modeled on the American system of government. As long as the United States is the only superpower, it could lead the rest of the world in creating the right kind of world government based on democracy and justice. It is in the long-term national interest of the United States to move toward a globalist approach to solving world problems.
No one country, not even the United States, can play the world policeman or world judge for long. First of all, there was no election to make the U.S. the world’s policemen or judge. Secondly, that role isolates the U.S. from the rest of the world and prevents multi-national cooperation. Thirdly, if any national government assumes it is the world’s policeman, what will be able to restrain it from only pursuing its own national interest? Fourthly, the U.S. will not remain the only superpower forever.
At first a weaker kind of federation could be formed if at least ¾ of the nations join or if enough nations join that represent ¾ of the world’s population. If such a federation is effective and just, then the rest of the nation’s could “wait and see” before they join.
Also, at first, maybe for the first 100 years or so, nations should have the option to withdraw from the federation. Perhaps this trial would take away a nation’s excuse not to join the world federation.
So much depends on how a world constitution is created. If one is created with division of powers based on the principle of subsidiarity, a system of checks and balances, if nations’ and individuals’ rights are guaranteed, if a fair system of representation is created, and if world laws are properly enforced, then nations will want to remain in the world federation and will want to make it a permanent union.
A world federation of nations would not be perfect because no human system is perfect. In any government there can be corruption and scandals. In such cases, guilty individuals need to be prosecuted and punished. But a system of enforceable world law would be a more just and effective system than the present confederacy of nations in which international law is not always enforced.
The most common objection to world federation is that it is too idealistic or that it will never work. My answer is: of course it’s idealistic. It is a proposal of how nations should interact with each other, how nations should enforce laws against individual violators, and how we should protect the planet. A world federation could be created within 50 to 100 years. It is up to us living now to plant the proper seeds and conditions so that our grandchildren can enjoy a world governed by enforceable just laws for everyone.
World federation could work if it is created on common principles of justice. It could work if it is a true democracy that is based on majority rule and the protection of human rights. It could work if there is a fair system of selecting representatives for a world legislature. Such a legislature could be bicameral or tricameral, based on population and other criteria.
There have been successful examples of moving from a confederation to a federation. The United States of America and the European Union are good examples of national and regional federations. Creating a world federation will be even more difficult but not impossible.
Our world needs a global federation in order to solve global problems that are not being solved in a confederal approach. Therefore, all of us should work to overcome obstacles that are preventing such a solution and to make sure that a future democratic world federation is the best world government that can be created.

D. Building the Necessary Foundation
In order to build the right type of global system that would eliminate the war system and develop a system of global justice, we need to first build a solid foundation.
In addition to national citizenship and patriotism, we need to promote world citizenship and “humatriotism” (loyalty to the human family). The present international system obviously promotes national citizenship and patriotism (loyalty to "the fatherland') in order to be able to fight wars against humans in other countries.
World citizenship and humatriotism could be promoted by:
(1) A world flag and world symbols, a world anthem, a "pledge of allegiance to the world," and the celebration of world holidays. In my classroom at Christian Brothers College and also outside the school, the UN flag, the U.S. flag, the Missouri flag, and the St. Louis flag are flown in order to emphasize everyone’s world, national, regional, and local citizenship. As a school we recite the pledge of allegiance to the world. In most classrooms there is a picture of Earth from outer space.
(2) The study of world history, the world religions, peace heroes, and peace education around the world. At CBC, we teach courses in peace studies, world religions, world history, and Holocaust and Genocide studies. We also have a Model UN Club and Amnesty International Club.
(3) Travel to many different countries and communication with people around the world through the internet
(4) A universal secondary language could be taught in all elementary schools around the world in addition to national languages. This proposal is important for promoting world democracy. An "artificial" language like Esperanto that is learned by all would not give speakers of any one national language an advantage over others. Esperanto has the advantage of being easier to learn than native languages because of a simple, rule-guided grammar with no exceptions as well as a system of word formation which facilitates remembering vocabulary. A course in Esperanto is offered at CBC.
(5) Interreligious dialogue and cooperation. The religions of the world need to commit themselves to the process of creative interchange so that they can learn from and correct each other. Because most people belong to a major religion, peace among the nations requires peace among the religions. The Parliaments of the World’s Religions, which I have been fortunate to attend, are an important start. Local dialogues are essential to understand what motivates people of different religions. For the past 20 years, I have organized St. Louis’ Dialogue Group of the World’s Religions and Philosophies, the annual pilgrimage to different houses of worship, and the annual Interfaith Gathering for Peace for UN Day. Besides the Catholic Church, the religious group that also promotes world federalism is the Baha’i Faith. During the 19th century, Baha’u’llah said that a federation of nations was part of the Lesser World Peace before the spiritual unification of the planet, which he called “the Most Great Peace.”
(6) Commitment to live according to the Declaration of a Global Ethic which is based on the Golden Rule and on the common commandments taught by all of the world’s major religions. There is a copy of it hanging in my classroom.
(7) Join the United Nations Association and Citizens for Global Solutions, the new name for the World Federalists Association and the Campaign for UN Reform. We can do little as individuals but much more when we join together in groups. These two organizations try to influence our political leaders to take steps that will promote a global outlook.
Laws alone do not guarantee peaceful living. You can have all of the constitutions and laws that you want. But a large majority of any community must agree that a system of laws is just and necessary for the common good. We are slowly developing the realization of a global community and the religious vision of a human family. A democratic world federal government is therefore a necessary condition for promoting peace and justice.
Will an effective, just, and democratic world federation ever be created? According to the Catholic Church’s teaching on world peace, it should be.   We are called by our Church to strain every muscle as we work for the time when all wars can be completely outlawed by international consent.  Our present duty is to begin the worldwide debate on how to create the best global system for achieving lasting world peace through enforceable world law."

Recommended Reading
Dr. Joseph J. Fahey, War and the Christian Conscience, Where Do You Stand? Orbis, 2007.  Helps a Christian or anyone to decide in conscience on questions about war and peace no matter how young or old you are.  Last chapter is on "World Community." 

Father Ben Urmston’s website: http://www.xu.edu/peace/ben.htm

Ronald Glossop. Confronting War: An Examination of Humanity’s Most Pressing Problem. McFarland and Company, 4th edition, 2001.

