 |
|
The ultimate goal of world federalism is the existence of a global community in which disputes are settled, not by mass killings and destruction, but by the kind of political and judicial processes already known and used within democratic countries.
Many world federalists would also argue that the objective above cannot be accomplished without political structures that assume a large measure of social and economic justice.
World federalism suggests a political order which better reflects our common humanity, one in which we share both rights and responsibilities as world citizens.
Back to top
What political and judicial processes are
missing at the international level which world federalists believe we
must address?
At the international level there is no law to stop anti-social conduct, no elections to determine who will be the law-makers, no courts to decide impartially who is an aggressor and who is acting in self-defence, and no police to arrest individual law violators.
In international disputes, nuclear warheads, long-range missiles and other forms of intimidation often become the ultimate authority. That is why nation-states build up their military forces even during peace. And military forces are often used indiscriminately in anti-terrorist campaigns, exacerbating the problem they are supposed to cure.
This absence of elections, law-making and law enforcement can be regarded as the absence of what we usually call 'governance' at the level of international affairs, and this is what needs to be rectified.
Back to top
One major weakness of
the UN, which retains the attributes of a
confederation or league, is that its member nations have retained,
under the claim of absolute sovereignty, the right to decide whether or
not to accept the decision of the majority. Hence, the UN's
decisions are generally unenforceable; they depend on voluntary
compliance, especially by the big powers.
While the UN acts as a forum for the countries of the world, its structure and lack of resources prevent it from making law and enforcing law, as governments conventionally do in a sovereign state.
In matters of peace and security, the Security Council can theoretically bind all countries. But the five permanent members retain the veto which often prevents the UN from acting, and consequently individual countries continue to determine how enforcement will be carried out, or not!
Back to top
While the UN acts as a forum for the countries of the world, its structure and lack of resources prevent it from making law and enforcing law, as governments conventionally do in a sovereign state.
In matters of peace and security, the Security Council can theoretically bind all countries. But the five permanent members retain the veto which often prevents the UN from acting, and consequently individual countries continue to determine how enforcement will be carried out, or not!
Back to top
Federalism is essentially a system of voluntary self-rule and shared rule. This is implied in the derivation of the word ‘federal’, which comes from the Latin foedus, meaning covenant. A covenant signifies a binding partnership among co-equals in which the parties to the covenant retain their individual identity and integrity at the same time as they also delegate certain powers to a new inclusive entity.
Federal political systems can be described as those in which law-making responsibilities are divided between different levels of government with each level directly responsible to its own electorate. 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.
Back to top
World
federalism is the application of federalism - multiple levels of
government each with specified jurisdictions - to global affairs.
World federalism is a way for different nations, cultures and citizens
to
preserve their identities, protect their interests and retain their
legitimate sovereign rights, while still being able to act together on
matters of common concern, such as the prevention of war, the
eradication of poverty and the preservation of the environment.
Federalism has proved the most effective way to organize governance
when there are numerous states that want autonomy in some matters, yet
are interdependent in others, and willing to agree to a level of common
authority over common issues. That is why federalism is so relevant to
the situation which exists in the world today.
Back to top
Back to top
The World Federalist
Movement - Canada (WFM-C) is a not-for-profit
research, education and advocacy organization. WFM-C has over 1,000
supporters across Canada. Its officers are elected by the membership.
The WFM-C president is the Hon. Warren Allmand. The national office is
located in Ottawa. The World Federalist Movement - Canada provides a
context where people committed to world community can meet, learn from
each other, and support practical projects which take us closer to the
larger goal of better global governance.
WFM-C organizes:
* campaigns to support initiatives which strengthen and reform the UN and lead to more globally responsible Canadian foreign policies;
* public awareness activities;
* publications, including our journal Mondial, containing information and opinion on global governance issues;
* issues/Action Groups: discussion and letter-writing meetings on global issues, supported by a world federalist Issues/Action briefing paper.
