1 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

SVKMS NMIMS

SCHOOL OF LAW

A PROJCT SUBMITTD ON

BORDERLESS WORLD

IN COMPLIANC TO TH PARTIAL FULFILLMNT OF TH MARKING SCHM FOR TRIMSTR V 2014-15, IN TH SUBJCT OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE-III

SUBMITTD TO FACULTY

MR. SAIPRASAD SHETTY FOR VALUATION

SUBMITTD BY:-KHUSHIL SHAH

ROLL NO: - A052

COURS: - B.A. LL.B. (hons.)

DAT: - 14TH NOVEMBER, 2014

TIM: - 4:00 P.M.

RCIVD BY: - ..

ON DAT: - ..

TIM: - .

2 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

INDEX

SERIAL

NUMBER

TOPIC NAME PAGE NUMBER

1 INTRODUCTION

2 BODY

3 ANALYSIS

4 EXPERT COMMENTS

5 SUGGESTIONS

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

3 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

World government refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political

authority.

The creation of world government through the voluntary agreement of existing nations is so

unlikely that we can say flatly that it will never happen.- A.F.K. Organski1

The human desire to prevent war and promote peace has given rise to a feeling among the

sovereign states to create a Borderless World. This desire grew especially strong after the

second world war on account of heavy loss in men and money. Even the earlier major wars

concluded in certain concrete steps in this direction. As Morgenthau has observed Each of the

three world wars of the last century and a half was followed by an attempt to establish an

international government. The Holy Alliance followed the Napoleonic Wars, The League of

Nations, and The First World War, The United Nations and The Second World War.2

Need of the World Government

In the view of the enormous destruction wrought by the two world wars and the possibility of

even more destructive third world war which may be fought with the nuclear weapons, there is

a growing realization among scholars and statesmen that only through world government this

destruction can be avoided. The world government is also desirable to put an end to the anarchic

conditions that are dominant in the present day international society. These anarchic conditions

have arisen because each state tries to promote its national interests and doesnt hesitate to

breach the principles of international law if its national interest so demands. The world

Government alone would be able to keep the sovereign nations in their respective jurisdiction

and promote world peace by preventing war and diverting the funds, at present used for the

conduct of war, for the moral and material upliftment of the people all over the world.

It has been argued and concluded that the world state can come into being in two possible ways.

Firstly, through invasion and world domination by one power and secondly through the world

federation, which would preserve the national freedom of the states and ensure benefits of a

vast world government. This creation of World State through conquest runs the risk of revolt

and irredentist separatism.

1 http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/7883.21397.132.0/religion/bible/one-world-government-impossible-yet-inevitable?preview 2 Hans J Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, pg. 438

4 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

The other method suggested for the formation of world government is the federation on the

pattern of Switzerland and USA. It was argued that the Federation of Switzerland was formed

by a number of sovereign nations with different languages. Culture, history and loyalties.

Similarly, various nations of the world can join hands to form the world federation. However,

the proponents of this view ignore the fact that the formation of Swiss Federation was the result

of combination of peculiar and unique circumstances. Even after the formation of the Swiss

federation, the member states of the federation were involved in a number of minor and five

religious wars.

Again it has been suggested that a world federation can be created through a constitutional

convention on the pattern of USA. But the example of USA only proves that the formation of

a world government depends on the pre- existence of moral and political community.

Establishment of a Borderless World would demand the surrender of sovereign right of the

state to maintain armies to an unlimited extent and to resort to war for redress of their

grievances. It is doubtful if any state is ready to make such sacrifices.

Again it has been suggested that the present state system must be replaced by effective

supranational institutions to which the nation stated would surrender their sovereignties.

The concept of Borderless World is far from reality because each and every nation is more

worried about their identity. It is believed that if this happens then the people living in small

nation states will lose their identity.3

It is also said that that if World Government comes then the power would be taken over by a

First World Countries as they are more technologically advanced. It is rightly said by Lord

Acton, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

3 http://www.worldservice.org/law.html

5 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

CHAPTER 2: BODY

Relevance with regards to Global Politics

The Holy Alliance.