Ronald Glossop. World Federation?: A Critical Analysis of World Federal Government. McFarland and Company, 1993.

Barbara Walker, ed. Uniting the Peoples and Nations: Readings in World Federation. World Federalist Association, 1993.

Jerry Tetalman and Byron Belitsos. One World Democracy: A Progressive Vision for Enforceable Global Law. Origin Press, 2005.
(This is quite readable, comprehensive, and current.)
Mortimer J. Adler. How to Think About War and Peace. Simon and Schuster, 1943.

Greenville Clark and Louis Sohn. World Peace through World Law. Harvard University Press, 1960.

Benjamin Ferencz and Ken Keyes. Planethood: The Key to Your Future. Love Line Books, 1991.

David Oughton, The Implications of Henry Nelson Wieman’s Philosophy of Creative Interchange for World Peace. Ph.D. dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1998.
 

The survival of the fittest theory came up in a subsequent discussion of a Democratic World Federation.  Those interested might want to explore articles by Robert Wright and his book: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny.  Dr. Ron Glossop writes that Wright "has been widely praised for the manner in which modern biological and anthropological knowledge is used to raise questions about the extent to which there is a purpose at work in the world leading to the development of a harmonious global community.  Wright's view is that biological and cultural evolution are both consequences of a world where zero-sum games (competitive situations where winners gain at the expense of losers) necessarily, by virtue of a survival-of-the-fittest process, gradually give way to ever richer forms of positive nonzero-sum interactions (cooperative situations where working together produces a gain for the participants collectively).  The religious question, basically the same as the issue addressed by the commentators on Immanuel Kant's views, is whether this bias in favor of cooperation over competition is purely an accidental feature of our world or whether there is a force at work which in some sense has established or is using a system where cooperation eventually wins out over competition."  Wright writes:  “The more closely we examine the drift of biological evolution and, especially, the drift of human history, the more there seems to be a point to it all.  Because in neither case is “drift” really the right word.  Both of these processes have a direction, an arrow. . .World government of a meaningful sort is probably in the cards.  It follows from basic technological trends and stubborn economic and political logic. And, what’s more, it’s a good idea.”

Sovereignty belongs to each of us. .we share and delegate our sovereignty to our family, our city, our county, our state, our country.  We have no adequate institution with whom to share our sovereignty on a global level.  The present global community is not arising from a democratic process but from a marriage of science and corporations.  Business makes lightning-like international financial transactions that now occur at the rate of trillions of dollars a day.  A democratic world federation will require that all nations will abide by certain agreed rules of behavior and those nations and people that don't abide by those rules will be dealt with.  This is required if humanity is to survive the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction produced by science and the destructive weapons of an immoral economy forced by business structures that kill hundreds of millions of people.   Nation states, especially the smaller nation states, have already surrendered to the World Trade Organization, the G-8, the World Bank and private banks, corporations, the United Nations, and other global institutions which are not democratic. (Inspired by Waging Peace Worldwide, Spring 1998, pp. 8-9)

700 years ago in his De Monarchia, Dante insisted, "to achieve a state of universal peace and well-being, a single world government is necessary." That remarkable proposition was elaborated in Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, Jean Jacques Rousseau's A Lasting Peace Through the Federation of Europe, H.G. Wells' A Modern Utopia, Emery Reves' The Anatomy of Peace, Vernon Nash's The World Must Be Governed, Wendell Willkie's One World, Bertrand Russell's Toward World Government, G. A. Borgese's Foundations of the World Republic, Mortimer Adler's How to Think About War and Peace, and Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn's, World Peace Through World Law.  That same proposition was defended by Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Sigmund Freud, Arnold Toynbee, E. V. White, Norman Cousins, Oscar Hammerstein, Carl Van Doren, US Supreme Court Justices Owen Roberts and William Douglas, former US Senators Alan Cranston, Harris Wofford, Paul Simon and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Alfred Lord Tennyson dreamed of the hour when we might "hear the war drum throb no longer, see the battle flags all furled, in the parliament of humankind, the federation of the world."

International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect

At the Philosophers for Peace convention in May, 2007, Dr. Ron Glossop pointed out the importance of the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect:

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)  A.  The Establishment, Structure, and Personnel of the ICC

On July 17, 1998 an international conference in Rome approved by a vote of 120 to 7 (with 21 abstentions) a treaty to create a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) as an alternative to relying on the ad hoc tribunals established by the U.N. Security Council after the crimes were committed in places such as the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  Unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or "World Court" which deals with disputes between national governments, the ICC can try and prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity.  Support for the treaty was led by the like-minded group which included countries such as Canada, Australia, Britain, Norway, Germany, and South Africa cheered on by an 800-member international coalition of citizen groups. Opposition was led by the United States, even though up to the time of the Rome Conference it had supported the effort because it had assumed that the ICC would deal only with cases referred to it by the Security Council.  With such an arrangement it would have been able to veto any cases involving Americans.  The seven countries voting against the ICC treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States.

This treaty, known as the Rome Statute, stipulated that the jurisdiction of the ICC would begin on the first of the month 60 days after the 60th ratification.  Enemies of the treaty were confident that it would be 10-25 years before that many ratifications would be acquired.  But largely because of the efforts of a coalition of non-government organizations called the international Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), the required 60th ratification of the Rome Statute was registered on April 11, 2002, only 45 months after the treaty was adopted.  As a result the jurisdiction of the ICC began on July 1,2002. The CICC can also take a lot of credit for the fact that as of March 21, 2007 the Rome Statute has already been ratified by 104 countries out of the 193 countries in the world.  The most recent was Chad, now the home of many refugees from Darfur, Sudan.  On March 24, the Yemeni House of Representatives voted to ratify the treaty, so it will soon become the 105th country.  That activitist coalition, whose office is at 708 Third Avenue, 24th floor, in New York City, now includes over 2,000 civil society organizations.  Its website <http://www.iccnow.org> is very useful. It also publishes an informative newspaper, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT MONITOR.  The national coalition of NGOs for the ICC in the United States is AMICC, and its website is <www.amicc.org>.

