Project.docx borderless world
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Project.docx borderless world
1 | P a g e 8 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 5 8
SCHOOL OF LAW
A PROJCT SUBMITTD ON
IN COMPLIANC TO TH PARTIAL FULFILLMNT OF TH MARKING SCHM FOR TRIMSTR V 2014-15, IN TH SUBJCT OF POLITICAL
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
TOPIC NAME PAGE NUMBER
4 EXPERT COMMENTS
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
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
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
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:
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 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.
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 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
CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1. Politics Among Nations by Prof. Morgenthau
2. International Politics by Prem Arora
3. Political Science by B.K. Gokhale
1. Webster Dictionary and Encyclopaedia