The Holy Alliance was formed in the wake of the Napoleonic wars through three treaties- The

Treaty of Chaumont, Quadruple Alliance and the Treaty of Holy Alliance. The Treaty of

Chaumont concluded by Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia made provision for an

alliance for 20 years by the signatory states. The members of the Alliance to take necessary

steps to prevent the return of Napoleonic dynasty in France and to guarantee the territorial

settlement to be made at the end of the war against the Napoleon. The Quadruple alliance

reaffirmed the provisions of the Treaty of Chaumont. Under this alliance the sovereigns of four

countries agreed to hold periodic conferences to consider matters of common interest and to

consider measure which were judged most helpful for the response and prosperity of the

peoples and for the maintenance of the peace of the state. But the most important step in the

direction of formation of an International Government was taken in 1815 when the Treaty of

Holy Alliance was signed. This treaty was initially concluded by the rulers of Austria, Prussia

and Russia. Subsequently, the rulers of other European Countries also acceded to the alliance.

This Alliance reaffirmed the moral consensus among the nations. According to Morgenthau,

The Treaty of Holy Alliance also fulfilled an ideological function and became the symbol of

this whole era of International Relations.4 During the next few years the international

government envisaged by the Holy Alliance Treaty was further expanded. In 1818, was

admitted to the Quadruple Alliance at the Congress Aix-la-Chapelle. A number of conferences

was held- Aix-la-Chapelle, Troppau, and Verona. However, this experience did not last long

and the arrangement collapsed after the withdrawal of Britain. This marked an end of the first

experiment at international government, which lasted for less than a decade. A notable feature

of this experiment was that it was dominated by the great powers, and the minor powers were

not able to play any significant role.

Despite the failure of the Holy Alliance, it cannot be denied that it was a significant step in the

direction of evolution of international government. Fredrick Gentz has highlighted the

significance of Holy Alliance thus:

The system has been established in Europe since 1814 and 1815 is a phenomenon unheard of

in the history in the world. The principle of equilibrium or, to put it better, of counterweights

4 Morgenthau, supra note 2. Pg. 439

6 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

formed by particular alliances. A principle which has governed and too often also troubled and

covered Europe with blood for three centuries, has been superseded by a principle of general

union, uniting the sum total of states in a federation under the direction of major powers. The

second, third and fourth-rate stated submit in silence and without any previous stipulation to

the decisions jointly taken by preponderant powers. And Europe seems to form finally a great

political family, united under the auspices of an aeropaus of its own creation. Even

Morgenthau concedes that though the holy Alliance lacked a permanent organization and

worked through a number of international congresses for the settlement of current international

affairs, it was an international government in the true sense of the term. An incomplete list of

the issues on the agenda of the Congress Aix-la-Chapelle will illustrate the range of its

government activities: the claims of the German mediatized princes against the abuses of their

new sovereigns, the petition of the Elector of Hesse to exchange his title for that of king, the

request by Napoleons mother for the release of her son, the grievances of the people of Monaco

against their prince, the claims of Bavaria and the House of Hochberg to the succession of

Baden, a dispute between the duke of Oldenburg and Count Bentinck about the lordship of

Knupenhuassen, the situation of the Jews in the Prussia and Russia and Austria, the rank of

diplomatic representatives, the suppression of slave trade and of the Barbary pirates and the

question of Spanish Colonies.5

Concert of Europe

After the demise of Holy Alliance, the great powers of Europe continued to hold ad hoc

conferences and continued to work through a system popularly known as Concert of Europe.

The meetings were not held at any fixed intervals but as and when a concerted action was called

for. The Concert of Europe remained in operation for almost 90 years. Despite lack of any

institutionalized government by conferences it maintained general peace during this period.