Representatives of countries which have ratified the treaty make up the Assembly of States Parties (ASP).  The first meeting of this governing body for the ICC was held at UN Headquarters in New York September 3-10, 2002.  It called for nominations for the Prosecutor and the 18 judges of the Court before tne first of December.  The 18 judges were elected in February 2003, and they were sworn in on March 11 in the Hague where the ICC will be located. Each Judge must have established competence in criminal law and procedure or in relevant areas of international law.   The Judges are divided into three divisions, a Pre-Trial Division, a Trial Division, and an Appeals Division.  The rules for electing judges assures that they will come from different parts of the world and that a fair proportion of them will be women.  Of the 18 judges selected in the first election, 7 were women. Their normal term of office is nine years, but after this first election they drew lots so that one-third had 3-year terms and one-third had 6-year terms.

Judge Philippe Kirsch of Canada was elected President of the ICC.  In April 2003 the Assembly of States Parties elected Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina to be the first Prosecutor, and he was sworn in June 16, 2003.  In June the ASP elected Bruno Cathala of France to be the first Registrar of the Court.  His swearing in on July 3, 2003 marked the successful appointment of all the senior officers of the Court, just over a year after its jurisdiction began.  In January, 2006, elections were held for the six judges who had three-year terms.  Five of the six were re-elected and the sixth was a woman, so for a time there were 8 women judges.  But in December 2006 Judge Maureen Harding Clark of Ireland resigned to serve on the High Court of Ireland.  Her replacement will be elected at the Fifth Assembly of States Parties to be held in December 2007.

In September 2003 the second Assembly of States Parties met in New York and elected five distinguished persons (two of them Nobel Peace Laureates) for three-year terms to the Board of Directors for the Victims Trust Fund of the ICC. This fund assures that the ICC will not only prosecute those guilty of committing crimes but will also assist those who have been injured.  The five original members were Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, former President Oscar Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica, former Prime Minister Tadekusz Mazowiecki of Poland, former President of the European Parliament Simone Veil of France, and Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.  The first two have resigned and have been replaced by Bulgaa Altangerel of Mongolia and Arthur Napoleon Raymond Robinson of Trinidad and Tobago.

In July 2004 a new supplemental treaty, the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the ICC (APIC), entered into force.  This treaty, which is essential for carrying out the work of the tribunal, gives employees of the ICC the same immunities and privileges granted to employees of the UN and other inter-national organzations.  As of February 1, 2007 this treaty providing immunity for ICC employees has been signed by 62 countries and ratified by 48.

One great value of the Rome Statute generally overlooked is the fact that nations which ratify the Statute are committed to bringing their own national laws into conformity with the international norms set up in the treaty.  Consequently, many national legal systems are being modified to establish jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, torture, ethnic cleansing, and rape.

An issue that everyone knew would require attention right from the time of the adoption of the Rome Statute is the matter of defining the crime of aggression as it applies to individuals.  The Rome Statute gives the ICC jurisdiction over four kinds of crimes:  (1) genocide, (2) war crimes, (3) crimes against humanity (which are clearly described in the statute itself), and (4) aggression.  But it was decided in Rome that having jurisdiction on aggression would require a clear delineation of that crime.  Discussion of this issue is being carried out by the Special Working Group of the Crime of Aggression (SWGCA) which held its third session June 8-11, 2006 at Princeton University.  The aim is to have a proposal ready for action by the Review Council for the Rome Statute to be held in 2009.  Issues involve not only defining aggression but also deciding whether jurisdiction of the Court should be restricted to the most clear-cut cases of aggression and determining the extent to which decisions of the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and the International Court of Justice need to be taken into account.

B. The ICC & the U.N. in Africa and in the Rest of the World

On January 29, 2004 the ICC got its first case when the government of Uganda referred the situation in its northern region to the ICC.  On April 19, 2004 the Court got its second case when the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo called on the ICC to investigate crimes committed in that country since the Court's jurisdiction began July 1, 2002.  Two months later Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo announced the beginning of formal investigations in both these countries.

One of the most important events in the young history of the ICC occurred on March 31, 2005 when the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1593 on the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan by a vote of 14-0 with one abstention, that of the United States.  It was widely assumed that the U.S. would veto this measure because it included a section calling on the ICC to investigate the alleged crimes being committed in Sudan.  Just over 2 months later, Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo concluded that the requirements for initiating a formal investigation had been satisfied. The Prosecutor has reported to the Security Council on this matter four times, in June and December of 2005 and June and December of 2006.   In the last two reports he called for more cooperation from national governments and other organizations.

One of the few times that the mainstream media has really focused attention on the ICC is related to its activity in Darfur.  On Sunday, April 2, 2006, the cover story of THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE was "The Prosecutor of the World's Worst" by Elizabeth Rubin.  The cover boldly presented this message.  The U.N. is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur.  The African Union is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur.  The U.S. is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur.  NATO is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur.  The European Union is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur.  But  someday, Luis Moreno-Ocampo is going to bring those who committed the genocide to justice. This article provides a great deal of detail about how the leaders in Sudan are well aware of the work of the ICC and are actively doing all they can to prevent it from carrying on its work.

One reason the Sudanese government leaders don't want UN peacekeepers from countries that have ratified the Rome Statute is they might be arrested by them, especially now that as of April 27, 2007 (with the news being made public on May 2, 2007) warrants have been issued for the arrest of the former Minister of State for the Interior of the Government of Sudan Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushbayd (real name Ali Muhammad Al Abd-Al-Rahman).  Nevertheless, the statement issued by the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC notes that the Government of Sudan itself has a legal duty to arrest these defendants.  The Sudanese government has refused to accept these judgments of the ICC on grounds that it has not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, but that is irrelevant in this case because the UN Security Council has authorized the ICC to be involved.  The question now is whether the U.N. or some countries in the U.N. will take action to back up the ICC judgments.

ICC President Kirsch has given reports to the UN General Assembly in November 2005 and October Assembly.  This gives national representatives at the UN a chance to comment on the work of the ICC, and most of them have praised its work.  A major theme of both the report itself and the responses from the General Assembly have focused on the need of national governments to assist the ICC, especially in the arresting of those indicted by the ICC such as Joseph Kony and four other leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.  They were indicted October 13, 2005 but have still not been arrested.  A ticklish issue at present is whether these indicted leaders are going to be given amnesty as part of a peace agreement being negotiated at Juba, the capital of the regional government of southern Sudan.  This possibility has evoked a loud cry of outrage from many human rights leaders.

