DOCSLIB.ORG

The Approach to World Government Through the Technique of the World Constitutional Convention: American Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Approach to World Government Through the Technique of the World Constitutional Convention: American Experience University of Miami Law Review Volume 3 Number 4 Article 3 6-1-1949 The Approach to World Government Through the Technique of the World Constitutional Convention: American Experience John Davenport Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation John Davenport, The Approach to World Government Through the Technique of the World Constitutional Convention: American Experience, 3 U. Miami L. Rev. 500 (1949) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol3/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE APPROACH TO WORLD GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE TECHNIQUE OF THE WORLD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: AMERICAN EXPERIENCE JOHN H. DAVENPORT* Ever since the beginning of the Atomic Era when embryonic world citizens and decaying nationalists alike were afforded convincing proof that the World would be either One or None, there have been efforts in the United States and elsewhere to make a peaceful and lawful transition to One World rather than a violent transition to No World. While thvse efforts have concerned education and publicity in the broadest sense, there have also been proposals to effect the legal changes which would make world government a reality. The four major lines of action which have been canvassed and are being followed, none necessarily exclusive of the others are: (1) Popular referenda and polls on the question of the desirability of world government; (2) Diplomatic negotiation by the President or his representatives to establish world government by treaty agreement among nations; (3) Amendment of the United States Constitution to provide for the entry of the United States into a world federation; (4) Election of delegates to a world constitutional convention by the people of the United States. It is the writer's view that the first approach, while useful for publicity purposes, is futile from a legal standpoint; that the second is unconstitutional; that the third is unnecessary; and that the fourth line of action is difficult. The difficulties are of a practical nature only and are outweighed by the prestige of this approach in the American tradition. It is believed that much light can be shed on the solution of the practical problems involved in. this fourth method by the rich and varied precedents in American experience since 1775 or even earlier. I NTRODUicTION The idea of world government is not a new one. Ever since Alexander the Great, men have dreamed of establishing government over the world as they knew it. Even the idea of world federal government is not new. The empires established by Alexander and Caesar were loose confederations which did not attempt to disturb local customs and loyalties, though Hitler, latest in the line of the Caesars, went far in destroying or degrading the cultural * Instructor in Government, University of Miami. 500 WORLD GOVERNMENT diversity of the countries he conquered. Stalin, by contrast, realizes that world conquerors must maintain large degrees of national autonomy, and should he forget this important political truth, there is always a Tito or a General Mao Tse-Tung to remind him. What is new in the history of ideas is the notion of democratic federatiou of the world. And in the realm of practical. application of ideas, it is only as old as the United States Constitution, which begins significantly enough. "We, the People, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution." This was, it is true, only a small scale "world" federation-taking in only the New World and not all of that-but it was a model for later federations. It was, as Carl Van Doren has called it, "the Great Rehearsal' for world federation. It established patterns and precedents, not to be religiously mimicked, but to be used as suggestions for the political imagination, analogies, and as vicarious experience. If the Constitution of the United States was not as democratic in substance or form as it might have been, at least it established firmly the idea of popular sovereignty, leaving to later generations by interpretation and practice to approach closer the democratic ideal. By contrast, the blueprint for world federation advanced by Communist theory establishes a hierarchy of mankind in which Communist Party members occupy the highest position and the hated bourgeoisie the lowest. "All men are created equal," according to Jefferson's deathless version of Locke in the Declaration of Independence. This states a present fact and holds before us an ideal classless society toward which to strive. But the classless society of the Communist is one which can be achieved only by exterminating one of the classes and ruling the other for an indefinite period of history. And until the day when the one is exterminated completely and the other has learned to govern itself to the satisfaction of its Party Rulers, the pattern of Communist society is a triplex one of elite (members of the Party) masses or majority (the proletariat) and oppressed minority (the bourgeoisie). Both distinctions are abhorrent to the idea of democratic world federation. A democratic world federation could not stand if it were based on a distinction between members of the elite and the masses -the core of democratic doctrine is that all men have the same nature and that virtue is not the monopoly of any elite, whether it be an elite of power, of intellect, or of wealth. No more could a world federation be democratic if the rights of all men, regardless of their economic status, were not resoected and protected. The idea of democratic world federation is based the' czire on these two fundamental assumptions: that one man is or can be as fit to rule or as good as another, and that minorities must be protected in their human rights no less than majorities. At the same time it must be recognized in all candor that in no national state today are these fundamental assumptions embodied p'-fectly in practice. MIAMI LAW QUARTERLY In other words there is a gap between practice and ideal. Ifthe gap between ideal and reality