There is almost unanimity among progressive political thinkers that
in due course of time, all nation-states, on reaching on optimum stage of
political and economic advancement, will find it desirable, in their own
interests and in the interests of fellow nation-states, to accept the concept
of one-world order with a full-fledged one world Government. Only such
a government could create conditions in which an ear of everlasting peace
and international security, based on equal prosperity of all nation-states,
could be achieved.
The experiment in federation making by regional states,
confederations and loose alliances, have not proved equal to the tasks of
integrating diverse elements during the last few centuries, since Austin’s
sovereignty theory caught world-wide attention. This theory which acted
as a stabilizing concept for some time has outlived its relevance in modern
societies. It is high time this concept is discarded or compromised with its
international brand. Diluting of the national sovereignties is must if
mankind wants to escape the spectra of a nuclear or neutron holocaust.
division of the human race on grounds of ideological differences and
national jealousies and animosities must be ended once for all.
The United Nations may have succeeded in many ways but it has so
lar not been able to put into the minds of the world leaders any concrete
idea of a world federation.
World War I (1914-18) brought considerable havoc to the world.
The damage done by this war to human as well as other material resources
had hardly been repaired that the ugly head of the demon of war again
started hovering over Europe. The league of Nations proved too weak to
foster bonds of good will between different countries of the world to bring
inito being a climate of general will-being. Nationalism should itself in
extreme forms in some countries of Europe and reminded that the darker
days that followed the fall of Roman Empire still, hung on the horizon.
Chamberlain’s weak policy towards Hitler and his going out of the way to
pacify the rising hunger of the Nazi regime made it certain in August 1939 that war was at hand. It came thundering in September 1939, The Celassa
damage that it did to the world directly or indirectly, in human and
material resources, is indescribable. The end of the war came when
humanity was shuddering in the horror of an atom bomb dropped on
Hiroshima in Japan. How could a progressive nation, United States of
America, take this drastic step? It killed a million people and disabled
many more. This baffled every one. But perhaps, the stronger among
nationalists thought that every thing is fair in love and war.
The war ravaged Europe forget the miseries of the first world war
and indulged in a new wave of nationalism by crossing national barriers,
The Nazis pampered up nationalism to such an extent that it is assumed
dangerous proportions. Its extreme dimensions spread from Germany to
Italy.
The Second World War was not yet officially over when a number
of leading nations including Russia, U.S.A, Britain, France and China
along with others meet in Brettanwoords in 1944 to chalk out and lay the
foundations of an organization which could promote, with its allied
organization in social and economic sphere, one world concept and ensure
lasting peace for the world. Thus were laid the foundations of the
resent United Nations.
Even to-day, 52 years after the foundation of the United Nations.
one hears of negative arguments, advanced at the U.N. platform about the
redundancy of the concept of the world government. Some leaders still
hold the view that one would concept violates the traditional concept of
sovereignty of nations. A state is to be free in its internal affairs and
external relations. It is only when that sovereignty can be called
indivisible, inalienable and correct in the true Austinian sense.
Protagonists of this theory, therefore, underline the importance of the fact
that in the ultimate analysis in actual practice the theories of nation-states
and national governments alone would be able to deliver goods. Any
concept of the world, according to them, is not tenable and would not be
able to last very long. this school of thought emphasises the uselessness of
the concept of one world because they are convinced that it is never going
to be realised. In support of this contention they repeatedly draw the
attention of the world to the uselessness of the United Nations to contain
peace. They highlight the failure of the U.N. as against its achievements in
social and economic fields. The concept of one world government is
repugnant to their very way to thinking. To what extent is it correct that one world concept violates national
sovereignty? There who favour the one world’ concept, point out that
fore better international relations and for creating mutual understanding in
international matters, the doctrine of so-called classical sovereignty ought
to be given up by nation-state in the larger interests of improved harmony
and economic exchange. According to them, this surrounding of absolute
sovereignty does not mean end of national sovereignty. As a matter of fact
the concept of one world does not require the readjusting of geographical
boundaries of nation states only each nation should part with some of its
national sovereignty for improving international environment. In such an
arrangement, it cannot be said that the sovereignty of a state is being
interfered with or is being taken away and the state is losing one of its
fundamental concepts. History bears testimony to this, that one has to take
different concepts of national sovereignty even within a nation state itself.
Gone are the days of the so-called absolute sovereignty. The world to-day
believes in what is so called plural sovereignty as opposed to absolute
sovereignty. The concept of pluralism in international sphere is, therefore,
absolutely justified and necessary if the world has to survive and make
better purpose.