On March 17, 2006 the ICC announced its first arrest. The defendant is Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, leader of a Congolese militia responsible for ethnic massacres, exploitation of child soldiers, rapes, and torture in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  He was turned over to the ICC by Congolese authorities aided by the French government and the UN Mission in the Congo (MONUC).  The public hearing with Lubanga present was held March 20, 2006 in the Hague.

The arrest of Lubanga along with investigations by the ICC resulted in an October 12, 2006 editorial in THE NEW YORK TIMES.  The editorial (available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/ 12hu3.html>) reads as follows:

"Much good can come from the court's focus on child soldiers.  The decision by the international tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia to treat rape as one of the most serious international crimes has changed legal attitudes and practice worldwide.  The International Criminal Court is now drawing attention to another widespread, yet widely ignored, horror.  Guerrilla leaders in Colombia, Sri Lanka, West Africa and elsewhere, and government officials in Myanmar, should pay close attention."

In fact, at least one has. Elizabeth Rubin in her article in THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE of April 2, 2006 mentioned earlier, notes on page 43 that Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo "holds up Carlos Castaño, one of Colombia's top paramilitary commanders, as an example of the court's potential reach.  After Colombia ratified the ICC treaty, Castaño laid down his weapons because, according to his brother, he realized that he might become vulnerable to ICC prosecution."

C.  Opposition of the Bush Administration to the ICC

The ICC has been progressing despite the efforts of the Bush administration to undermine it.  President Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000, the last day when a government could sign the treaty and not ratify it at the same time, something that would have been impossible in the United States.  On May 6, 2002 the Bush administration announced that it had "nullified" the U.S. signature of the treaty, something not permitted by international law.  It also launched a campaign against the ICC.  A policy was adopted of trying to get other countries to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) which indicated that no U.S. citizens would ever be sent to the ICC either for prosecution or even to testify.  Economic assistance was to be cut off to any country which did not sign such an agreement.  According to the U.S. administration 101 nations have signed these BIAs, but many of these cases are just executive agreements.  Less than 40% have been ratified by parliaments.  In addition 53 governments have publicly announced that they refuse to sign BIAs with the U.S. government.  Several national governments in eastern Europe have been squeezed by a U.S. policy threatening to cut off financial assistance to countries that won't sign a BIA while the European Union has indicated that any country that does sign a BIA can forget about becoming part of the European Union.

Another part of the U.S. campaign against the ICC is the legislation adopted by the U.S. Congress in August 2002 known as the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA).  Its enemies refer to it as "The Hague Invasion Act" since it authorizes "any means necessary" to keep U.S. citizens from ICC custody in the Hague.   A third U.S. effort against the ICC is the Nethercutt Amendment to the U.S. Foreign Appropriations Bill of December 2004.  This measure goes further than the ASPA because it authorizes the end of Economic Support Funds to any country, including many key allies, that ratifies the Rome Statute but does not sign a BIA. The Nethercutt Amendment was reauthorized in the Joint Appropriations Bill for 2006.

A fourth element of campaign against the ICC was to try to work through the UN to get immunity for all U.S. personnel involved in international peacekeeping efforts.  The first effort in July 2002 succeeded.  UN Security Council Resolution 1422 was adopted granting immunity from the ICC during a one-year period for all personnel participating in missions authorized by the United Nations from countries who had not ratified the Rome Statute.  Since that resolution stipulated only a one-year period, it came up for renewal the next year as UNSC Resolution 1487.  It was passed again but with less support.  In 2004 the U.S. wanted to renew this provision again, but withdrew it realizing that it would not be passed again.

On July 23, 2006 THE NEW YORK TIMES published an op-ed piece by Mark Mazzetti entitled "U.S. Cuts in Africa Aid Said to Hurt War on Terror."  He noted how the ASPA has led to the cutting off of millions of dollars in assistance to countries such as Kenya, Mali, Niger, and Tanzania who had been assisting in efforts against Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups.  He also mentioned the situation in Latin America where, as in Africa, the Chinese are moving in as the U.S. is cutting back on its economic assistance.  He quoted Secretary of State Condolezza Rice's comment in March 2006 that cutting military assistance because of ASPA is "sort of the same as shooting ourselves in the foot." He noted that the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review issued in February 2006 called for the government to separate military funding from that anti-ICC law.  He cited the opposition to the ASPA voiced by General Bantz J.Craddock of the U.S. Southern Command when testifying before the Senate in March 2006.

Such arguments may be having some effect.  Last October President Bush directed Secretary of State Rice to waive the prohibitions in the ASPA with respect to 21 countries. But the anti-ICC Nethercutt Amendment has not been revoked, and any changes in U.S. policy are motivated by concerns about the expanding influence of China, not by any readiness to support international law.  What would be helpful would be a "sense of Congress" resolution saying that the policy of the U.S. government should be to support the International Criminal Court, including ratifying the Rome Statute so that this country can become a member of the Assembly of States Parties and so that U.S. citizens would be eligible to become a judge on the Court.

Responsibility to Protect

"Does the international community ever have the right to intervene within the borders of a sovereign nation-state?  If so, under what conditions?  What theoretical base could possibly justify such outside intervention?  The  International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's answer in the report calls attention to the need of governments to preserve the "personal security" of their citizens as well as their "national security" in relations with other countries.  It is argued that the notion of "state sovereignty implies a dual responsibility." (p. 8 of the report)  Each state not only has the responsibility "to respect the sovereignty of other states" but also has a responsibility "to respect the dignity and basic rights of people within the state." (p. 8)  The Commission says, "We prefer to talk not of a 'right to intervene' but of a 'responsibility to protect.'" (p. 11)  The key point is to shift focus from "sovereignty as control" to "sovereignty as responsibility." (p. 13)

The Commission's report notes that the term "intervention" can be used to refer not only to military intervention but also to other coercive measures such as sanctions and criminal prosecutions of individuals. (p. 8)  At the same time the Commission deliberately refrains from using the term "humanitarian intervention" in deference to humanitarian groups who object to using that expression in any situation where military action is being employed. (p. 9)

