Part X 

International Relation and Organisations 

Relations between States 

Nature will drive them with the scourge of war with the extravagant and ever-growing burden of armaments, the weight of which must be felt in the end by every State even when at peace. She will compel them to make attempts, hailing at first and incomplete, and then, after much desolation, destruction and revolution, to do what reason could have taught them at once without so many bitter experiences, namely, to give up their lawless life of savages and enter into a league of Nations—an organisation where every State—even the smallest, can except security and peace, not from its own power or its own decision as to what is right in its own cause, but from this great Society of Nationswhere the powers of all are united in the one and the decision is given in the general will acting according to law. 

(Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 
Chapter 44 International Organisations and World State 

A remarkable feature of the modern international relations is the growth of international institutions and organisations. They establish more stable relations among the nations of the world and ensure more stable international order and co-operation among different States. They establish more peaceful conditions in the community or family of nations. International Institutions. 

The real goal of international relations and intercourse is not war but peace. However, disputes and quarrels are bound to arise among the sovereign and independent States and nations from time to time. Hence the need is to settle them in a peaceful manner rather than by the arbitrament of war. That is why international law and practice have evolved a number of methods to settle international disputes in a peaceful and amicable manner. They are called mediation, good offices, arbitration, conferences, etc. In mediation and good offices, a third party, which is a State friendly to the two quarrelling States, seeks to settle the dispute by reconciling their differences. In arbitration, the dispute is referred to a third party who goes into the merits of the dispute and decides it as a  case of law. This method was later established on a permanent basis when the Hague Conference of 1899 set up a permanent court of arbitration. In 1920, the Covenant of the League of Nations established a Permanent Court of International Justice, which in 1946 became the International Court of Justice and a part of the U.N.O. Lastly the conference is the method of settling disputes by sitting around a table. If the heads of States participate in such a conference it is called a ”summit conference” or summit meeting. But ordinarily the foreign ministers, ambassadors and such other diplomatic representatives attend the conference. International Organisation. 

We now consider two international organisations which aim at international cooperation and the promotion of world-peace and prosperity, viz., the League of Nations and the U.N.O. 

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS Origin of the League of Nations. 

The First World War (1914-18) caused horrible slaughter and destruction in the countries of Europe and Asia. It produced a horror of war and created an idea to set up an international organisation which would prevent the outbreak of wars in future. As a result of such ideas, and as a 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE         637 

result of the discussion in the Peace Conference in Paris, in 1919, an agreement was reached by the victorious Governments to set up an international body, to be called the League of Nations. A covenant or agreement was entered into for this purpose. It was called the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Covenant described the purposes, the constitution and  functions of the League of Nations. On January 10.1920, the League of Nations was formally established, with Geneva, in Switzerland, as its headquarters. History or the League of Nations. 

The League of Nations did not live long. After a period of nearly 20 years, it ceased to exist, when the Second World War broke out. The membership of the League of Nations  varied from time to time. At first it consisted of 42 member-States, e.g., England, France, Japan and other. Germany was excluded because she started the war. Russia was not allowed to join it, because she had gone communist. U.S.A. refused to join it, because it did not serve her isolationist policy. After the failure of the League to check Italian and Japanese aggressions and conquests in 1935 and in 1937, it was practically dead. The outbreak of the World War II put an end to the existence of the League. Aims of the League. 

The Covenant of the League declared that the aims or purposes of 

the League were three: namely, (1) to preserve peace in the world, (2)  to cr.ttlg. intrxrnqtinnal dienntAc Fn. nAarAfnl TnAthnric nnt Ivy vuar anri (T) 

ION./1.1-1,l/%Al1114.-,11,,,ZU1.4.11,3.1.1%/1.l/V•,a1 

promote co-operation among the peoples and nations of the world, so as to 

1111 

increase weirare ana prosperity or tnese nations.                                in I 

Constitution of the League. 

The League of Nations consisted of an Assembly, a Council, a cr.ra-At ar; at ninn ,artain rrwrtrnitt..c artri tiara Tntrarrl ti rtn CraIrt                        t 0 

V1.41144,, 4,11,../115 VV14.41 SA.,1. 4414 ,-.l./1111141.1.4,a0, 4111,1 4.11, .1.114,114.41.1,/1141 Jt41 I.. Thus we find that the League had a legislative body, an executive and an 

administrative body, and a law-court just like a State. Yet it was not a 

State, because it had no police and no army. It had no coercive power and could not compel its members to obey it as the Sovereign States can. The Assembly. 

It consisted of the representatives of all the member-States of the League. Every member-State sent three delegates to it, but it had only one vote. The Assembly held its meetings once a year, in September every year. A resolution or decision of the Assembly required a unanimous vote of all the members present. The Assembly had the power to deal with everything within the authority of the League of Nations. It supervised the work of all other organs and Committees of the League. But its powers and functions were mainly advisory. It was, therefore, no more powerful than a college debating society. It was, however, an important thing that the Statesmen and 
638           POLITICAL SCIENCE 

leaders of the States of the world expressed their opinions on important matters confronting their countries and the world. In this sense the Assembly was a useful international forum. It was a source of forming world public opinion. The Council. 

