by John Vlasto | Jun 22, 2024 | World Federation
Most people do not benefit from wars or from degradation of our global environment. Allowing them to continue year after year carries existential risk through unconstrained conflict or environmental catastrophe. So, given the fact that the risk far exceeds the reward, why don’t we stop this self-destructive behavior?
The reason is that our global institutions are inadequate to the task. The United Nations was founded after the Second World War as a club of sovereign nations, with the five winners of that long-ago conflict given a veto in the Security Council. As the renowned physicist Albert Einstein (a founder of the movement we continue today) warned at the time, “With all my heart I believe that the world’s present system of sovereign nations can only lead to barbarism, war, and inhumanity.” And so it has proved. War, inhumanity, and barbarism towards our environment continue unabated.
The solution is to create global governance that is fit to handle modern challenges – governance that is effective, equitable, accountable to the people, and strictly limited to global issues that are beyond the reach of individual nations, such as the planetary environment, pandemics, and war.
We know how to do this. The European Union provides one example, the United States of America another. In 1788, George Mason, speaking against the state of Virginia joining the newly proposed U.S. federal government, asked: “Is it to be supposed that one National Government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?” As it turns out, yes – despite many challenges, under its federal government the U.S. has grown to be one of the richest and most powerful countries on Earth. The European Union, too, has had its challenges, but is unquestionably preferable to the two world wars that catalyzed its creation.
A federal system, with governance at different levels to tackle challenges at different levels from local to global, has been proposed for generations. President Harry Truman remarked in 1945: “If Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over a watershed they don’t call out the national guard in each state and go to war over it. They bring suit in the Supreme Court and abide by its decision. There isn’t a reason in the world why we can’t do that internationally.” Such a federal system works in the United States, it works in Europe, it works in many diverse countries and regions around the world, and it could work equally well at the global level.
A global federation of nations would not threaten national sovereignty over national concerns, it would enhance it. In a rules-based international order, nations would be free to do their own thing, subject to not harming others. In our current system, where multinational corporations run rings round national governance, nations are forced into a damaging race to the bottom. No country can afford to move first on reducing carbon emissions when other countries can simply freeride. It is a classic tragedy of the commons. Such tragedies are resolved by agreeing to and enforcing rules that serve the common good.
All this is known, which begs the question why nothing is done. Recently I asked this question of an experienced UN diplomat. Did he think that humanity is taking an existential risk with its future? Yes. Is the solution to create more effective, equitable and accountable global governance? Yes. How? To which he replied “I despair” – not the answer I was looking for. When pushed, he quoted what is known as Juncker’s Curse (named after a former European Commission president): “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”
Although there are many politicians who know that we need to strengthen global governance to tackle urgent global challenges, the people are not demanding it. People are demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, preservation of the Amazon rainforest, and lower carbon emissions. But the common thread – strengthening global governance – so that countries can go to court to settle their differences rather than resort to war, can put a global price on carbon so there is a financial incentive to preserve the rainforest and lower emissions – this is not widely perceived or, therefore, demanded.
If you agree with this analysis – that the solution to the existential global challenges we face is to create global governance that is effective, equitable and accountable, while protecting national sovereignty over national issues – then the best thing you can do to save humanity from itself is to promote this understanding. Talk to your family and friends. Write to your political representatives, demanding meaningful engagement with current international governance institutions, and calling for a new and reformed global system. Get involved in the campaign to strengthen global governance towards democratic world federation.
Many Americans are already involved in this campaign through Citizens for Global Solutions, the U.S. member organization of the World Federalist Movement.
If people demand the global governance we need, then politicians can act. If politicians do not act soon, it may be too late.
by Sovaida Maani Ewing | Jun 18, 2024 | Disarmament
The threat of nuclear war is at the highest level it has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. However, there is a crucial difference: in 1962, most of us were alert to the threat and its existential nature. Today, by contrast, many of us are oblivious to our history or have simply forgotten it, which poses a huge danger: that of sleepwalking our way into a nuclear war with catastrophic consequences for our country and all of humanity.
This danger is exacerbated by three factors.
The first is the proliferation of nuclear arms and the renewed interest on the part of non-nuclear weapons states to acquire nuclear weapons. The war in Gaza has stirred fears that Iran will race for the bomb and join the nuclear weapons’ club. There are good reasons for such a fear: Recent reports quote the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as saying that Iran is now enriching uranium up to 60 percent, considerably more than the 3.67% permitted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The IAEA also believes Iran already possesses enough fissile material to make three nuclear weapons. Moreover, the breakout time (the time required to produce enough fissile material at the 90 percent concentration needed for nuclear weapons, not taking into account the time needed to build a deliverable nuclear warhead) is now zero. The fact that the Iran has prevented the IAEA, the world’s nuclear watchdog, from properly monitoring its nuclear activities since early 2021 only exacerbates these concerns. Added to all this are Iran’s own threats that she will reconsider her nuclear stance if her nuclear facilities are threatened.
