Quick viewing(Text Mode)

World Government Via the United Nations Thesis

World Government Via the United Nations Thesis

The Centralization of : via the

United

Thesis

By

Danilo Vincenzo Pellegrini

Submitted in Partial fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts

In

International Economic Relations

State University of New York

Empire College

2019

Reader: Max Hilaire Statutory Declaration / Čestné prohlášení

I, Danilo Vincenzo Pellegrini, declare that the paper entitled:

The Centralization of Global Governance: via the

was written by myself independently, using the sources and information listed in the list of references. I am aware that my work will be published in accordance with § 47b of Act No.

111/1998 Coll., On Higher Education Institutions, as amended, and in accordance with the valid publication guidelines for university graduate theses.

Prohlašuji, že jsem tuto práci vypracoval/a samostatně s použitím uvedené literatury a zdrojů informací. Jsem vědom/a, že moje práce bude zveřejněna v souladu s § 47b zákona č.

111/1998 Sb., o vysokých školách ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a v souladu s platnou Směrnicí o zveřejňování vysokoškolských závěrečných prací.

In Prague, 11.11.2019 Danilo Vincenzo Pellegrini

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Dr. Max Hilaire, Dr. Oscar Redondo Hidalgo and Dr. Cynthia Combs for their invaluable wisdom.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction……………….………………………………………...……………..…..p.6 II. The Concept of World Government:………….…………...…………………………..p.7 2.1 Preamble: The Definition of World Government..……………p.7 2.2 The Philosophical Background………….………………….....p.8 III. Unconventional Debates Over The Evolution of The International Community.....…p.15 3.1 A Conspiratory Historico-Conceptual Assessment of The 19th Century Developments………………………………..……...p.15 3.2 The Versailles Peace Conferences’ Underlying Aims…...…..p.17 3.3 The As A Primitive Prototype of World Government…………………………………………………..p.19 3.4 An Attempt At Understanding The True Nature of The League of Nations………………………...……………………………..p.21 3.5 The Atomic Threat, United Nations And The Role of the Council on Foreign Relations…………..………………….………….p.23 IV. The United Nations:………..…………………………………………………………p.26 4.1 A Critical Analysis Of The Charter Of The United Nations....p.26 4.2 The Potential Threat of United Nations’ Supremacy.....….….p.28 4.3 World Government Via The United Nations…………...... ….p.31 V. The Criticisms Towards The Concept Of World Government:….………………..….p.34 5.1 The Three Main Objections To World Government………....p.34 5.2 Critically Assessing Flaws In The World Governmental Nature Of The United Nations…………………………………...... p.37 VI. Solutions:...………………………………...………………………………..………...p.39 6.1 United Nations Reform…………………………………...... p.39 VII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….p.40 References……………………………………………………………………………….p.42 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..p.49

Abstract

This paper analyzes the idea of world government, starting by addressing the definition of the concept, analyzing its historical background and past literature and the criticisms moved towards it on the basis of current theoretical paradigms. Fundamental literature discussed and contemplated, in addition to a wide variety of academic sources are

Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope”, G. Edward Griffin’s “The Fearful Master: A

Second Look At The United Nations” and David Icke’s “The Biggest Secret”. This thesis traces the history of the evolution of the concept of world government and proposes current debates on the presumed attempts made by the international community towards its establishment, specifically focusing on the transition from the League of , therefore assessing the global governmental nature of the United. The paper concludes that the

United Nations does exert global governance although it does not, perhaps yet, possess the characteristics of a world government. Undoubtedly, this work’s intention is emphasizing the understanding that each of us, as world citizens, must acknowledge our role and ensure we maintain our freedom by having the critical awareness and civic ethos needed to make ourselves the true makers of history.

I. Introduction

Undoubtedly, observing the world’s political arena it is simple to perceive the collectivist trend that is further grouping individuals into larger institutions or perceive the induced migration that is diluting national identities. When addressing the concept of world government, however, one might intrinsically give it a negative value, inherently assuming a squeamish behavior, which is erroneous. What lies at the bottom of this conception is the underlying thought of a centralized, totalitarian system. Surely, it does not have to be that way from a theoretical basis. In practice, nonetheless, the eventual reality of such an event could also mean the creation of a tyrannical , or better yet, . On the other hand, a world government, was it to truly adhere to the characteristics of global peace guarantor, could also be perceived as the ultimate solution to the state of nature of international relations, thereby guaranteeing global freedom, peace and love. The true question, therefore, is asking ourselves what type of world government do we want.

The concept of world government has been addressed since the dawn of times, constantly evolving throughout history and dividing public opinion. and world destabilizing events, the two poles of the matter, gave birth to world government proposals in the 20th Century, of which we will address the most dominant one, namely the United

Nations and doing so by introducing its precursor, the League of Nations. The literature is divided between world government advocates and opponents, which will accordingly be addressed in this work. Most importantly, what is to be understood is whether the United

Nations can or cannot be deemed as a world government, in this regard emphasizing the flaws that do not currently allow the United Nations to be, yet, addressed as a true world government.

6

II. The Concept of World Government

This chapter examines the concept of world government from a theoretical perspective.

Fundamental literature is addressed, tracing the evolution of this concept towards the current status quo of international relations. The preamble presents the definition of the notion, followed by a thorough historical background on the idea of world government. The analysis begins from Dante and continues through the philosophical contributions to the notion of world government of Hobbes, Charles Castel, Rousseau, Kant and H.G., to mention the main ones, followed by an assessment of recent developments of the concept.

2.1 Preamble: The Definition of World Government

Catherine Lu, in her work “World Government” (2012), published on the Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, begins by defining the notion of “world government”, hereby the concept of the entirety of humankind under a single, political . The idea of

“world government” has been extensively discussed throughout history and proposals of it were contemplated since the dawn of times. One aspect that distinguishes both advocates and proponents of world government are the distinctive reasons for why it is an ideal of political organization. While some perceive the world government as the ultimate solution to the problems of humankind, others focus on the value of world government as a reflection of global unity of the cosmos. Clearly, world government views differ historically, specifically in regard to the form that a world government should assume. For instance, while medieval philosophy focused on world government via a single emperor,

7 perhaps a , modern world government advocates aim at the cosmopolitan nature of world , based on a global cooperation design.

2.2 The Philosophical Background

Italian poet (1265-1321), in his work “Convivio” (The Banquet), embraced the Christian ideal of unity and its realization through a world government, ruled by a single emperor or monarch. His genuine view of world government emphasized the need of such system as the ultimate resolution towards global pace – “wars and all their causes would be eliminated if the whole earth and all that humans can possess be a , that is, one government under one ruler” (Lu, 2012). Dante further expressed his thoughts on world government in his work “Monarchia” (Monarchy), where he refers to Aristotle and argues that humanity, stemming from a shared purpose, will increasingly develop its intellectual potential. Fundamental is, in this regard, to mention Dante’s argument about the essential importance of peace, necessary pre-condition for the realization of the over- mentioned aim. Specifically, he understood that peace couldn’t be established and maintained until humanity is divided. This is a crucial point: understanding the fundamentality of peace and the negative outlook of a divided humanity should also make us understand that, following the concept of “divide et impera” (Posner et al., 2009), perhaps division is a tactic of governance itself, which sheds light on the inherent threats deriving from the potential presence of one, authoritarian global government.