It consisted of four permanent members, namely, France, Italy, U.K., and Japan, and ten elected members from other member-States of the League. The Council met four times a year, but could meet at any time in case of an emergency or threat of war. Each member had one vote, but unanimous decision was necessary if its resolutions were to be accepted by the governments of the world. The Council was an executive body. It decided all questions and disputes of the States. It was a primary factor in the settlement of international disputes. The Secretariat. 

The Secretariat was the administrative agency of the League. It was headed by a Secretary-General of the League. The Council appointed him with the approval of the Assembly. The Secretary-General was assisted by a large staff of officers, experts and clerks. They formed the Secretariat. The duties of the Secretariat were to register all treaties, and to supply information to the member-States about the activities of the League. It collected and published accurate information on many questions of international importance. The Secretary-General submitted reports to the Assembly and an Annual Report on the work of the Council to the Assembly. He prepared the agenda of work for the Assembly. The Secretariat of the League consisted of 637 men and women of 44 nationalities, appointed by the Secretary-General with the approval of the Council. They formed the International Civil Service. Other Organisations and Bodies of the League. 

The League has several other organisations, committees, etc. The most important of them were the International Labour Organisation (I.L.0.) and the International Court of Justice. (Both are described hereafter). Achievements of the League of Nations. 

The primary function of the League was to prevent the outbreak of war by setting international quarrels and solving the disputes between States which might result in a war between them. During the first ten years of its existence, the League had several achievements to its credit. It settled several international disputes between States and nations and thus prevented the outbreak of war between them. During its twenty years of existence, the League settled thirteen political disputes. Among them the first important dispute was a quarrel between Italy and Greece over the Island of Corfu in 1923. The quarrel was amicably settled by the intervention of the League. The second serious, dispute was between Greece and Bulgaria over their 
””N,, 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE        639 

boundaries in 1924. Both countries were about to fight. But the dispute was settled by the League peacefully. 

It may, however, be remarked that the international disputes which the League settled successfully were between weak and small countries and were of minor nature. When the Great Powers again began to conquer other lands, and exploit other nations, the League was proved to be absolutely incapable of preventing them. Japan conquered Manchuria, a province of China. Both were the members of the League, but it could do nothing to prevent Japan from invading and conquering  Chinese territories during 1931-33. Afterwards, Japan left the League and continued her invasion and conquest of China till she was defeated in the Second World War Similarly; Fascist Italy invaded and conquered another member of the League, namely, Abyssinia. The League imposed sanctions against Italy. The sanctions failed to restrain Italy from the war path. Italy also left the League. This proved to the world that the League failed when an international dispute involved a Great Power. 

The League tried to prevent the outbreak of war, by outlawing war as an instrument of national policy of the sovereign State. An agreement not to resort to war by all Great Powers of the world was entered into, called the Locarno Pact. But it proved to be a dead letter. Similarly, the Disarmament Conferences ended in failure. 

The League of Nations had several social and humanitarian achievements to its credit. Its Health  Committee endeavoured to fight against such cruel diseases .all over the world, as malaria, cancer, syphilis, T.B. and others. Further, the League had also controlled the trade and sale of such injurious things as opium. The Geneva Agreement of 1925 proved that the retail, sale, import and distribution of opium shall be the monopoly of the States. Another Committee of the League, called the Permanent Committee on Arts and Letters, performed two services, namely, it conserved the masterpieces of Arts and Letters, and promoted intellectual co-operation. The League dealt with the important questions of labour and of the relations between the workers and employers. These functions were performed by the International Labour Organisation (T.L.0.). It is one of the bodies which have survived the League. Its limitations. 

We have noted the achievements of the League and have seen where it had failed to achieve anything. This brings us to an important question: Why did the League fail in its supreme purpose of preventing the outbreak of a world war? The answer lies in the limitations in the organisation of the League of Nations. These limitations were the causes of its failure. They were the following: 

1.        The   League   was   a   non-sovereign,    non-coercive organisation, while its members who were to obey it and were sovereign 
640           POLITICAL SCIENCE 

and independent States. It means the League had no army, no police and no coercive power, while its members were armed with authority and sovereignty. When the Great Powers considered that its decisions were against their own national or imperialist interests, they refused to accept its resolutions and flouted it its authority. Japan, Italy and Germany left the League and refused to recognise it at all. England and France turned  the League into an instrument of their own national and imperialist policies. 

2.       Even with the best of intentions, the League could not succeed, unless it had the power and authority to remove injustices all over the world. There were national oppressions, colonial enslavement, political domination and such other evils all over the world. But the League had no power to do justice to the oppressed and enslaved- peoples and nations. It had no authority to set subject nations free. It’could not remove the colonial domination by Great Powers over the weak and enslaved nations. It could not change unjust frontiers. In short, it could not remove any one of the causes which troubled the world. It was created to maintain the status quo. But the new imperialist powers, like Germany, Italy and Japan, could not be satisfied without conquering the possessions of their rival imperialist powers, Great Britain, France and U.S.A. Hence the League of Nations failed, because it could not maintain a balance of power among the Great Powers, and redistribute conquered and enslaved lands among them. So, war between them became inevitable. 

3.       The League had no power to halt rearmament. An arms 

race of preparation for war started between Germany, Japan and Italy on the one side, and England, France, U S A., etc., on the other. This arms race led straight to the World War II. 

