In speaking about arms control negotiations in a multipolar world, it is necessary to bear in mind that we are not really in a multipolar world right now. But perhaps we are starting toward one, at least as far as nuclear power is concerned. Britain, France, and China possess only relatively small nuclear forces at present but they will grow in time and eventually will have to be taken into consideration at least in arms control negotiations involving nuclear weapons. France and Britain at the present do have a nuclear deterrent force which would deter an attack as far as the Soviets are concerned. The status of the Chinese nuclear force is very much more uncertain. It is possible that they now possess a very limited deterrent to an attack by the Soviet Union. Certainly there is no question that at the present time they do not have any means by which they can threaten, even in retaliation, a nuclear attack against the United States. As a consequence, the Chinese do not provide any direct threat to us and we can go ahead and negotiate agreements with the Soviet Union without any real consideration of Chinese participation. One need not conclude from the growing Chinese nuclear power that they must necessarily be brought into the SALT negotiations in the near future.

It is a basic premise of my remarks here today that it is necessary to take quite seriously not only the rhetoric but the reality of the term “the global village.” That is to say, it is now clear that 98% of humankind sees the entire world as human society. This phenomenon, it should be underscored, is a psycho-historical first, and has had a drastic impact on the images and the attitudes we have in regard to authority structures within domestic societies, as well as within the international community. One of the implications of saying that there is a “global village” is that sometime within the next two decades many people throughout the globe are likely to begin to discuss quite seriously the governance of that global village in ways perhaps which we previously had eschewed. I should like to address myself initially to that theme and then come back to the role of the United Nations and some specific recommendations.

I propose to discuss the topic through an examination of the practice in East Africa, especially as it relates to its Asian community. There is considerable confusion in the rules of international law on this topic. Few rules are above controversy and in many instances, the practice goes against what are alleged to be the rules. The answer in several instances depends on interrelated but separate issues, each of which might be controversial. Lack of clear answers is partly due to the great number of variables. Additionally, some of these variables are matters properly governed by international law; others by domestic law. Moreover, there is, generally speaking, a need for greater consensus among states on the scope of the variables before the set of rules can function effectively. Thus questions of nationality are central, but the jurisdiction over them is domestic; problems of statelessness are controversial; the right to leave a country may depend on the right to enter another; the possibility of expelling a person is contingent on the obligation or the willingness of another country to receive him.

This discussion on “Expulsion and Expatriation in International Law” is very timely indeed. Today we are witnessing a new type of people “in orbit,” not astronauts but “refugees in orbit.” In a recent bulletin, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees vividly describes how a typical refugee in orbit wandered from country to country over the past half year in quest of some one country that might let him in and stay. What made the case dramatic was that during that long period the refugee was shuffled from airplane to airplane, and confined in airports. Compelled to leave the country of residence and lacking proper identity and travel documents, many people cannot disembark legally anywhere. In earlier times there was always the possibility of jumping ship. But today, under the closed national boundary system policed by more sophisticated entry and exit control, such unfortunate persons are condemned to a nightmarish cycle of enforced airplane journeys and periods of practical imDrisonment in ainrart waiting rooms.