"It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for you
to get along in the republic of the United States."

• What is the federal principle?

  The federal principle is simply the principle that governmental powers and responsibilities may be divided between levels of government, federal and state. Specified matters that cannot be handled satisfactorily on a state level are entrusted to the federal goverment--and the federal government's authority is limited to those matters.
  The federal principle stems from the idea that sovereignty (power to take action without interference from a higher authority) resides originally with the people. A federal constitution delegates only limited, specified powers to a federal government. All other powers are either delegated to the states or retained by the people. Thus the federal principle is a device designed to prevent the central government from becoming all-powerful, while giving the central government the powers it needs and only those powers. It leaves the lower units of government free to handle local and regional affairs according to the wishes of their inhabitants, free from interference by the federal government.
  When the federal idea was born in 1787 at the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, it was an untried innovative. It has turned out to be practical and popular. One by one, other nations have adopted it. The Swiss, whose cantons had been joined in a loose confederacy for five centuries but had suffered from recurring warfare between them, adopted a federal constitution in 1848. Argentina became a federal republic in 1853. Since then the federal form of government has been adopted by Canada, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Burma, Austria, Germany, India, and Nigeria.

  The federal idea is basic to world federalism. Among "competing" sovereign nations, federalism promotes the force of law over the law of force for the settlement of disputes. In today's global political environment, no nation has absolute control over its own destiny in the shaping of world events. Against its will, it may find intself involved in war. It may find its seafood wiped out by foreign fishing fleets operating in the free market to the detriment of the nation in question. It may find that its citizens are suffering from pollution which has drifted across international borders. Lacking ability to control such matters, it loses nothing by delegating the authority to handle these matters to an accountable supranational authority, while retaining all its other powers. Thus its citizens are served by the role of law protecting their liberties and rights, not simply within their own borders, but by potential violators who are unaccountable by their internal sovereignty.
  To summarize: the creation of a world federation would not mean the elimination of national governments or of national differences and loyalties. Its powers would be limited to those necessary for the solution of global problems and maintaining a peaceful world community.

• Would world federation eliminate national sovereignty?

  It is useful to make a clear distinction between two kinds of sovereignty. Internal sovereignty refers to a nation's authority to regulate its own internal affairs without interference from outside. External sovereignty refers to a nations freedom to act as it pleases in its relationship with other nations--including the right to molest or attack or interfere with the sovereignty of other nations.
  This distinction is not as clear as it was fifty years ago when the U.N. was founded. An example of this blurring was the actions of the United States and other countries in protecting their internal petroleum markets by retaliating against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Just as individual American states cannot act as judges in their cases, instead having to settle their disputes at the Supreme Court, so would individual nations have to settle their disputes in court. The distintion between internal and external sovereign actions would be made by competent court officials who would decide whether actions taken by a nation in its internal affairs had avoidable adverse impacts in other nations.
  How valuable is external sovereignty? That depends on circumstances. The various nations, being unequal in size, economic self-reliance and military power, have always been unequal in their ability to control their destiny. Today, the threat of nuclear war is smaller than before. Since the end of the Cold War, the threats to peace tend to be international terrorism and economic warfare. International institutions such as stock markets can have internal effects over which no nation has complete control. Of course, the nature of traditional external sovereignty possessed by other nations still poses a potential threat to each nation's internal sovereignty. A peaceful nation thrust into a war it cannot avoid has lost control of its internal affairs.
  Advocates of world federalism wish to see a world in which each nation retains fully its internal sovereignty but pools specific authorities in a higher level, which can more effectively protect everyone against violence and injustice. Under this higher authority, such powers would then become shared by the nations collectively under law rather than war.
  One hears much loose talk to the effect that world federation would require nations to "surrender their sovereignty." This phrase is not only misleading but incorrect on two counts. It is not a question of surrending but of pooling sovereignty. And only specific powers would be pooled. Nations would still remain completely sovereign in their internal affairs.

• What would a federal world government be like?

  The ultimate goal of world federalists is the existence of a world-wide society in which disputes are settled, not by mass killing and destruction, but by legal and judicial means aimed at replacing force with justice. Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice, of law, of order...in short, of government and the instruments of governance.
  Such a society must be governed by world law, created and enforced by an accountable global legislature composed of national representives, and conflicts adjudicated by an independent judicary with the compentent authority to reach just settlements of international controversies.
  What kind of government could achieve this goal? Under a federal world government, with world law administered justly, benignly and effectively, certain condition must be met.

  • World law must prohibit the use of force by national governments against the inhabitants of other nations as a sovereign right. Several countries, including Japan, Germany and Costa Rica have found that by redirecting funding from military to economic and civilian production, their countries have prospered like never before.
    