Sovereignty as responsibility means that leaders of national governments: (1) must protect their citizens and promote their welfare, (2) are responsible to their citizens and to the international community through the U.N., and (3) can be held accountable for their acts of commission and omission. (p. 13)  Thus not only do international criminal tribunals have a right to exert jurisdiction, but with regard to crimes like genocide where treaties provide for universal jurisdiction even other national governments can act.  But the Commission cautions that "It is only when national systems of justice either cannot or will not act to judge crimes against humanity that universal jurisdiction and other international options should come into play." (p. 14)  Furthermore, the responsibility to protect includes (both for national governments and for the international community) not only the responsibility to react to human catastrophes but also to prevent them and to rebuild the community afterwards. (p. 17)

A great deal of the Commission's 85-page report deals with very specific and detailed commentary about specific situations organized in accord with specific topics such as the responsibility to protect individual citizens (pp. 11-18), the responsibility to prevent catastrophes (pp. 19-27) (including how to deal with root causes in order to avoid the need for interventions), the responsibility to react to catastrophes (pp. 29-37), the responsibility to rebuild the community after interventions (pp. 39-46), the various roles of the U.N. in interventions (pp. 47-55), the issue of how military interventions are to be carried out (pp. 57-67), and what needs to be done in the future (pp. 69-75), all with many references to specific past incidents, e.g. Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cambodia, and East Timor.

This report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty aims "to strengthen, not weaken, the sovereignty of states" while also improving "the capacity of the international community to react decisively when states are either unable or unwilling to protect their own people." (p. 75)  It does this by proposing a re-interpretation of the notion of "national sovereignty" so that it includes the responsibility of a state to protect the security of its own citizens.

 Official Adoption of the R2P Principle

 Three years later in December 2004 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change fully embraced and called for implementation of the Responsibility to Protect principle.  The following year the Secretary-General's own report In Larger Freedom:  Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights for All presenting recommendations for action to the 60th session of the General Assembly included a reference to the "emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect."

In September 2005 the U.N. General Assembly incorporated the Responsibility to Protect principle into the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document.  Paragraph 138 reads: "Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means.  We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it.  The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability."

Paragraph 139 of that document, addressing the issue of international intervention, says:  "The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.  We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.  We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out. " 

On April 28, 2006 these two key paragraphs of the World Summit Outcome Document were affirmed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council when it adopted Resolution 1674 on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.  It says:  "The Security Council reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

In March 2007 a report by the UN High-Level Mission of the Human Rights Commission concerning the situation in Darfur, led by Nobel Prize winner Jody Williams, disturbed by the failure of the May 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement to do much to improve the situation, called on the international community to take action, noting that the Responsibility to Protect principle required it.  But the government of Sudan refused to allow the Mission to enter Sudan to carry on its investigation and objected to the use of the R2P framework in the report.  The Human Rights Commission then appointed a new working group to work with the African Union and the Sudanese government on this issue.

As in the case of the ICC, civil society is pushing the national governments to act responsibly.  In fact, the coordination of the NGOs in this effort is again in the hands of the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy (WFM-IGP) in New York.  On this occasion they were asked to fulfill that task by the Canadian government which had sponsored the original report on the Responsibility to Protect.  This coordination is being done under the name "Responsibility to Protect-Engaging Civil Society" or simply "r2p-cs" ("cs" is for "civil society").  The website is <http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org> and the e-mail address is <r2p-cs@wfm.org>.  One success for this civil society effort was the March 14, 2007 adoption by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco of a "Resolution Endorsing the United Nations Principle of the Responsibility to Protect." (<http://r2pcoalition.org/index.php?option=com_events&task= view_detail&Itemid=&agid=15&year=2007>)

The results of a global public opinion poll released on April 5, 2007 by <www.WorldPublicOpinion.org> and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed worldwide support for applying the R2P principle to the Darfur tragedy.  Referring to that poll Andrew Stroehlein and Gareth Evans noted:  "On the . . . question of whether the UN Security Council has the 'responsibility to authorize the use of military force to prevent severe human rights violations such as genocide, even against the will of their own government,' strong majorities in many countries replied favorably:  74% of Americans agreed, along with 69% of Palestinians, 66% of Armenians, 64% of Israelis, 54% of French and Poles, and 51% of Indians. And all populations polled were more in favor than opposed. . . . [T]he most surprising result emerged from China.  Though its government has long been considered a staunch defender of state sovereignty under just about all circumstances, a full 76% of Chinese citizens agreed the Security Council had a responsibility to intervene when such mass crimes were taking place."    (<www.opendemocracy.net/globalizationinstitutions_government/protect_ people_4505.jsp#>)

Speaking April 9, 2007 on the 13th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said:  "All the world's governments have agreed in principle to the responsibility to protect.  Our challenge now is to give real meaning to the concept, by taking steps to make it operational." (<www.un.org/ News/Press/docs/2007/sgsm10934.doc.htm>)  The Secretary-General then indicated that he was making his special adviser for the prevention of genocide  (Juan Mendez of Argentina) a full-time post and that he was upgrading the UN Advisory Committee on Genocide Prevention.(<www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/ Briefing/2007/04/09/un_genocide_prevention_post_to_full_time>)

The situation is that there is plenty of theoretical support for the Responsibility to Protect principle both among national governments and the public, but how to implement it in particular circumstances has yet to be worked out. One relevant proposal is to establish a U.N. Emergency Peace Force made up of individuals employed directly by the United Nations which could be quickly moved into difficult situations like those in Darfur until the typical peacekeeping forces can be assembled and put in place.  (See Robert Johansen [ed.], A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes against Humanity [New York: World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, 2006]).

WHY THESE TWO DEVELOPMENTS ARE SO IMPORTANT

Let me conclude by noting why the creation and development of the ICC and the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect principle are so important.  Both of them eliminate the notion of the unlimited sovereignty of national governments, a principle which has been used by ruthless national rulers to justify campaigns of violence against both other nations and those labeled "enemies" in their own country.  The International Criminal Court establishes a permanent international institution to prosecute those individual high-ranking government officials and military officers responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity no matter where these are committed while the Responsibility to Protect principle makes it clear that those committing these crimes can't hide behind the old notion of national sovereignty, the now rejected view that national governments can do whatever they want within their own borders.