The World Federalist Movement - Canada is a member of the international World Federalist Movement (WFM), an association of 24 World Federalist organizations around the world. The international secretariat is located in New York, next to the United Nations.
Back to top
What is World Federalist Movement (WFM)?
The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is an organization of citizens with over 30,000 individual supporters, affiliated through 24 national organizations. WFM also works with hundreds of organizations through networks and coalitions around various campaigns related to international justice, human rights and reform of the United Nations.
Back to top
How did WFM start?
Numerous world federation plans and organizations emerged in the 1930’s and during WWII. WFM's history formally began in in 1946 in Luxembourg and in 1947 in Montreux, Switzerland when many national and international peace movements agreed to form a ‘coalition’ world movement for world federation. The movement was formed in large part to press for the reform of the then new UN Charter to one that could achieve the first goal of the UN, ‘to save future generations from the scourge of war.’ The founding meetings engaged in intense debate over the issue of whether the establishment of a European (regional) federation should take priority over world federation pursuits. The result was that both movements were formally established in Montreux. The split endured for many years; the European Federalists joined WFM in 2004.
For a short history of Canadian World Federalists,
see Milestones Along the Way: Our Achievements
Back to top
Who supports world federalism? Who are some notable federalists?
Historically, world federalists have included such prominent figures as Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Arnold Toynbee, U Thant, Walter Cronkite, Norman Cousins, Isaac Asimov, Peter Ustinov, Nuremburg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, World Watch Institute vice-president Hilary French and economist Hazel Henderson.
Some Famous Canadian World Federalists of the Last 50 Years
Warren Allmand, Solicitor General of Canada
Allan Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan
John Bosley, Speaker of the House of Commons
Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia
Brock Chisholm, Director General of the World Health Organization
William Dennison, Mayor of Toronto
Marion Dewar, Mayor of Ottawa
John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada
Tommy Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan
Herbert Hannam, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Harold A. Innis, Political Science Dept, University of Toronto
Leonard Johnson, Major General
David MacDonald, Minister of Communications
Flora MacDonald, Secretary of State for External Affairs
N.A.M. MacKenzie, President of the University of British Columbia
Elizabeth Mann Borgese, Professor of Political Science, Dalhousie University
and Chair of the International Ocean Institute
Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice
Walter McLean, Minister of State for Immigration
Ted McWhinney, MP and President of the Institut de Droit International
Ovide Mercredi, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
Roland Michener, Governor General of Canada
Charles H. Millard, Canadian Director of the United Steelworker’s Union
Howard Pawley, Premier of Manitoba
Geoffrey Pearson, President,Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister for External Relations
Elmore Philpott, MP and Vancouver columnist
John Polanyi, Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner
W. Gunther Plaut, Rabbi of Holy Blossom Synagogue, Toronto
Douglas Roche, Canada’s Ambassador for Disarmament
Edward W. Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church in Canada
Lois M. Wilson, Senator and Moderator of the United Church of Canada
Ian Waddell, M.P. and B.C. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Back to top
What is the difference between WFM and the United Nations Association?
There is some overlap between the work of WFM and the United Nations Association, primarily our shared work related to promoting support for the United Nations. However we differ in terms of our longer term vision and how we achieve our longer term objectives. UNA is primarily an organization focused on education about the United Nations as it is currently constituted. WFM has the aim of encouraging the reform and evolution of the United Nations system into a more democratic, empowered and effective organization, able to respond to the world's most pressing problems. WFM works toward this aim by developing specific programs focused on different aspects of the UN's work.
Back to top
Are you affiliated with the United Nations?
The World Federalist Movement is an international "non-governmental organization" (NGO) in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
Back to top
Are you in favour of creating a one-world government?
No. World Federalists oppose 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.
Back to top
What is the difference between a one-world government and a federal world government?
Federal government 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.