4.         The principle of sanctions was defective. A small country could be frightened or deterred by the international boycott or blockade. But 

a Great Power cannot be so deterred. Only an agreement among all the States of the world, big or small to maintain world peace could preserve 

peace and strengthen the League. World peace should be indivisible. But it 

was not so at that time. That is why the League failed in its purpose. 

UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION (U.N.0.) Origin of the United Nations Organisation. 

The League of Nations failed to prevent a new world war. The 

World War 11 (1939-45), more terrible, more destructive than the first one, 

was fought on much larger areas of Europe, Asia and Africa than the earlier 

one. The Second World War gave a new impetus and urge to set up a nes 

world organisation to put an end to war and to preserve peace in the future. 

With this end in view, 43 Allied nations, fighting against Hitlerite Germany. Fascist Italy and Japan declared themselves as United Nations on January 1, 

1 

1942. At the end of the World War II, a world conference of 50 nations mot at San Francisco, in U.S.A., from April to June, 1945. On the 26th June, 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE        641 

1945, a constitution of the United Nations was prepared, called the Charter. It was finally signed and ratified by the majority of the participating nations on 24th October 1945, when the United Nations Organisation (U.N.0.) came into being. Aims of the U.N.O. 

The aims and purpose of the U.N.O. can be briefly described in four words: (1) Security, (2) Human Rights, (3) Justice, and (4) Welfare. 

The aims of the U.N.O. may be described in the words of the U.N. Charter itself. The preamble, i.e., the Introduction of the Charter says: 

(i)       The first aim of the U.N.O. is ”to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life-time has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” This is the aim of security and maintenance of peace throughout the world. 

(ii)      The second aim is ”to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women of nations, large and small” This is the aim of maintaining human rights. 

(iii)      The third aim of the U.N.O. is ”to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations, arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” This is the aim of maintaining international justice and law. 

(iv)      The fourth aim is ”to promote social progress and better standard of life in larger freedom.” This is the aim of promoting Man’s welfare and happiness. 

The United Nations Organisation is an international organisation of 160 sovereign States of the world, which have joined together under its Charter: (1) to maintain peace in the world and to prevent war and aggression, (2) to promote international co-operation and friendship among all nations of the world, (3) to develop their economic, social, cultural and intellectual life, and (4) to cement the ties of international brotherhood. Its Constitution. 

The United Nations Organisation is founded on these basic principles: (i)       All member-States are equal and sovereign. (ii)       All are pledged to fulfil their obligations under the 

Charter in good faith. (vi)       All are pledged to settle their international disputes by 

peaceful means. (iv)       In its international relations no member shall use or 

threaten to use force against the territory and independence of any State or behave in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. 
642 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

(v)       All are-pledged to give every assistance to the United 

Nations when, in accordance with the Charter, it takes any action, and also not to give assistance to any State against which the United Nations is taking action to preserve or restore peace. (vi)      The United Nations shall not interfere in the internal 

matters of any State-except when it is acting to enforce international peace. Keeping in view these aims and principles, the membership of the United Nations is open to peace-loving States which accept the obligations of the Charter mentioned above. 

Organs of the U.N.O. General Assembly 

Secretary-General’ Trusteeship Secretariat 

Security 

Council Council 

International 

Court of Justice 

Economic and Social Council 

I.L.O. F.A.O. W.H.O. UNESCOUNICEF ECE ECAFE 

(Specialised Agencies)         (U.N. Commissions) 

The United Nations Organisation consists of six organs and several specialised agencies. Its organs are: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (briefly called ECOSOC), the Trusteeship Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice.. Its specialized agencies are the International Labour Office (briefly I L.0.), the Food and Agricultural Organisation (F.A.0.), the United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the 

International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.). etc. The General Assembly. 

The U.N.O. has 159 members. Each member-State sends not I than five delegates to the General Assembly, but it has one vote. 

General Assembly meets at least once a year in September. But if there is I 

threat to peace, it can be summoned to meet at any time of the 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE 

643 

Decisions on important questions are made by a two-third majority of the members present and voting. 

The General Assembly is really the legislative organ of the U.N.O. It performs or supervises all the functions for which the U.N.O. is established. It discusses any question relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, when it is brought before it by any member, or by the Security Council, It has the right to discuss and make recommendations on all matters within the scope of the Charter. It has also the right to discuss the powers and functions of all other organs of the U.N.O. They all submit annual and special reports to it. It elects the  ten non-permanent members of the Security Council, the members of the Economic and Social Council and the elective members of the Trusteeship Council. The Security Council. 

It consists of 15 members, five permanent and 10 elected for two years. The five permanent members are U.S.A., U.S.S.R., U.K. France and China period the Security Council is the principal organ of the U.N.O., to preserve world peace and security. It performs the primary function of preserving peace for which the U.-N.O. was created. It has two functions, firstly, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes between two or more States, and secondly, to stop aggression. 

Each member of the Security Council has one vote. A decision on any matter other than a question of procedure is by an affirmative vote of ten members including the votes of the five permanent members, viz., U.S.A. U.K., USSR, China and France. This is the rule of ”Great Power unanimity,” popularly called the ”veto”. As the Security Council has the primary function of keeping peace all over the world, it is always vigilant. It is, therefore, so organised as to be able to work continuously. 