The concept of a world government under a single emperor of monarch, nonetheless, became obsolete towards the end of the seventeenth century, namely after the Pace of

Westphalia in 1648, which established the socio-political basis for a system of sovereign

8 states. Hobbes (1588-1679), in “Leaviathan” (1651) argued that despite individuals in the state of nature are led to give up their liberties in order to receive protection, thereby the institutionalization of sovereign states, yet the miseries accompanying sovereign states are not as arduous to citizens, therefore diminishing the rationality behind the creation of a global leviathanic political organization “because states uphold the Industry of their

Subjects; there does not follow from the international state of nature, that misery, which accompanies the Liberty of particular men” (1986, p.188).” Despite Hobbes has been categorized as a realist, he surely did not regard and cooperation to be neither unthinkable nor unattainable. In fact, Hobbes had already referred to the eventual possibility and efficaciousness of commonwealth leagues: “Leagues between Common-wealths, over whom there is no humane Power established, to keep them all in awe, are not onely lawfull [because they are allowed by the commonwealth], but also profitable for the time they last” (p.286). Hobbes, therefore, advocated for the non- necessity of a world government, although he also envisioned the desirability of a lawful international order based on peace and justice.

Charles Castel, Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658–1743), in his Project for Making Peace

Perpetual in (1713) envisaged the formation of a of states by social contract, based on perpetual alliances and leading to the creation of a Congress able of adjudicating intra-state conflicts. “Public enemies” would be proscribed (Rousseau

1756/1917, p. 63) if states attempted breaking the Treaty or disregarding the Congress’ decisions, which in turn would allow all member to “arm and take the offensive, conjointly and at the common expense, against any State put to the ban of Europe in order to enforce the decisions of the federation” (61–4). Therefore, this system required the abdication to a

9 superior political authority of the singular sovereign rights to engage in war. Rousseau

(1712–1778) acquiesced the rationality of this thought, despite noting a fundamental clause, namely the consequentialist objection that, truly: “No Federation could ever be established except by a revolution. That being so, which of us would dare say whether the League of

Europe is a thing more to be desired or feared? It would perhaps do more harm in the moment than it would guard against for ages” (p.112). Once again, understanding the necessity for the destruction of the status quo in order to have massive changes generally and unconditionally accepted by all is fundamental. Rousseau, therefore, genuinely believed that the solution to war, therefore to , was not to be achieved through a world government, yet through the moral improvement of singular sovereign states. In The Social Contract (1762) the author therefore emphasized that only within such context would humanity achieve its ultimate potential as a world of idyllic, ideal societies would not generate war as much as they would not require a world government.

Immanuel Kant, in his Idea for a with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784) discusses the role of conflict in determining humanity’s advancement: “Nature employs the

“unsociableness of men” to motivate moral progress; thus war is a means by which nature moves states “to take the step which reason could have suggested to them even without so many sad experiences—that of abandoning a lawless state of savagery and entering a federation of peoples in which every state, even the smallest, could expect to derive its security and rights not from its own power or its own legal judgment, but solely from this great federation (Foedus Amphictyonum), from a united power and the law-governed decisions of a united will” (p.47). Kant refers to this “inevitable outcome” (p.48) of the history of humankind in his work Perpetual Peace (1795): “rationality dictated the

10 formation of “an international state (civitas gentium), which would necessarily continue to grow until it embraced all the peoples of the earth” (p.105). For Kant, the achievement of perpetual peace has to come through the establishment of three, fundamental conditions.

The first requires every state to obtain a republican assuring the freedom and equality of citizens by virtue of rule of law. The second required the essential condition that states would not become part of an “international state” (p.102) but a federation of peoples.

In fact: A “pacific federation (foedus pacificum) … does not aim to acquire any power like that of a state, but merely to preserve and secure the freedom of each state in itself, along with that of the other confederated states. A of free and independent states is still to be preferred to an amalgamation of the separate nations under a single power which has overruled the rest and created a ” (p.104). Kant’s aversion to the notion of a universal monarchy stems from his fear of total : “For the laws progressively lose their impact as the government increases its range, and a soulless despotism, after crushing the germs of goodness, will finally lapse into ” (p.113). In accordance with the tyranny argument, Kant realized that universal monarchy would necessarily determine “the graveyard of freedom” (p.114). The third and last condition is the cognizance and recognition of people’s cosmopolitan rights, which Kant stood for, hence largely criticizing what had Europe done in “America, the negro countries, the Spice

Islands, the Cape and East ” (p.106). Ultimately, Kant’s condemnation of the idea of a universal monarchy stems from his very own, personal dystopia: a global anarchic state of nature which would inevitably occur in the presence of universal despotism in the hands of an emperor or monarch. Accordingly, Kant’s “realistic ” (Rawls,1999,p.11–6) envisioned a federation of republican states. Habermas analyzed Kant’s ideology by pointing out that “this weak conception of a voluntary association of states that are willing

11 to coexist peacefully while nevertheless retaining their seemed to recommend itself as a transitional stage en route to a world ” (2010, p.268).

Eighteen century debates featured the presence of radical , arguments advocated by Anarcharsis Cloots (Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grace, baron de Cloots, 1755–

1794), who envisioned the abolition of sovereign states and the establishment of a universal republic through social contract theory, which questioned the of state authority and is a term coined from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book “Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique” (1762), despite already Greek and Stoic philosophies had addressed the concept. H.G Wells also extensively wrote, throughout his life, on the subject of totalitarian internationalism and world government. His cosmopolitanism can be summarized in his ideal of the unification of mankind in a single, sovereign world government. In “The

Outline of History” (1920), Wells argued the intrinsic human nature of merging into forever evolving social units while also asserting the necessity of , prosperity and cosmopolitan unity. For instance, Wells largely criticized the League of Nations and its allocation of stati, namely arguing against the equality, in the general assembly, between countries like Belgium and Abyssinia or Hedjaz and the Netherlands, while also addressing the initial absence of Germany, and . Furthermore, Wells expressed the necessity for an “Association of Nations” that would be able to embody the collective will of countries yet unable to self-govern themselves. Nonetheless, the author also positively asserted the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission and the importance to extend these to colonial territories. At the core of his ideas, importantly, Wells argued for the absolute importance of elevating all peoples to the same education standard and administrative capacity. What he did not believe in, however, was union on the basis of

12 delegated power. Essentially, delegations inherently protect the country’s self-interests, which means the only option is having unity by deliberately sacrificing sovereignty. Wells argued: “All I should do, as a World Dictator, would be to deprive these of the power and means of making war, relieve them of supreme financial and economic control, and take the general direction and protection of education and scientific research throughout the world out of their hands” (Partington, 2017). H. G. Wells truly believed in a

World-State organization of peace, prosperity and development.