Back to top
In the Statement of Purpose of the World Federalist Movement, what is the essence of world federalism?
This is the essence of world federalism: to seek to invest legal and political authority in world institutions to deal with problems which can only be treated adequately at the global level, while affirming the sovereignty of the nation-state in matters which are essentially internal.
Back to top
How would World Federalist principles change the distribution of power in the current international system?
World Federalists view the current international system as giving too much power to the national states and not enough to the more local and international ones. As Canadian scholar Hannah Newcombe describes it, "What needs to be done is to de-emphasize the national level of decision-making and draw power from it in two directions: downward to the people at the grassroots level and upward to the whole of humanity everywhere, in fact to the whole living Earth."
Back to top
What general principles would determine the jurisdiction of various levels of government - local, national and global?
The principle of subsidiarity holds that problems should be addressed at the most appropriate, and most local, level possible:
"Each functon should be carried out at the closest possible level to the people affected and at the lowest level consistent with the efficient performance of the task."
Another way putting it might be: Your municipality would have the authority to fix the pothole in the road and an international authority might be necessary to fix the hole in the ozone layer.
Back to top
Would a world federal government infringe on our national sovereignty?
In today's anarchic world, nation-states in many respects do not have real control over their own destiny. National sovereignty is being infringed and eroded by economic, financial, environmental, and security crises which ignore national borders. Against its will a country may be invaded or otherwise involved in war. It may be subjected to radioactive fall-out from bombs or external power plants. Its seafood supplies may be wiped out by foreign fishing fleets or ocean pollution. 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.
Some type of global governance system is needed so that the peoples of the world can take co-operative action to deal with global problems without losing control over their domestic affairs. 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.
Back to top
Is a world government inevitable?
We are already seeing that many groups - from local farmers to financial brokers - rely on dependable and open relations between nations. This need has translated into political treaties and economic agreements binding nations together in many fields. Such ties will 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). The question is not whether we should have a world government, the question is what form of world government do we want? One that is guided by the principles of "one dollar-one vote" and rule by a few elites or one that is guided by the principles of democracy, accountability, transparency, equity and justice?
Back to top
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?
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 through extension of democracy to the international level.
Back to top
Isn't a world government too radical an idea to even attempt?
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, including many countries of the British Commonwealth, including Canada.
The European Union is another example of a form of successful federation. Just over sixty years ago, French and Germans were slaughtering each other in a total war that devastated their countries and cost millions of lives. Today France and Germany share a common currency, have open borders, and vote for representatives to a common European Parliament. Governments of the former Soviet Bloc are lining up to join the European Union even though they must yield powers to supranational authority. They are doing so because the benefits of joining (such as military security, economic aid, and guaranteed human rights) are so overwhelming that these countries and their populations are desperate to get in and deeply afraid of being left out.
Partially as a result of the EU's success, many similar regional groupings are forming in Asia, Africa and South America.
Back to top
What is to prevent a World Government from becoming a Global Dictatorship?
The same things that prevent national governments from becoming dictatorships: e.g. a division of powers between branches of government, decentralization of authority to sub-state governments, civilian control of the military, a Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, a free press, campaign finance limits, and elections with secret ballots. On the basis of current knowledge and experience, a properly constituted, multi-polar, federalist international authority can be developed in a way that ensures it could not easily be usurped.
Back to top
How would laws be enforced?
In the best of all possible worlds, the nations of the world would be demilitarized, and would only retain police forces to uphold the law. If someone in B.C. breaks a federal law in Canada, Ottawa does not send the army into our province; they simply use the existing police forces to arrest the culprit who is tried through the court system.
This is the utopian vision. More realistically, we have to accept the existence of national forces, and improve what now exists at the world level. Did you know that the U.N has no Standing Peace Force under its own command? Every time a peacekeeping force is required, the U.N. must beg its member countries for troops. Months are often required to assemble these forces. An immediate improvement would be the creation of a rapid reaction UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) available to the UN that could prevent the kind of genocide we recently had in Rwanda.