These fears have a potentially cascading effect: they are likely to spur other countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to seek nuclear capabilities of their own starting with civilian capabilities. Indeed, Saudi Prince Mohammad has already stated that were Iran to build nuclear weapons, Saudi would follow suit. Alas, the more nuclear weapons the world has, the greater the chance they will be used intentionally or accidentally.
A similar scenario is playing out further afield in Asia where China’s assertion of territorial claims to disputed islands in the South China Seas like the Paracels and Spratlys and their adjacent waters rich in reserves of natural resources and its claims to the islands of Senkaku/Diaoyu in the East China Sea, coupled with China’s stated desire to absorb Taiwan, are making other countries in the region fearful of China’s power. Japan and South Korea are particularly nervous, especially given the nuclear threat from North Korea. Their fears have been exacerbated by America’s uneven support of Ukraine in the face of Russian territorial aggression. Even though the United States is bound by a trilateral cooperation agreement to defend Japan and the Republic of Korea under its nuclear umbrella they are worried that the support they have been promised may not be forthcoming. These factors taken together are leading both countries to float the idea of acquiring their own nuclear weapons.
The second factor exacerbating the threat of nuclear war is that the guardrails in the form of a treaty regime so painstakingly crafted by the international community designed to reduce the number of nuclear weapons have been crumbling. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty collapsed in 2019. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is defunct; and while the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START Treaty) — the last Treaty governing nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Russia– is theoretically in effect until 2026, Russia has suspended its participation in the Treaty and has allegedly not complied with her obligations under it since 2023.
The third factor enhancing the threat of nuclear war is the escalating rhetoric of countries like Russia. In early May of this year, Russia sent a clear warning that its arsenal of nuclear weapons was always in a state of combat readiness and announced that it would be holding military drills with troops based near Ukraine to prepare for the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. This was Russia’s most explicit threat to date that it might use such weapons in Ukraine.
The combination of these three factors should serve to wake us up to the reality facing us before it’s too late. We can no longer afford to be complacent about the dangers of nuclear war, especially as we know, from past experience, that conflicts can escalate rapidly, spin beyond our control and lead to unintended consequences. It’s time we stopped and considered the price humanity would have to pay if we had even a “limited” nuclear war – limited geographically or in time. Experts suggest that using even one percent of our nuclear weapons would have a severe impact on the world’s climate, leading to a nuclear winter and a global famine in which 2 billion people―a quarter of the world’s population―would be at risk of starvation. These are unacceptable costs. Are we really willing to pay them?
As we stand on the precipice of unprecedented horror and untold suffering, we have a choice to make: we can continue our self-destructive dive into the abyss or work assiduously as a community of nations to build a global system of collective security that will ensure global peace and security. Such a system should be grounded in collectively agreed-upon international rules which are enforced even-handedly against any nation that threatens the peace using an international standing force that acts at the behest of, and in service to, the international community.
Image source: Photo courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration / Nevada Site Office, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
by Lawrence Wittner | Jun 18, 2024 | Peace
International law―the recognized rules of behavior among nations based on customary practices and treaties, among them the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights―has been agreed upon by large and small nations alike. To implement this law, the nations of the world have established a UN Security Council (to maintain international peace and security) and a variety of international courts, including the UN’s International Court of Justice (which adjudicates disputes between nations and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues) and the International Criminal Court (which prosecutes individuals for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression).
Yet nations continue to defy international law.
In the ongoing Gaza crisis, the Israeli government has failed to uphold international law by rebuffing the calls of international organizations to end its massive slaughter of Palestinian civilians. The U.S. government has facilitated this behavior by vetoing three UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, while the Israeli government has ignored an International Court of Justice ruling that it should head off genocide in Gaza by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population. The Israeli government has also refused to honor an order by the International Court of Justice to halt its offensive in Rafah and denounced the International Criminal Court’s request for arrest warrants for its top officials.
Russia’s military assault upon Ukraine provides another example of flouting international law. Given the UN Charter’s prohibition of the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” when Russian military forces seized and annexed Crimea and commenced military operations to gobble up eastern Ukraine in early 2014, the issue came before the UN Security Council, where condemnation of Russia’s action was promptly vetoed by Russia. Similarly, in February 2022, when the Russian government commenced a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia again vetoed Security Council action. That March, the International Court of Justice, by an overwhelming vote, ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine—but, as usual, to no avail.