is-to be bridged in the creation of a world constitution and a democratic world federation, therefore, we must make a third assumption. This is that every extant national state must be left free to determine how the question of ratification of a world constitution shall be decided, according to its own constitution and political forms. In other words, while a world constitution must be based explicitly on the assumption of the demo- cratic equality of all men and must guarantee their human rights, its actual entry into force must be conditioned on the existent political realities, which nowhere approximate the ideals of the constitution.1 This necessity was recog- nized by the Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution when they provided for its ratification by states whose constitutions and local customs were so diverse as those of Massachusetts and South Carolina, or Rhode Island and Maryland. This article will not argue the desirability of a greater degree of world law and order under a world federation. Rather, it will be assumed that this is a generally recognized necessity, and addressed to the more practical and productive question of ways and means of achieving this goal in time to prevent a war which the atomic scientists and military technicians never tire of telling us will be little short of catastrophic for the civilization of the world.2 That this is a reasonable assumption to make might seem self-evident, but public opinion polls from time to time give fresh indications of the deep emotional conviction with which the ordinary citizen holds to the idea of world peace. The same polls, however, show evidence of much confusion and doubt about the means proposed to this end.3 It is therefore fair to assume that a more realistic question than the desirability of world government is that of just how such a government is to be established and what are to be its character- istics beyond those previously mentioned. It is necessary therefore to add one more assumption to those already mentioned, This is the assumption that the characteristics of any world government which would be desirable must represent the will and reason of 1. COMMITrEE TO FRAME A WORLD CONSTITUTION DOCUMENT No. 4, CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE DEFINITION OF WORLD FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 6 (Chicago 1946) (Washington: American Council on Public Affairs, microfilm ed. 1948), p. 22. Hereafter cited as CFWC. 2. See DEXTER MASTERS AND KATHERINE WAY, ONE WORLD OR NONE (New York, 1946). Following the first shock, the last year has seen a new crop of books on the subject, e.g., LAPP, MUST WE HIDE? (Boston, 1949) ; BLACKETr, FEAR, WAR AND THE BOMB (N. Y., 1949); DAVID BRADLEY, No PLACE TO HIDE (Boston, 1948). A review of Lapp appears in U. S. News, April 29, 1949, p. 11. 3. Fortune, March 1944, pp. 94, 98. When the question, "Do you think the United Nations should be strengthened to make it a world government with power to control the armed forces of all nations, including the United States?" was put to voters with opinions on the question in Holland, Sweden and the U. S. A., Americans voted nearly 2 to 1, the Dutch more than 2 to 1, and the Swedes more than 3 to I in favor of the proposal, according to a news release of the AMERICAN INSTITUTF oF PUBLIC OPINION (Gallup), December 24, 1947.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Unitary Executive and Inherent Executive Power
    THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE AND INHERENT EXECUTIVE POWER Louis Fisher* The unitary executive model, if reasonably applied, has much to commend it. The Framers experienced first-hand the administrative problems of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1787 and brought with them to the Philadelphia Convention a determination to structure government in a manner that would better assure ac- countability and efficiency. A single executive in the form of the President was a key step toward improved management. When Con- gress created three executive departments in 1789, it expressed a sim- ilar commitment to accountability by placing authority in a secretary, not in a board. At the same time, the principle of a unitary executive has had to compete with other important values. The purpose of my Article is to examine some of the compromises with the unitary ex- ecutive model, beginning in 1789. I then will move to analyzing the concept of “inherent executive power” and its dangers to constitu- tional government. The model of a unitary executive, if properly un- derstood, is compatible with the Constitution. Inherent executive power is not. I. THE SEARCH FOR A UNITARY EXECUTIVE The Framers had plenty of strong executive models from which to choose. They could look to John Locke, who emphasized the need for independent executive action. He understood that the legislature could not always be in sitting, nor could it provide laws to cover every contingency: “It is not necessary—no, nor so much as convenient— that the legislative should be always in being; but absolutely necessary that the executive power should, because there is not always need of new laws to be made, but always need of execution of the laws that are made.”1 Although Locke divided government into legislative and * Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library, Library of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting One World Or None
    Revisiting One World or None. Sixty years ago, atomic energy was new and the world was still reverberating from the shocks of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the first instinct of the administration and Congress was to protect the “secret” of the atomic bomb. The atomic scientists—what today would be called nuclear physicists— who had worked on the Manhattan project to develop atomic bombs recognized that there was no secret, that any technically advanced nation could, with adequate resources, reproduce what they had done. They further believed that when a single aircraft, eventually a single missile, armed with a single bomb could destroy an entire city, no defense system would ever be adequate. Given this combination, the world seemed headed for a period of unprecedented danger. Many of the scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project felt a special responsibility to encourage a public debate about these new and terrifying products of modern science. They formed an organization, the Federation of Atomic Scientists, dedicated to avoiding the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. Convinced that neither guarding the nuclear “secret” nor any defense could keep the world safe, they encouraged international openness in nuclear physics research and in the expected nuclear power industry as the only way to avoid a disastrous arms race in nuclear weapons. William Higinbotham, the first Chairman of the Association of Los Alamos Scientists and the first Chairman of the Federation of Atomic Scientists, wanted to expand the organization beyond those who had worked on the Manhattan Project, for two reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of the Federalist Papers