Therefore, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, world government proposals were incited by both positive and negative developments: while socio-economic integration and technological progress favored globalization, world wars and instability also fueled cosmopolitan proposals. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had the inherent effect of determining the absolute need of installing an international control of atomic energy, which was to be achieved through the creation of a world government. The securitization of peace,

Einstein wrote, had to be asserted accordingly: “A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision” (Lu, 2012). The need of establishing armaments control led to the creation of various proposals, for instance the

United World (UWF), organization created in 1947, advocated for the reconstruction of the United Nations into a universal federation of states. Therefore, global peace depended on the abdication of individual sovereign state rights to engage in war and the reliance on the judgment of a higher, authoritative international organization, which would have the capacity of adjudicating, enforcing and establishing world law (Clark ,

1962). Catherine Lu refers to ’ The Anatomy of Peace, which condemns and denies the political nature of nation-states and emphasizes the global agenda of fear leading

13 to war, based on the underlying notion that nation-states pose a threat to human freedom, peace and justice. Daniel Deudney, in his work Bounding Power (2007) emphasized the importance of understanding both the threat that would derive from a state of global anarchy and the one arising from having one, powerful, world government.

14

III. Unconventional Debates Over The Evolution of the International

Community

This chapter examines the historical evolution that led to the creation of today’s

International Community, starting by addressing current literature proposing the claim that the manipulation of global events had the goal of establishing a world government. It will analyze the initial attempt of the League of Nations and the path that led to the United

Nations, along with final assessments on the nature of today’s international political arena.

The findings explain the motivations behind the spread of international and its perpetuation. The main goal of this chapter is to provide background on the United Nations, in the aim of explaining the nature of the world it evolved in.

3.1 A Conspiratory Historico-Conceptual Assessment of 19th Century Developments

David Icke, in his work “the Biggest Secret” (1999), describes how, historically, the concept of divide and conquer has proven to be effective, essentially keeping the masses ignorant, fearful and at war among themselves. The paradoxical aspect of the matter is the simplicity with which aims of this kind can be carried out. Logically, the construction and support for crime and violence results in the people demanding governmental intervention, hence surrendering their individual liberty in order to be protected from what they had actually been manipulated to fear in the first place. The Freemason motto “Ordo Ab Chao”

(order out of chaos) summarizes this concept, in essence manufacturing the chaos, hence offering a solution to it (Icke, 1999). Icke, therefore, attempts to unravel what he refers to as the global agenda of centralization, particularly by introducing his arguments with

15 references to 19th century developments. Fundamental is, in this regard, the role of Oxford

University John Ruskin (1819-1900), who’s ideology was based on the belief in the centralization of power, thereby entirely state owned means of production and distribution, ideas consequently discussed by and Friedrich Engels and used, according to

Icke, as the official philosophy of the British Labour party. Professor Ruskin’s ideas, Icke continues, had enormous influence on Cecil Rhodes, British magnate and politician, prime minister of the Cape Colony, member of the Committee of 300, and owner of the South

Africa Company. Icke, therefore, attempts to outline the control of both British and

American governments by the Round Table, an Elite secret society formed in the 19th century and headed, according to the author, by Cecil Rhodes himself. In this regard, the obtainment of the mineral rights in Southern where supposedly viciously achieved through the fabrication of the Boer War in South Africa, engineered and led, according to

Icke, by Lord Salisbury, British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The creation of the

Union of South Africa, therefore, was a Round Table creation and was headed by Alfred

Milner, Rhodes’ successor. Icke, nonetheless, emphasizes how Rhodes, himself, was a front man of three, major families: the Rothschilds, the Astors and the Cecils. Upon Rhodes’ death, in 1902, the so called Rhodes Scholarships were established, which featured a selection of students being granted the opportunity of attending Oxford University, where according to Icke they were subject to a world government agenda indoctrination process.

Remarkably, Rhodes scholars entered and attained the highest positions in their relative countries, for instance Bill Clinton, President and his personal advisor

George Stephanopolous (Icke, 1999).

16

Applying this concept to the historical events that occurred in the 20th Century, one could be led to believe that the World Wars were a medium through which the global status quo would be destroyed, therefore allowing for the opportunity of reconstructing the post war world. The manufacturing of the war, Icke argues, would have supposedly taken place through the 1916’s sinking of the Lusitania, an American passenger ship, used to enter

WW1 and the 1941’s Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, used to enter WW2. In the 1950s, the Congressional investigation on the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, led by the Reece Committee, found the relationship linking the above mentioned organizations to having manipulated World War

1. Norman Dodd, the Reece committee’s Director of Research, Icke continues, “reported that at one meeting of the Carnegie trustees, the question was asked: “Is there any means known to man more effective than war if you want to alter the lives of an entire people?’

(Icke, 1999, p.72)

3.2 The Versailles Peace Conference’s Underlying Aims

The 1919 Versailles Peace Conference’s principal figures were Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd

George and Georges Clemenceau (Britannica, 2019). David Icke, in his book “the Biggest

Secret” (1999), accurately addresses the role of several individuals who, according to the

British researcher, exerted enormous behind the curtain influence. Respectively, Colonel

Mandel House and Bernard Baruch advised Wilson, Alfred Milner and Sir Phillip Sassoon advised Lloyd George and Georges Mandel advised Clemenceau. Hosting the conference was Baron Edmund de Rothschild. The American Commission for peace negotiation was comprised of the Dulles brothers, Paul Warburg, Thomas Lamont, Robert Lansing and

17

Walter Lippman. The German Commission for peace negotiation contained Max Warburg, ironically. Ultimately, the result of the conference was the creation of the World Court and, obviously, the League of Nations, thereby representing the first attempt towards global governance. Particularly, according to Icke, the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919 was strategically developed to have a double sword effect. While reparations on Germany were deployed with the intent of annihilating the Weimer Republic, at the Hotel Majestic in Paris

Round Table connected organizations were being brought to life. The first was the Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House at 10 St James’s Square in London, headed by the Monarch and further renamed Royal Institute in 1926. The second was it’s

American branch, the Council on Foreign Relations, on Harold Pratt House at 58 East 68th

Street in New York. Both Icke and Griffin emphasize the enormous pressure exerted by the

CFR and undoubtedly, anyone willing to research the Institution’s membership list will perceive and admit the organization’s reach, featuring the presence of high status individuals from practically every sphere. The Royal Institute featured individuals as Major

John (Jacob) Astor, director of the Hambros Bank and Times newspaper from the year

1922, Sir Abe Bailey, owner of the Transvaal Mines in South Africa and close partner of

Alfred Milner and John W. Wheeler-Bennett, General Eisenhower’s ‘advisor in London.