Another practical step has been the creation of the International Criminal Court, long promoted by the World Federalist Movement. This Court has now been ratified by over 100 countries and is operational. It deals with war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Even national leaders are not immune from prosecution.
Back to top
How would individual countries even take the leap to World Federation?
Much thought has been put into this and there are several possible means:
* add a parliamentary assembly to the U.N. and gradually strengthen its capabilities;
* start a federation of (the stronger, more stable) democratic countries and add additional ones as they mature politically;
* develop a "Global Peoples’ Assembly" and a World Constitution;
* develop a system of functional institutions and treaties that assign power to solve global problems at a level higher than the nation-state, and
* develop regional federations such as the European Union, the African Union etc. and federate them in due course.
Back to top
What is the World Federalist Movement model of a World Federal Government?
The World Federalist Movement was created in 1947 with the specific purpose of helping to create the establishment of world federal government, but it has not endorsed a specific model. We believe that there are many possible models, and many items must be worked out through a democratic proecess in which persons from many different cultures work together on the precise wording of a new world constitution. However, many specific models at various times have been proposed by individuals closely associated with the movement and there are many federal government arrangements in existence. Those who wish to see details of how a Democratic World Government might work can consult and compare these individual proposals. Becoming a world federalist means participating in the debate on the structure and design of a better system of global governance.
Back to top
What are some examples of proposals by individuals on how world government might work?
Committee to Frame a World Constitution (1947)
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9512/9512Salvation.html
Clark-Sohn Plan for World Law and Disarmament (1958)
http://san.beck.org/GPJ27-Clark-SohnPlan.html
Richard Hudson's 'Binding Triad' (1964)
http://www.cwps.org/bt.html
Joseph Schwartzberg
See P. 88 of A Reader on Second Assembly & Parliamentary Proposals May 2003 "Overcoming Practical Difficulties in Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly (WPA)"
Back to top
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 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, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 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, and Venezuela that represent about 40% of the world's population. 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.
Back to top
If the World Federalist Movement is not advocating a specific proposal for a World Federalist Government, what specifically does it advocate?
The WFM is guided by a long-term vision and general principles of federalism. It has often advocated pragmatic steps to achieve incremental goals. Hence the WFM campaigns have focused on specific institutional improvements in areas such as peacekeeping, democratic practices, environmental protection and international human rights. This has been expressed as 'incremental federalism'.
In a recent official report as Chairperson of the World Federalist Movement, the Canadian James Christie says '..the remarkable progress, against..all odds, of the International Criminal Court Project.....continues (to be) the best demonstration of incremental federalism. ...World Federalism largely eschews the grandiose rhetoric of world government for the more gradualist language of global governance. Increased Non-Governmental Organization access to UN Missions, careful reflection on global economic and environmental issues, and networking with like-minded individuals and organizations are... the key strategies to the realization of our long-term goal: one federated human community under law....'.
It should be noted that though the WFM has adopted an incrementalist approach, there are many 'world federalist' themed organizations that emphasize other specific strategies toward creating a democratic world government such as creating a peoples assembly, or expanding a community of democracies.
Back to top
What are specific examples of WFM projects?
Currently the International Secretariat oversees six programs:
Federalism and Constitutional Democracy;
Promoting Rule of Law,
Defending Human Rights;
Creating Lasting Peace,
Preventing Conflicts, Protecting Civilians;
International Democracy;
Global Economic Governance;
and Global Environmental Governance.
Key projects include: the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) and Responsibility to Protect – Engaging Civil Society (R2PCS)
Back to top
What is the meaning of the term 'Global Governance'?
According to the Commission on Global Governance, 'global governance' is simply the way we manage global affairs. Today, global governance must be understood as involving not only governments and intergovernmental institutions but also non-governmental organizations, citizens movements, multi-national corporations, the global capital market, and the global mass media. States and governments remain primary actors but they do not bear the whole burden of governance.
