Project.docx borderless world

download Project.docx borderless world

of 21

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)


this is a project of political science

Transcript of Project.docx borderless world

  • 1 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8










    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






    2 BODY





  • 3 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8


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


    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 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.


  • 5 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8


    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


    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 11

  • 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 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8


    Pros and cons of the subject


    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.


    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 | 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 | 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


    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 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


    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


    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

    17 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


    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


    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


    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:-