Icke also emphasizes the Institute’s interconnectivity with Oxford, Cambridge and the

London School of Economics. In this regard, he reminds the reader that ’s

“Mein Kampf” was “ghostwritten by Major General Karl Haushofer, who acknowledged that a major source of the ideas it expressed was Halford J. MacKinder, a director of the

London School of Economics” (Icke, 1999).

18

The functionality of David Icke’s research, despite we must critically assess its subtle conspiratory tone, proposes unconventional views on the developments towards the implementation of world governance, specifically by addressing the secretive nature of international relations, well diverse from what the general public is commonly led to believe. His analysis of the supposed creation of this world structure based on the establishment of institutions like the CFR and The Royal Institute emphasizes the choral alignment of global powers who, according to the British researcher and in direct opposition to generally acknowledged views, are secretly exerting a world government agenda, whose initial prototype was to be the League of Nations.

3.3 The League of Nations as a Primitive Prototype of World Government

The League of Nations had the scope of fulfilling the emotional need of global political unity, convincing those in favor on the basis of the Hegelian concept of spirit realization and those opposed to it on the grounds of the need for collective action to address universal matters, hence emphasizing the victory of the rationale of collective approach. Paul Rivlin, in his work “The League of Nations as Confederacy” (1976) emphasizes how at the core of the creation of the League of Nations lied the ironical principal aim of limiting the use of force, perhaps abolishing it in its entirety, while success conditions implied the creation of the institution’s very own force, which was in fact seen as the resolutive entity to enforce and maintain . Referring to articles of the Charter of the League of

Nations, “Article 2 Section 4 declares that the state shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its , naval and air forces and armaments, and

Article 16, despite later ’declarations’, left the League in an unambiguous position. ...all

Members of the League ... hereby undertake immediately to subject (a state resorting to

19 war) to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the Covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the national of the

Covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State whether a Member of the

League or not”. (Rivlin, 1976).

Morgenthau also expressed his views on the matter, specifically referring to article 16, which essentially demands nations to subdue themselves to the Organization, disregarding and forsaking both their national egoisms and policies (Rivlin, 1976). A non co-operational collective security meant the latter being entirely in the hands of the League itself, hence jeopardizing national sovereignty of individual states. As Gerhart Niemeyer ’stated: irrespective of what Wilson or others chose to say, the League would necessarily be regarded as intending to place the use of national arms and under control.’

(Niemeyer, 1952, p.540). Leonard Woolf, Brailsford and Hobson had already referred to the League as being an International Government, in turn a World State. Researcher Barros often touched upon the disguised reality behind the intentions of the League; Rivlin refers to this when he was addressing the Greek-Bulgarian Incident, namely the Greek invasion of the Bulgarian city of Petrich : “Barros in his exhaustive research on the incident decided that the pressures of the Great Powers were channeled through the League of Nations and disguised as the intended actions of the world organization.” (Rivlin, p.1136, 1976).

Colonel Mandel House, who had written Wilson’s , wrote the first draft of the Covenant and later referred to it in his fictitious book “Philip Dru: Administrator”, where he openly proposed for the creation of an organization that would further enforce the

20

Agenda towards a world government. His fictitious ambition was accomplished through the practical creation of the United Nations, in 1945.

3.4 An Attempt at Understanding the True Nature of the League of Nations

Despite the idyllic perceived picture of the League was the ultimate representation of collective security, which would have automatically brought to a confederal world government, the truth was that functionalism was reigning, in essence jeopardizing the behavior of an institution rather focused on realizing the individual wishes of countries as

France and Britain, carefully disguising the latter. As researcher Zimmer pointed out, the

League was truly never intended to be revolutionary, rather it very well understood and accepted the nature of International Relations, therefore solely seeking to provide a ground for the management of intra-national transactions (Thomas, 1968).

Carroll Quigley, in his book “Tragedy and Hope” (1966), outlines the secretive nature of international relations, in complete discordance with public claims. The British, fundamental actors when it comes to the establishment and functioning of the League, had rather contrasting views towards foreign policy. At the core of the British left was the aim of revisioning the Versailles Treaty, along the aim of safeguarding collective security and imposing general disarmament, while the Right was perhaps more interested at pursuing national interest and establishing a policy of relative isolationism with no European commitments. Despite in the years 1919-1939 the Right had absolute majority power for a total of eighteen years (the Left help partial majority in the years 1924, 1929-1931), and the fact that elections were essentially determined based on domestic rather than foreign policy,

21 the population sympathized the Leftist view of foreign policy which in turn led the governments of the Right to pursue what by all means was a double policy. In fact, while on one side they publically supported the Leftist foreign policy, they secretly acted on behalf of the Rightist foreign policy. They emphasized the support for the League, the need of arranging general disarmament and the flourishing of international politics. Yet, as

Professor Quigley points out: “the real policy was quite different.” Quigley, continues:

“Lord Cuzon, who was foreign secretary for four years (1919-1923) called the League of

Nations “a good joke”.” Precisely, Britain effectively rejected every attempt of both

Czechoslovakia and France to strengthen collective security and secretly signed an agreement with France to block disarmament (July 1928) and one with Germany, releasing the latter from naval disarmament (1935), all along publically endorsing the Naval

Disarmament Conference in Geneva (1927) and the World Disarmament Conference

(1926-1935). Lord Halifax’s biographer (L.H., Foreign British Secretary in the years 1938-

1940) gave a name to the British double policy by referring to it as “dyarchy”, as the difference between the country’s public outlook and the true, private policy grew immensely. Professor Quigley, in his book “Tragedy and Hope” (1966) therefore outlines the behind the curtain nature of International Politics and its intricacies, exposing the functioning of International Organizations and at time alluding to the notion that having an institutionalized, governmentalized and accepted entity is the perfect façade to further pursue underlying interests.

In France, while the Left grew more anti-German, the Right understood the political threat

Germany represented while equally understanding the economic threat of Bolshevism.

Therefore, after 1935 France started conducting a double policy as well, publically acting

22 as if the country had been following a policy of its own rather than adhering to the British one rather than focusing on collective security in contrast to pursuing a policy of appeasement. In fact, France diplomatically emphasized the importance of their international obligation of collective security, which Quigley refers to as: “this was largely for public consumption” (Quigley, 1966, p.566) as in reality from the autumn of 1935 to the spring of 1940 “France had no policy in Europe independent of Britain’s policy of appeasement” (Quigley, 1966,p.456).

3.5 The Atomic Threat, United Nations & the Role of the Council on Foreign

Relations

The era was a perfect example of the implementation of pressure from above and pressure from below, respectively featuring the West being terrorized of the Soviet Union and, inversely, the Soviet Union being terrorized of the West, while the same individuals were secretly administering both sides. The Manhattan Project, led by Robert Oppenhiemer and supported by Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study was essential to develop this strategy, as previously described in paragraph 2.2. In fact, in 1946, “said it was necessary to use the fear of nuclear weapons to force all nations to give up their sovereignty and submit to the of the United Nations” (Icke, 1999, p.74).