Unfortunately, these violations of international law are not unusual for, over many decades, numerous nations have ignored the recognized rules of international conduct.
What is lacking is not international law but, rather, its consistent and universal enforcement. For decades, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) have repeatedly used their veto power in that entity to block UN action to maintain international peace and security. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of the world’s nations do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, while more than a third of the world’s nations (including some of the largest, such as Russia, the United States, China, and India) have resisted becoming parties to the International Criminal Court. Indeed, responding to the International Criminal Court’s request for arrest warrants for Israeli officials, the U.S. House of Representatives promptly passed legislation to sanction that international organization.
Despite such obstacles, these international organizations have sometimes played very useful roles in resolving international disputes. The UN Security Council has dispatched numerous peacekeeping missions around the world―including 60 alone in the years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union―that have helped defuse crises in conflict-ridden regions.
For its part, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) paved the way for the Central American Peace Accords during the 1980s through its ruling in Nicaragua v United States, while its ruling in the Nuclear Tests case helped bring an end to nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. In addition, the ICJ’s ruling in Chad v Libya resolved a territorial dispute between these two nations and ended their military conflict.
Although the International Criminal Court has only been in operation since 2002, it has thus far convicted ten individuals of heinous crimes, issued or requested warrants for the arrest of prominent figures charged with war crimes (including Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the leaders of Hamas), and conducted or begun investigations of yet other notorious individuals.
But, of course, as demonstrated by the persistence of wars of aggression and massive violations of human rights, enforcing international law remains a major problem in the contemporary world.
Therefore, if the world is to move beyond national impunity―if it is finally to scrap the long and disgraceful tradition among nations of might makes right―it is necessary to empower the world’s major international organizations to enforce the international law that nations have agreed to respect.
This strengthening of global governance is certainly possible.
Although provisions in the UN Charter make outright abolition of the UN Security Council veto very difficult, other means are available for reducing the veto’s baneful effects. In many cases ―including those of the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts―simply invoking Article 27(3) of the UN Charter would be sufficient, for it states that a party to a dispute before the Security Council shall abstain from voting in connection with that dispute. Furthermore, 124 UN nations have already endorsed a proposal for renunciation of the veto when taking action against genocide, crimes against humanity, and mass atrocities. Moreover, the UN General Assembly has occasionally employed “Uniting for Peace” resolutions to take action when the Security Council has failed to do so.
Improving the effectiveness of the international judicial system has also generated attention in recent years. The LAW Not War campaign, championed by organizations dedicated to improving global governance, advocates strengthening the International Court of Justice, principally by increasing the number of nations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, representing numerous organizations, calls on all nations to ratify the Court’s founding statute and, thereby, “expand the Court’s reach and reduce the impunity gap.”
National impunity is not inevitable, at least if people and governments of the world are willing to take the necessary actions. Are they? Or will they continue talking of a “rules-based international order” while they avoid enforcing the rules?
Image source: International Court of Justice; originally uploaded by Yeu Ninje at en.wikipedia., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
by CGS | May 31, 2024 | Past Event
Mondial, published semi-annually, invites thought leaders to provide insights into our most pressing global challenges. The Journal primarily focuses on world federation, disarmament and peace, human rights, United Nations Reform, strengthening international institutions and world law, and the environment. Drawing its name from the French word meaning “of or involving the whole world,” Mondial serves as a Journal with a shared common vision advocating for a democratic world federation.
In this special CGS World Citizen Book Club session, some select authors of our Winter Edition from both the Canadian and US Editions will highlight their articles followed by a general Q&A from book club participants.
by CGS | May 27, 2024 | Past Event
On Sunday, May 20, Citizen for Global Solution’s St. Louis Chapter’s Annual Meeting, “Not an Ultimate Goal but an Immediate Necessity”: the Past, Present, and Future of CGS’s Advocacy for a Democratic World Federation featured keynote speaker, Rebecca A. Shoot.
Since Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) was founded in 1947 as the World Federalist Association, we have harnessed the power of people and organizations, building strong and smart coalitions to achieve our vision of a peaceful, free, just, and sustainable world community. To achieve our mission of a democratic federation of nations with enforceable world law, we led the movement to establish a Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), which resulted in the first and only permanent judicial institution dedicated to ending individual impunity for the gravest crimes that shock the conscience of humanity. We have joined with others to help end the scourge of nuclear weapons and advocated for United Nations reform.