The Security Council has the right to investigate any dispute or situation which may lead to a war between two or more countries. Such disputes or situations  may be brought before the Security Council by one of its members, or any member-State,  by the General Assembly or by the Secretary-General. It has the right to recommend ways and means of settling such international disputes peacefully and, if need be, it may itself lay down terms of settlement. In the event of a breach of international peace, the Security Council has power to take ”enforcement” measures in order to restore international peace and security. These measures are economic boycott or use of armed forces. The Economic and Social Council. 

One of the chief functions of the U.N.O. is to promote the prosperity, welfare, and standard of living of all the countries of the world. This function is primarily performed by the Economic and Social Council. 
644       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

The Council holds meeting at least twice a year. It consists of 27 members, nine of whom are elected each year by the General Assembly for a term of three years. The Council organises the work of the specialised agencies, like the I.L.O., F.A.O., and UNESCO. It also appoints commissions for particular aspects of its work. It also hears reports from regional economic commission, like ECAFE for Asia and Far East. 

Trusteeship Council works for social, economic educational and other developments of the peoples living  in Trust Territories. 

Secretariat. Much of the work of the U.N.O. is performed by the Secretary-General and his staff. He may bring any matter which threatens world peace to the attention of the Security Council. The Secretariat now consists of about 4.500 employees of the U.N.O., from all nations of the world. 

Lastly, the U.N.O. has several agencies. Commissions and organisations for special functions, such as food and agriculture, science, arts and education, atomic energy, etc. they all work for promoting progress and development in their special relevant fields. They are, for example, the UNESCO, the I.L.O., etc. 

The UNESCO. It is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It is one of the specialised agencies of the U.N.O. It was established on November 4, 1946, with its headquarters at Paris, France. Its Composition. 

The UNESCO consists of 66 members. Some of them are U.S.A.. 

U.K., France, Pakistan, and other nations. It consists of three organs, viz., a 

General Conference, an Executive Board, and a Secretariat. Its Functions. 

The functions of the UNESCO are determined by the great purpose 

for which (he U.N.O. is established, namely, to promote peace through 

collective security and the intellectual and social progress without which no 

just and lasting peace is possible. Broadly speaking, it has three functions as 

shown by its name, viz., promotion of educational, scientific and cultural 

progress and development. The International Labour Organisation (I.L.0.) 

The I.L.O. was set up in 1919, along with the League of Natioes. But it has continued to exist after the end of the League. In 1946, by az 

agreement with the U.N.O. the I.L.O. has become a ”specialised agency” of 

the U.N.O. Purposes and functions of the I.L.O. 

One of the purposes of the U.N.O. is to promote human welfare and social justice. The I L.O. exists for this purpose. Its purpose is so 

maintain and improve the standard of living of the workers of the world. 

N 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE       645 

The functions of the I.L.O. are: (1) the regulation of hours of work, including the establishment of maximum working day and week; (2) prevention of unemployment; (3) provision for adequate living wages; (4) the protection of the workers against sickness, disease and injury during work; (5) protection of the children, young persons and women; (6) provision for old age and injury; (7) freedom of association; (8) the organisation of vocational and technical education. Its Composition. 

The I.L.O. consists of 66 member-countries. It works through three organs. They are: (1) the Conference; (2) the Governing Body; and (3) the International Labour Office, or its Secretariat. 

International Court of Justice. 

The Covenant of the League of Nations had planned for the establishment of an international court. In 1921, a court was established, with the name of the Permanent Court of International Justice. This Court survived the League When the U.N.O. was established; the Permanent Court became an integral part of this Organisation, with the new title of the International Court of Justice. But as regards its composition, functions, and jurisdiction, there had been no change whatsoever. Its Composition. 

All the members of the U.N.O. are parties to the Statute of the International Court. 

The Court consists of 15 judges, who hold their office for nine years. It has its seat at the Hague, Holland. The judges are chosen without regard to their nationality. They are elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Its Jurisdiction. 

The jurisdiction of the Court extends to all the cases which the member-States refer to it. The non-member-States can also refer their disputes to the Court on the condition of complying with its decision. But the States are not forced to submit their disputes or cases to the Court. The Court has the jurisdiction in the following cases: Cases of legal nature which involve  the interpretation of treaties, and question of international law, violation of international obligations, and the nature and extent of preparation for the breach of international obligations. A review of the work of the U.N.O. 

From the brief survey of the work of the U.N.O., described above, we can say that the U.N.O. has been a far greater success than the old League of Nations. It has achieved much in many fields of international setup. Its work has been far greater and far more laudable than that of the old League. It must be remarked that the U.N.O. is working for more troubled and trying world of today than the League of Nations did during 
646 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

the two World Wars. During the last five decades since the end of the Second World War, the world  has faced far greater dangers and perils than mankind has ever faced in all its history. The tensions and hatreds which divide the world today are far greater, deeper and more irreconcilable than ever before. The whole world is rent into blocs of small and big Powers. Each one of them is resolved to destroy the other by the horrible weapons of mass destruction which science and human ingenuity have invented. These Power blocs had fought war in Korea, in which the U.N.O. got far more involved than the old League ever was in the Wars of Japanese or Italian or Nazi aggressions in the thirties of the 20th century. Wars have been fought in Vietnam, in which the U.N.O. did nothing, because U.S.A. refused it, in the Middle Fast between Israel and the Arab nations, which the U.N.O. brought to a close by its resolutions. But Israel refuses to comply with them. Iraq and Iran war was however, also stopped by U.N.O. intervention. The Soviet aggression and intervention in Afghanistan was stopped by Geneva Agreement under the auspices of the U.N.O. All this goes to the credit of the U.N.O. 