    English-Language Arts: Operational Lesson Title: The Meaning of the Federalist Papers Enduring Understanding: Equality is necessary for democracy to thrive. Essential Question: How did the constitutional system described in The Federalist Papers contribute to our national ideas about equality? Lesson Overview This two-part lesson explores the Federalist Papers. First, students engage in a discussion about how they get information about current issues. Next, they read a short history of the Federalist Papers and work in small groups to closely examine the text. Then, student pairs analyze primary source manuscripts concerning the Federalist Papers and relate these documents to what they have already learned. In an optional interactive activity, students now work in small groups to research a Federalist or Anti-Federalist and role-play this person in a classroom debate on the adoption of the Constitution. Extended writing and primary source activities follow that allow students to use their understanding of the history and significance of the Federalist Papers. Lesson Objectives Students will be able to: • Explain arguments for the necessity of a Constitution and a bill of rights. • Define democracy and republic and explain James Madison’s use of these terms. • Describe the political philosophy underpinning the Constitution as specified in the Federalist Papers using primary source examples. • Discuss and defend the ideas of the leading Federalists and Anti-Federalists on several issues in a classroom role-play debate. (Optional Activity) • Develop critical thinking, writing skills, and facility with textual evidence by examining the strengths of either Federalism or Anti-Federalism. (Optional/Extended Activities) • Use both research skills and creative writing techniques to draft a dialogue between two contemporary figures that reflects differences in Federalist and Anti-Federalist philosophies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nehru and the Concept of One World
    Nehru and the Concept of One World -Idealistic Fantasy or Practical Necessity? by Ambassador Shyam Saran Conference on "Nehru's Worldview and His Legacy-Democracy, Inclusion and Empowerment" New Delhi November 17, 2014 Nehru and the Concept of One World - Idealistic Fantasy or Practical Necessity? Shyam Saran We meet today to honour the memory of one of India’s most illustrious sons, Jawaharlal Nehru, and to celebrate his ideas and vision for the future, a vision not only for his beloved India but for the world as a whole. Nehru was a patriot but was also a committed internationalist. As the historian Arnold Toynbee observed: “Nehru was a pioneer in taking nothing less than the world itself as the field for his public activity”. In this context, one of Nehru’s significant contributions was his passionate advocacy of the concept of One World, which has received less attention than it deserves. Nehru drew upon the ideas of Wendell Willkie who wrote the book entitled One World which attracted Nehru. After the Second World War the Federation of American Scientists which included Albert Einstein also drew attention to how the advent of nuclear weapons had made the establishment of One World necessary to ensure human survival This paper seeks to explore how Nehru came to identify with these ideas, giving them an uniquely Indian and even Nehruvian flavour 1 and the manner in which he sought to promote their realization. Nehru’s vision of One World has a strong resonance today in a world that is riven by violence and conflict and witnessing the viral spread of extremist ideologies and fanaticism, even as the rapid advance of technology and the economics of globalization render national or regional interventions both inadequate and ineffective.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Powers: a Primer
    7/6/2015 www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/5/celebrate­liberty­month­separation­of­powers­a­pri/print/ You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here. Separation of powers: A primer By Ryan J. Watson and James M. Burnham - - Sunday, July 5, 2015 Constitutional concepts like free speech or the right to bear arms are ingrained in our popular culture, but just 36% of Americans can name all three branches of the federal government.1 Even fewer understand why and how our Constitution allocates power among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. As we celebrate Liberty Month, it is worthwhile to review how the Constitution's separation of powers supplies a key bulwark protecting individual liberty in the world's most successful Republic. The Founders were familiar with human nature and the correlative tendency of every ruler towards tyranny. They had experienced oppression at the hands of the English King and realized that the only way to truly protect individual liberty was to limit the power of any single government official. James Madison, a central architect of the Constitution, rightly observed that if "men were angels, no government would be necessary." Federalist No. 51 (1788). He knew that every official or body would seek to accumulate "all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands," and that such a concentration would be "the very definition of tyranny." Federalist No. 47 (1788). Thomas Jefferson agreed, labeling such a concentration of power as "precisely the definition of despotic government." Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 13 (1784).