Today, that momentum grows. CGS remains at the center of support for the ICC and now co-leads a new coalition, Legal Alternatives to War (LAW not War) to increase the universality and effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). We continue to be leaders within the Coalition for the UN We Need (C4UN) and now are part of the core civil society team shaping the pathway toward the Summit of the Future. And in March 2024, we launched the Mobilizing Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA), which applies our strategic approach to our planet’s existential polycrisis.
by CGS | May 6, 2024 | Past Event
This book club session Q&A featured special guest, Kehkashan Basu, M.S.M, Founder and President of Green Hope Foundation. We discussed the second half of the book, Keep Hope Alive: Essays for a War-Free World, pages 88 – 160. Teaming up with our valued partner, the World Federalist Movement – Canada (WFM-Canada), we present joint-hosted sessions.
This collection of essays shines a light on hope that humanity can achieve a peaceful and just coexistence through the U.N.’s New Agenda for Peace and its blueprint for sustainable development.
Kehkashan Basu, M.S.M. is an iconic global influencer, educator, environmentalist, champion of women and children’s rights, TEDx speaker, Climate Reality Mentor, author, musician, peace and sustainability campaigner. She is the recipient of Canada’s Meritorious Service Medal and the only Canadian to win the International Children’s Peace Prize. A Forbes 30 Under 30 and the first-ever Winner of the Voices Youth Gorbachev-Schultz Legacy Award for her work on nuclear disarmament, Kehkashan is a United Nations Human Rights Champion, a National Geographic Young Explorer, a UNCCD Land Hero, a UN Habitat Young City Champion, the Regional Organizing Partner for North America for the NGO Major Group and one of Canada’s Top25 Women of Influence. Kehkashan is the Founder-President of global social innovation enterprise Green Hope Foundation, that works at a grassroots level in 28 countries, empowering over 500,000 young people and women, especially those from vulnerable communities, in the sustainable development process. She has spoken at over 500 United Nations and other global fora. She is the youngest Trustee of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, Co-Lead of UN Women Generation Equality Forum’s Action Coalition on Feminist Action for Climate Justice and a member of the World Humanitarian Forum Youth Council. She is the recipient of several awards that include the Gold Stevie Award for Women in Business for Gender Equality, World Literacy Award for Significant Contribution to Literacy by a Young Person, Canada’s Global Energy Show Emerging Leader Award and the Pax Christi Toronto Teacher of Peace Award. Kehkashan was named as one of the Top 100 SDG Leaders in the world in 2019. She continues to work tirelessly to amplify the voices of young people, women and girls in decision-making processes. She is currently an MBA Candidate at the Cornell University SC Johnson Graduate School of Management.
The Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., is an author, parliamentarian, and diplomat, who has specialized throughout his 50-year public career in peace and human security issues. He lectures widely on peace and nuclear disarmament themes. Mr. Roche was a Senator, Member of Parliament, Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, and Visiting Professor at the University of Alberta. He was elected Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Committee at the 43rd General Assembly in 1988. In 2018, he was recognized by the International Peace Bureau as one of three recipients of the Seán MacBride Peace Prize. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Book Club Schedule
by Lawrence Wittner | May 2, 2024 | Disarmament
What will it take to end the nuclear nightmare that has gripped the world since the atomic bombings of 1945?
For a time, that nightmare seemed to have abated for, in response to massive popular resistance to the prospect of nuclear war, governments turned to signing nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements. Even previously hawkish government officials proclaimed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
In recent decades, however, nuclear-armed nations have scrapped nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties, begun the massive upgrading and expansion of their nuclear arsenals, and publicly threatened other nations with nuclear war. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has assessed the nuclear situation since 1946, has turned the hands of its “Doomsday Clock” to 90 seconds to midnight, the most dangerous setting in its history.
Why has this renewed flirtation with nuclear Armageddon occurred?
One reason for the nuclear revival is that, in a world of independent, feuding nations, governments turn naturally to arming themselves with the most powerful weapons available and, sometimes, to war. Thus, with the decline of the worldwide nuclear disarmament campaign of the 1980s, governments have felt freer to engage their natural proclivities.
A second, less apparent reason is that the movement and government officials alike have ceased thinking systemically. Or, to put it another way, they have forgotten that the motor force behind nations’ reliance upon nuclear weapons is international anarchy.
In the late 1940s, during the first wave of the popular campaign against the Bomb, the movement recognized that nuclear weapons grew out of the centuries-old conflicts among nations. Consequently, millions of people across the globe, shocked by the atomic bombings of 1945, rallied around the slogan “One World or None.”