The U.N.O. has failed in many cases. It has failed to solve the Kashmir question. It has failed to keep the aggressive Israel within those boundaries which the U.N.O. had itself defined in 1949. It has failed to solve the tragic problems of recent Israeli aggression against the Palestinian Arabs. It has failed in Korea. It has failed to stop the armament race for more and more deadly weapons. It failed to restrain Indian aggression against East Pakistan in 1971. There are several other failures of the U.N.O. It has failed to stop Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December, 1979. It did not check the war between Iran and Iraq except at the tail-end of the conflict when both Iran & Iraq became tired of further warfare. It took no notice of Indian aggression in Sri Lanka in 1988-89. It has failed to prevent genocidal suppression of the Palestinians by Israel in the occupied West Bank and Gaza territories during 1988. It has failed to render any help to the Black freedom fighters in South Africa against apartheid policy of the racist South African Government. 

In spite of its failures, the U.N.O. has been successful in many fields. It has brought about the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. It has successfully mediated in the quarrel between Holland and Indonesia, and secured Indonesia’s freedom and independence from her Dutch masters. The Commission on Human Rights agreed upon a Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10th December, 1948. A world-wide network of U.N.O. agencies, commissions, etc., is working in several fields of all kinds in almost all countries of the world_ They are fighting diseases, famines and floods. They are surveying and organising hundreds of economic, social and other works. So, this World 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE 

647 

Organisation cannot be called a failure. If it is has failed in certain respects, it is due to the principle of State Sovereignty. 

PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Condition of the World Today. 

The brief survey of the international organisations given above reveals the condition of the world today. It shows that our world has become a small and highly interdependent world. Many forces and factors have knit it into One-world of humanity, linked by ever-growing ties of industry, arts, science and culture. They have generated feelings of world unity, and cooperation which are bringing various nations and States together and promoting international relations and friendship. On the other hand, the world today is also torn by powerful forces of mutual hatred and discord among the nations, divided as they are by differences of culture, religion, national sovereignty and ideology. Terrible weapons of mass destruction threaten to destroy the world and wipe out the human race. The burden of rearmament has become unbearable for the nations today, partly because of the tremendous cost of the modern nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and the huge war-budget of the modern States and partly because money and capital which are required for economic, cultural and educational development plans, are wasted in senseless arms race between the States preparing for their small and big wars, especially the ”third world war”. Mankind is, indeed, on the horns of a dilemma. It is threatened to be destroyed not only by the ”hot war” and its nuclear weapons of mass destruction but also in times of peace due to its huge war-budgets and high cost of war-preparation, which is a colossal waste of human resources in men and materials. They also cause poverty and misery all over the world. So the world today has reached a stage where the very thought of preparing for a war has become a burden and a disaster. Hence the need is to stop arms race and disarm the nations of the world which are now armed to the teeth. 

From this condition of. the world today three problems emerge. They are: firstly, the need for collective security; secondly, the problem of disarmament; and thirdly, the question of world-government or world-State. Collective Security. 

In modern times, the danger of clash of arms has increased manifold, because the contacts between nations have increased, as the world has become small. Every State is surrounded by several enemies around it, far and near. But at the same time war has become so expensive and so wasteful that no single State can fight it unaided. It is, therefore, increasingly felt that all or several States should pool their resources and armaments together to defend one and all. Such a scheme is called collective security. It is a system of treaties and agreements by which the 

I 

648       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

national security and territorial integrity of each country is guaranteed by other allied countries. The best form of collective security is when all States will join together to defend each one. Peace is said to be indivisible. Two or more nations cannot be allowed to fight each other without endangering the peace and security of all others. But as this ideal of collective security on the global scale is not practicable, collective security on a lesser scale is suggested in the form of regional security pacts of some countries. 

The principle of universal collective security was first embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations. But it did not work properly due to the narrow-minded interests of the Great Powers, like Great Britain, France and the emergence of aggressive dictatorships in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Japan. When the United Nations Organisation was set up in 1945, the principle of collective security was embodied in its Charter too. The Security Council is made the agency of ensuring collective security of the nations of the world. It requires the acceptance by individual countries of collective decisions and their willingness to carry out these decisions, if necessary, by military action. But the scheme of collective security is the subject to one condition, namely, the principle of unanimity of the five Great Powers (U.K., U.S.A., USSR, France and China), popularly called the ”veto”. If any one of these Great Powers votes against the majority decision of the Security Council to take action against an aggressor, it will not be carried out. The question can then be referred to the General Assembly, where the Veto’ docs not obtain. 

Owing to the defective operation of the universal collective security in the United Nations Security Council, collective security schemes on a restricted scale have been adopted by some States. They are called regional security schemes and alliances. A regional security scheme is an attempt of the like-minded nations and States to establish a regional security system for their own interest and areas. It is on the pattern of limited collective security schemes that the NATO alliance of the Western Powers, the Warsaw Pact of the Communist countries of Eastern Europe came into being to maintain and promote their influence and interests and control other parts of the world. With the changes in Eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact has become weak. Hence question is raised: should the NATO alliance be maintained? Only future developments can answer the question. Disarmament. 