According to Icke, therefore, the mental, spiritual and emotional, but above all, physical destruction of Europe had the double sword effect of indebting countries for the profit of private banks and requesting global peace, achieved through the United Nations, strategically disguised as a Trojan Horse.

23

James Perloff, Council on Foreign Relations committee and writer of the Charter of the

United Nations, in his 1988 book “The Shadows Of Power: The Council On Foreign

Relations And The American Decline” (1988) reveals: “In January 1943, the Secretary of

State, Cordell Hull, formed a steering committee composed of himself, Leo Pasvolsky,

Isaiah Bowman, Sumner Welles, Norman Davis, and Morton Taylor. All these men - with the exception of Hull - were in the CFR. Later known as the Informal Agenda Group, they drafted the original proposal of the United Nations. It was Bowman - a founder of the CFR and a founder of Colonel House’s old ‘Inquiry’ (another Elite grouping) -who first put forward the concept. They called in three attorneys, all CFR men, who ruled that it was constitutional. Then they discussed it with Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 15th 1944. The

President approved the plan and announced it to the public the next day.” (Perloff, 1988, p.71)

H. L. Mencken, in his work “The American Language” (1919) describes the origin of the term ‘United Nations’, which he claims was decided at a White House Meeting in the

December of 1941 between President Roosevelt and Winston. Upon the official formation of the Institution, which took place June 26th 1945, at San Francisco, the United States delegation contained 74 Council on Foreign Relations members. Importantly, Icke cites

John J. McCloy, former CFR, Ford Foundation and Chase Manhattan Bank chairman, John

Foster Dulles, founder of the CFR, and United States Secretary of State, and Nelson

Rockefeller, Governor of New York and Vice President to Gerald Ford. Nonetheless, Icke reminds the reader that despite the Council on Foreign Relations had created the United

Nations, yet it remained a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.

24

The land for the United Nations building in New York was, as a matter of fact, given by the

Rockefellers.

25

IV. The United Nations

This chapter examines the United Nations holistically, beginning by performing a critical analysis of the Charter of the United Nations, followed by an assessment of the potential threat deriving from the United Nations’ supremacy and ending by addressing the world governmental nature of the Institution.

4.1 A Critical Analysis of the Charter of the United Nations

James Burnham in his work “What is the Purpose of the United Nations” (1947) discusses the stated purposes of the United Nations by addressing contradictions between the institution’s chapter and deed. “With respect to many key concepts the meaning if the

Charter is internally inconsistent. It is not clear whether it is intended to express the will of

“the peoples of the United Nations”, or of the governments of the United Nations taken collectively, or of the governments taken separately” (Burnham, 1947, p.3). When analyzing the United Nations holistically one can discern the discrepancies between the guiding principles and the real application of these. “In one section the Charter affirms the principle of the equality of nations at the same time that the organizational structure as a whole denies this principle through the position granted the five chief powers” (Burnham,

1947, p.4). Burhnam here addresses the evident conflict in place between the veto system and the concept of what is erroneously called collective action. Importantly, as Burnham writes, the paradox lies within the beauty of the United Nations’ stated purposes and the fact that these very purposes “are in direct conflict with the actions of some among the principal signatories of the Charter”. “It is hard to understand why should we accept an affirmation of “faith in fundamental ” and “in the dignity and worth of the

26 human person” made by a nation that herds fifteen million of its own citizens into slave labor camps.” Furthermore, the author continues: “why we should believe that an organization respects “the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples” when one of its principal founders is just completing the total obliteration of three small countries, and is in the process of destroying the last shreds of liberty remaining within a half dozen larger but equally unfortunate states” (Burnham, 1947).

The broadness of specific charter provisions of the United Nations, in this regard, were already present in the previous attempt to cosmopolitan , namely in the

League of Nations. Carroll Quigley, in his masterpiece “Tragedy and Hope” (1966), mentions Cecil Hurst, the British lawyer mandated to word the fundamental articles of the

Charter, specifically articles 1 to 16, which were indeed outlined in a sparking cocktail of verbiage, impressive wording and semantically engineered loopholes. Writer G. Edward

Griffin, in his work “The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations”(1964) argues that the vagueness and broadness of the United Nations Charter was meant to allow room for interpretation, resulting with the Institution being able to authorize every of it behaviors. The United Nations World Court clarified this Under international law, the organization [UN] must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties” (Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the

United Nations, International Court of Justice opinion. As quoted by Abraham Feller, general legal counsel for the United Nations, in his book “United Nations and World

Community” (Feller, 1952), p. 41). Griffin cites former Secretary of State John Foster

Dulles, who said: “If a situation is arrived at where you can't accomplish a reasonable fair

27 result through technical Charter amendments, it may very well be possible to agree on procedures which would get a very large part of the desired result. Now it would be much neater and cleaner to do it by Charter amendment, but if that process is frustrated by the fact that the five permanent members have the veto power on amendments, then other ways could be found. [Italics added.]” (Griffin, p.128). Essentially, Mr. Dulles emphasized the

Charter’s vagueness and the flexibility to maneuver it to pursue a given aim (Griffin, 1964).

He paradoxically gave credit to the men who drafter the Charter at San Francisco for their outstanding work.

4.2 The Potential Threat of United Nations’ Supremacy

Griffin’s words asserts the reality of intra-state relations in the International Arena when he states: “As for peace in the world, until all nations follow the concept of limited

Government, it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be attained. Unlimited, power- grasping governments will always resort to force if they think they can get away with it”

(Griffin, 1964, p.122). At the core of the topic rests the issue of limiting the United Nations from obtaining complete power and control. Obtaining full control over our nuclear weapons and national, sovereign armies, is the risk that Griffin is referring to, mentioning the case of Katanga to support his view and addressing the practice seizures performed by

United Nations troops on nine California cities on July 31, 1951, on Lampas, Texas on

April 3, 1952 and on Watertown, New York on August 20, 1952. The Korean invasion was decisive at leading the path to the establishment, by the United States, of a "unified command" and a "uniting for peace" resolution, which when brought to the General

28

Assembly, passed with ease. As Griffin puts is: “The resolution established the following profound changes in UN procedure:

1. If, due to a veto, the Security Council fails to act in a case of military crisis, the General

Assembly can hold an emergency session to take up the matter.

2. In such a case, the General Assembly can call on member nations to make available their armed forces for whatever military action the General Assembly may recommend” (Griffin, p.129).

The concept of Supremacy is fundamental, to the point that it was extended to treaties, orders and international compacts, which in fact don’t even have to be seen by the Senate. An example of this is: “In U.S. v. Pink, the Supreme Court ruled: "A treaty is the 'law of the land.' . . . Such international compacts and agreements as the Litvinov assignment have similar dignity. . . . State law must yield when it is inconsistent with, or impairs the policy or provisions of a treaty, or of an international compact or agreement."