Very often the failure of U.N. have encouraged those who are
opposed to the one world idea. This school of thought feels the
organization is weak, ineffective and cannot under present set-up become
strong. Any strong super one-world government cannot actually be
established unless there is also a world military force at the command of
the U.N. It is true that force is a necessary part of any sovereign state. As
a matter of fact the element of coercion is one of the major distinguishing
features between a state and the society. But it will take a long time before
the nation states agree to change the outlook on their much-guarded
concept of national sovereignty. Setting up a world government and having
a permanent world force are two serious needs of the one world
government or the one-world federation. There have to be, perhaps
different stages not to come into being automatically, suddenly without
definite planning. Each stage will require careful handling. A series of
stages will have to be launched in the years to come. For the time being
states are making their respective contribution to the civilization of the
world; existing human races. if they show greater restraint and appreciate
the difficulties of each other, practice greater patience to the finding of
solutions to international problems and take greater care in handling delicate and explosive issues concerning disarmament of UN forces, there
is every reason to hope that the leading powers would be able to chalk
an agreed plan of launching the series of stages needed for ushering in
World Federation Nation-States. Nations will no doubt continue to be
equipped with their national sovereignties but they will have to adjust to
same internationally imposed restraints on the absolute degree of their
sovereignty.
In order that a world Federation may come into being after some
decades, the nation-states will have to start appreciating the following
principles of national and international behaviour.
1. The formulation of constitutional, national, public and
municipal law and their enforcement will continue to be the
responsibility of the nation-states and they will enjoy full-
fledged sovereignty our their nationals.
2. Each nation-state will have its own defense system for the
maintenance of its internal law and order and ensure the unity
and integrity of its constituent provinces and states.
3. It will maintain friendly relations with all nation-states,
including the neighbouring states, and not aspire to acquire
them by conquest or aggression on any grounds whatsoever.
4. It will settle all matters of conflict with any state outside its
boundary by negotiation, arbitration or adjudication through
the good offices of the United Nations.
5. It will consider amendments in constitutional or national law
as may be suggested by the United Nations for the promotion
of more equitable international trade or any other economic
issue of international importance. However the right to finally
accept or reject such a suggestion will rest in the nation-states
itself where highest law-making body will duly discuss and
decide upon it taking into consideration the likely good or bad
effects of which suggestions.
6. The U.N. will initiate the maintenance of its own security or
peace keeping force to check the aggressive tendencies of any
nation-states against its neighbour or any nation-state outside
its boundaries.
The effective performance of the peace-maintaining function,
according to Clark and Sohn, should depend on the following:- A. Genuine peace can be effectively maintained only in a world
in which all the nations have been completely disarmed. They
will be permitted to maintain “some strictly limited and lightly
armed police forces needed for the maintenance of internal
order”, but even these police forces would be under constant
supervision of the world state in order to ensure that none of
them could become the nucleus of an effective military force.
B. An effective Inspection Service, maintained by the world state,
would be directly and primarily responsible for supervising the
execution of the disarmament plan and the observance of the
prohibitions and licensing requirements necessary
guarantee the maintenance of complete disarmament. A new
and separate agency, the United Nations Nuclear Energy
Authority would perform various functions to ensure that
nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes and that nuclear
materials are not diverted to military use.
C. The function of the world police force created and maintained
by the world state, would include the upholding of world law
against international violence. Its very existence should
normally deter violation of the law forbidding national
armaments and prohibiting the use of force or the threat of its
between nations, but if the law is violated, the police force
should be adequate to punish those who break the law.
D. It would be duty of world legislature, elected ultimately by the
people of the nation-states, to enact appropriate regulations
concerning “disarmament and the maintenance of peace or
concerning appropriate penalties for violation of the
regulations and to keep a watchful eye on the other organs
and agencies of the peace system.” an effective world
executive would direct and control the world inspection
service and the police force, and exercise other executive
functions, including the collection and spending of the needed
revenue to maintain the essential services of the world state.
World judicial tribunals and conciliation commissions will be
maintained to facilitate any peaceful settlement of dispute
between nations.
E. Its essential function would be to mitigate the vast disparities
in the economic condition of the various regions of the world,
the continuance of which to create instability and conflict.
F. An effective world revenue system is obviously necessary
“since there would otherwise be no reliable means to provide the large sums required for the maintenance of the inspection
service, the world police force, the judicial system and the
other necessary world institutions.