Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract




Скачать 388.29 Kb.
НазваниеRelated or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract
страница5/16
Дата29.10.2012
Размер388.29 Kb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

National governments are evolving toward world government


IT’S FEASIBLE

The threat of nuclear war has spurred the world government movement

James A. Yunker (Professor of Economics at Western Illinois University), “Rethinking World Government: A New Approach, “ International Journal on World Peace, March 2000, p. 5-6

“The world government concept reached the height of its influence in the few short years just following the Second World War. On top of the prodigious carnage wrought by the War, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave humanity a profound shock, a terrifying vision of what would probably occur if a Third World War were fought with nuclear weapons. The advent of these weapons significantly strengthened the longstanding position of world federalists that in the absence of a world government, the sovereign nation-state system was likely to generate warfare of such magnitude and intensity as to cause the downfall and possible annihilation of human civilization. World-renowned scientists, statesmen and philosophers declared themselves in favor of world government, world federalist organizations and movements proliferated, and millions of people around the world began thinking seriously about the idea.”


The end of the Cold War makes world government potential feasible again

James A. Yunker (Professor of Economics at Western Illinois University), “Rethinking World Government: A New Approach, “ International Journal on World Peace, March 2000, p. 10

“But now that ideological disagreements are rapidly fading into insignificance, it may be time to take a new look at the world government possibility. Clearly, the case against world government, at a minimum, has been seriously weakened by the decline of the Cold War.”


International law implies the existence of government beyond individual nations

John P. Humphrey (1905-1995 Canadian legal scholar, jurist, and human rights advocate; prof. of law, McGill Univ., Montreal), “Peace on Earth and goodwill to men,” Human Rights Quarterly, August 1992, p. 429+

“Let me repeat: government, in the general sense in which we are using the term here, means the process of governing. And to govern means to rule or direct with authority. There can be government only where there exists some relationship of superior to inferior, a superior who has the right to command and an inferior whose duty it is to obey. Does this relationship exist at the international level? Or, in other words, is there any such thing as supra-national government? Are the entities of the international society (whether these be only states or other subjects of international law, including certain international organizations like the United Nations and the individual men and women who, in the final analysis, make up any society) subject to any supra-national authority? Assuming that there is any such thing as international law, it must be admitted that states are subject to an authority higher than themselves; for all law implies the element of submission, if only submission to the law. To the extent therefore that there exists an international law, the concept of government can be said to exist at the international level. If the state is equivalent to the legal order then, assuming the existence of international law, the supra-national state already exists.”


We’re at a transitional moment as the first true internationalism is emerging

Carl Coon (vice president of the American Humanist Association; former ambassador to Nepal), “Toward a humanist foreign policy,” The Humanist, March-April 2008, p. 22

“Humanity is now in a transitional phase, moving reluctantly from Dodge City to a global society ruled by law. We’ve seen this kind of transition before, on more limited scales. Some combination of circumstances alters the environment and the existing social order comes under great stress. People get desperate enough to commit to a substantially different order that involves cooperating with former competitors, even enemies, in a larger society. There are problems of adjustment but eventually almost everyone is integrated into the new order and few want to go back to the old one. Our own nation’s history tells the story: thirteen colonies, each of them filled with pride at its particular history and character, hesitantly agreed to form a confederation. From that, the tighter bonds of a federal republic were created and now here we are. Who wants to go back?”


History suggests that global political integration will be difficult but possible

Carl Coon (vice president of the American Humanist Association; former ambassador to Nepal), “Toward a humanist foreign policy,” The Humanist, March-April 2008, p. 22

“Our history of morphing from thirteen small societies into a subcontinental giant was extraordinary. Usually the process involves more trauma, more false steps (I say this even while acknowledging that our civil war was a thoroughly traumatic affair). European history is more typical in that respect. How many wars have been fought on European soil since the Roman Empire collapsed? And how difficult is it still, when all the disadvantages of narrow nationalism have been revealed, and all the blessings of union are being unveiled, for the several national parties to agree on the institutions and modalities of union? All this suggests that creating some kind of law and order that will include the whole globe will be an enormously complicated task, one that certainly will not be fully accomplished during the lifetime of anyone alive today. But it’s equally plausible that some such order will evolve eventually, if humanity is to survive at all.”


Current international divisions are no greater than those between the states in 1776

Walter Cronkite (retired American broadcast journalist; 1968 recipient of Carr Van Anda award for enduring contributions to journalism), “The Case for Democratic World Government,” Earth Island Journal, Summer 2000, p. 45

“We can draw on the wisdom of the Framers of the US Constitution. The differences among the American states then were as bitter as differences among nation-states today.”


Of the three possible configurations for world government, a federal union is feasible

John P. Humphrey (1905-1995 Canadian legal scholar, jurist, and human rights advocate; prof. of law, McGill Univ., Montreal), “Peace on Earth and goodwill to men,” Human Rights Quarterly, August 1992, p. 429+

“A theoretical analysis of world government begins by defining ‘government’ as both a society’s governing power and the abstract action of governing. This definition leads to three conceptions of world government: a single unitary super-state, a world confederation or a world federal union. The first would bring too much centralization, the second would be too weak, while the third is preferable because it would define the world government’s relation to individual people.”