This success of Concert of Europe according to Morgenthau was due to three factors. Firstly,

during this period the moral consensus of the European community was strengthened by the

humanitarian moral climate of the times. Secondly, the political configuration favored

expansion into politically empty spices with accommodation of conflicting interests. Finally,

the period witnessed the succession of brilliant diplomats and statesmen who knew how to

make peace, how to preserve peace and how to keep wars short and limited in scope.6

5 Ibid, pg.440 6 Morgenthau, Politics among nations pg.440

7 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

League of Nations

The next important step in the direction of evolution of international government was taken in

the wake of the First World War when the League of Nations was formed. The League had an

organization and legal personality. It worked through the assembly, the council contained

representatives of all the member stated and took decisions by unanimity. But actually the

permanent members of the Council exerted influence upon the work of the League out of all

the proportions. According to Morgenthau though In the League of Nations the small nations

enjoyed a greater opportunity for influence and independent action than they ever did before

or since in modern times, yet the international government of the League of Nations at least in

the sphere of high politics was a government of the great powers.7

The League of Nations, however, failed to prevent wars or effectively maintain international

order on the account of three defects. Firstly, it did not outlaw war and permitted the members

of the League to go to war under certain conditions. Secondly, The League suffered from

structural deficiency. While the structure of the League was predominantly European, the main

factor of international politics at that time were not predominantly European. Further the

leading members of the League either by choice or by necessity, followed policies so

completely at odds with the actual distribution of power in the world, which rendered the

successful working of the government doubtful. Thirdly, the League suffered from certain

political defects. The members of the League generally could not act in union on matter of

major importance and pursued aggressive policies which rendered the League ineffective. The

Principle of unanimity of members of League, except parties to dispute, prevented the members

from taking collective action. Further the carious stated tried to offer ideological justification

for their separate policies which greatly contributed to international anarchy. According to

Morgenthau The inability of the League of Nations to maintain international order and peace

then was the inevitable result of the ascendancy that the ethics and policies of severing nations

were able to maintain over the moral and political objectives of the international government

of the League of Nations.

The United Nations

The formation of the United Nations, in the wake of the Second World War represented the

next step in the direction of the formation of international government. The constitutional

organization of the UNO greatly resembles the organization of the League of Nations. Like the

League it also has three political agencies- The general assembly, The Security Council and

7 Ibid, pg.440

8 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

the Secretariat. However the General Assembly and the Security Council differ from the

Assembly and Council of the League. Whereas the Assembly of the league was an international

parliament which could take action in political matters, the General Assembly of the UNO can

only make recommendations in political matters either to the parties concerned or to the

Security Council. Further the Security Council can disregard the advice of General assembly.

On the other hand, the council under the league did not enjoy such dominant position and

possessed only concurrent jurisdiction with the assembly. Comparing UNO with the earlier

international organizations Morgenthau says The Holy Alliance was frankly an international

government with great powers. The League of Nations was an international government with

the advice and the consent of all member nations. The United Nations is an international

government of the great powers which resembles in its constitutional agreement the Holy

alliance and in its pretenses the League of Nations. It is the contrast between pretense and

constitutional actuality, between the democratic expectations roused by the words of the

Charter and the autocratic performance envisaged by the actual distribution of functions which

characterizes the constitutional provisions of the United Nations.8

Developments after the Second World War

More serious attention was given to the idea of evolving an international government after

Second World War on account of the discovery of nuclear weapons which posed a threat of

complete annihilation of the world. The growing social, economic and technological

interdependence of the nations also encouraged the leaders of various state to work seriously

for the creation of a world government. It was felt that since the reforms within the international

society has failed, a more radical transformation of the existing international society of

sovereign nations into a supranational community if individuals was needed. The movement

for world government gained momentum.9 In 1945 A Committee to Frame World Constitution

was set up at the University of Chicago. This committee conducted studies, arranged a number

of conferences and even prepared a preliminary draft of a world constitution. In 1946, a World

Movement for World Federal Government was organized in Luxembourg with a view to work

for the attainment of the goal of world government. Some scholars even suggested that the

United Nations could serve as a model for World Government with some improvements. In

short, serious consideration was given to the problem of the world government in the post-

World War II period.