In the United States, Norman Cousins, the young editor of the Saturday Review of Literature, sat down on the evening of the destruction of Hiroshima and wrote a lengthy editorial, “Modern Man Is Obsolete.” The “need for world government was clear long before August 6, 1945,” he observed, but the atomic bombing “raised the need to such dimensions that it can no longer be ignored.” Becoming a key writer, speaker, and fundraiser for the cause, Cousins turned the editorial into a book that went through 14 editions, appeared in seven languages, and had a circulation in the United States of seven million copies. He also became a leader in a new, rapidly-growing organization, United World Federalists, which by mid-1949 had 720 chapters and nearly 50,000 members.
Around the world, the atomic bombing provoked a similar response. Atomic scientists, horrified by the prospect of worldwide destruction, published a book titled One World or None, organized international antinuclear campaigns among scientists, and emphasized the need for a global solution to the nuclear problem. Many, like Albert Einstein, became prominent world federalists or, like Robert Oppenheimer, viewed international control of nuclear weapons as a task that necessitated overriding national sovereignty.
The antinuclear uprising of the late 1940s had some impact upon public policy. Major governments, previously enthusiastic about nuclear weapons, grew ambivalent about their development and use. Indeed, the appearance of the Baruch Plan, the world’s first serious nuclear disarmament proposal, owed much to the postwar agitation.
Nevertheless, as the Cold War emerged, the officials of the great powers rejected the new way of thinking about relations among nations championed by Einstein and other activists. Instead of restructuring international relations to cope with the unprecedented peril of the Bomb, they incorporated the Bomb into the traditional framework of international conflict. The result was a nuclear arms race and a growing sense that agitation for transforming the international order was, at best, naïve, or, at worst, subversive.
These narrowed political horizons meant that, when the antinuclear movement revived in the late 1950s, it championed more limited objectives, beginning with a call for ending nuclear testing. And this goal proved attainable, at least in part, because halting atmospheric nuclear testing did not seriously hinder the great powers, which could move tests underground and, thereby, upgrade their nuclear arsenals. The result was the passage of the world’s first nuclear arms control agreement, the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
Admittedly, ban-the-bomb movements also sprang up in numerous countries. But, although they were sometimes headed by long-time proponents of world government, including Norman Cousins (chair of America’s National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy) and Bertrand Russell (president of Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), they, too, focused on weapons rather than on reforming the international system. The result was a welcome surge of nuclear arms control treaties in the late 1960s and early 1970s that quieted the fears of activists and led to the movement’s decline.
When the Cold War revived in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so did an outraged antinuclear campaign. Indeed, this third wave of the nuclear disarmament movement proved the largest and most successful yet, securing substantial decreases in nuclear arsenals and significantly reducing the danger of nuclear war.
Of all the major actors of that era, though, only Mikhail Gorbachev seemed ready to move beyond weapons cutbacks to advocate the development of a new international security system. But with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was swept from power. And, in recent decades, rising international tensions have swept away the antinuclear campaign’s hard-won gains, as well.
Those gains, though evanescent, were important, for they helped the world to avoid nuclear war while giving it time to press on toward a nuclear weapons-free future.
But this history also suggests that, in the struggle for survival in the nuclear age, confronting the continued anarchy of nations cannot be avoided. Indeed, given the severity of our current international crises and the escalating nuclear menace that they generate, the time has come to revisit the forgotten issue of strengthening the international security system.
by CGS | Mar 26, 2024 | Press Release
Mobilizing Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA) is launched in Geneva on March 26, 2024 as a resounding answer to the challenges faced by Earth’s integrated ecosystems.
“We all share one planet. But today our common home and our common humanity are under existential threats from serious and inter-connected crises.” Mary Robinson, Chair of the Climate Governance Commission and Former President of Ireland, at the launch of MEGA.
The world faces a deepening planetary emergency—and is on a reckless path toward catastrophic ecosystem collapse —having already over-shot six of nine scientifically-identified Planetary Boundaries. Such profound and potentially cataclysmic challenges require new ways of thinking, collaborating, and innovating for change.
Enter the Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA), launched on March 26 as a smart global coalition led by three civil society organizations – Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), the Climate Governance Commission (CGC) and World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy (WFM-IGP) – and cosponsored by 25 organizations around the world. (Watch the video of Mary Robinson launching MEGA).
The coalition advances proposals and campaigns for concrete environmental governance mechanisms, many of which have been thoroughly researched and analyzed in the Climate Governance Commission’s landmark report Governing our Planetary Emergency.
“Stronger and more effective global governance fit for purpose is required in order to facilitate the collective action that is required by States and other stakeholders to prevent an environmental catastrophe and to ensure healthy and vibrant ecosystems for current and future generations,” reflected Maja Groff, Convenor of the Climate Governance Commission.