Back to top
What is the significance of the use of the term 'Global Governance'?
While some World Federalists continue to argue that the goals of peace and justice can only be achieved through a full-fledged government with legislative, executive and judicial functions, others argue that a minimum framework of law leading to effective global governance can be guaranteed by a diverse set of institutions operating as a system.
Hence, those who use the term may do so for a number of reasons:
- because it widens the argument to include rules for powerful actors beyond government such as media or multinational corporations that can thwart democracy,
- because it avoids some of the negative associations of the word 'government' such as centralization and abuse of power,
- because it puts more emphasis on the practical steps that are necessary before a democratic world government is possible, and
- because extension of the rule of law and enforcement of an international legal system may be accomplished through a structure that is unlike that currently found in national governments.
Although the term 'global governance' has gained acceptance by most World Federalists, its inherent ambiguity makes it subject to controversy. On the one hand, better 'global governance' can mean the creation of a democratic world government along with additional measures designed to protect it from undue influence by media and business. On the other hand, the term 'global governance' can also be used to describe the current complex international system and to serve by implication as advocacy for the status quo.
As in many organizations, there is a wide range of views among World Federalists regarding terminology, strategies and tactics. All World Federalists are united however in seeking peace and justice through effective global institutions and in strengthening international law.
Back to top
What can I do - I'm just one person!
Civil society has more power now than ever. The International Land Mines Treaty and the International Criminal Court came about despite opposition from some of the strongest military powers such as China and the United States. It was public pressure from churches, peace groups and other non-governmental organizations that made the difference. You can support and participate in organizations such as the World Federalists that research, educate and lobby for structural changes towards a more just and peaceful world!
Back to top
WFM-C organizes:
* campaigns to support initiatives which strengthen and reform the UN and lead to more globally responsible Canadian foreign policies;
* public awareness activities;
* publications, including our journal Mondial, containing information and opinion on global governance issues;
* issues/Action Groups: discussion and letter-writing meetings on global issues, supported by a world federalist Issues/Action briefing paper.
The World Federalist Movement - Canada is a member of the international World Federalist Movement (WFM), an association of 24 World Federalist organizations around the world. The international secretariat is located in New York, next to the United Nations.
Back to top
What is World Federalist Movement (WFM)?
The World Federalist Movement (WFM) is an organization of citizens with over 30,000 individual supporters, affiliated through 24 national organizations. WFM also works with hundreds of organizations through networks and coalitions around various campaigns related to international justice, human rights and reform of the United Nations.
Back to top
How did WFM start?
Numerous world federation plans and organizations emerged in the 1930’s and during WWII. WFM's history formally began in in 1946 in Luxembourg and in 1947 in Montreux, Switzerland when many national and international peace movements agreed to form a ‘coalition’ world movement for world federation. The movement was formed in large part to press for the reform of the then new UN Charter to one that could achieve the first goal of the UN, ‘to save future generations from the scourge of war.’ The founding meetings engaged in intense debate over the issue of whether the establishment of a European (regional) federation should take priority over world federation pursuits. The result was that both movements were formally established in Montreux. The split endured for many years; the European Federalists joined WFM in 2004.
For a short history of Canadian World Federalists,
see Milestones Along the Way: Our Achievements
Back to top
Who supports world federalism? Who are some notable federalists?
Historically, world federalists have included such prominent figures as Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Arnold Toynbee, U Thant, Walter Cronkite, Norman Cousins, Isaac Asimov, Peter Ustinov, Nuremburg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, World Watch Institute vice-president Hilary French and economist Hazel Henderson.