8 Ibid, pg.460-61 9 Prem Arora, International Politics, pg.-376-77

9 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

Perspectives on the basis of Political Science

Various people attribute, though not at times without misrepresentation, the idea of a world

government to, often exclusively, and often with false assumptions, ideologies such as:

Liberalist view

The characteristics of a liberalist view are as follows:-

Individualism: The individual takes priority over society.

Freedom: Individuals have the right to make choices for themselves. This freedom is not

absolute, and some behaviours, such as murder, are prohibited. Freedom of religion is a

particularly important freedom to come out of liberalism because so many governments at the

time were very closely tied to a particular religious creed.

Equality: No person is morally or politically superior to others. Hierarchies are rejected.

Rationalism: Humans are capable of thinking logically and rationally. Logic and reason help

us solve problems.

Progress: Traditions should not be kept unless they have value. New ideas are helpful because

they can lead to progress in the sciences, the economy, and society.

The free market: Liberalism and capitalism go hand in hand. Liberals like the free market

because it more easily creates wealth, as opposed to traditional economies, which often have

extensive regulations and limits on which occupations people can hold.

According to the characteristics of the liberalism it can be derived that this ideology fits the

idea of borderless world. The main purpose of borderless world is to enhance free trade,

individualism and keep the right things intact in the society i.e. only the Traditions and customs

which are having value and are of use would prevail in the society. Thus the liberalists kind of

supported the concept of Borderless World.10

Neoliberalism11

Neoliberals rarely advocate a world government in the classical sense of the word, and prefer

instead a single world-wide economic order of free market capitalism. Their aim would be the

subsequent amalgamation of all countries into this economic order, with the removal of all

10 http://hhh.gavilan.edu/mturetzky/pols4/TheoreticalPerspectivesLiberalismRealism.htm 11 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_Relations/World_Government_Theories#Neoliberalism

10 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

trade barriers and (in some cases) the removal of all rules on capitalism. Aspects of neoliberal

thought influence the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which are the focus

of opposition from the anti-globalization movement.

Anarchist theory

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-

governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific

institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be

undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statist is central, anarchism entails

opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including,

but not limited to, the state system

Although anarchists advocate a world not divided by borders, which they regard as nothing but

artificial boundaries, and are generally against nationalism, they do not advocate a world

government as such, because government itself is an institution they believe to be morally

wrong and harmful. Instead, anarchists propose a world order based on free association and

mutual aid, though this may vary depending on the specific branch of anarchism in question.

Legal Realism

Legal anthropologist E. Adamson Hebbel concluded his treatise on broadening the legal realist

tradition to include non-Western nations. Whatever the idealist may desire, force and the

threat of force are the ultimate power in the determination of international behaviour, as in the

law within the nation or tribe. But until force and the threat of force in international relations

are brought under social control by the world community, by and for the world society, they

remain the instruments of social anarchy and not the sanctions of world law. The creation in

clear-cut terms of the body of world law cries for the doing. If world law, however, is to be

realized at all, there will have to be minimum of general agreement as to the nature of the

physical and ideational world and the relation of men in society to it. An important and valuable

next step will be found in deep-cutting analysis of the major law systems of the contemporary

world in order to lay bare their basic postulates postulates that are too generally hidden;

postulates felt, perhaps, by those who live by them, but so much taken for granted that they are

rarely expressed or exposed for examination. When this is done and it will take the efforts of

many keen intellects steeped in the law of at least a dozen lands and also aware of the social

nexus of the law then mankind will be able to see clearly for the first time and clearly where

11 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

the common consensus of the great living social and law systems lies. Here will be found the

common postulates and values upon which the world community can build. At the same time

the truly basic points of conflict that will have to be worked upon for resolution will be

revealed. Law is inherently purposive"12

12 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

12 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS

Pros and cons of the subject

Pros:

Ease of travel, relocation.