“If the proposals of the Climate Governance Commission report and MEGA are fully implemented, then we can comprehensively solve the environment polycrisis,” added John Vlasto, Chair of WFM-IGP.
Examples of global governance proposals highlighted by MEGA include to establish a Global Environment Agency, an International Court for the Environment and an International Anti-Corruption Court, as well as to appoint a UN Special Envoy for Future Generations (along with legal representatives for future generations at regional, national and local levels), negotiate a Treaty on the Human Rights Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations (including the human right to a healthy environment), establish a Science-Policy-Action Network, declare a Planetary Emergency and establish a Planetary Emergency Platform.
Held in conjunction with the 148th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the timing and venue allowed for reflection on the importance of legislators in environmental governance due to their vital role in policymaking. “Everyone who’s been involved in parliamentary work I’m sure, will agree that it would be a mistake to underestimate what a small number of committed parliamentarians can make happen in their country,” said Nic Dunlop, Secretary-General of the Climate Parliament.
The launch event also recognized that true environmental governance solutions will require innovative cross-sectoral collaboration, including a focus on engagement of the private sector. “For global environmental governance solutions to be successful they need to provide the right incentive structure for the private sector to take decisive action,” explained Dr. Alexander Schmidt, Head of Science, Sustainability, and Climate Research at Stockholm-based carbon accounting provider Normative. “MEGA will work closely with businesses across the globe to understand their needs, capabilities, and limitations. It is through these dialogues that we can ensure a truly effective governance structure fit for purpose.”
The launch focused not only on preventing environmental catastrophe, but also on building a better future for all through enhanced stewardship of the Earth for current and future generations. ‘It is imperative that we revisit our shared values and connect its spirit to this new journey, including principles of international law, Earth trusteeship and wonderful efforts such as the Earth Charter which connects wisdom of indigenous knowledge and systems,” said Neshan Gunasekera, Member of the World Future Council and Chair of the Earth Trusteeship Initiative. “These call on all of us, present here and now, to build trust amongst each other, across generations, to ensure that we play our small part in preserving the integrity of our Earth’s systems.’
MEGA is established as a ‘big tent’, inclusive coalition of civil society organizations, legislators, academics/scientists, private sector actors and other stakeholders, working in cooperation with governments, and with a laser focus on strengthening global governance of the environment.
As CGS Executive Director Rebecca Shoot reflected: “For practically as long as there has been a global governance system as we know it, our organizations have advanced a shared vision of a better, more equitable, and inclusive world by harnessing the power of diverse coalitions. We are honored to join with allies from every region and sector now to apply this same strategic approach to perhaps the most critical challenge of all: saving our planetary home.”
Keep updated and engaged in MEGA by joining as a participating organization or by subscribing to the newsletter.
by CGS | Mar 26, 2024 | Past Event
Watch the recording of the global launch of Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA), which took place on March 26, 2024 as a hybrid event in Geneva.
The MEGA launch event was co-chaired by Rebecca Shoot (USA), Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions and Alyn Ware (New Zealand/Czech Republic), Program Director for World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy. It included presentations and discussion from:
- Mary Robinson (Ireland) Chair, Climate Governance Commission. Former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Maja Groff (Canada/Netherlands) Convenor, Climate Governance Commission John Vlasto (United Kingdom) Chair, World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy
- Margareta Kiener Nellen (Switzerland) Board Member, Peace Women Across the Globe Former MP and Head of the Swiss Delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
- Arthur Lyon Dahl (Switzerland) President of the International Environment Forum
- Neshan Gunasekera (Sri Lanka/Sweden) Chair, Earth Trusteeship Initiative. Visiting Fellow.
- Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights & Humanitarian Law
- Alexander Schmidt (Sweden). Head of Science, Sustainability and Climate Research, Normative (carbon accounting platform)
MEGA hosts an online platform of global governance proposals and campaigns, supports advocacy to governments and policy makers, builds communication and co-operation amongst organizations and other stakeholders in the field, and undertakes public education in international environmental governance. For more information and ways to get involved, visit MEGA’s website.
by CGS | Mar 16, 2024 | Press Release
Legal Alternatives to War: Increasing the universality and effectiveness of the International Court of Justice
March 16, 2024. Resolve international conflicts in the courtroom, not the battlefield, the LAW not War crowdfunding campaign is live. We invite you to watch the promo video, make a donation and circulate to your networks.
“From the smallest village to the global stage, the rule of law is all that stands between peace and stability and a brutal struggle for power and resources. I note the importance of accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and call on all Member States to do so without any reservations.” Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General. Remarks to the UN Security Council Thematic Debate on the Rule of Law amongst Nations, January 12, 2023
“I prefer law to war under all circumstances.” Benjamin Ferencz (1920-2023), Prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals. International champion of international law who popularised the motto ‘Law not War.’
