On a recent final exam, I was asked the following question:

Assume that you have the power to change the manner in which nations deal with one another. Assume that the United Nations has hired you to propose a new order of international co-operation to reform “world governance” in all areas of international law and diplomacy. Assume that existing concepts of sovereignty and immunity do not exist.

Here is my answer. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Existing concepts of sovereignty and immunity are the result of a world organized into independent states – a structure which led to two world wars and which we inherited from an era of imperialism. The first priority of an independent unit is to look after itself, putting it in competition with every other independent unit and, thus, creating a system which will ultimately produce winners and losers; the winners reap the resources of the losers and the entire system tends towards convergence and a top-down hierarchy. Such is the history of man. The fundamental change I propose is that the new structure be built on a foundation of the interdependence of people. The organization of the world into discrete units, which we now call the nation-state, would not need to change; only how we view the interaction of those units would change. The first priority of an interdependent system is to protect and strengthen relationships making for a cooperative environment where resources are shared based on the needs of the whole system. Our end goal, then, is an international community made up of free-willed individuals (an unchangeable starting condition) but which operates as a single organism. Thus, our design must serve, above all else, to maximize the total health and life of the system.

Nature teaches us that the strongest systems are ones in which anomalies can be absorbed. Our system, then, must be flexible. Rules and regulations serve us well, but they must be able to bend if and when they do not serve. The system must be ready and able to adapt to new challenges, thus, the strategies employed today may not be the strategies needed tomorrow. Creativity and dialogue must be encouraged for these will undoubtedly serve us better than top-down planning. As much as possible, our system should mimic nature – it should act as an organism, not a machine.

Now let us turn to the details.

In keeping with the many-as-one model outlined above, I propose a new international governing body that we will call the International Assembly (IA). The powers of the IA will be broad, encompassing any aspect of life provided that it is directly relevant to international relations and the furtherance of its goals as spelled out in its constitution which may read in part:

The purpose of the International Assembly is to enhance the total quality of life for all current and future residents of Earth. The IA can assume authority in any area of international relations if it can demonstrate before the International Supreme Court that the authority it seeks has a specific and necessary purpose which cannot be achieved at a lower level of government, which does not contradict any existing purpose, and which interferes as little as possible with individual freedom.

The constitution would itself be a living document split into two parts. The first part, which contains primarily the piece described above, could only be changed pursuant to a strict amending formula. The second part would delineate the specific powers of the IA and the purposes for which those powers were created as per the formula in the first part. In other words, once the IA had successfully demonstrated that it required a specific power, that new power and the purpose for which it was created would be added to the second part of the constitution. Thus, the constitution would form a coherent and evolving document. The first part of the constitution would also include a formula for reviewing the second part and removing powers created for purposes no longer relevant.

Once a power is added to the constitution, a committee is struck to initiate the work required to fulfill the identified purpose. Every citizen of every state which is a member of the IA is legally required to make themselves available to serve on a committee as determined by random ballot and subject to a qualification assessment. Committee positions are all well and equally paid and carry significant prestige. Committee members serve for as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose for which they were called with the ultimate goal of devolving continued operations to lower levels of government, intergovernmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations.

The IA has three permanent organs: the international assembly, an executive, and a secretariat. The international assembly is the only body which can seek to add new powers and is composed of democratically elected representatives from anywhere in the world. Anybody may run except those already serving in governmental positions at any level. Elections are held every six years and voting is a two-stage process. The first vote, which we will call the nomination vote, merely qualifies candidates to enter the second round upon collection of a minimum number of nomination votes. There are strict limits to campaign financing during the first round and there is no limit to the number of candidates. Each candidate must pay a nomination fee directly to the IA. Second round campaigns are again subject to strict rules but this time the rules relate to the campaign methods with campaign funding provided equally to all nominees by only the IA. The executive is composed of a single representative from each state and is charged with overseeing the powers and purposes of the IA and its committees. In the role of executive, each person is held to the standard of a trustee. Finally, the secretariat carries out normal day to day operations of the IA. Funding for the IA comes from two sources: a very modest universal tax and a percentage of the gross domestic product of each member state.

So much for general governance. Now I will turn my attention to justice. Overall, I am very satisfied with the current structure of international law. The new international court would function much like the current International Court of Justice except that, where the ICJ is an organ of the UN, the new Court would be independent from the IA. It would consist of seven Justices, each appointed by a different country with appointments being rotated among all states, for staggered terms of seven years. The appointing state would pay the Justice’s salary plus an additional administration fee to cover the operating costs of the court. Sources of law would remain as they are now: custom, treaty, and flexible precedent. Like the ICJ, the new Court would only be available to hear disputes between member states. As much as possible, personal disputes should be handled by municipal courts. With regards to human rights, I would set up a universal declaration of human rights that was legally binding but subservient to similar municipal declarations that met the minimum standard. Other than that, I would not change a thing. I believe that disputes should be resolved at the lowest level possible.

In constructing this proposal, I am assuming that such institutions as the IMF and the WTO do not exist. As such, other aspects of the existing model such as currency convertibility, trade, and the regulation of business would fall under the administration of the IA if it was able to demonstrate the need to acquire such power. All other areas of policy and administration would fall to lower levels of government. Underlying this essay is the belief that the primary flaws in the current structure are: (1) A core philosophy which splits the world into independent units rather than interdependent units, and (2) the lack of a single governing organization. This second flaw requires clarification, however, since it may conjure up images of a one-world government. This is not what I propose, not only because it would be ineffective but also because it would be impossible to achieve democratically given the difficulties of obtaining consensus. Thus, my proposal is for a flexible international governance organization whose only starting point is a formula by which it can acquire further powers and a formula by which those powers can be again removed and devolved. It is by design that many of the other specifics are left out because to put too many in now would undermine the very philosophy which is at the core of this model; namely flexibility and evolution.

In the end, governance would continue as it does today with people retaining the right of self-determination. Indeed, this right is at the core of my proposal. Governance and dispute resolution would be left to the lowest level possible. Such a system would be flexible and highly resilient because it would tap into individual’s creative potential and it would balance people’s individual and social selves.

• Previous Entry: A letter to Carole Taylor in support of doing something
• Next Entry: Beautiful Fog