World Peace Through Law: Rethinking an Old Theory and a Call for a UN Peace Force

by: James T. Ranney¹ of the Philadelphia CGS Chapter

World federalists make what they view as an airtight argument for world federalism which runs as follows. There are only two ways to resolve true conflict (conflict that cannot be mediated) at the international level: (1) by war (not such a good idea any more, since WWIII would entail the almost certain extinction of at least our species), and (2) by law. Therefore, they say, choose law. And by "law," they mean law that is the only kind worth having, enforceable law, enforceable upon individuals, i.e., world law, created by a global legislature and enforced by global courts and global police, unlike the inadequate currently-existing international "law" and the weak system of UN-based collective insecurity that we now have.²

This article will explore another possibility, that the "law" in the phrase "world peace through law" need not be that of a global legislature, that there are other ways of securing world peace through law, both in the short term and in the long run.

+download the article in its entirety here

The United States and Russia have announced that they will hold talks aimed at reducing the amount of weapons, particularly nuclear weapons, on both sides.

President Obama and President Medvedev will meet at a summit in Moscow in a few days to announce the status of an arms reduction treaty. However it is expected that by December there will be more extensive and ambitious talks. These treaties are anticipated to reduce strategic weapons to 1,700 for each country as well as a reduction of "battlefield" weapons, which are easier to hide. The more extensive treaty is expected to take at least two years to negotiate but both countries are hopeful.

These talks would be huge step in the direction of peace for both countries. It is the hope that these discussions could lead to a more peaceful relationship between the U.S. and Russia. The resolution of this issue could potentially lead to resolutions of other strained issues.

The willingness of these two leaders to discuss these issues gives us hope that we are one step closer to a world without nuclear weapons.

To support the reduction of nuclear weapons ACT now!

Thomas Friedman said of the Waxman-Markey Bill: "It stinks. It's a mess... Now let's get it passed in the Senate and make it law."

So why does he want this stinky, messy bill to become law?

In the New York Times, Friedman explained that this bill, for all its imperfections, is "the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere."

To muster enough support for the bill to be passed through the House, the bill had to include provisions that would weaken it. Still, it creates incentives for businesses to cut costs by going green: "weaving carbon emissions into every business decision will drive innovation and deployment of clean technologies to a whole new level and make energy efficiency much more affordable." Through the bill, new buildings and appliances will be more energy efficient, forests will be conserved, and mindsets will change- factoring in pollution as a production cost will change the way we make things.

Let's heed Friedman's final words of wisdom: "Now that the bill is heading for the Senate... we must, ideally, try to improve it, but, at a minimum, guard against diluting it any further."

* ACT NOW in support of strengthened environmental protection policy!

To read the full article, click here

For more information on the legislation, click here

To learn more about climate change, click here

Dr. John T. Oliver has published a new paper describing the history and benifits of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  He goes into great detail regarding why now is the time for the U.S. to ratify this law.

Oliver begins by presenting the history of the Law of the Sea, beginning with it's first negotiations from 1973-1982. He also lays out the basic things that the convention covers such as rights and obligations of coastal states, scientific research, and protection of the marine environment. 157 states have signed the convention yet the US has not. At one point in 1994 the US came close to ratifying the Law of the Sea after President Reagan identified many provisions that needed to be changed. However the Senate has never had a full vote on the convention. 

Oliver then goes on to discuss the many ways that the Law of Sea benefits the U.S. One of the biggest is National Security. This law would provide resources necessary for fighting the global war on terrorism and protecting our military power overseas. As this is one of the most important issues for the United States it is surprising that this law has not been ratified. Oliver also discusses environmental and economic advantages as well as the war on drugs. The Law of the Sea would give the US territorial claims to the 200 nautical miles on its coast which would help the control of drug trafficking.