Project outline
LAW not War is a new global campaign to enhance the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to assist countries resolve international disputes peacefully rather than through recourse to the threat or use of force.
The principal objective of the campaign is to increase the number of States accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, with the aspiration to achieve universal acceptance of jurisdiction by 2045, the 100th anniversary of the United Nations.
In addition, the campaign works to enhance ICJ jurisdiction through:
- Promoting greater use by UN bodies of the option to request Advisory Opinions from the ICJ;
- Encouraging disputing States to make more frequent use of the option of taking cases to the ICJ by mutual agreement;
- Encouraging more frequent use of the compulsory ICJ jurisdiction provision in a number of international treaties, and promoting the inclusion of compulsory ICJ jurisdiction in additional treaties;
- Encouraging states to adopt constitutional amendments or legislative measures to affirm the UN Charter prohibition of war and the obligation to resolve international disputes peacefully including through recourse to the ICJ.
The campaign employs a mixture of education about the value and impact of ICJ jurisdiction, and advocacy to enhance such jurisdiction.
Authority, influence and impact of the ICJ
The ICJ has had considerable success at resolving international disputes, including some that involved the threat or use of force. Examples include:
- Nicaragua v United States, which helped end US aggression against Nicaragua and paved the way for the Central American Peace Accords;
- The Nuclear Tests case, which helped end nuclear testing in Pacific;
- Chad v Libya, which resolved their territorial dispute and ended their armed conflict,
- Costa Rica v Nicaragua, which resolved their territorial dispute over the Isla Portillos and ensured withdrawal of the Nicaraguan military forces.
The authority of the ICJ within the United Nations system, and the unique contribution the ICJ plays with respect to the application of the law, ensures that its decisions exert considerable influence and impact on the parties and other stakeholders in its cases.
An analysis of ICJ cases undertaken by Judge C.G. Weeramantry (former Vice-President of the ICJ), for example, indicated that approximately 90% of ICJ cases are implemented – either fully or mostly.
However, its role is limited by the fact that its jurisdiction is based on voluntary acceptance. As such, many disputes that could potentially be resolved with the help of the ICJ are not brought to the court because of refusal of one or more parties to accept its jurisdiction.
ICJ jurisdiction – general provisions
ICJ jurisdiction is conferred through a variety of processes including:
- Voluntary declarations by UN Member states – under Article 36 of the ICJ Statute – by which they unilaterally accept compulsory jurisdiction for any dispute between them and other states that have also made such declarations (74 countries have made such declarations);
- Mutual agreement by disputing states to take a specific legal issue to the court;
- Advisory Opinions which are requested to the Court by the UN Security Council, UN General Assembly (UNGA) or other UN organs and specialized agencies which have been granted authority by the UNGA to request such opinions;
- International treaties which provide for ICJ jurisdiction in disputes between States Parties relating to obligations under the treaty in question.
LAW not War is working to increase acceptance and use of ICJ jurisdiction through all four of these processes, but is placing a strong focus on enhancing the first process list above – increasing the number of voluntary declarations accepting ICJ jurisdiction for any international legal disputes.
ICJ jurisdiction – working with like-minded countries
The LAW not War campaign is building connection and cooperation with a like-minded group of countries that has produced a Handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and released a Declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice which promotes the handbook and encourages states to accept jurisdiction of the Court both generally and in specific circumstances. 33 countries have now endorsed the declaration.
LAW not War and Common Security
The International Court of Justice is a key global governance mechanism for enhancing common security, i.e. peace and security for all. The LAW not War campaign therefore works as part of – or in cooperation with – other common security campaigns and initiatives including the UNFOLD ZERO Common Security platform, the WFM-IGP Abolish War through Common Security and the Law program and the Common Security v Nuclear Deterrence initiative.
LAW not War and the UN Summit of the Future
The UN Summit of the Future, scheduled for September 2024, provides an opportunity to highlight the role of the ICJ and build support for universal acceptance of its jurisdiction.
A large number of civil society organizations, facilitated by the Coalition for the UN We Need, have been consulting and cooperating on a Peoples Pact for the Future which includes 33 recommendations to the Summit that have considerable support around the world. One of these is the recommendation that “all UN Member States should be encouraged to accede, by no later than 2035, to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to ensure the peaceful settlement of disputes.“
C4UN will organise a second Global Futures Forum in May 2024 to build political traction for the recommendations in the Peoples Pact for the Future.