A world government must be voluntary rather than imposed

Carl Coon (vice president of the American Humanist Association; former ambassador to Nepal), “Toward a humanist foreign policy,” The Humanist, March-April 2008, p. 23

“Furthermore, if we honestly believe democracy is better than dictatorship, we should hold as a very high priority the objective of achieving a future world order that achieves peace and harmony, primarily because people everywhere want peace and harmony and are willing to sacrifice some of their narrowly nationalistic interests, when necessary, to make that possible. In other words, we don’t want some highly coercive world government telling everyone what they can and cannot do, even if it’s one we initially impose ourselves. What we do want is a more orderly global system based primarily on shared values and arrived at freely, through consensus. We want nation-states to cooperate primarily because they know it’s the right thing to do, not because someone threatens to punish them if they don’t.”


WORLD GOVERNMENT GOOD

World government is needed

Walter Cronkite (retired American broadcast journalist; 1968 recipient of Carr Van Anda award for enduring contributions to journalism), “The Case for Democratic World Government,” Earth Island Journal, Summer 2000, p. 45

“I believe that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world. Those of us living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether, through a monumental educational and political effort, we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law wherein individual violators of that law are brought to justice.”


Attempts to guarantee security within the state-power system only breed greater insecurity

Philip G. Cerny (prof. of global political economy, Rutgers Univ.), “Terrorism and the new security dilemma,” Naval War College Review, Winter 2005, p. 17-18

“Perhaps most importantly, attempts to provide international and domestic security through the state and the states system — especially the U.S. attempt to use its power to regulate and control that system unilaterally — are becoming increasingly dysfunctional. They create severe and diverse backlashes at local, transnational, and hegemonic levels, backlashes that further weaken states and undermine wider security. Terrorism, the most extreme example of such a backlash, often actually gains sympathy, adherents, and momentum from the attempts of states to repress it. Furthermore, these backlashes do not develop in a vacuum. They interact with economic and social processes of complex globalization to create overlapping and competing cross-border networks of power, shifting loyalties and identities, and new sources of endemic low-level conflict — the ‘durable disorder’ mentioned earlier.”


World government is better than global anarchy

Maurice Strong (chairman and chief executive officer of the Earth Council, United Nations; Council President, the University for Peace, San Juan, Costa Rica.), “Reforming the United Nations,” The Futurist, September 2001, p. 19+

“World government is just not on; it is not necessary, not feasible, and not desirable. This is not to say that we can aspire to a world without systems of rules. Far from it. A chaotic world would pose equal or even greater danger than world government. The challenge is to strike a balance so that the management of global affairs is responsive to the interests of all people in a secure and sustainable future.”


A world government could forbid war between nations

Luis Cabrera (assistant professor of political science, Arizona State University West), “The Cosmopolitan Imperative: Global Justice Through Accountable Integration,” The Journal of Ethics, March 2005, p. 183

“Proponents of this ‘collective-action warfare’’ approach say that the need for integration, most often for a fully global sovereign, has become especially evident since the development of nuclear weapons. States are said to need a Hobbesian ‘power to keep them all in awe,’ i.e., a suprastate governing body capable of transforming a dangerous, anarchic system into a stable, highly ordered one. Even in an ideal sovereign states system, proponents likely would say, leaders’ interests in promoting the welfare of their own citizens could lead them into conflict over resources, territory or other issues. Therefore, states should find it in their interest to cede their war-making powers to some larger body capable of effectively policing them all and enforcing a genuine international law.”


World government would prevent war

James A. Yunker (Professor of Economics at Western Illinois University), “Rethinking World Government: A New Approach, “ International Journal on World Peace, March 2000, p. 5

“Throughout the twentieth century, world federalists argued that the agonies and vicissitudes imposed on humanity by warfare could be greatly reduced, if not terminated altogether, by the formation of a world government with strong and effective authority over the nations. Just as the various national governments do not permit organized warfare to transpire between subsidiary political components within their territories, such as provinces, states, districts, counties, cities, and so on, so too a world government would not permit organized warfare to transpire between subsidiary political components within its territory, up to and including the nations themselves. Not only would human civilization be rid of the death, pain, destruction and sorrow directly inflicted by warfare, it would also be rid of the endless apprehension over warfare that blights human happiness even during the most prolonged intervals of peace, as well as the continuing heavy economic burden of maintaining military armament and forces supposedly sufficient to deter potential opponents in other nations from launching aggressive wars.”