The creation of an International Criminal Court is a giant step forward in spreading the rule of law in the world.  Professor Robert Johansen of Notre Dame University has noted that the creation of the ICC "could well be the most important institutional innovation [for the world] since the founding of the United Nations."  ("A Turning Point in International Relations: Establishing a Permanent International Criminal Court," Report of Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies for Fall 1997 [No. 13], p. 2)  The adoption of the Responsibility to Protect principle is a gigantic step forward in protecting people from the murderous inhuman actions of their own national governments, something that in the last century has caused as many deaths as wars.  (See R. J. Rummel, Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 [New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994])   Human history shows that establishing judicial institutions and principles of law is an effective way of  promoting peace and justice in the human community, just as important as repeated appeals to individuals to be more loving and less violent.  We can be grateful that during our lifetimes the institutions and principles of law are being extended beyond the national level to the international level."  Dr. Ronald Glossop, Philosophers for Peace.

Reform of United Nations

We had an excellent chance of establishing a democratic world federation after World War II.  Instead we settled for a confederation of nations in which each of the five nations who won the war could veto a proposal of the rest of the world.  Real military spending of one nation today is estimated at 750 billion dollars a year.  Spending for the UN is 20 billion.  Despite inadequate funding and an undemocratic structure, the UN has done many great things. However, the Constitution of the UN allows for reform.  Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a Los Angeles-born retired priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister 1979-1990, was elected president of the U.N. General Assembly June 4, 2008.  In a speech to the Assembly after his election Father d'Escoto criticized the veto power of each of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the US, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China.

Patriotic Songs

The national anthem of the US has rockets and bombs bursting.  We often hear "God Bless America."  I like better the more peaceful Finnish national anthem: "O hear my song, thou God of all the nations; A song of peace for their land and for mine."  Surely God doesn't bless the U.S. and neglect other nations!  My God is a God for everyone and every nation. God wants freedom for all.  God also wants us to be brave as we work toward a universal peace with justice and love.

                                                                                  The World Federalist Association

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the World Federalist Association and what does it stand for?

The World Federalist Association (WFA) is a nonprofit membership organization that works to promote the views of a broad majority of Americans seeking common-sense and effective global solutions to global problems.

Through the education and advocacy efforts of our professional staff and committed activists across the U.S., WFA works to present a more hopeful future for U.S. international leadership and pragmatic policy recommendations to the U.S. public, NGO community and policy makers. We work to achieve U.S. support for prosecuting war criminals through the International Criminal Court, improve global environmental governance, reform UN peacekeeping to allow intervention before a conflict escalates into genocide, and democratize the institutions of globalization.

The vision of the World Federalist Association is the abolition of war, the preservation of a livable and healthful global environment, and the promotion of a just world community through the development of enforceable world law. Achievement of that goal requires the establishment of a democratic federal world government with powers adequate to keep the peace, prevent environmental degradation, protect individual human rights, and assist in the promotion of a just world community. In such a federation, international conflicts would be resolved by political and judicial means rather than by violence, while national governments would continue to manage their own internal affairs. While the precise details of the world federation we seek remain to be determined, we agree that the decision-making structure must be controlled by the will of the people rather than by entrenched rulers.

What is a federation?

A federation is an arrangement of national or regional government with multiple levels and specified jurisdictions at each. Through a federal constitution, member states delegate limited powers to a central government, reserving others for themselves or their citizens. Thus the federal principle is designed to prevent the central government from becoming all-powerful, by leaving in the hands of member states the authority to handle local affairs. At the same time, it identifies common threats or interests to the member states (war, trade, foreign policy) that are addressed more effectively through a central government. Adapting the United Nations (a confederal system) to a world federation would continue to protect the distinct identities of members states while more effectively addressing problems global in scope.


What examples of national federations could serve as models on which to establish a world federation?

The United States of America is the first modern federation, having adopted its Constitution in 1789. Since then, many nations have adopted the US model and worked closely with US representatives in drafting federal constitutions and practices. According to the Forum of Federations, a "clearing house" for information and resources on the practice of federalism, there are 24 formal federations in the world today - Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Malaysia, Micronesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Venezuela, and the Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In addition, there are numerous quasi-federal arrangements that operate along federalist lines to a limited degree - decentralized unions, confederations, federacies, associated states, condominiums and leagues - which all together constitute more than 46 countries in addition to those above.
 

Are you in favor of creating a one-world government?

No. WFA opposes any sort of highly centralized or unitary world government. A centralized one-world government, even democratically based, could very easily impose uniform standards and obligations on everyone without regard for individual rights or differing cultural or political values. Rather we support the establishment of a limited, democratic government that is essentially federal in nature and with extensive checks and balances of power. We propose building on the current global governance structures, such as the UN, to help the world better respond to truly global problems.”


What is the difference between a one-world government and a federal world government?

Federal government, on the other hand, is based on the principle that local communities are best at solving local problems, regional government at solving regional problems and national government at solving national problems. When a problem becomes too big or too taxing for one level of government—such as national defense or interstate trade—then it is delegated to the next level. World federal government is the application of this principle to problems, such as the environment or international terrorism, that do not respect national borders or sovereignty and cannot be solved by individual nations.

Would not this infringe on our national sovereignty?

No. Sovereignty is the ability of a nation to assert ultimate authority within its territory and to act as an independent agent in international affairs. Today, national sovereignty is being infringed and eroded by economic, financial, environmental, and security crises which ignore national borders. Individual persons are finding that their national governments are unable to protect them from global flows of capital and jobs, raids on their currencies, the pollution of their air and water, and terrorist attacks in their homelands. Because of these global problems, national governments are losing their sovereign ability to effectively govern. A world federation will clearly delineate the sovereign rights of nations and provide them with a democratic means of representing their national interests in solving these global problems. In this way, the idea of national sovereignty will change, but will become more meaningful. See also the recently released report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect, at http://www.iciss-ciise.gc.ca/menu-e.asp.

Is a world government inevitable?