Arms and weapons of war have greatly multiplied in number and kinds in the present times. These are the old weapons, like the guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, called the conventional weapons. They kill only one or a few individuals at a time. On the other hand, there are the new weapons of mass destruction, like the atom and hydrogen bombs, rockets and missiles, capability of destroying whole cities, provinces and even nations at a single blow. They are the nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons 

■10- 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE       649 

of mass destruction, threatening to wipe out the whole humanity from the face of the earth. The increasing armament of both conventional and unclear weapons has become one of the most important and the most difficult problems of the world today. Economically and financially armament has become an unbearable burden, and militarily a terrible danger of total destruction. 

Its solution is disarmament. But the term disarmament is itself difficult to define, for it means differently to different peoples. It has at least three meanings. Firstly, it means the reduction of armament and armed forces of the various States of the world. Secondly, it means a control over armament in order to regulate the production of war-weapons and thus check the war-preparation of the various States. Thirdly, it means the complete and universal renunciation of all weapons of war and the total disbandment of all kinds of armed forces, -air, naval, military and space. 

Historically speaking, the question of disarmament was first put before the world in 1918 at the end of the First World War. At that time it only meant the reduction of armament. Many unsuccessful attempts were made between 1918 and 1939 to reach international agreement on the limitation of armament. But they ended in failure due to the reluctance of U.K., France, U.S.A., Japan and other Great Powers to endanger their imperialist interests, occupation of territories of other nations, colonies established elsewhere and possessions by reducing their armed forces and armament. 

After the Second World War, the disarmament question assumed still greater and more urgent proportions due to the invention of atomic and hydrogen bombs and more recently by that of the inter-continental rockets and missiles and the yet little-known poison and germ weapons of the biological and chemical warfare. That is the reason why Article 26 of the United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council should draw up plans for the regulation of armament. 

For this purpose, the United Nations set up in 1946 the Atomic Energy Commission for the elimination of the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes and in 1947 the Commission for Conventional Armament, ”for the general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces.” But little progress was made in these Commissions. However, in 1951, the two Commissions were merged into the United Nations Disarmament Commission. In fact, the question of disarmament has now become more complicated than that of mere regulation of armament. Disarmament now means not only the reduction of armament but the need for international control, supervision and inspection of such reduction of weapons. Nevertheless, no agreement except the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1971 has hitherto been entered into between the Western and Soviet bloc countries. They differ on such questions as the immediate prohibition of the 
4fp 

650 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

production and test of nuclear weapons, the nature of international supervision and inspection, the phasing of the reduction of armed forces, etc. new variant to the meanings of disarmament is the demand for total and universal disarmament. It means total and universal -disarmament and destruction of all weapons of war, both conventional and nuclear and the total disbandment of all armed forces, leaving only police force for  internal security and defence of the individual States. But such proposals  are not acceptable to the Super Powers. Moreover, there is no guarantee that all nations of the world would be ready to surrender all their arms and armed forces. 

Indeed, the question of disarmament is not so easy solution as it seems. It is not merely a problem of throwing  the weapons of war into the sea or disbanding the armies, navies and air forces of the world. It is a question closely related to the questions of the national economies of the States, their national security and defence, and the protection and defence of the national interests, and advantages, military and other bases in foreign lands and the spheres of influences and military alliances. Furthermore, disarmament is also a problem pregnant with great social and economic consequences. What would the nations do with the immense amounts of money which they now spend on their war-budgets”? Indeed, the national prosperity and economy of great States e.g., U.S.A., U.S.S.R, and others depends upon the huge armament factories and plants which provide employment to millions of workers, technicians, engineers and scientists and great profits to the armament manufacturers. Where would the workers and  scientists go and where from the profits come if there is a sudden total and  universal disarmament? Should there be not a phased disarmament so that these millions might be absorbed in the national economy in a gradual manner? Apparently any scheme of disarmament must be gradual and phased so that it may not  disrupt the national economy of the States and may not throw the world economy out of gear. But a slow and phased disarmament has its own dangers. The danger is that one or more slowly disarming States may at any moment stop the process  of disarmament and start rearming once again and launch the world into an armament race once more and thereby again raise the spectre of the third world war. One solution of these dangers and difficulties is to establish a world-State. 

THE WORLD-STATE The Idea of the World-State. 

The idea of a world-State is one of the oldest dreams of mankind. Great religions have preached it, though in the vague terms of human brotherhood. Great thinkers, like Kant, have taught it in more explicit, albeit impracticable, terms. Great conquerors, like Alexander, Timor the Lame, and Napoleon, built vast empires as the foundation-stone of a world-State. While these were mostly individual efforts, more collective efforts have 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE 

651 

been made in recent times. The League of Nations was founded with a dim hope that it would become a world-State in the future. At present, the United Nations Organisation has been established with more explicit hopes that it would become a world government in not too distant future. But in spite of these dreams, hopes and plans, the concept of a world-State is not feasible, and is beset with many difficulties. Difficulties of the World-State. 

The idea of a world-State is easy to dream of, but difficult to realise. Any idea of establishing the world-State is always confronted with several difficulties and opposition. They are, to mention a few, the concept of national sovereignty of the modern States, the global interests and designs of some Great Powers and even of some lesser Powers like Israel and India, the difficulties of disarmament, the desire of certain States to maintain the international status quo, which means to maintain the unjust frontiers of certain States and the suppression of the urge for national independence and self-determination of subject nationalities and minorities in various multinational States of today, the parochial and selfish outlook and ideologies of certain nations and States, cultures and religions and the national prejudices and hatreds, ambitions and designs of several States and governments. 