Consistent environmental laws

Consistent judicial system from territory to territory

End of wars over territory

Increases in efficiency of businesses due to various compliance regulations, currency

exchange rates, taxation systems, etc.

There would be no war.

If the government is a fair democracy, the crazy groups in certain countries (like the Tea

Party in the US) would not have a strong voice. Generic, liberal, easy-going voices would

quickly collation while crazies and fundamentalists would clash with each other.

A well run economy without the strain of currency speculation.

A united world tackling environmental problems and working together to develop

tomorrow's technologies.

Cons:-

Loss of cultural identity

Degradation of unique languages

Homogenization of restrictions and freedoms

Decrease in perceived autonomy

Domination of smaller cultures by larger ones.

Too much centralized power would lead to domination by the ruling elites.

Individuals would have no power and would be forced to follow the status quo.13

13 http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-pros-and-cons-for-a-One-World-Government

13 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

Interdisciplinary approach

Political Science and Economics with relation to Borderless World

Political science and economics are social sciences. Political science is the study of politics in

theory and practice, while economics is the study of how resources are produced, allocated,

and distributed. As well as dealing with subjects that often relate to one another in everyday

life, the two are commonly seen as sister subjects in academic terms.

A variety of topics related to politics are addressed by political science. This includes differing

political philosophies about how society should operate. It also includes the way political

systems work to produce laws and government.

Economics deals with two main areas. Microeconomics is the study of how individual

consumers and businesses make production, purchasing, investment, and saving

choices. Macroeconomics looks at how an entire economy works and the way policies can

affect the combined effects of microeconomic decisions. It can be argued that economics is a

social science rather than a pure science, because it is based around resolving an irresolvable

dilemma: how to meet people's unlimited wants with limited resources.

The most prominent link between political science and economics is in the practicalities of

government. For example, there may be a connection between whether a politician considers

himself left-wing or right-wing, within the context of the country concerned, and whether the

politician puts more weight into fiscal economics, which aims to stimulate the economy

through government, or monetarist economics, which aims to stimulate the economy by

influencing the price and availability of credit. There are many topics in which stances can

have both a political and economic element, such as whether a government should attempt to

reduce inequalities across society, work towards equalities of opportunity, or avoid any

interference wherever possible. Taken as a whole, political and economic views can't always

be simplified into two camps; for example, some politicians consider themselves economically

conservative but socially liberal.14

One of the most common crossovers between these social sciences is rational choice theory.

This is the study of, and attempt to model, the ways in which individuals make choices. It could

be argued that rational choice theory is an economic theory that is contradicted by political

reality that is harder to objectify. For example, an economist would use rational choice theory

14 http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-relationship-between-political-science-and-economics.htm

14 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

in assuming that a consumer will always choose the cheapest supplier among those offering

identical goods. Politics might explain why some consumers will instead choose to pay a higher

price to get the goods from what they see as a more ethical supplier.

Now if the world government existed then:-

Market Monopoly - The elite could sell everything at whatever price they think fit. Which is

obviously a whole lot of trouble for the common man. Who to complain to, where else to

migrate?

Trade unfairness - Since every government would essentially be the same, the elite could

import (say) iron ore from India or Venezuela at the cheapest or no price. Assuming the elite

government is a first world country, they could take whatever they want from the developing

countries and create products, services. Then they could sell it at what price they wish.

Insurgencies- Any such government if ever created will be facing 40-50 insurgencies (maybe

more) at any given time. It would be really hard for a single government to keep all of them

in bay. So it's likely to fall within a few decades.

Too much work- Such a government will be crushed simply under the weight of all that it'll

have to do. Even if the work is delegated to a federal system the mere delegation would be

too big a task to complete successfully. So either work would be poor or haphazard.