Some Famous Canadian World Federalists of the Last 50 Years
Warren Allmand, Solicitor General of Canada
Allan Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan
John Bosley, Speaker of the House of Commons
Iona Campagnolo, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia
Brock Chisholm, Director General of the World Health Organization
William Dennison, Mayor of Toronto
Marion Dewar, Mayor of Ottawa
John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada
Tommy Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan
Herbert Hannam, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Harold A. Innis, Political Science Dept, University of Toronto
Leonard Johnson, Major General
David MacDonald, Minister of Communications
Flora MacDonald, Secretary of State for External Affairs
N.A.M. MacKenzie, President of the University of British Columbia
Elizabeth Mann Borgese, Professor of Political Science, Dalhousie University
and Chair of the International Ocean Institute
Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice
Walter McLean, Minister of State for Immigration
Ted McWhinney, MP and President of the Institut de Droit International
Ovide Mercredi, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
Roland Michener, Governor General of Canada
Charles H. Millard, Canadian Director of the United Steelworker’s Union
Howard Pawley, Premier of Manitoba
Geoffrey Pearson, President,Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister for External Relations
Elmore Philpott, MP and Vancouver columnist
John Polanyi, Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner
W. Gunther Plaut, Rabbi of Holy Blossom Synagogue, Toronto
Douglas Roche, Canada’s Ambassador for Disarmament
Edward W. Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church in Canada
Lois M. Wilson, Senator and Moderator of the United Church of Canada
Ian Waddell, M.P. and B.C. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Back to top
What is the difference between WFM and the United Nations Association?
There is some overlap between the work of WFM and the United Nations Association, primarily our shared work related to promoting support for the United Nations. However we differ in terms of our longer term vision and how we achieve our longer term objectives. UNA is primarily an organization focused on education about the United Nations as it is currently constituted. WFM has the aim of encouraging the reform and evolution of the United Nations system into a more democratic, empowered and effective organization, able to respond to the world's most pressing problems. WFM works toward this aim by developing specific programs focused on different aspects of the UN's work.
Back to top
Are you affiliated with the United Nations?
The World Federalist Movement is an international "non-governmental organization" (NGO) in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
Back to top
Are you in favour of creating a one-world government?
No. World Federalists oppose 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.
Back to top
What is the difference between a one-world government and a federal world government?
Federal government 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.
Back to top
In the Statement of Purpose of the World Federalist Movement, what is the essence of world federalism?
This is the essence of world federalism: to seek to invest legal and political authority in world institutions to deal with problems which can only be treated adequately at the global level, while affirming the sovereignty of the nation-state in matters which are essentially internal.
Back to top
How would World Federalist principles change the distribution of power in the current international system?
World Federalists view the current international system as giving too much power to the national states and not enough to the more local and international ones. As Canadian scholar Hannah Newcombe describes it, "What needs to be done is to de-emphasize the national level of decision-making and draw power from it in two directions: downward to the people at the grassroots level and upward to the whole of humanity everywhere, in fact to the whole living Earth."
Back to top
What general principles would determine the jurisdiction of various levels of government - local, national and global?
The principle of subsidiarity holds that problems should be addressed at the most appropriate, and most local, level possible:
"Each functon should be carried out at the closest possible level to the people affected and at the lowest level consistent with the efficient performance of the task."
Another way putting it might be: Your municipality would have the authority to fix the pothole in the road and an international authority might be necessary to fix the hole in the ozone layer.
Back to top
Would a world federal government infringe on our national sovereignty?
In today's anarchic world, nation-states in many respects do not have real control over their own destiny. National sovereignty is being infringed and eroded by economic, financial, environmental, and security crises which ignore national borders. Against its will a country may be invaded or otherwise involved in war. It may be subjected to radioactive fall-out from bombs or external power plants. Its seafood supplies may be wiped out by foreign fishing fleets or ocean pollution. 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.
Some type of global governance system is needed so that the peoples of the world can take co-operative action to deal with global problems without losing control over their domestic affairs. 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.
Back to top
Is a world government inevitable?