Factors in favour of the World-State. 

At the same time, there are several tendencies and forces in the modern world which favour the establishment or the emergence of the world-State. They are, to mention a few, the terribly destructive power of the nuclear and thermo-nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, the need to ban nuclear tests, the need for world-wide collective security, the great scientific and technological advances in industry, communication and transport, the ever-closer interdependence of the world-economy and industry, the growth of a universal human culture and the demand for equality of nations and peoples, etc. In other words, the ancient barriers of colour, class, creed and clime are crumbling down before the advance of modern science and intellect, industry and technology, culture and arts, which are knitting the whole humanity into ever closer bonds of mutual aid, understanding and fraternity. 

So, there are two contradictory tendencies in the world today, one threatening it with total destruction and annihilation and the other making it one-world of the whole mankind. It is in the context of these conflicting tendencies that we have to consider whether the world-State is a feasible concept or not. 

How to set up the World-State. 

There is no unanimity of opinion among the thinkers and planners of the world-State as how to establish it. Some propose a world federation 
652 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

of the existing States in the world. Others propose the transformation of the United Nations Organisation into a world-government. Still others hope that the present regional alliances, like the NATO, would one day emerge into a world-government. Socialist movements and  Communist panics aim at a socialist or communist world order or society as their ultimate goal. Some plan to establish an international police force which will replace the armies of the various States. But all these plans and proposals have remained on paper only. Arguments for the World-State. 

Many arguments have been given by eminent writers in favour of a world-State or universal State, as summarised here: 1.           Nationalism and national State are dangerous. 

Nationalism is a great force in the world today and the national State is a very popular way of organising political life. But both nationalism and national State have proved to be a very fertile source of war and hatred, jealousy and antagonism in the world. The only way by which mankind can rid itself of the dangers of endless wars and feuds among nations is to organise a world-State. It will abolish national States and deprive the warring nations of their sovereign power to wage war on each other. Instead of national States and national sovereignty, the world State will consist of autonomous units of the world-wide political union. National disputes will then be settled peacefully rather than by war, just as the disputes between two citizens are now settled peacefully in the courts of law rather than by family vendetta as it used to be in the past. 2.        The world-Stale will end wars. 

In the past, wars were petty affairs of kings and warriors and were confined to the armies fighting  on the fields of battle. But in modern times, they have become very costly, burdensome, very destructive and global in their consequences. Moreover, they now make no distinction between the combatants and non-combatants, citizens and soldiers, battlefields and peaceful towns and cities. If mankind is to escape from utter destruction of the modern weapons of war, it will have to federate or unite into a single world State, which alone will put an end to wars for all times. 3.        World-State will eliminate discord and waste. 

World-State is also an economic necessity. National States seek selfish ends and narrow gains, without caring for the needs and sufferings of other peoples and countries. Economic competition and rivalry causes much wastage of economic resources. World prices of various commodities are artificially kept high by certain States in order to make great profits, while there is scarcity, famine and starvation in other parts of the world. There is over-production in some States, while poverty, misery and undernourishment exist in others. Such inequalities, waste and sufferings can be removed from the face of the earth by establishing the world-State. It will 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE        653 

put an end to the exploitation and oppression of one nation by another. The productive resources of one country will benefit others. The surplus production in one country will be available to other parts of the world. In short, a world economy will replace the wasteful anarchy that exists today. Moreover in the present-day interdependent world, the world-State will foster the growth of a world economy and industry which will benefit all nations equally and equitably. 4.       Sense of world-unity is growing in the world today. 

There is also a revolution in man’s way of thinking and belief today. In the past ages, man lived in isolated communities and regions, behind the barriers of culture and beliefs of local nature. Localism, even parochialism, was the order of the day in the past. They had divided mankind into small and separate communities of tribes and towns, villages and localities. But progress in science and means of communication has broken down these barriers of localism and parochialism. Now localism is replaced by a growing idea of internationalism and universalism. World public opinion is growing up in many ways, and a world culture or a worldwide uniformity of opinions, beliefs and ideas is coming into being. This has created a sense of world-unity and a belief that this earth is one-world of the whole mankind. We find free exchange of ideas and techniques among the scientists, philosophers, engineers, thinkers, artists and men of literature. This growing unity of thought, beliefs and opinions is creating a world-consciousness among large numbers of peoples in all countries of the world. This is one of the most powerful psychological and intellectual force working in favour of the emergence of the world-State. Arguments against a World-State. 

The idea of world-State is opposed and criticised by many writers, thinkers and Statesmen as a visionary and unpractical dream. They point out a number of reasons and tendencies which make it an impossible and 

unrealisable ideal, as given below: 

1.         National interests of the existing States are opposed to this 

idea 

The idea of the world-State is unacceptable to the existing States, big or small. The Great Powers do not like world-State, because it will deprive them of all that makes them great, while the super Powers as Great Britain, France and others will be gone as soon as a world-State comes into being, will lost their special position U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, which dominates politically and economically less fortunate nations and countries. At the same if the world-State is established shad, the neo-imperialist powers, like Israel or India will have to give up their ambitions and designs of conquering their neighbours hear and far and to become new world powers or super powers. The national interests of these powerful or ambitions States demand that the present international order must be 

654 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

ii 

maintained. A world-State will strike a death-blow to the interests, designs and aspirations of these countries. Even the small States do not like the idea of a world-State, because it will merge them into a world-organisation in which they will not enjoy any distinctive existence or entity, as they do at present. 2.        It is difficult to organise a world-State. 