Corruption- Any such system of governance would be so enormous that it would be nearly

impossible to keep a check on corruption. In the real world transparency reduces with every

step that you add to governance. Both cannot happen at the same time.15

Political Science and Jurisprudence with relation to Borderless World

Jurisprudence is the Science of Law; the system of laws of country; that branch of legislative

procedure which treats nature, origin and the development of law. (Webster Unified Dictionary

and Encyclopedia).

Political science and jurisprudence are inter-related and inter-dependent.16 The scope of

jurisprudence is narrower than that of political science, and in a way it is a branch of political

science. But in this age of science and specialization, the two disciplines are studied separately.

No state can function without making law, which is the subject matter of jurisprudence. To the

scholar dealing with jurisprudence the state is a legal person, which can sue and can be sued.

If the political Scientist needs the help of the jurist, the jurist also depends upon political

15 http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-downsides-to-a-one-world-government# 16 Political Science by B.K. Gokhale pg.-38-39

15 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

Scientist. The law that is made by the jurist or the legislator has to be enforced. To do this, the

state provides the necessary structure and framework. Therefore it is rightly said that the law

and government are inseparable concepts and all institutions have a both legal and political

aspect.17

Friedman rightly points out that Jurisprudence is linked at one end with philosophy and at the

other end with political theory. Politics deals with the principles governing governmental

organization. In a politically organized society, there exist regulations which may be called

laws and they lay down authoritatively what men may do and what they may not do.

In a Borderless world the International law would be prevalent. In the international sphere, the

number of conflicts, small and big, which break out between the states is countless. Every

conflict has to be settled bilaterally, multilaterally or by a court of law. If states are to live in

peace and progress they need a set of international rules for helping them to resolve their

conflict. The rules and principles recognized and observed by nation states in their relation with

one another make international law. The modern world is divided into nation states, which

form basic units and power units in the international system. In this system, the identity of the

nation state with its form of government, political principles, policies, culture, myths, hopes

and aspirations is fully recognized. The study of such an international system or its larger

component in their action-reaction phenomena is known as International relations.18

CASE STUDY

It is quite evident that the prospects of a world government do not seem quite bright at present

and there are a number of factors which stand in the way of realization o this goal. In the first

place, the existing nation state system based on nationalism and sovereignty stands in the way

of realization of the goal of a world government. The nation state system rests on the principle

of monopoly of power with the state. Unless the state voluntarily give up their power in favor

of world government no progress is possible. However, it is too much to expect that the states

shall be willing to surrender their power voluntarily in a favor of world government. Palmer

and Perkins have observed Many of the people who enthusiastically endorse world

government in public opinion polls begin to hedge and qualify their stand when it comes to

preliminary steps to advocate their position. Either they dont know the consequences of the

17http://www.vsrdjournals.com/vsrd/Issue/2012_05_May/Web/2_Lellala_Vishwanadham_655_Research_Communication_VSRD_May_2012.pdf 18 Political Science by B.K. Gokhale pg.-408-410

16 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

movement they advocate or they are in favor of the surrender of some sovereignty by other

states and people, but not by their own.

Secondly the national leaders are not favorably disposed towards the idea of world government

because of their vested interest. If such a government is formed their position be rendered quite

weak. Therefore, these leaders oppose the idea of world government on the plea of national

interest out of selfish considerations. If a world governments is to be achieved the people must

speak and act over the heads of their government.

Thirdly even the people as yet are not prepared to work for the creation of a world government.

They are still accustomed to think in terms of their national state and are willing to make any

sacrifice for the nation. No doubt a section of population in each state exists which possesses

an international outlook and is willing to rise above nationalistic considerations but its number

is insignificant. People by and large are still nationalist.

Fourthly it is argued that even if some sort of world government were created the question of

representation would pose a serious problem. Representation on the basis of population would

be unacceptable to the Whites due to fear of domination by the Black on the account of their

numerical superiority and they would certainly insist on some other criteria of representation.

Any such alternative criteria is likely to be unacceptable to the colored people. A parliament

representing people of such different moral convictions, political interests and abilities for self-

government as the Americans, The Chinese, The Indians, The Russians would hardly be able

to create out of these differences an operating whole. None of its constituent groups would

willingly submit to the majority vote of a legislative assembly thus constituted.