We are already seeing that many groups - from local farmers to financial brokers - rely on dependable and open relations between nations. This need has translated into political treaties and economic agreements binding nations together in many fields. Such ties will 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). The question is not whether we should have a world government, the question is what form of world government do we want? One that is guided by the principles of "one dollar-one vote" and rule by a few elites or one that is guided by the principles of democracy, accountability, transparency, equity and justice?
Back to top
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?
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 through extension of democracy to the international level.
Back to top
Isn't a world government too radical an idea to even attempt?
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, including many countries of the British Commonwealth, including Canada.
The European Union is another example of a form of successful federation. Just over sixty years ago, French and Germans were slaughtering each other in a total war that devastated their countries and cost millions of lives. Today France and Germany share a common currency, have open borders, and vote for representatives to a common European Parliament. Governments of the former Soviet Bloc are lining up to join the European Union even though they must yield powers to supranational authority. They are doing so because the benefits of joining (such as military security, economic aid, and guaranteed human rights) are so overwhelming that these countries and their populations are desperate to get in and deeply afraid of being left out.
Partially as a result of the EU's success, many similar regional groupings are forming in Asia, Africa and South America.
Back to top
What is to prevent a World Government from becoming a Global Dictatorship?
The same things that prevent national governments from becoming dictatorships: e.g. a division of powers between branches of government, decentralization of authority to sub-state governments, civilian control of the military, a Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, a free press, campaign finance limits, and elections with secret ballots. On the basis of current knowledge and experience, a properly constituted, multi-polar, federalist international authority can be developed in a way that ensures it could not easily be usurped.
Back to top
How would laws be enforced?
In the best of all possible worlds, the nations of the world would be demilitarized, and would only retain police forces to uphold the law. If someone in B.C. breaks a federal law in Canada, Ottawa does not send the army into our province; they simply use the existing police forces to arrest the culprit who is tried through the court system.
This is the utopian vision. More realistically, we have to accept the existence of national forces, and improve what now exists at the world level. Did you know that the U.N has no Standing Peace Force under its own command? Every time a peacekeeping force is required, the U.N. must beg its member countries for troops. Months are often required to assemble these forces. An immediate improvement would be the creation of a rapid reaction UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) available to the UN that could prevent the kind of genocide we recently had in Rwanda.
Another practical step has been the creation of the International Criminal Court, long promoted by the World Federalist Movement. This Court has now been ratified by over 100 countries and is operational. It deals with war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Even national leaders are not immune from prosecution.
Back to top
How would individual countries even take the leap to World Federation?
Much thought has been put into this and there are several possible means:
* add a parliamentary assembly to the U.N. and gradually strengthen its capabilities;
* start a federation of (the stronger, more stable) democratic countries and add additional ones as they mature politically;
* develop a "Global Peoples’ Assembly" and a World Constitution;
* develop a system of functional institutions and treaties that assign power to solve global problems at a level higher than the nation-state, and
* develop regional federations such as the European Union, the African Union etc. and federate them in due course.
Back to top
What is the World Federalist Movement model of a World Federal Government?
The World Federalist Movement was created in 1947 with the specific purpose of helping to create the establishment of world federal government, but it has not endorsed a specific model. We believe that there are many possible models, and many items must be worked out through a democratic proecess in which persons from many different cultures work together on the precise wording of a new world constitution. However, many specific models at various times have been proposed by individuals closely associated with the movement and there are many federal government arrangements in existence. Those who wish to see details of how a Democratic World Government might work can consult and compare these individual proposals. Becoming a world federalist means participating in the debate on the structure and design of a better system of global governance.
Back to top
What are some examples of proposals by individuals on how world government might work?
Committee to Frame a World Constitution (1947)
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9512/9512Salvation.html
Clark-Sohn Plan for World Law and Disarmament (1958)
http://san.beck.org/GPJ27-Clark-SohnPlan.html
Richard Hudson's 'Binding Triad' (1964)
http://www.cwps.org/bt.html
Joseph Schwartzberg
See P. 88 of A Reader on Second Assembly & Parliamentary Proposals May 2003 "Overcoming Practical Difficulties in Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly (WPA)"
Back to top
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 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, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 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, and Venezuela that represent about 40% of the world's population. 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.