    [Show full text]
  • Enumerated and Implied Powers
    6.3 Enumerated and Implied Powers Standard 6.3: Enumerated and Implied Powers Distinguish among the enumerated and implied powers in the United States and the Massachusetts Constitution. (Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for History and Social Studies) [8.T6.3] FOCUS QUESTION: What is the Difference Between Enumerated and Implied Powers? This standard looks at the differences between enumerated and implied powers in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Enumerated powers are those expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Implied powers enable the federal government to carry out tasks outlined by the enumerated powers. Building Democracy for All 1 Modules for this Standard Include: 1. INVESTIGATE: The Enumerated and Implied Powers of the U.S. Constitution 2. UNCOVER: Federal Minimum Wage Laws, Young Workers and the Implied Powers of Congress MEDIA LITERACY CONNECTIONS: Exploring the Use of Media for Military Recruitment 3. ENGAGE: Should the Nation Adopt a Living Wage Rather Than a Minimum Wage? 1. INVESTIGATE: The Enumerated and Implied Powers of the U.S. Constitution The enumerated powers of the federal government are listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Among the 18 direct powers given to Congress are the power to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money declare war, and support an army and navy (for a full list, see Key Constitutional Grants to Powers to Congress). The 18th power gives the federal government the ability to create and enact laws that are “necessary and proper” for its use of the other 17 powers. The Necessary and Proper clause (sometimes called the “Elastic Clause”) gives Congress implied powers; that is powers not named in the Constitution, but necessary for governing the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering World War Ii in the Late 1990S
    REMEMBERING WORLD WAR II IN THE LATE 1990S: A CASE OF PROSTHETIC MEMORY By JONATHAN MONROE BULLINGER A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Communication, Information, and Library Studies Written under the direction of Dr. Susan Keith and approved by Dr. Melissa Aronczyk ________________________________________ Dr. Jack Bratich _____________________________________________ Dr. Susan Keith ______________________________________________ Dr. Yael Zerubavel ___________________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Remembering World War II in the Late 1990s: A Case of Prosthetic Memory JONATHAN MONROE BULLINGER Dissertation Director: Dr. Susan Keith This dissertation analyzes the late 1990s US remembrance of World War II utilizing Alison Landsberg’s (2004) concept of prosthetic memory. Building upon previous scholarship regarding World War II and memory (Beidler, 1998; Wood, 2006; Bodnar, 2010; Ramsay, 2015), this dissertation analyzes key works including Saving Private Ryan (1998), The Greatest Generation (1998), The Thin Red Line (1998), Medal of Honor (1999), Band of Brothers (2001), Call of Duty (2003), and The Pacific (2010) in order to better understand the version of World War II promulgated by Stephen E. Ambrose, Tom Brokaw, Steven Spielberg, and Tom Hanks. Arguing that this time period and its World War II representations
    [Show full text]
  • Another Word on the President's Statutory Authority Over Agency Action
    ANOTHER WORD ON THE PRESIDENT’S STATUTORY AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY ACTION Nina A. Mendelson* By delegating to the “Secretary” or the “Administrator,” has Congress indicated an intent regarding presidential control of executive branch agencies? This seemingly simple interpretive question has prompted significant scholarly debate.1 In particular, if the statute names an executive branch agency head as actor, can the President be understood to possess so-called “directive” authority? “Directive” authority might be understood to cover the following situation: the President tells the agency head, “You have prepared materials indicating that options A, B, and C each satisfies statutory constraints and could be considered justified on the agency record. The Administration’s choice will be Option A.” The President could, of course, offer a reason— perhaps Option A is the least paternalistic, most protective, or most innovation-stimulating of the three. If the option preferred by the President otherwise complies with substantive statutory requirements on the record prepared by the agency,2 the question is whether the statutory reference to “Administrator” or “Secretary” should be understood as a limit on the President’s authority to direct the executive branch agency official to act in a particular way. A number of scholars have argued that statutory delegation to an executive branch agency official means that “the President cannot simply * Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School. Thanks for valuable discussion and comments especially to Kevin Stack, as well as to Philip Harter, Riyaz Kanji, Sallyanne Payton, Peter Strauss, and participants in symposia at Fordham Law School and Cardozo Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Power Leadership on Human Security
