The Law of Force or the Force of Law

Are the nations of the world doomed to go on fighting the brutal, horrifying wars that have long characterized human history?

We might well wonder about that as we watch, aghast, while Israeli armed forces slaughter thousands of Palestinian civilians, Russian military might relentlessly pounds Ukrainian towns and cities into rubble, and new, bloody wars erupt in numerous other lands.

Why does such widespread destruction and human suffering persist in the modern, ostensibly “civilized,” world?

A variety of explanations have been advanced.  Some observers point to capitalism, others blame dictatorial rule, while still others place the onus on xenophobia, religious differences, racism, and toxic masculinity.

Each of these factors has some weight.  Certainly greed, authoritarian arrogance, inflamed nationalism, religious and racial animosities, and male violence have played some role in dividing people and, thereby, fostering wars among them over the course of history.

But are these factors sufficient to explain the stubborn persistence of war?  After all, wars existed long before the advent of capitalism and, furthermore, since then, non-capitalist (for example, Communist) nations have repeatedly waged wars, even against one another.  Similarly, democratic nations have plunged regularly into numerous wars, some against their fellow democracies.  Moreover, even countries whose populations have friendly ties, have the same racial composition and religion, and have taken major strides toward gender equality (including admission of women to the armed forces and top posts in government) seem quite willing to prepare for and engage in war with each other.

Something is clearly missing from these explanations of widespread international violence―something fundamental.  Could it be the structure of international relations?

International relations specialists have long argued that the driving force behind international war is global anarchy.  Humanity, like war, has existed for thousands of years.  But, although humans have gradually created governments to establish effective laws regulating behavior within their territories―regions, cities, states, and, ultimately, nations―they have failed to do so for the world.  Thus, on the global level, nations have been left largely to their own devices.  The resulting situation resembles the American Wild West, characterized by the absence of law enforcement and the prevalence of heavily armed gangs.

For centuries, scholars have pointed to the need for creating transnational structures to end this global nightmare.  The theologian and diplomat Hugo Grotius helped develop the concept of international law, while writers such as Dante Alighieri, Immanuel Kant, and H.G. Wells promoted the idea of global governance.

After the atomic bombing of Japan and the ensuing scramble for nuclear weapons starkly revealed the peril of nuclear annihilation, the call for a full-scale transformation of international relations became even sharper.  Albert Einstein, the chair of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, stated bluntly:  “Mankind’s desire for peace can be realized only by the creation of a world government.”

Norman Cousins, editor of one of America’s major magazines of the era (the Saturday Review), played a key role in channeling Einstein’s call into a postwar campaign for a global federation of nations.  “The only security for Americans today, or for any people,” Cousins contended, is “a system of world order that enables nations to retain sovereignty over their own cultures and institutions but that creates a workable authority for regulating the behavior of nations in their relationships with one another.”  Cousins served as president of United World Federalists (which morphed into the World Federalist Association and, eventually, Citizens for Global Solutions), the U.S. branch of the World Federalist Movement.

Benjamin Ferencz, the U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of the late 1940s, became an important popularizer of this world federalist approach.  In his widely-read book, PlanetHood, Ferencz told Americans that, in the United States, “we have four layers of government: city, county, state, and national,” created “to avoid anarchy within our nation.”  Thus, adding “one more layer of government will enable us to have an abundant future on this planet.”  Indeed, “international governance―something like a United Nations of the World―will rescue us from our deadly predicament.”

Critics, of course, might argue that a United Nations already exists, and has often proved unable to prevent the recurrence of war.  But Ferencz’s answer―and, usually, the answer of the world federalist movement―was that, although the United Nations had significant accomplishments to its credit, the UN Charter “was deliberately made weak” by the major powers.  As a result, it “did not give the United Nations the binding strength needed to get rid of international lawlessness.”  Ultimately, “the only way to permanently solve the problem of war is to replace the Law of Force with the Force of Law.”

World federalists can also point to a dramatic decline in war when independent nations accepted limitations on their sovereignty.  In the late eighteenth century, as 13 British North American colonies gained their independence, they could have followed the usual global pattern of war with one another.  But, instead, they gradually created a federal union (the United States) and fought only one war within their ranks during the following 235 years.  Similarly, although European nations had undergone centuries of war with each other before they went at it again in World War II, members of the European Union, formed in the aftermath of that devastating war (and now encompassing 27 nations), succeeded in ending war among them.

The issue of transcending the ages-old practice of international war certainly remains relevant today.  Indeed, the United Nations is moving forward with plans for a Summit of the Future in late September.  Designed to address “global governance,” among other issues, the Summit provides yet another opportunity for nations to empower the world organization to maintain international peace through the enforcement of world law.

Is that goal realistic?  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  But how realistic is it to continue the anarchy of nations, which today threatens universal death and destruction?

Lawrence S. Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.