Despite the presence of various hurdles in the way of realizing goal of world government, its

need is being greatly emphasized. Bertrand Russell expressed the hope that law, rather than

private force, may come to govern relations of nations within the present century. If this hope

is not realized we face utter disaster; it is realized the world will be far better than any previous

in the history of man.19

For the realization of this hope a change in popular attitude and political climate is called for.

19 Prem Arora, International Politics, pg. 379-80

17 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

CHAPTER 4: EXPERT COMMENTS

Morgenthau has observed If the conqueror can muster overwhelming strength, no danger to

peace may arise from conflict of two national societies living within the same state. If, however

the strength of the conquered people is not out of all proportion to the conquerors potential

state of civil war between the conqueror and the conquered will sap the strength of the state

even though under the modern conditions of warfare it may not endanger its existence. He

further says that a world state created by conquest and lacking the support of world community

has a chance to maintain peace within its borders only if it can create and maintain complete

discipline and loyalty among the millions of soldiers and policemen needed to enforce its rule

over an unwilling humanity. Such a world state would be totalitarian monster on feet of clay,

the very thought of which startles the imagination.

Professor Rappard said In so far as the Swiss experience of five centuries of collective security

can suggest a lesson to the present generation, this lesson is clearly negative. It confirms at the

same time the observations drawn from the most recent past and the teachings of simple

commonsense. As long as the security depends only open the free co-operation of fully

sovereign states, it remains necessarily fragile.

Further, Prof. Morgenthau has observed at the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787,

the thirteen states were sovereign in the name rather than in political actuality. They did not

constitute thirteen separate sovereignties about to merge into a single one. After they had

declared their independence from Britain in 1776, sovereignty remained in suspense. By

establishing the United Stated they exchanged one sovereignty- That of British Crown- for

another. All the while they retained the same language, the same culture, the same national

heritage, the same moral conviction, the same political interests that had just been tested in a

revolutionary was fought in unison under a single command. The thirteen colonies formed a

moral and political community under the British Crown, they tested it and became fully aware

of it in their common struggle against Britain, and they retained that community after they had

won their independence.

Professor Friedman also does not consider any plan for world federation worth serious

discussion because the present generation is still not prepared to word out such a plan.

18 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

Likewise Professor Organski also says that, The creation of world government through the

voluntary agreement of existing nations is so unlikely that we can say flatly that it will never

happen. Professor Morgenthau also does not consider the present conditions favorable for the

creation of world state. He says in no period of human history was civilization more in need

of permanent peace and hence, of a world state and that in no period of modern history were

the social, political and moral condition of the world less favorable for the establishment of a

world state. Professor Schumann also considers the concept of world federation is

impracticable. However, he concludes that a federation of the sovereign states is a more

promising enterprise than the abolition of multiplicity of states through the universal

domination of a single.

As Morgenthau has put it What is needed is not limitation of the exercise of national

sovereignty through international obligations and institutions, but the transference of

sovereignties of individual nations to a world authority, which would be as sovereign over the

individual nations as the individual nations are sovereign within their respective authorities.

What is needed is a radical transformation of the existing international society of sovereign

nation into a supranational community individuals.

Palmer and Perkins have observed Many of the people who enthusiastically endorse world

government in public opinion polls begin to hedge and qualify their stand when it comes even

to preliminary steps to implement their declared position. Either they dont know the

consequences of the movements they advocate or they are in favor of the surrender of some

sovereignty by other states and people, but not by their own.

According to Professor Morgenthau, A Parliament representing people of such different moral

convictions. Political interests and abilities for self-government as Americans, The Chinese.

The Indians, The Russians would hardly be able to create out of these differences on operating

whole. None of its constituent groups would willingly submit to the majority vote of a

legislative assembly thus constituted.