(Griffin, 1964, p.122). This means that constitutional safeguards are no longer present, allowing the President to enforce agreements without constraints. Truman proved this point when he authorized the war in Korea. United States History has proven that in order to declare a war one must pass through the Congress. Truman, contrarily, adopted the authority given to him by the United Nations Charter, while publically stating how we was doing nothing else but upholding United States commitments to the United Nations and

NATO.

Undoubtedly, the reach of the United Nations has vastly increased and Griffin cites, once again, Mr. Dulles: “10,000 executive agreements have been made pursuant to NATO alone.

29

. . . The United Nations is preparing a series of treaties which operate as domestic legislation, affecting our citizens in matters on which our Constitution does not permit even the Federal Government to legislate” (Griffin, 1964, p.122). Senator William Jenner

(February 23, 1954 speech) had shared his preoccupation towards the matter, indeed emphasizing the importance of supporting the Brickner amendment, which would have prohibited the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions to be annulled by any treaty. While Republicans publically promised to be in support of the Brickner amendment, as soon as President Eisenhower was elected, he greatly disregarded it, perhaps opposing it.

“As Marquis Childs reported in the Washington Post: Once the President decided to come down firmly and unequivocally against the Bricker amendment, the outcome of the contest was never in doubt” (Griffin, 1964, p.122). Paradoxically, Dulles, as Griffin reports:

“Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, the man who had so brilliantly explained how treaties can cut across our Bill of Rights, was now speaking against the Bricker amendment on behalf of the Eisenhower Administration. He spoke before the Senate

Committee on April 6, 1953, and assured those present that the new Administration had no intention of doing any of the dangerous things be had previously said could be done through treaty law” (Griffin, 1964, 128). The reach of the United Nations is enormous and on daily instances the Organization’s behavior influences and determines the setting of quotas, prices, labor standards, wages and monetary policies. Every attainable sphere of human economic activity is being affected to eventually fall within United Nations ultimate control. The way through which the United Nations is performing this outstanding work, independently of whether we approve it or not, is by tying international actors into thousands of international treaties, agreements and executive orders. Griffin, to give an

30 example of this, illustrates the view of the Senate’s subcommittee towards the International

Materials Conference, which in 1951 imposed entitlements of consumption of strategic materials as zinc and copper, hereby maneuvering import and export quotas with the purpose of creating “a shortage of critical materials in this country for the benefit of foreign powers” (Griffin, 1964, p.128.) Interestingly, when the Senate assessed the report, it withdrew its authorization towards the support of the International Materials Conference although President Eisenhower’s executive department disregarded it, in the name of the authority of the IMC, which derived from an executive agreement, hence a higher source than Congress itself.

4.3 World Government via the United Nations

Independently of one’s personal assumptions, perceptions and beliefs, the instrumental role of the United Nations is undeniable. Theoretical conceptions of world government, interlinked with historical developments, were addressed in this work, in the aim of understanding whether the United Nations is acting in disguise of a world government or whether it is aiming at becoming one. Amin R. Yacoub, in his work “A World

Government: A Critical Look Into The Present, To Foresee The Future” (2018), attempts to understand whether the United Nations could be a disguised version of world government.

He starts by assessing those who firmly believe in this assumption, namely Lord

Christopher Monckton, British public speaker and hereditary peer of the House of Lords and American journalist Alex Newman. Monckton, at the United Nations Climate Change

Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, argued that “[t]hey are about to impose a communist world government on the world” (Yacoub, p.1451). Both, believe in the desire of the

31

United Nations to establish a world government, criticizing Agenda 2030 and its aim of reducing global inequality by elevating the sustainability of states and engaging developing countries in economic, international, decision-making. According to Yacoub, indeed, this is

“a blatant demand for world government” (Yacoub, p.1452). James Burnham in his work

“What is the Purpose of the United Nations” addresses the uselessness in using the Charter as a reference to define and understand the true purposes of the United Nations.

Accordingly, he outlines his thoughts behind the creation of this institution: “The purpose of the United Nations was to run the world, primarily through a bloc composed of the

United States itself, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain, with France and admitted as junior partners, and the smaller nations allowed a certain amount of self-expression as minor stockholders” (Burnham, p.5) Deliberately addressing the realities and disregarding the idealistic yet vague wording of the Chapter, Burnham gives an all-rounded view of the reasons that led to the creation and institutionalization of this worldwide mega structure.

“The structure of the United Nations, as well as that of the related International Bank and the Monetary Fund, reflects fairly accurately this conception. A workable world economic and political order, peace, security, and prosperity were to be achieved by a hierarchical arrangement of nations with the victorious allied great powers at the top” (Burnham, p.5)

As Amin R. Yacoub, emphasizes, nonetheless, it is crucial to pinpoint the difference between the notion of world government and global governance, assessing the definitional confusion created by the misleading language of the Agenda, which is based on universality and egalitarianism. Understanding the difference between the two is essential, as the notion of global governance solely regards to the establishment of a system of organizations for multilateral global cooperation, in contrast to the concept of world

32 government as ultimate, authoritative political institution. Nonetheless, as previously described, we could argue that the United Nations does, in fact, possess all the requirements that could categorize is as a world government: a judicial organ, a representative arena for debate and an executive organ. The first is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the second is the General Assembly, and the third is the Security Council. According to

Yacoub, the absence of a centralized government being able of having coercive authority over member-states lies at the core of the non qualification of the United Nations as a world government (Yacoub,2018). Specifically, he argues that the United Nations is an international organizations exerting the functions of global governance but is not a world government. The author supports his argument by referring to ’s analysis of the unfeasibility of the implementation and enforcement of international law unless there is a world government with the overly discussed means of ultimate governance. Yacoub finishes in a provocative way, by addressing United Nations Congress Resolution 64, which explicitly exposed the long term strategy of turning the United Nations into a world government in the form of a world federation: “It is the sense of the congress that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation, open to all nations, with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law” (Yacoub, p.1453).

33

V. The Criticism Towards the Concept of World Government

The concept of world government can be attacked from a variety of perspectives and surely, a critical analysis is essential in order to fully comprehend the nature of this notion.

This chapter, therefore, analyzes these criticisms by firstly addressing the three main objections moved against the concept of world government, namely through the

International Relations Realist, Liberal and Cosmopolitan theories, and secondly addresses the variety of flaws currently present in the .

5.1 The Three Main Objections to World Government

The three, main, criticisms moved towards world government by critics, as described by

Catherine Lu, in her work “World Government”, are the feasibility, desirability and necessity of the establishment of a single, world political authority. The realist paradigm revolves around the realization that world government is infeasible, fostering utopian thinking and being ultimately an impractical goal. Stemming from the assessment of human nature and the inherent egoism that drives humanity, realist theorists are skeptical that a world government will ever be achieved due to the anarchical nature of international relations and the intra-national clash of sovereignty and authority. As Catherine Lu puts it, citing researcher Krasner: “World government is thus infeasible as a solution to global problems because of the unsurpassable difficulties of establishing “authoritative hierarchies” at the global or international level” (Lu, 2012). Consequentialist arguments emphasized that, eventually, the process itself towards world government carries with it the risk of producing more harm than positive outcomes. In fact: “the necessary evils

34 committed on the road to establishing a world government would outweigh whatever benefits might result from its achievement” (Rousseau, 1756/1917).