Yes. We are already seeing that many groups - from local farmers in the Midwest to financial brokers on Wall Street - rely on dependable and open relations between nations. This need has translated into political treaties and economic agreements binding nations together in many fields, principally economics. Such ties will only increase as trade, communications and travel increase. With regard to health and disease organizations, we already act as one globe (disease outbreaks, prevention of smallpox, medical assistance for catastrophes). How other agreements are made and enforced will determine the nature of global governance, and the resulting institutions of government necessary to create and enforce them.

Isn't this too radical an idea to even attempt?

No. The process of federation is historically sound. It may be seen in the evolution of countries such as Switzerland and the United States. In 1291, the three cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden entered what was known as the Perpetual League. Then came the Confederation of eight cantons in 1353, the Confederation of 13 cantons in 1513, the Act of Mediation with 19 cantons in 1803, the Federal Pact with 22 cantons in 1815, and in 1848 present-day Switzerland was born. A similar process, though in a much shorter time, took place within the United States, with the "Perpetual Union" under the Articles of Confederation giving way to the Federal Constitution of 1787. Since that time, over 30 nations have followed the examples and adopted (and adapted) federal governance for their own countries. A world federation should not be attempted overnight either, relying instead on a deliberate and informed process of evolution.

Won't a world federal government continue the policies of the WTO and other international financial institutions recently denounced by democracy groups on the left and anti-internationalist groups on the right?

No. The call for world federal government is in fact a response to the unaccountable actions on which both sides of the spectrum actually agree. Decisions of the WTO and the UN itself are made by ambassadors and other appointees of their respective governments in power. There is little connection between the local and the global in the current formula. The result is that local communities are often impacted by international decisions without having had a fair say in the decision-making process. World federalism requires local communities, states, and nations to be fairly represented in decisions that affect them.

Who supports world federalism? Who are some notable federalists? Who's on your Board of Directors/ Advisors?

Historically, world federalists have included such prominent figures as Albert Einstein, Oscar Hammerstein II, Justice William O. Douglas, Carl Van Doren, E.B. White, Lloyd Bridges and Steve Allen. More recently, journalist Walter Cronkite, AmeriCorps Director Harris Wofford and Congresswoman Diane DeGetter and Representative Mark Udall have publicly supported world federalism. WFA's Board of Advisors includes actor Martin Sheen, Nuremburg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, World Watch Institute vice-president Hilary French, economist Hazel Henderson, Jihad vs. McWorld author Benjamin Barber, actress Mimi Kennedy and actor Mike Farrell. The World Federalist Association's current President is John B. Anderson, who served as a Republican member of Congress for 20 years and was the 1980 independent presidential candidate.

Won't world federalism abolish national sovereignty and destroy our rights under the Constitution?

A world federal government would be based on the consent of the people, just as our Constitution is, and enforced by our commitment to it democratically. We face more threats to our rights and freedoms from an unaccountable world bureaucracy, international criminals, and indefensible borders than we would from a government elected by, accountable to, and representative of "We, the People," whether that government is local, national, or global. The key to protecting our Constitutional rights with the establishment of a world government is to ensure that such a government is federal in nature - and respect the rights and freedoms of local communities, states, and national governments in their respective jurisdictions. As with the US Constitution, a world constitutional charter must include a bill of rights to protect individual rights and civil liberties against any acts by the world federation.

In regards to individual rights and freedoms, world federalists concur with Hamilton's admonition in Federalist Paper #15 that, "we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, --the only proper objects of government." The United States government does not hold the states responsible for the illegal acts of their citizens, but proceeds directly against the individual violators themselves. Similarly, a world federation would not hold a nation responsible for an attempt to accumulate biological weapons for use in attacking a neighboring country, but rather hold the responsible individual accountable.

Is world federalism simply a new name for the communist insiders in the UN?

No. World federalism is the antithesis of communism. In the tradition of James Madison and the American Founders, we are skeptical of highly centralized government. We believe that individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are absolute and inalienable. The problem is that these rights are not being protected in the contemporary world, which is rife with war, environmental harms, and terrorism. In fact, that is the reason that we support democratic world federation – to better secure these rights. World federalism does not represent any political viewpoint, but rather advocates open and transparent meetings of the United Nations and other international bodies. It is this openness and transparency that will allow more accountable government to exist at the world level, and for which world federalists were severely attacked by Soviet officials and communist sympathizers in their early efforts.

Are you proposing a new imperialism by expanding the American system of federalism to the world level?

No. While the US Constitution developed federalism for a larger territorial government and has lasted longer than other systems established at the same time, confederalism had been previously used by Switzerland and other small nations, and over 30 nations have adopted federal governments since 1787. It will be on this successful model of governance, not the imposition of any one style, that world federalism will be molded. Despite the economic, political and social differences between the world's many federations, their adoption of federalism demonstrates the applicability of federalism worldwide.

I understand that world governance is coming. But why can't it be regional, rather than worldwide? After all, regions of the world are forming trade and defense blocs, so why can't they be forming regional political alliances? Aren't we skipping a step when jumping to world government?

We are seeing these regional arrangements being created for the exact reasons we need world federal government. The security of peoples' interests and liberty demand greater cooperation and less saber-rattling between national governments, and these alliances are providing that. Regional governments, such as the European Union, are consistent with world federalism, which require that whenever possible, regional problems should first be addressed by regional authorities. But some problems are world-wide in scope and even regional government is not sufficient to adequately address them. While encouraging regional arrangements, and more democratic reforms of existing ones, world federalists see these alliances as necessary steps toward accountable governance at the global level.

Is it politically possible to establish a world government?

That depends on how strongly people want freedom, security and a sustainable standard of living. Government provides these by providing political and social opportunities and defending against unfair or dangerous elements within society. When the threats from environmental degradation, terrorism or the price of everyday commodities begin impacting our daily lives, we'll begin to ask, "Who's representing my individual interests on the global level?"

Why would the US want to support establishing a world federal government?

Government, on the local or global levels, helps provide stability and safety. Accountable government helps ensure this over the long term, through crises and impending threats. A world federal government, while not ending all conflict, would better manage problems of a worldwide nature. The US would thus have less need to deploy troops to protect its own interests, more confidently interact with other nations on issues, more fairly share the financial burdens of internationalism, and reduce the taxes that pay for it all.

