Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:45:33.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of United World Federalist Thought and Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Ernest S. Lent
Ernest S. Lent
Affiliation:
University of Vienna on the World Movement for World Federal Government. He has served in the UN Secretariat and is currently Instructor in economics at Randolph-Macon Woman's College. He has been a member of the United World Federalists.
Get access

Extract

Ten years have passed since the initial publication of Emery Reves's international best-seller, The Anatomy of Peace, and the rapid growth of numerous organizations which took up the cry for world government at the dawn of the Atomic Era. Open conflict in Korea in 1950, following several years of severe international tension, seemed to lend some grim support to early world federalist warnings that the world would either “federate or disintegrate” within the span of a few years. But the international atmosphere has improved somewhat in recent years, and the world has not conformed with the early federalist prediction. Indeed, world federalists themselves are still very much alive and active on this still unfederated planet—not only in the United States, but in more than a score of other non-communist countries as well.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 1955 , pp. 486 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reves, Emery, The Anatomy of Peace, New York, Pocket Books, Inc., 1946, p. 38Google Scholar.

2 Federalists usually speak of delegating a “portion of our sovereignty”. Whether or not sovereignty is actually divisible is of course much debated among political scientists. Those who wish a full presentation of the UWF viewpoint are referred to “Don't Give Up Your Sovereignty—make it work for you,” UWF, 1953Google Scholar.

3 The most authoritative guides to UWF policy, here used in the wide sense of the term, are the statements of the UWF General Assembly, which has met in annual convention since 1947. These statements, referred to frequently in this article, have been published by the UWF as follows: Beliefs, Purposes and Policies, 1st General Assembly, St. Louis, 1947Google Scholar; 2nd General Assembly, Minneapolis, November 1948; and 3d General Assembly, Cleveland, October 1949. Policy Statement, 4th General Assembly, Washington, 10 1950Google Scholar; 5th General Assembly, Des Moines, July 1951; and 6th General Assembly, Philadelphia, June 1952. Policy and Platform, 7th General Assembly, Chicago, 06 1953Google Scholar; and 8th General Assembly, Washington, June 1954. Policy and “What We Stand For”, 9th General Assembly, New York, 05 1955Google Scholar. Other resolutions by UWF General Assemblies and statements by the UWF's National Executive Council and Executive Committee are the next most authoritative guides to UWF thinking.

4 This does not necessarily imply compulsory jurisdiction of all international disputes. UWF Vice-President Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn propose compulsory jurisdiction on legal disputes only. A World Equity Tribunal would make recommendations, sanctioned only by prestige and public opinion, on nonlegal disputes. Peace Through Disarmament and Charter Revision: Detailed Proposals for the Revision of the United Nations Charter (Preliminary Print), 1953, p. 70–73.

5 Much more on the possible structure and powers of a world federation, but not necessarily representing a UWF consensus, can be found in supplementary material published by the organization, in the writings of UWF leaders, and in the more detailed proposals of this World Movement for World Federal Government. This World Movement's policy is contained in “Proposal for United Nations Charter Revision as adopted at the World Federal Government Conferences at Copenhagen 1954, as amended and approved at the WMWFG Sixth Congress, London, September 1954,” The World Federalist (WMWFG, Amsterdam), 11 1954 p. 3–4Google Scholar.

6 Cf. “How to Give the United Nations the Limited Power to Prevent War,” as approved by UWF's National Executive Council, 09 1954, p. 5–7Google Scholar.

7 Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1948.

8 The Anatomy of Peace, cited above, p. 89.

9 UWF, Third General Assembly, Resolution on the Atlantic Union Committee, Cleveland, 1949.

10 E.g., Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn would have the revised United Nations Charter they propose come into force “upon the deposit of ratifications by four-fifths of the nations of the world, provided that the ratifying nations shall contain five-sixths of the population of the world…” Peace Through Disarmament and Charter Revision, cited above, p. 140Google Scholar. This difficult ratification procedure must of course be viewed in connection with the authors' proposal that the revised United Nations shall include all nations of the world, and that no nation may withdraw or be expelled. Ibid., p. 7–15.

11 UWF Policy Statement (adopted by UWF National Executive Council, April 24–25, 1948) published with Beliefs, Purposes and Policies (November 1947), 1948Google Scholar.

12 See “What If a Major Nation Refuses to Participate?” sub-sections UWF policy statements, 1950–53.

13 “How to Give the United Nations the Limited Power to Prevent War,” cited above.

14 There is a very close correlation between minimalist and universalist attitudes among world federalists. Nuclearists and partialists naturally tend to favor more maximal powers.

15 The Anatomy of Peace, cited above, p. 87.

16 See also “UWF's Position in Today's Crisis,” FYI (For Your Information, UWF), No. 2, 01 17, 1951, p. 2Google Scholar.

17 “How to Give the United Nations the Limited Power to Prevent War,” p. 9. UWF leaders have often unofficially expressed the view that it might be better for such a plan to originate with some other state, perhaps India.

18 “How to Give the United Nations the Limited Power to Prevent War,” p. 10.

19 Ibid., p. 10–11.

20 Peace Through Disarmament and Charter Revision, cited above, p. 143.

21 The Anatomy of Peace, cited above, p. 85.

22 FYI, No. 3, 02 21, 1951, p. 101Google Scholar.

23 See, for example, Cranston, Alan, Report of President Alan Cranston to the Fifth Annual General Assembly, UWF, 1951, p. 15Google Scholar.

24 UWF “Questions and Answers on World Federation,” 07 1950, p. 4Google Scholar.

25 “UWF's Position in Today's Crisis,” cited above, p. 2.

26 Hall, Gordon D. (Author, The Hate Campaign Against the U.N., Boston, Beacon Press, 1952), Interview, Concord, N. H., May 12, 1955Google Scholar.

27 Lodge, Henry Cabot Jr, “Statement on Disarmament,” New York Times, 02 21, 1955, p. 3Google Scholar.

28 Time, April 12, 1954, p. 24.