Moving to One-World Society

In days gone by, the idea of a world of laws has seemed a laughable proposition. Nationalism, ethnic rivalry, racial bias, religious belief, geographical imperatives, historical memories all have proved far more stubborn in their hold on people than the attraction of joining a juridical global community. But since the collapse of the Cold War, there has been a relentless march, led primarily by the United States, toward a planetary system of standards, and we have started to become a world legal society without admitting it.

Of course, there still are ethnic and civil conflicts all over the Earth that defeat any sense of commonality: Witness Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Kashmir and Tibet. There are raging religious wars which tear asunder societal consensus, as in the Middle East, Ireland, Algeria and India. There are territorial grudges that propel states to act in ways that rend apart global unity, such as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. There are messianic political leaders like Moammar Kadafi in Libya and Kim Jong Il in North Korea who are driven by personal demons. Even in our own country, there are right-wing militias that abhor any “foreign” authority and detonate bombs to express their outrage.

Nonetheless, the trend is toward working together in a lawful fashion around the world. The United Nations, in particular, has become almost a quasi-governmental body that member states have used to reach agreement on a variety of measures. Confronted by practical as well as moral considerations, Washington has worked in the U.N. to help craft more than 300 international treaties covering such matters as economic sanctions, airline routes, nuclear energy inspections, human rights, pollution controls, oceanic rights, space laws, customs procedures and press freedoms, all vital to a well-functioning universal society. By the end of the century, we will have the first permanent international criminal court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law. The trend seems ineluctable.

And this is not happening by suprainternational fiat but by local decision. U.N. member states first codify international standards via planetwide con- ferences--most recently with respect to nuclear arms testing guidelines--and then seek ratification of the covering accords by individual participating nations. This process often takes time and compliance is not always assured, but at least in this way the conventions are taken on voluntarily by each country. And countries that may not have participated in such agreements at the outset often will join later.

This is not to say that international treaties, however well-intentioned and strongly backed, are always good simply because they exist. They have to be respected and enforced. And this does not always happen. During the early part of this century, the nations of the world signed a number of global pacts that made countries feel protected and secure, and all eventually fell apart. These included the League of Nations; the Kellogg-Briand Act, which outlawed war in 1928; and the Washington Conference of 1922 and the London Naval Treaty of 1930, both restricting naval arms races.

But today, the compulsions for global integration are far more potent. The imperatives behind worldwide trade, driven by more nations switching to market economies, are tightening the bonds among nations. Currency transactions now ripple through entire regions. A sour economy in the U.S. causes heartache around the globe. Nongovernmental organizations have plunged roots into every community. The communications revolution, evidenced by the Internet, faxes, videotape cassettes, television, movies, books and magazines, draws countries more closely into a single village.

Not everybody, it must be said, shares in this bounty; more than half of the world’s population is a two-day walk from a telephone, literally disconnected from the global economy, as President Clinton has pointed out. And the signs of U.S. disinterest in the global legal process are growing ominously. For some years, Congress has refused to pay America’s back dues to the U.N.; the administration just dropped out of the global pact against land mines, and it is now hedging on the global warming treaty that will be considered at Kyoto, Japan, in December. The planetwide trek toward law will not advance and may indeed retreat without firm U.S. backing.

Still, in ways that nobody would have predicted just a few decades ago, we are starting to resemble an orderly one-world society and this will, I suspect, create new ways of governing nations collectively.