Back to top
If the World Federalist Movement is not advocating a specific proposal for a World Federalist Government, what specifically does it advocate?
The WFM is guided by a long-term vision and general principles of federalism. It has often advocated pragmatic steps to achieve incremental goals. Hence the WFM campaigns have focused on specific institutional improvements in areas such as peacekeeping, democratic practices, environmental protection and international human rights. This has been expressed as 'incremental federalism'.
In a recent official report as Chairperson of the World Federalist Movement, the Canadian James Christie says '..the remarkable progress, against..all odds, of the International Criminal Court Project.....continues (to be) the best demonstration of incremental federalism. ...World Federalism largely eschews the grandiose rhetoric of world government for the more gradualist language of global governance. Increased Non-Governmental Organization access to UN Missions, careful reflection on global economic and environmental issues, and networking with like-minded individuals and organizations are... the key strategies to the realization of our long-term goal: one federated human community under law....'.
It should be noted that though the WFM has adopted an incrementalist approach, there are many 'world federalist' themed organizations that emphasize other specific strategies toward creating a democratic world government such as creating a peoples assembly, or expanding a community of democracies.
Back to top
What are specific examples of WFM projects?
Currently the International Secretariat oversees six programs:
Federalism and Constitutional Democracy;
Promoting Rule of Law,
Defending Human Rights;
Creating Lasting Peace,
Preventing Conflicts, Protecting Civilians;
International Democracy;
Global Economic Governance;
and Global Environmental Governance.
Key projects include: the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) and Responsibility to Protect – Engaging Civil Society (R2PCS)
Back to top
What is the meaning of the term 'Global Governance'?
According to the Commission on Global Governance, 'global governance' is simply the way we manage global affairs. Today, global governance must be understood as involving not only governments and intergovernmental institutions but also non-governmental organizations, citizens movements, multi-national corporations, the global capital market, and the global mass media. States and governments remain primary actors but they do not bear the whole burden of governance.
Back to top
What is the significance of the use of the term 'Global Governance'?
While some World Federalists continue to argue that the goals of peace and justice can only be achieved through a full-fledged government with legislative, executive and judicial functions, others argue that a minimum framework of law leading to effective global governance can be guaranteed by a diverse set of institutions operating as a system.
Hence, those who use the term may do so for a number of reasons:
- because it widens the argument to include rules for powerful actors beyond government such as media or multinational corporations that can thwart democracy,
- because it avoids some of the negative associations of the word 'government' such as centralization and abuse of power,
- because it puts more emphasis on the practical steps that are necessary before a democratic world government is possible, and
- because extension of the rule of law and enforcement of an international legal system may be accomplished through a structure that is unlike that currently found in national governments.
Although the term 'global governance' has gained acceptance by most World Federalists, its inherent ambiguity makes it subject to controversy. On the one hand, better 'global governance' can mean the creation of a democratic world government along with additional measures designed to protect it from undue influence by media and business. On the other hand, the term 'global governance' can also be used to describe the current complex international system and to serve by implication as advocacy for the status quo.
As in many organizations, there is a wide range of views among World Federalists regarding terminology, strategies and tactics. All World Federalists are united however in seeking peace and justice through effective global institutions and in strengthening international law.
Back to top
What can I do - I'm just one person!
Civil society has more power now than ever. The International Land Mines Treaty and the International Criminal Court came about despite opposition from some of the strongest military powers such as China and the United States. It was public pressure from churches, peace groups and other non-governmental organizations that made the difference. You can support and participate in organizations such as the World Federalists that research, educate and lobby for structural changes towards a more just and peaceful world!
Back to top