Justice 2040

The following comes from the text of an International Court of Justice opinion, dated 12 June 2040. It provides a concise summary, from a jurisprudential perspective, of the logic that led to the writing of the new constitution of the United Federation of Nations six years ago.

Prior to the date of the constitution, the people had not any world tribunal to which they could resort for justice; the distribution of justice was then confined to National judicatories, in whose institution and organization the people of the other Nations had no participation, and over whom they had not the least control. There was then no general court of appellate jurisdiction by whom the errors of National courts, affecting either the world at large or the citizens of any other Nation, could be revised and corrected. Each Nation was obliged to acquiesce in the measure of justice which another Nation might yield to her or to her citizens; and that even in cases where National considerations were not always favorable to the exact measure. There was danger that from this source animosities would in time result; and as the transition from animosities to hostilities was frequent in the history of independent Nations, a common tribunal for the termination of controversies became desirable, from motives both of justice and of policy.

...

While all the Nations were bound to protect each, and the citizens of each, it was highly proper and reasonable that they should be in a capacity not only to cause justice to be done to each, and the citizens of each, but also to cause justice to be done by each, and the citizens of each; and that, not by violence and force, but in a stable, sedate, and regular course of judicial procedure.

These were among the evils against which it was proper for the world, that is the people of all the United Nations, to provide by an international judiciary, to be instituted by the whole earth, and to be responsible to the whole earth.

Now perhaps this seems a bit corny. Before you dismiss my bit of futuristic writing, please consider the following.

The judicial opinion I posted is real ... if one simply substitutes the word "nation" for words like "world," and substitutes "State" for "Nation." With those alterations, the piece was written by an American founding father. As chief justice of the US Supreme Court, John Jay delivered it as part of the majority opinion in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in the 1790s.

Much of the same logic that made federalism attractive to the American founders makes it attractive to modern theorists of international affairs. Here, for instance, is the stated vision of one organization:

The World Federalist Movement is an international citizen's movement working for justice, peace, and sustainable prosperity. We call for an end to the rule of force through a world governed by law, based on strengthened and democratized world institutions. We are inspired by the democratic principles of federalism.

World Federalists support the creation of democratic global structures accountable to the citizens of the world. World federalism calls for the division of international authority among separate agencies, a separation of powers among judicial, executive and parliamentary bodies.

World Federalists are united in seeking to bring peace and justice to the world community through effective global institutions and binding international law.

Under federalism, a greater political entity has the legal right to enforce justice to some extent within a local political unit. The United States would not have to invade and conquer the state of Alaska, for instance, in order to abolish slavery; the federal government would simply exercise its constitutional authority to override the state's opinions on the matter. The state might resist, of course, but it would be doing so illegally; the US would not have to justify its right to interfere in Alaska's domestic affairs. The fact that the federal government is accountable to a larger, more diverse population is a safeguard against abuses.

A growing number of activists would now like similar authority invested in a world government, so that a legal apparatus would be in place to regulate, say, a Saddam, without having to destroy the government of the state of Iraq. Violence might be necessary in rare instances, but it would probably be much less extensive, would be initiated by a government responsible to the people of the entire globe instead of a few nations, and would be strictly governed by law and subject to a judicial authority.

Do not misunderstand. I do not endorse this idea, as attractive as it seems on some levels. I merely suspect that many conservatives are not taking the idea seriously enough.

I know plenty of conservatives who are quite wary of the United Nations. I hear a lot of complaints from them about transnational encroachments upon American sovereignty. I also know, however, a lot of "conservatives" who want to remake the world in the political image of the West, free and prosperous. I sympathize, naturally. But I have doubts.

The "conservative" tradition in America has always argued that the rule of law must be upheld, first and foremost. This is based on the belief that power, particularly great power, must be limited. Yet in foreign affairs, contemporary conservatives seem willing to exercise a rather Hobbesian authority in the world: many seem quite willing to build up the unstoppable interventionist power of a few nations over the objections of most others. This is quite understandable in many ways for humanitarian reasons, but it is a paradox. Many influential people are currently attempting to solve this paradox by moving slowly in the direction of transnational democratic government. This will not result in actual world federalism anytime soon, but the activists will keep federalism in mind as a model.

Conservative pleas for the protection of American national sovereignty are ineffective against the logic of federalism. (If America intervenes forcibly in the internal affairs of any other nation on earth, the argument is hypocritical as well.) National sovereignty could become the modern version of states' rights -- seen as an excuse for internal oppression and dehumanization. Just as the US federal government has at times upheld human rights over the objections of individual states, world government would be designed to protect the rights of the individual against the nation-state, limiting the power of every government around the world -- a goal dear to the hearts of liberals and conservatives alike. Yet some sacrifices would be made, and the global government itself would become very powerful indeed.

I don't have any good answers myself yet. I have the beginnings of an answer, I think. For now, I want conservatives to take the question seriously.

| Posted by Wilson at 15:35 Central | TrackBack
| Report submitted to the Power Desk