While Oliver goes into great detail about the benefits of this law he also debunks some misconceptions about it. For instance the idea that this law would restrict our sea based military operations, yet this law would actually make available more space for the Coast Guard to run drills and operations

The UNCLOS ensures safe international trade, and keeps the peace between many countries. As a political leader, the US needs to ratify this law in order to enhance their leadership in maritime affairs. The US cannot afford to be left out of important talks and decisions any longer.

Take Action to support this Issue!

On June 26, 2009, the House succeeded in passing the Waxman-Markey Bill, which takes important steps towards addressing climate change. The bill narrowly passed with 219 ayes and 212 noes: we commend all the representatives who voted in favor of this key legislation, and urge the Senate to pass the bill before December 2009, when countries will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss an international environmental agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

The Congressional Budget Analysis Office found that 1.7 million jobs will be created with the implementation of the legislation through the growth of clean energy jobs. Low income families will receive a $40 benefit from using more solar and wind energy in place of foreign oil. U.S. dependence on foreign oil will be cut, along with the hazardous effects of pollution- all for the cost of about one postage stamp a day for every family.

There are concerns about compromises made along the way to secure support for the bill. For instance, the Agriculture Committee has secured rights over the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee implementation among farmers, and pollution permits have been given for free to coal-burning utilities, oil refineries, automakers, and manufacturers struggling to compete with overseas production.

The bill is not strong enough to sufficiently thwart climate change, but it is an important step in the right direction, and a symbol of changing mindsets and modes of development. If even the current bill could not be passed, hopes for stronger measures tomorrow would be dampened significantly.

* ACT NOW in support of strengthened environmental protection policy!

To watch Obama speak on the passage of the bill, click here

For more information on the legislation, click here

To learn more about climate change, click here

Yesterday Pew Charitable Trusts ran this ad in the Washington Post and Politico, showing once again that the Law of the Sea convention has the largerst, broadest, extremely odd-bedfellow group of supporters of any issue moving forward inside the Beltway.  Where else can you see the American Petroleum Institute and the World Wildlife Fund sandwiching the likes of former Secretary of State Jim Baker, Lee Hamiliton, John Warner, the US Chamber of Commerce, Verizon, not to mention Citizens for Global Solutions. 

The ad gets right to the point:  our security can't wait.  Neither can our economy or our environment. It's great to see supporters coming together to speed ratification along. Pew is doing a great service and should be commended.  In addition their new site, RatifyLawOfTheSea.org is an excellent resource.

However, we are still waiting on word back from President Obama.  As I have said before, the Senate is not likely to adopt any major treaty without presidential leadership in raising the issue and pushing it to the floor.

President Obama, the ball's in your court.

Don Kraus

A new piece of legislation has come to the attention of many globally minded organizations, Citizens for Global Solutions included. The Crimes Against Humanity Act would make sure that those accused of crimes against humanity could be prosecuted in the United States. The bill would fill a gap in human rights law and ensure that those who should be brought to justice cannot escape by coming to the US.

 The United States has long been a leader in advocating for human rights. However there is     no legislation which makes sure that the United States courts have jurisdiction to prosecute  those who have committed crimes against humanity. The bill defines this as widespread and   systematic attacks directed against a civilian population that involve murder, enslavement, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, extermination, hostage taking, or ethnic cleansing. These things have been going on in many different countries all over the world and it is important that the US be able to hold these people accountable for their crimes. While the US has passed legislation that prohibits those who have committed genocide or torture there is still a gap and this bill would fill it.

It is important that this legislation gets the support that it needs. For this reason CGS as well as many other organizations have written a letter to Chairman Durbin urging him to show his support. Richard J. Durbin is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. His support would help to make sure that this very important piece of legislature is passed.

The Hudson Institute hosted a panel on June 24th to discuss the stakes of Obama's planned visit to Russia in July. The panelists- David Kramer, David Satter, and Andrei Piontkovsky- warned of a different Russian culture that did not place human rights in the same light as the U.S did. In a perverse way, Russia seems to need to maintain enmity with the U.S. in order to justify the state's iron grip and suppressive policies. This is unfortunate, as the U.S. and Russia have coinciding strategic interests, including preventing Islamic extremism, promoting nuclear non-proliferation, and balancing China's growing power.