Won't world government set the stage for a world dictatorship? What are the options if the world government becomes oppressive?

Establishing a world dictatorship would require submission of each branch of the world government to a central and oppressive political ideology. Federalism is a system designed to counter the ambitions of one person, one party or one level of government with the ambitions of all others. This check and balance system has preserved American democracy for over two centuries and has been adapted in almost 30 other nations worldwide where diverse ethnic, religious or political groups vie for power. Without establishing an accountable system of world government, we risk allowing unaccountable groups to establish it for us - one much more likely to establish an oppressive system based on economics, religious fundamentalism, or military rule.

We've learned we cannot always trust government, how do we know we could trust an international government?

Unlike in an autocratic or totalitarian society, citizens of a democratic federation have the right to replace or remove their elected representatives when those leaders fail to adhere to the will of the people. At present, no such rights exists for us to replace or remove many of the individuals making policies at the global level (except through war or assassination). Establishing the international government as a democratic federation will extend our rights to the global level, providing us with the instruments needed to change this.

Wouldn't a planetary government be vulnerable to corruption on a scale potentially hurtful to the whole world?

As we saw in the ratification process of the US Constitution, and currently in the admissions of new members to the European Union, member states will have to operate within fairly secure parameters in regards to human rights, due process of law and accountability of government officials. Without meeting such minimum requirements, nations will lose out on the benefits of wider markets, political security and legal justice for citizens. Today there is no check on the abuse of power by factions and leaders supported by the "divided-and-conquered" system of international relations.

Will the American people ever be willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of our country to what would be - if a majority rules - essentially a foreign power?

Americans will not have to sacrifice sovereignty over many of the problems for which world federalism is advocated. In world trade, prevention of genocide and other areas currently beyond the control of American sovereignty, establishing an accountable world government would extend the voice of Americans in world affairs. Just as with national defense in the United States, citizens of the states do not sacrifice their sovereignty by delegating authority over national issues to the national government - in fact, their sovereignty over other issues is strengthened by sharing the burden - and the benefits - with citizens of all other states.

Does this mean more regulation and taxes? Could I lose my job because of decisions by the world government?

No. The opposite may in fact prove true. Reduced military spending by nations fearful of their neighbors will result in less taxation or in more funding going to education and job training programs. Additionally, checking the decision-making of international financial institutions and establishing basic standards of living worldwide would better protect workers from losing their jobs when their companies move abroad in search of less fair standards of labor. While a political system can never fully guarantee against the dislocations of an economic system, it can mitigate economic strife, balance the interests involved, and make the economic system more fair.

Will I still get to own a gun? Could I be arrested by the world government for picking flowers in a protected reserve?

World federal laws would be defined a democratic body representative of the people and would be limited to strictly inter-national affairs. National governments would still be primarily responsible for defining the right to own personal weapons, however the transfer of such across national borders (just as inter-state acts within the US) could fall into the jurisdiction of the world federal government. The several member states of the UN have their own domestic laws as well as protections of civil rights, and world federalist support the rights of their citizens to define their own political system, within the parameters of inalienable human rights.                                     

Perhaps a brief philosophical discussion of law will help distinguish the moral law from civil law.

Natural or moral law is our participation through reason in eternal or divine law.  Since natural law is often general like “do not kill,” civil or positive law makes natural law specific, concrete, and enforceable.  Civil law governs acts that are public and external such as theft, but these external acts often flow from internal virtues or vices like excessive ambition, revenge, and greed.  Civil law is complemented by religious and moral development.

Civil law should be the result of basic consensus rather than forced by a few.  Although the use of alcohol needs to be regulated, most citizens in the US did not accept Prohibition in the 1920's or observe it.

The inspiration of our faith may move us to go beyond the minimum.  Our religion can give us insights into natural law.  However, civil law should come from basic human rights that all religions and those of no religion can agree on.  The rights of the unborn, for example, are best based on natural law rather than the tenets of Catholic Faith.

Perhaps it will be helpful to examine various kinds of law.
 

Natural Law and Positive Law
Law-Rule or Principle of Activity
Eternal Law (In the mind of God)
Natural Law-Promulgated by creation				Positive Law-Promulgated by legitimate authority (congress)
Physical Law		Moral Law		Civil Law		Church Law
Relationships in nature  (law of gravity)		Relationships between persons,  animals and natural creation  (telling the truth) Rights and responsibilities		Enacted to refine and  enforce natural law		Marriage, Worship
Known by reason  Chemistry, Physics, Biology		Known by reason and revelation, Scripture, ethics

Some advocate community policing and community-based corrections.  We need to focus on empowerment and real accountability.  The victim, the offender, and the community need to be involved in the entire repair process.  Indeed, an ounce of prevention through education, full employment, community building, and respect for each human person is worth a pound of cure.  (Paul H. Hahn, Emerging Criminal Justice, Three Pillars for a Proactive Justice System, p. 159)

Although we need to rethink some of our present attitudes concerning law in the US, our present local, state, and federal laws are better than chaos.  Several groups argued with the decision of the US Supreme Court in the November 2000 election.  But citizens for the most part accepted the decision because they saw the value of  law even when the decision was not what they thought was fair or according to legal precedent..

If we had a truly democratic and fair legal system, law could be a non-violent way through which dialogue and consensus can take place.  We can't force others to agree with us or to do what is right, but we can help to prevent automobiles and guns from injuring and killing others.  Law can promote the common good.

Even as we attempt to reform local, state, and federal law, we need to be equally zealous for international law.  If earth were being invaded by a hostile force from outer space, the United Nations would call an emergency session and appoint a task force to work night and day, day and night to defend our planet.  Cries like “The Martians are coming!” would alarm any of us.

Earth is being threatened from many directions.  A member of the 86th Infantry Division during World War II, I emerged from the war certain there had to be a better way to deal with threats to our security.  I chose the Society of Jesus as my way to join faith to striving for a more peaceful and just world.  Sixty years later I am convinced that democratic international law is an essential ingredient of a vision for peace.

"Just as the time has finally come when in individual states a system of private vendetta and reprisal has giv