19 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

CHAPTER 5: SUGGESTIONS/OPINIONS

Borderless world according to me means a world which is free from everything and is moreover

liberal towards its citizens. No nation state has its own identity and everything is known as one

world. This is a very hypothetical situation and its very tough to occur in the system. Each and

every place wants itself to be on the top and acquire all the wealth. Greed has left a conflict

between most of the nations. People dont want to sacrifice their identity and acquire global

citizenship moreover.

There are many countries that are in total chaos and cannot control themselves. If all the

countries are united, who will control us and how? The world is too large to be controlled by

just one government.

If the world is united, we should have a language that will be used for communicating each

other; after all, we would all come from the same country. However, it is basically impossible

for us to have one language.

Looking from a different view, uniting every country may lead to neglecting many great and

unique cultures. And it is very hard to merge all the cultures. For example, religion; Hindus

don't eat beef, whereas Muslims don't eat pork. How can we manage this?

I think unity is very important, but so is diversity. If we try to unite the countries hurriedly, we

may be losing our goal of being united: World peace.

It would be a mistake to conclude that international law is a perfect system. There is much that

could be reformed and enhanced. There is a general lack of institutions; the content of the rules

of international law can be uncertain; states may elect to ignore international law when their

vital interests are at stake; states are able to violate basic rules, such as the prohibition of

violence without fear of being coerced.

A border less world would be a totally different world. It would change economics, politics

and society as we know it. We as humans have, for centuries, lived within boundaries. To have

that thing wiped out would mean massive destabilization of a lot of things. Its always going

to remain a pipe dream. Changing world order is not something a group of people can work

out. And it would be a governance nightmare, if it ever were to become a reality.

Relaxing borders is definitely possible but that would take a serious amount of goodwill and

20 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

honesty from world leaders, which is easier said than done. Every country has its agenda and

self-centred policies and every country would safeguard its interests first before even thinking

about anyone else. A border less world is never going to happen, although the idealists in us

will keep dreaming of it.

Every coin has two sides. In this pretext, we have both pros and cons. If we analyse the pros,

the first thing that comes to our mind is freedom of movement. Just think, if we don't have to

wait for passports and visas to work in a country. The world would get equal beneficiaries and

amenities. This would mean that the developing and underdeveloped countries will be elevated

in terms of health and wealth. People from India can move around the world and seek jobs.

Unemployment, a major drawback in economy will reduce. Terrorism will also reduce as the

cause of terrorism will not be there. Coming to cons, the human culture is something that is

related to ego. When there is disrespect for any culture, people become aggressive. Degradation

in human values mean self-centric values inculcated in oneself. This will tend to reduce the

broadening of ideas and will constrict to only specific areas.

It's very idealistic to say things like 'we created borders, god didn't' and how wonderful it is for

every creed and breed to live in harmony. Harsh reality is in a borderless world there will be

no way to control terrorism, drug trafficking, hate crimes etc. A borderless world means a

unified governing body. One body controlling and adapting such absolute power will corrupt

absolutely, interest of minorities might be ignored, income disparity will increase and the world

will be in a state of chaos and general lawlessness. Personally I think that border less world isn't impossible to become reality but with the

condition of unity. Unity amongst we human is almost impossible to reach because of the

thinking 'I am better than others' was implanted in our minds since the great evolution of living

things started. Frankly speaking, I don't believe that laws, policy or constitution can provide

absolute unity for human kind. To be extreme, mega disaster is the obvious and fastest way to

unite our kind.

21 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8

CHAPTER 6: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books referred:-

1. Politics Among Nations by Prof. Morgenthau

2. International Politics by Prem Arora

3. Political Science by B.K. Gokhale

Dictionaries/Encyclopaedias referred:-

1. Webster Dictionary and Encyclopaedia

Website referred:-

1. www.thetrumpet.com

2. www.worldservice.org

3. www.gavilan.edu

4. en.wikibooks.org

5. plato.stanford.edu

6. www.quora.com

7. www.wisegeek.org

8. www.vsrdjournals.com