The idea of a world-State is an impossible and impracticable idea. The world State cannot be organised on any one of the well-known principles of Political Science. Should the future world-State be monarchical  or republican, unitary or federal, capitalistic, communistic, democratic or dictatorial? If it is to be monarchical, who will be king of the world? If it is to be republican, what shall be its actual form — aristocratic, democratic, parliamentary or presidential? If it is to be unitary, what to do about the differences of national cultures and laws? Where will be its capital? How will its parliament and cabinet be formed? If a federation, how will different nations, big and small, be representekin it? If it will be on population basis, will not be populous countries, like India and China, dominate it° Will not then small nations with small populations become the slaves of the populous countries, because they will have no voice or place in such a world-government? If so, the world-State will be based on new injustices and tyrannies of the countries with big populations. Moreover, what will be the official language or languages of the world-State? These are some of the questions which defy solution and make the ideal of worldState to impracticable and Utopian. 3.        The world-consciousness is cither non-existent, vague and 

rudimentary: The critics of the idea of the world-State point out the fact that there is no world-consciousness, no world public opinion. There is only a vague notion of the world-wide movements and tendencies, confined mostly to a few educated. Overwhelming majority of mankind still thinks in terms of national interests and well-being. The national outlook still pervades the minds of the people everywhere in the world. Everyone thinks first of his country and then of other countries. In all international disputes, Statesmen and peoples seek to defend the interests and advantages of their own countries and peoples. They have no idea and no interest in the common interest and well-being of the mankind as a whole. National selfinterest is the law and the logic of the international relations and dealings even today. Hence there is no world-conscience and no world public opinion, without which the idea of the world-State is an empty dream or a remote possibility. 4.        The U.N.O. cannot emerge into a world-State. 

Its critics also reject the idea that such international organisations as the U.N.O. can emerge into a world-State in the future. They point out 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND WORLD STATE 

655 

the shortcomings of the U.N.0, and the bickering in the U.N. General Assembly, where every international dispute is viewed solely from national standpoint of each member-State. Moreover, the U.N.O., like the League of Nations, has failed in many cases to solve the disputes on a global basis, such as the Korean War, the Middle East crisis today, the question of Arab Palestine, the Kashmir dispute, the U.S. aggression in Viet Nam, the Berlin crisis, the Soviet aggression, in  Afghanistan and so on. In all these disputes, it has proved itself to be as ineffective and helpless as the League of Nations was before it. Moreover, the very principles on which the U.N.O. is based are against its becoming a world-government. It acts through the support of the Big Powers, especially the two Super Powers U.S.A. and Russia. When this support is not forthcoming, it does nothing. It has no sovereign authority. It has no international police force and no executive authority to act on its own rights or enforce its decisions. 5.           A world-State will retard progress, abolish competition and 

suppress individual liberty. The world-State is also an undesirable ideal on moral and progressive basis. Human progress has been possible due to national differences in outlook and culture and by competition between these different and diverse attitudes and aims. But the world-State will substitute these differences by a dull uniformity of thoughts, ideals and institutions all over the world. It will thus mould human life into a single pattern, in which there will be no competition, no variety and no diversity of cultures, thoughts, customs and institutions, and also no liberty for each nation to live in its own way. Individual and national liberty will be replaced by the dull uniformity of a world-culture, world-language and world-outlook. Such a dull uniformity of thought and belief and institutions will put an end to all human progress. The very charm of human existence would then vanish from the world. Conclusion. 

Looking towards twenty-first century. The idea of a world-State is, indeed, a difficult, if not an impossible ideal. The very proposal of establishing a World State provokes some deep-seated moral, political, psychological, economic, national and international complications and objections. Nevertheless, there are also a number of trends and developments in human life, culture, society, science, technology and politics which are tending towards the emergence of a world State in some form or other in near or distant future. The history of mankind today has reached  a stage where a world-State in some shape or other is bound to emerge or the world of Man is to meet with an utter destruction and extinction by the terrible forces of modern warfare and human ingenuity to kill each other. A global holocaust threatens mankind in the form of nuclear weapons and missiles, including those of the so-called ”Star Wars” or the 
POLITICAL SCIENCE 

S.D.I. (Strategic Defence Initiative), of U.S. devising, which will be unleashed once a new world war breaks out. Only a world-State or world. government can effectively save mankind from this terrible fate. Moreover, the arguments that the world-State would suppress individual liberty, retard progress and create a dull uniformity are also not valid. A World-State consisting of various national units, of different cultures and differeni historical origins and languages, may stimulate greater efforts, energy and activity by their inter-stimulation and intercourse than ’the present-day mutual hatreds and threats of mutual destruction and wars. The idea of a world-State may be distant ideal, but it is very much in the shape of thing to come, thanks to the evolution of modern science, industry, technology. tele-communication and information explosion also lead mankind to the age-old dream of human brotherhood and equality. Will this dream become a reality in the human world of the twenty first century?