    Middle Power Leadership on Human Security Ronald M. Behringer Department of Political Science University of Florida April 2003 Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 30-June 1, 2003. Please e-mail any comments to [email protected]. Abstract My study examines the conditions under which middle power states, such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Norway, may exercise effective leadership in the realm of human security. I hypothesize that a middle power-led human security initiative is more likely to be successful if the initiative does not threaten the fundamental principles of the superpower. My paper demonstrates that although it is possible for a human security initiative to overcome American opposition that is based on political or military interests, an initiative will be less likely to succeed if it challenges the core principles of the United States. I test the hypothesis by conducting a qualitative analysis of four cases of human security initiatives where the middle powers have played leadership roles. The cases include the endeavor to create a United Nations rapid deployment peacekeeping force, which led to the formation of the Standby High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations (SHIRBRIG) in 1996; the campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines, which resulted in the 1997 Ottawa Convention; the struggle to establish the International Criminal Court, which came into existence in 2002; and the unsuccessful attempt to regulate the legal trade in small arms and light weapons. The United States has taken different positions on these issues. The U.S. approved of the idea of a standby UN rapid response force, but did not participate in the establishment of SHIRBRIG.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ancient Constitution Vs. the Federalist Empire: Anti- Federalism from the Attack on "Monarchism" to Modern Localism
    Copyright 1990 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 84, No. I THE ANCIENT CONSTITUTION VS. THE FEDERALIST EMPIRE: ANTI- FEDERALISM FROM THE ATTACK ON "MONARCHISM" TO MODERN LOCALISM Carol M. Rose* Anti-Federalism is generally thought to represent a major "road not taken" in our political history. The Anti-Federalists, after all, lost the great debate in 1787-88, while their opponents' constitution prevailed and prospered over the years. If we needed proof of the staggering vic- tory of the Federalist Constitutional project, the 200th anniversary cele- brations of 1987 would certainly seem to have given it, at least insofar as victory is measured by longevity and adulation.' One of the most imposing signals of the Federalists' triumph is the manner in which their constitution has come to dominate the very rheto- ric of constitutionalism. This is particularly the case in the United States, where the federal Constitution has the status of what might be called the "plain vanilla" brand-a brand so familiar that it is assumed to be correct for every occasion. This Constitution is the standard by which we understand and judge other constitutions, as for example those of states and localities. 2 Indeed, the federal Constitution's rhetorical dominance extends to some degree even to other parts of the world, when foreign citizens look to it for guidance about their own governmental 3 structures. What, then, might be left over for the defeated Anti-Federalists? This Article is an effort to reconsider the degree to which the Anti-Feder- alist road may still be trod after all, and in particular to reconstruct some * Professor of Law, Yale University.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Governance 2025: at a Critical Juncture
    Global Governance 2025: at a Critical Juncture NIC 2010-08 September 2010 This page was intentionally left blank. This page was intentionally left blank. Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture Inquiries regarding this report may be made to Mathew Burrows, Counselor to the National Intelligence Council, on (703) 482-0741 and to the EU Institute of Security Studies on 0033-1-56-89-19-51. NIC 2010-08 September 2010 This page was intentionally left blank. Preface The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system. Since the mid 1990s, the NIC has produced four editions of its landmark Global Trends report. The most recent one, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, published in late 2008, noted that momentous change was ahead, with the gap between increasing disorder and weakening governance structures widening. The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system in 2006, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025? The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability. The US and the EU do not always see eye to eye on every issue on the international agenda, but they share fundamental values and strategic interests to an extent not matched by any other partners in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • CSR90 the United States, China, and Taiwan
    Council Special Report No. 90 February 2021 The United States, Cover photo: A red pin indicates Taiwan on a map of East Asia. (hyotographics/Shutterstock) China, and Taiwan: Council on Foreign Relations cfr.org A Strategy to Prevent War 58 East 68th Street 1777 F Street, NW New York, NY 10065 Washington, DC 20006 tel 212.434.9400 tel 202.509.8400 Robert D. Blackwill and Philip Zelikow Council Special Report No. 90 February 2021 The United States, China, and Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War Robert D. Blackwill and Philip Zelikow The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with Council members to discuss and debate major international issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S.
    [Show full text]