Ohio State University professor Alexander Wendt is the advocate of one of the two feasibility theories that will be discussed. His ideas revolve around the conception that a world government, truly, is inevitable. Referring to Georg Wilhelf Friedrich Hegel, Wendt argues that we will reach a world government through a five-stage recognition and formation process (Wendt, 2003). Hegel, in fact, argued that the international political arena evolves through the individual struggles for recognition between nation-states, until eventually, upon the recognition’s extension and the reach of a common, global, identity this system will form a cohesive whole. Specifically, Wendt argues that what drives the progression through each stage is instability, perhaps until the realization of a concrete, unified world state with legitimate coercive strength. Therefore, Wendt highlights the progression from the Hobbesian concept of “all against all”, where countries do not mutually recognize each other, to a Lockean system, contrarily based upon sets of mutually accepted rules, therefore evolving into binding global laws. The second feasibility theory is put forth by Robert Goodin, University of Essex professor who suggests that, in reality, we already find ourselves within the of world government. The author, indeed, draws the comparison between the momentaneous global system and pre-constitution United States, where states were united under the Articles of . Goodin argues that today, just as much as then, integration is pursued by the singular subscription of each state to collective institutions, whose primary and genuine aim is helping each country achieve economic prosperity and security.

35

The secondary objection revolves around the undesirability of world government: in the eventuality in which world government proposals were feasible, this would not implicitly mean they are desired by humankind. The main argument behind this undesirability is the potential oppressiveness of what would be the world political authority. ’s tyranny argument, in fact, emphasized the risk that a world government could become a global inescapable tyranny, therefore burdening human autonomy by having the means of subjugating humanity to its interest. (Lu, 2012). In concurrence with the tyranny argument is the so-called homogeneity argument, which refers to the risk that a world government could possess so much pervasive strength that it could enable a homogenizing effect, in turn annihilating individual the intrinsic value of individual cultures. Such world government would dismantle the social pluralism that is at the core of humankind (Mayer,

2001).

The third objection argues the non-necessity of world government. Cosmopolitan liberals themselves agree on the fact that moral cosmopolitanism does not automatically encompass political cosmopolitanism in the shape of a world government. Nonetheless, this liberal repudiation of world government does not inherently underline that liberal theorists support the traditional system of sovereign nation states and the current nature of the international order “with its extreme injustices, crippling poverty, and inequalities” (Rawls, 1999, p.441). Therefore, the majority of theorists who adopt the liberalist paradigm contemplate the improvement of the traditional prerogatives of the sovereign state system by advocating the need for global organizations able of performing such transformation.

36

5.2 Critically Addressing Flaws in the World Governmental Nature of the United

Nations

Amin R. Yacoub, in his work “A World Government: A Critical Look Into The Present, To

Foresee The Future” (2018), describes the three, principal, limitations of the United

Nations. The first consists of the possibility of member states of invoking sovreignty, according to Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, which the author refers to as having become a legal shield used to justify the non-implementation of United Nations measures. As was addressed through the analysis of past literature on the topic of sovereignty, its importance is enormous and it is clear that the usefulness and efficacy of international rule of law is jeopardized anytime individual nation-states rely on their sovereignty to disregard United Nations measures. As a matter of fact, International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments fundamentally rely on the will of countries to determine the binding nature of over-mentioned interventions. The only exception, as previously discussed (paragraph 4.1), is Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

The second limitation concerns the veto system and outlines the underlying structural flaw of an institution that, under Article 2(1) of its Charter stipulates the equality of states, in direct contradiction to the practical administration of the Organization. Yacoub mentions relatively recent examples of veto dillemmas, namely Chinas’s and Russia’s veto against the establishment of a United Nations multilateral action in , in 2012, or United

States’ veto against ’s resolution to rebuff the recognition of as capitalof

Israel (Yacoub, 2018). The author, therefore, suggests that the discrepancy between the equal sovreignty of member states and the veto powers of United States, France, United

Kingdom, China and Russia inherently means that decisions are in fact not made by the

37

United Nations but rather by Security Council members. According to Yacoub: “This structural flaw allows the most powerful states to manipulate global governance in deciding exclusively on the most sensitive UN Security Council measures—measures which also concern the rest of the world” (Yacoub, 2018, p.1449).Yacoub indentifies, as the third challenge to the United Nations, transnational crime and terrorism in terms of the absence of recognition to NSA’s (non-state actors). This is in direct relation to the reluctance of individual nation-states to adhere to Articles 43 and 45, hence against the creation of an international army, which according to the author is determined by financial reasons:

“Thus, economics seem to play an extensive role in the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the UN” (Yacoub, p.1450) Clearly, this emphasizes the need of a world government able of establishing and providing transnational policing.

38

VI. Solutions

Whether the United Nations is or is not a world government, or whether it has ever aimed at becoming one or all along envisioned this aim, as world citizens we must understand the implications of international politics evolution and our accountability for ensuring or, perhaps, requesting change whether we do not believe something to be fair, for as banal that may appear to be. This chapter assesses potential solutions to ensure that the United

Nations stays and remains, or perhaps becomes for those who oppose it and question its efficacy, an institution able of guaranteeing global peace and security.

6.1 United Nations Reform

39

VII. Conclusion

40

References

Adelman, H. (2008). Blaming the United Nations. Journal of International Political

Theory, 4(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1755088208000062

Anderson, K., (2009). Living with the UN: American Responsibilities

and International Order. Hoover Institution Press.

Berridge, G. R. & James, A., (2003). A Dictionary of Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd

edition. Retrieved

from http://www.kamudiplomasisi.org/pdf/kitaplar/___adictionaryofdiplomacy.pdf

Bottom, W.P., (n.d). Essence of Conflict Cognitive Illusions, War Guilt, and the Origins of

Appeasement. John M. Olin School of Business Washington University in St.

Louis. Retreieved

from http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/workingpapers/pdf/2004-07-001.pdf

Burnham, J. (1947). What is the Purpose of the United Nations? The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 252(1), 1–

10. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271624725200102

Clark, G. & Sohn L., (1960), World Peace Through World Law,

2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Copland, I., (1982). The British Raj and the Indian Princes: Paramountcy in Western India,

1857–1930. Bombay: Orient Longman.

41

Eichelberger, C.M., (1949). World Government via the United Nations. The ANNALS of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 264(1),20-25.

Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-

com.library.esc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/000271624926400105

Einstein, A., 1956, “Towards a World Government (1946),” in Out Of My Later Years: the

Scientist, Philosopher and Man Portrayed Through His Own Words, New York:

Wings Books. Press

Feller, A. H., (1952). United Nations and World Community. Little, Brown. Press

Griffin, G. E. (1964). The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations. Boston

Mass.: Western Islands Publishers.

Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/pdfy-v8vZP_IcjiWOZ9Qm/page/n121

Habermas, J., (1998),

“Kant's Idea of Perpetual Peace: At Two Hundred Years' Historical Remove,” in

The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory,

C. Cronin and P. De Greiff (eds.), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

–––, 2006, The Divided West, C. Cronin (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

42

–––, 2010, “A Political Constitution for the Pluralist World Society?” in The

Cosmopolitanism Reader, G.W. Brown and D. Held (eds.), Cambridge: Press,

267–288.

Hobbes, T., (1986), Leviathan, Markham: Penguin

Icke, D., (1999). The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World. David Icke

Books; 2nd Updated ed. Edition. Retreieved

from

http://www.ignaciodarnaude.com/textos_diversos/Icke,David,The%20Biggest%20S

ecret.pdf

Jennings, C., (2001). Across the Red River: Rwanda, Burundi and the Heart of Darkness.

Phoenix. Press

Kant, I., (1991).

Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose and Perpetual Peace: A

Philosophical Sketch, in Political Writings, H. B. Nisbet (trans.), Hans Reiss (ed.),

2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 41–53 and 93–130

Kaplan, L., (1997) Presidential Studies Quarterly; Washington Vol. 27, Fasc. 1, pp. 160-

167

Kizito, A. (2015.). The post- conflicts in Uganda: A manifestation of the

classical imperialistic divide and rule policy of the British colonial administration

43

in Uganda. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/19539212/The_post-

_independence_conflicts_in_Uganda_A_manifestation_of_the_classical_imperialist

ic_divide_and_rule_policy_of_the_British_colonial_administration_in_Uganda

Krasner, S,.

(1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University

Press. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s9d5

Lu, C. (2012, July 2). World Government. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

Mayer, R. (2001). Michael Walzer, Industrial , and Complex Equality. Political

Theory, 29(2), 237-261. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3072511?seq=1

Mcclintock, R. M. (1949). The United Nations or World Government. The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 264(1), 26–30. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1177/000271624926400106

Mencken, H. L. (1921). The American language: an inquiry into the development of

English in the United States. West Valley City, UT: Waking Lion Press/The

Editorium, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/43376/43376-

h/43376-h.htm

Niemeyer, G. (1952). The Balance-Sheet of the League Experiment. International

44

Organization, 6(4), pp.537-558.

Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2704792?seq=1

Partington, J. S., (2017). Building Cosmopolis: The Political Thought of H.G.

Wells. Routledge. Retrieved from

https://books.google.cz/books?id=wYVBDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru

#v=onepage&q&f=false

Perloff, J., (1988). The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and The

American Decline. Western Islands; First Edition ed. Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/ShadowOfPowerTheCouncilOnForeignRelationsAndThe

AmericanDecline/page/n75

Posner, E. A., Spier, E. A. & Vermeule, A., (2009). Divide and Conquer. (John M. Olin

Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 467).p.16. Retrieved

from

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=la

w_and_economics

Quigley, C., (1966). Tragedy and Hope: A history of the World in Our Time. The

Macmillan Company, New York. Retrieved

from http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

45

Rawls, J., (1993). The Law of Peoples. The University of Press. Retrieved

from

https://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?do=download&did=151724&kod=JP

M647

Rivlin, P., (1976). The League of Nations as Confederacy. International Relations, 5(4).

Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub- com.library.esc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/004711787600500405

Rousseau, J., (1756 /

1917), A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe and The State of War,

C.E. Vaughan (trans.), London: Constable and Co.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019). .

Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Versailles-1919

Thomas, M., (1968). U THANT: A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY: AN ENQUIRY INTO

THE BACKGROUND AND THE MAJOR POLITICAL ACTIONS OF THE

THIRD SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS.” ProQuest

Dissertations Publishing, 1968. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/302298947/?pq-origsite=primo

Totten, S., (2005). The United Nations and .

Retrieved from

46

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240357888_The_United_Nations_and_ge

nocide

Waltz, K.N., (1979), Theory of International Politics, Toronto: McGraw-

Hill Publishing Company

Wendt, A., (2003),

Why a World State is Inevitable, European Journal of International Relations 9,

4, 491–542.

Yacoub, A. Y., (2018) A World Government: A Critical Look into the Present, to Foresee

the Future. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (JILP),

Vol. 50, No. 4, 2018.

Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3261974

47

Bibliography

Charles Castel, Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1712). Project for Making Peace

Perpetual in Europe. Schouten

Crim, B. (2011). "Our Most Serious Enemy": The Specter of Judeo-Bolshevism in the

German Military Community, 1914–1923. Central European History, 44(4), 624-

641. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/41411641

Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International

Court of Justice., (1945). Retrieved

from https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf

Deudney, D. H., (2010). Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to

the Global Village. Princeton University Press.

Icke, D., (2001). Children of the Matrix. Retrieved from

https://issuu.com/danielfelipegarciapulgarin666/docs/children_of_the_matrix_-

_david_icke/448

Mommsen, T., (1996). A History of Rome Under the Emperors. New York: Routledge.

Pettit, P., 2010, “A Republican Law of Peoples,” European Journal of Political Theory, 9, 70–94. Pogge, T., 1988, “Moral Progress,” in Problems of International Justice, Steven Luper-Foy (ed.), Boulder: Westview, 283–304. –––, 2000, World Poverty and Human Rights, Oxford: Polity Press.

48

–––, 2009, “Kant's Vision of a Just ,” in The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics, T.E. Hill (ed.), Blackwell, 196–208. Reves, E., (1945). The Anatomy of Peace. Harper & Brothers. Press

Satz, D., 1999, “Equality Of What among Whom? Thoughts on Cosmopolitanism, Statism,

and ,” in Nomos XLI: , Ian Shapiro and Lea Brilmayer

(eds.), New York: New York University Press.

Scheuerman, W.E., 2008, “Global Governance without Global Government? Habermas on

Postnational Democracy,” Political Theory 36, 1, 133–151.

–––, 2011, The Realist Case for Global Reform, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Slaughter, A., 2004, A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tan, K.C., 2000, Toleration, Diversity, and Global Justice, Pennsylvania: The

PennsylvaniaState University Press.

–––, 2004, Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and Patriotism,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tännsjö, T., 2008, Global Democracy: The Case for a World Government, Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

UN. Office of Public Information. (1968). Everyman's United Nations: a complete

handbook of the activities and evolution of the United Nations during its first 20

years, 1945-1965. New York : UN. Retrieved from

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/841880

49

Young, I.M., 2000, “Hybrid Democracy: Iroquois Federalism and the Postcolonial

Project,”in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Duncan Ivison

(ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199–258.

–––, 2002, Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50

Top View