  • World law must be enforceable and applicable on individual violators, not entire nations or governments. The United States does not hold the states responsible for the illegal acts of its citizens, but proceeds directly against the citizens themselves. Similarly, a world government would not hold a nation responsible for terrorists acts, acts of aggression, or crimes against humanity by individual citizens, but rather single out the individuals responsible for the act or the orders to commit the act and bring them to trial. One of the injustices of war is that innocent citizens on both sides suffer for the misdeeds of government officials who plan and wage acts of aggression or defend acts of terrorism. One of the advantages of a world legal system is that enforcement against individuals requires very little force, whereas the war system requires action against highly-trained armed nation-states, resulting in mass killings and destructions, especially against the civilian population.
    
  • The government's powers must be limited, yet adequate to assure world-wide freedom from aggression and protection of civil liberties.This means that the world federation must have the authority and machinery for adjudicating international disputes with a measure of justice. It must be able to legislate in matters concerning nuclear safety and materials, environmental concerns, human rights and inter-nation commerce.
    
  • The government must have a reliable source of revenue.Its authority and competence in legislative affairs would be illusory if it depended on voluntary contributions from member-nations, just as the US government was under the Articles of Confederation (1782-1788). Withholding of funds could wreck the programs designed to secure civil liberties, enforce criminal law, and secure inter-nation commerce. User fees, applicable only to the recepients of the services, has been the most popular proposal to secure adequate funding for programs. Other fees, directed against arms trade, currency speculation or environmental waste management could support programs to reduce the dangers of such activities.
    
  • The world government must be denied those powers that would interfere wth the domestic affairs of nations. Internal sovereignty would remain completely outside the purview of the world government, unless such actions posed a serious threat to the internal sovereignty of its neighbors. Each nation will be able to administer its home affairs, including its own structure of government, educational system, permitted religious practices, immigration policies, law enforcement, tax rates, etc.
    
  • Individual rights and civil liberties must be protected against any acts by the world federation that would violate them. This includes the observance and enforcement of the International Bill of Rights as a fundamental princple of the world federation. Liberties and rights must be protected by due process of law, and enforced by officers of the court, police officials, and an independent judiciary.
    
  • The world government must be held accountable in periodic elections. This means that the global legislature must effectively represent not only the nations of the world, but also directly represent the people. A more equitable method of representative must be put in place of the one-nation, one-vote system currently in place. Representatives must be at some level directly elected by the people, rather than appointed by national governments, and held accoutable only to the voters.
    

• In this world of selfish human beings, isn't world federalism an impractical dream?

  On the contrary, what is impractical and unrealistic is the notion that peace, justice and effective government can be acheived solely through altruistic people and a harmony of interests that does not exist. If we lived in a world where everyone always put the social interests ahead of personal interests, voluntarism and cooperation would suceed admirably. But we do not live in such a "perfect-world". It is because human beings have conflicting interests and are selfish and stubborn - and probably always will be - that government is needed in the first place. Anyone who advocated abolishing government on the national or local level, relying instead on people's goodwill and cooperation, would rightly be considered a hopeless utopian. At the world level too, in a community of nations that proclaim they operate on the principle of national interest and acknowledge conflicts of interest, government is the only practical answer. World federalism simply seeks to apply to our global community the only method by which a just and stable order has ever been attained at lower levels. What is unrealistic is the idea that dependence on war can lead to peace.

• How can you expect to achieve world federation when there is no popular support for it?

  It is true that the world federalist movement has so far attracted the formal, active support of only a few. However, as international corporations grow in number and size and democracy spreads across the planet, the current system of loose business and legal norms among nations will have to be replaced. World federalists do not wish to leave this up to the politicians and business CEO's alone, but instead wish the developing system of world law to be established democratically. To borrow a phrase from American history, world federalists want the world government to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
  This being so, world federalists do not expect a world federation to be achieved overnight. It may take decades to institute the capabilities of governance. It is the process that is important, not the end results. An important first step is to persuade people like yourself that world federation offers the best hope of being the solution to the problems of regional hegemony, international terrorism and ethnic conflicts.

• Before any kind of world federation can be established, isn't it necessary to get people to change their attitudes and values from present nationalist interests to an unselfish global concern for all people? World federalism is not a remnant of the 1960's when "peaceniks" beleived in peace, love and goodwill. Although these are good in themselves and should be encouraged, world federalism is a more practical movement, and recognizes that humans act out of their self-interest. World federalists support the creation of instruments and institutions which will, by their existence, contribute to world peace. An international criminal court will deter potential wars of agression. A democratic representative world legislature will encourage democratic behavior between, as well as within, individual nations. World federation should be advocated, not on the grounds that we should be altruistic, but on the grounds that it is in our self-interest.

If you have comments or suggestions, email me at wfava@hotmail.com, or leave a message for me on my Message Board. For information about the World Federalist Association, visit their website at www.wfa.org or call 1-800-WFA-0123.