So, when Obama travels to Russia, the first aim should be to foster respectful dialogue between the countries. Even now, Russian leaders denounce the U.S. as an enemy on prime time television, accusing the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism in the Caucasus. Given the aggressive steps taken by Russia in the past, it is also important to pose a firm and deterring stance before them. The panelists commended Obama for signaling a rejection of a "Russia first" policy, by including Ukraine and Georgia on his list of visits. The Russian visit assumes added significance, as talks have already begun to renew the START treaty. With nuclear non-proliferation high on the agenda, artfully dealing with Russia is a challenge and necessity.

Striking the appropriate balance by promoting dialogue without showing any sign of weakness is going to be a difficult job for Obama. His predecessor did not set an ideal example- Bush may have gone overboard after meeting Putin in 2001 when he said, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very... trustworthy... I was able to get a sense of his soul." Such lofty ideas about Russia have not paid off in the past.

For more information, click here

On June 24, 2009, the Senate voted to advance Harold Koh's nomination for the position of Legal Adviser of the Department of State and move towards a final confirmation of his position. The Dean of Yale Law School and former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor was nominated to be the primary legal counselor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on March 23, 2009 by President Obama..

As the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and former director of Yale Law School's Center for International Human Rights, Koh is a prominent advocate of human rights and authority on international law. He served as a delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission under the Clinton administration and has promoted a theory of "transnational jurisdiction," which looks to tenets of international law to inform and improve the domestic judicial process. He argues that "concepts like liberty, equality, and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement."

Citizens for Global Solutions supports the decisions of Obama and the Senate in the proposal and advancement of Koh's nomination and congratulates him on the great honor and exciting opportunity of this position.

On June 23rd 2009, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a panel with experts on Iran and the Middle East. Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Abbas Milani, and Karim Sadjadour spoke about the condition- some say revolution- in Iran with the disputed elections and mass protests. Foreign media has been forced out, and death toll figures rise daily. A brutal suppression of the demonstrations has begun, with videos and news of killings circulating the internet.

The panelists explained that despite the despotic government's persistent attempts to suppress rebellions, the Iranian people's desires have gained new momentum to affect change. Independent polls show that a majority of Iranians are discontent with the economic quandary that President Ahmadinejad has left them in, support the recognition of Israel, favor improved relations with the U.S., and seek the cessation of the nuclear weapons program in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology. There is mounting evidence that, with popular views contradicting Ahmadinejad's policies, the recent polls were a stolen election. 

The panelists said that the Iranian ruling order had forever changed. The Ayatollah's authority as the supreme religious leader was flouted when he was openly defied and publicly called a liar. The current uprising distinguishes itself from previous ones as it includes members of all ages and walks of life. Further, fractions have emerged within the ruling regime, which is an important precondition for democratic transitions.

Ahmadinejad and his supporters have attempted to frame the situation as a conflict between the Iranian government and foreign powers. By making demonstrators seem like puppets of an "imperial power" (the U.S.), the government seeks to undermine the movement and keep it from spreading beyond cities. Obama's cautious and measured approach commendably navigates this trap set by Ahmadinejad. Obama condemned the suppression of expression and sympathized with the protesters, but stayed clear of inserting the U.S. in the middle of the conflict. The movement was truly born in Iran and is being sustained through the sacrifices and determination of the Iranian people. Obama's efforts to keep the U.S.' fingerprints off the uprising are strategic and laudable.

However, the way this will all play out also depends on the reaction of other countries. Turkey and Russia have already formally recognized Ahmadinejad's electoral victory in the face of incontestable evidence of fraud. The rest of Iran's neighbors, trade partners and other states have an important opportunity to speak out for the desires of the Iranian people.

For more information, visit: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1360