Cosponsoring and participating organizations
Founding/cosponsoring organizations:
LAW not War is a joint campaign established and managed (cosponsored) by:
- Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace
- Basel Peace Office
- Citizens for Global Solutions
- Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania
- UNFOLD ZERO
- World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy
- World Future Council.
Participating organizations include:
- Act for Change / Agir pour le Changement (Congo)
- Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de la Femme (Congo)
- African Centre for Human Rights Education (Senegal)
- All Souls Nuclear Disarmament Task Force (USA)
- Asociación Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos (Spain)
- Association for Promotion of Sustainable Development (India)
- Association of World Citizens (France/International)
- Baltimore Nonviolence Center(USA)
- Blue Banner (Mongolia)
- Center for Enlightenment and Development (Malawi)
- Center for Peace and Global Governance (USA)
- Clean Climate and Environment Campaign Initiative(Nigeria)
- Centre International de Droit Comparé de l’Environnement (France)
- Center for United Nations Constitutional Research (Serbia)
- Climate Governance Commission (Netherlands/International)
- Coalition for Peace Action (USA)
- Democracy Today (Armenia)
- Democracy Without Borders (Germany/International)
- FrameOut (Sri Lanka)
- G100 Security and Defence Wing (International)
- Gender Peace and Security Organization (UK)
- Global Compliance Research Project (Canada)
- Global Directions (Australia)
- Global Justice Intelligence Eyes, Inc. (USA)
- Global Peace Alliance BC Society (Canada)
- Global Security Institute (USA)
- Hawaii Institute for Human Rights (USA)
- Indian Institute for Peace Disarmament & Environmental Protection (India)
- Initiative pour le Désarmement Nucléaire (France)
- Integrity Initiatives International (USA)
- Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (USA)
- International Community for Georgia Development and the Progress (Georgia)
- International Helping for the Young (Chad)
- L’Unione degli Scienziati Per Il Disarmo (Italy)
- Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (USA)
- Legal Pact for the Future (USA)
- Malaysian Youth Diplomacy (Malaysia)
- Minnesota Peace Project (USA)
- Mundo sin gurerras y sin violencia (Chile/International)
- MY World Mexico (Mexico)
- National Coalition of Civil Society Organizations of Liberia (Liberia)
- National Council of Turkish Women (Turkey)
- National Forum on Human Rights (Yemen)
- NZ Centre for Global Studies (New Zealand)
- New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemakers Association (New Zealand)
- Keen and Care Initiative (Nigeria)
- Nonviolence International (USA/International)
- Nukewatch (USA)
- Ohio Nuclear Free Network (USA)
- One Earth Future Foundation (USA)
- Österreichische Frauenföderation (Austria)
- Pakistan Peace Coalition (Pakistan)
- Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (International)
- Pax Christi Pacific Northwest (USA)
- Pax Christi Toronto (Canada)
- Pax Christi USA
- Peace Action WI (USA)
- Peace and Disarmament Collective Aotearoa (Aotearoa-New Zealand)
- Peace And Justice Alliance (Canada)
- Peace in Our Schools (Canada/Georgia)
- Perú por el Desarme (Peru)
- Platform for Peace and Humanity (Slovakia/Europe)
- Project Enduring Peace (USA)
- Quaker United Nations Office Geneva (Switzerland/International)
- Reacción Climática (Bolivia)
- Right Education Empowerment & Development Centre for Social Change – REED Centre (Nigeria)
- Rural Area Development Programme (Nepal)
- Science for Peace (Canada)
- Scientists for Global Responsibility (UK)
- Sri-Lanka Doctors for Peace and Development (Sri Lanka)
- Stimson Center (USA)
- Uganda Peace Foundation (Uganda)
- Union des Amis Socio Culturels d’Action en Developpement (Haiti)
- United Peace Keepers Federal Council (Thailand)
- United Nations Association, London and South East Region (UK)
- United Nations Association of New Zealand (New Zealand)
- United Nations Association of Chad (Chad)
- United Nations Association of Victoria (Australia)
- University International Student Chamber (Japan/International)
- Unione degli Scienziati Per Il Disarmo – Union of Scientists For Disarmament (Italy)
- Visionary Ethics Foundation/Fundacion Etica Visionaria (Spain)
- Women Empowerment Against Poverty of Nepal (Nepal)
- Women’s Federation for World Peace (Austria)
- Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, US Section (USA)
- World Beyond War Aotearoa (Aotearoa/New Zealand)
- World Citizens Association (Australia)
- World Federalist Movement Canada (Canada)
- World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA)
- World Service Authority/World Citizen Government (International)
- Youth Fusion – Abolition 2000 Youth Network (International)
Join this growing number of LAW not War participating organizations