The primary economic benefit of world government is reliable contract enforcement

Peter T. Leeson (Assistant Professor of Economics, West Virginia University), “Does globalization require global government?” Indian Journal of Economics and Business, September 2007, p. 11

“The primary economic benefit of a global state would thus be its ability to enable a large number of socially disparate individuals to realize the widespread gains from exchange by providing an overarching, supranational system of formal adjudication and contract enforcement. The presence of such an institution would reduce the uncertainty of interacting for the purposes of trade, increasing international exchange and along with it social wealth. Just as the benefit of government at the national level has traditionally been construed in terms of government’s ability to enable agents within its domain to capture additional benefits from trade, so too would the benefit of a world state be found in this capacity.”


A world government would, on balance, solve problems and simplify administration

John P. Humphrey (1905-1995 Canadian legal scholar, jurist, and human rights advocate; prof. of law, McGill Univ., Montreal), “Peace on Earth and goodwill to men,” Human Rights Quarterly, August 1992, p. 429+

“Nor can there be any doubt that a single world government, once achieved, would provide a solution for many of the problems that now beset humanity. There are other problems that such a development would not solve, and still others that would result from the creation of the world state itself. But whatever reservations one might wish to make in accepting such a solution — and they are many — a single world state might be immeasurably preferable to the international chaos that now characterizes our civilization. Such a solution would also possess the virtue of constitutional simplicity. In a unitary world state, there would be only one sovereign authority which would have final control and jurisdiction in all matters. There would be, therefore, none of the legal and other difficulties that are inherent in, for example, the federal system of government; for, while the world authority might feel impelled to delegate powers to national or other local organs, the latter would possess a status corresponding to that of municipal institutions in the British system. “


THE U.N. COULD BE THE NUCLEUS OF WORLD GOVERNMENT

The UN can and should be strengthened until world government is possible

Walter Cronkite (retired American broadcast journalist; 1968 recipient of Carr Van Anda award for enduring contributions to journalism), “The Case for Democratic World Government,” Earth Island Journal, Summer 2000, p. 45

“It seems to many of us that, if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict, we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government — with a legislature, executive and judiciary and police to enforce its international laws. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield some of our sovereignty. It would take a lot of courage. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.”


The UN pursues a world government agenda

Dennis Behreandt (freelance writer, former staff managing editor), “The UN unmasked,” The New American, March 24, 2003, p. 26

“As Inside the United Nations convincingly demonstrates, the vision of the UN’s founders, and the goal still unerringly sought by the world body and its internationalist promoters in America and abroad, is nothing less than the creation of a full fledged world government. Already the UN has progressed far down this road. In having an executive branch in the office of the secretary-general, a semblance of a parliament in the General Assembly, a sort of Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Security Council, central banking institutions in the IMF and World Bank, and a kind of judicial system in the World Court and the new International Criminal Court, the UN has all the trappings of a modem state.”


The existence of the UN and the end of the Cold War set the stage for world government

James A. Yunker (Professor of Economics at Western Illinois University), “Rethinking World Government: A New Approach, “ International Journal on World Peace, March 2000, p. 26-27

“But the point remains that the very existence of the United Nations demonstrates an aspiration toward world government. The end of World War I presented humanity with the first opportunity to establish such a government. The end of World War II presented humanity with the second opportunity. The end of the Cold War is now presenting humanity with a third opportunity. The fact that the first two opportunities were wasted does not necessarily mean that the third opportunity will be wasted. Humanity, as an intelligent species, is capable of learning from its mistakes. This has been the basis of progress since time immemorial.”


The UN’s agenda is to become the central core of world government

Gary Benoit (staff editor), “The Power of Truth,” The New American, February 10, 2003, p. 60

“The architects of world order established the United Nations so that it would become a seat of world government. One of those architects was John Foster Dulles, who later served as secretary of state under President Dwight Eisenhower. Dulles wrote in War or Peace (1950): ‘The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.’ The following decade, President John F. Kennedy presented the UN with the U.S. government’s official policy for making the UN a ‘more highly developed organization.’ That policy, published by the State Department under the title Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (1961), stated that disarmament ‘would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.’ Other evidence, including U.S. enforcement of UN disarmament resolutions in Iraq, makes clear that this policy remains in force.”


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   16

Похожие:

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconRelated or contrasting ideas may be found in the sections on Animal Rights, Knowledge, Life, Medical Ethics, Nature, Progress, and Science

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconRelated or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Absolutism, Consequentialism, Duty, Intuitionism, Needs, Nietzsche, Relativism, Subjectivism, and Values

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconBout 90 per cent of all Charter arguments raised in reported cases across all Canadian courts deal with one of the legal rights sections sections 7-14

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconNuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation”

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconClockwise from bottom left: Atoms for Peace, speech by Dwight D. Eisenhower; Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant; Nuclear power plant; Mushroom cloud at Nevada

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconBomb Scare: The History & future of Nuclear Weapons

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract icon1. What is the difference between Employment Law and Contract Law?

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconLaw, Social Justice & Global Development (An Electronic Law Journal)

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconLaw, Social Justice & Global Development (An Electronic Law Journal)

Related or contrasting ideas may be found in the following sections: Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Rights, Rule of Law, and the Social Contract iconLaw, Social Justice & Global Development (An Electronic Law Journal)

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница