International Judicial Monitor - In Review: New Publications on International and Comparative Law

In Review:
New Publications on International and Comparative Law

A New World Order
By Anne-Marie Slaughter
Princeton University Press 2005

"New world order" is neither a new idea nor a new phrase. That fact is simply demonstrated by doing a quick "Google" search of the term, which yields some eight million, three hundred and ninety thousand references.

To some the term is ominous, a code-word for a fascist-style world government controlled by a few supermen, where citizens of it would be slaves. (See New World Order (Conspiracy) in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org.) In one web site, the phrase is linked to a conspiracy theory developed by the "Illuminati," a shadowy organization prominently featured in Dan Brown’s best-selling novel, Angels and Demons (see New World Order Illluminati Conspiracy at www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO).

However the phrase also has a genuine and positive meaning, as demonstrated by the second Wikipedia reference without the parentheses after the term:

"The term ‘new world order’ has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a "new world order." The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.

Origin of the Concept

Many believe the idea of the ’new world order’ originated in the early 1900s with Cecil Rhodes, who advocated that the British Empire and the United States should jointly impose a Federal World Government (with of course English as the official language) to bring about lasting world peace. Lionel Curtis, who also believed in this idea, founded the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups in 1909, which led to the establishment of the British based Royal Institute for International Affairs in 1919 and the U.S. based Council on Foreign Relations in 1920. The concept was further developed by Edward M. House, a close advisor to Woodrow Wilson during the negotiations to set up the League of Nations (it is unclear whether it was House or Wilson who invented the actual phrase). Another important influence was the futurist H.G. Wells, a vigorous advocate for World Government."

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org).

However, and hopefully to the relief of conspiracy theorists and others who might be turned off by the phrase, this new book by Anne-Marie Slaughter (currently dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University and not, as far as I know, a member of the Illuminati) does not promote a fascist-style world government, or a world government of any kind. Indeed, she debunks the notion of a world government as improvident and impractical. This observation is probably brought about by the fact that the United Nations, thought by some to be precursor to a true world government, is in disrepute in many parts of the United States and some other areas of the world; has been ineffectual in some of its peace-keeping activities (thus diminishing the idea of "order" brought about by a world government); is not well supported, at least fiscally, by more than a few countries; and is unknown to many of the world’s citizens.

What are the alternatives in trying to achieve a true new world order? Is the choice only between a group of international bodies composing something like the United Nations and its constituent agencies, on the one hand, and no international institutions and only the kind of diplomacy that existed in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, on the other?

Dean Slaughter offers a third choice in her new book, one that can be neatly summed up in three words: international government networking. Before dismissing this idea as hopelessly simplistic, one should read her book, because it has many valuable descriptions of, and insights about, the international government networks that currently exist, what might be possible using them as points of departure, and expanding them and giving them official recognition. Slaughter’s theses, reduced to their simplest propositions, are these:

1. People and their governments around the globe need global institutions to solve collective problems that can only be addressed on a global scale.

2. World government is both "infeasible and undesirable."

3. Global rules are needed without centralized power but with government actors who can be held accountable.

4. Institutionalized government networks are already supplying global rules that provide "governance" rather than government; this development can be greatly enlarged using "soft power": information, socializing, persuasion, and discussion.

5. These networks need to evolve from de facto existence to de jure status through formal recognition by world leaders and nation-states.

6. Such de jure recognition of networking by individual government institutions requires a repudiation of traditional notions of sovereignty and redefining the term, from insistence on "autonomy" to "right to participate;" from the "right to resist" to "capacity to engage."

The first three chapters of the book are descriptive rather than prescriptive, in that they cover in detail the government institutional networks that already exist among regulators, the judiciary, and legislators respectively. In the fourth chapter she presents a detailed conception of a "disaggregated world order based on government networks." She recognizes that "order must be backed by power" and in the fifth chapter attempts to answer the question: How can government networks "actually influence political, economic, and social outcomes to achieve substantive results?" In it she describes the "structures, power, and norms to achieve them."

In the sixth and final chapter she discusses "problems with government networks" and offers a "menu of potential solutions" including such ideas as "positive comity." The sum of her arguments, presented in the Conclusion, a valid one considering all of the discussion and persuasive arguments preceding it, is: "Global governance through government networks is good public policy for the world and good national foreign policy for the United States, the European Union, APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) members, and all developing countries seeking to participate in global regulatory processes and needing to strengthen their capacity for domestic governance."

Anne-Marie Slaughter has made a bold and visionary proposal, comprehensive and plausible, offering a real alternative in the current debate about methods of addressing and solving many of the world’s problems. She has done so in her language, the language of the scholar. If there is any one problem with the book, at least for dispensing her ideas to a wider audience, it is that she has been necessarily technical. One cannot, at least initially, address the gigantic problem of creating world order by the use of simple terms and simple sentences. She has introduced a whole set of new or probably unfamiliar terms with which the reader, especially one unfamiliar with political science, must grapple. For example: "disaggregated state," "governance," "cross-fertilization" (in the context of government institutions, not agronomy), "positive comity," "disaggregated sovereignty;" "supranational," "convergence and informed divergence," and "subsidarity."

Slaughter’s ideas are very much worthy of consideration, discussion and debate, especially in forums other than the scholarly, in places other than the halls of academe. She has laid the groundwork for a visionary plan that has much promise. The next step is to have her ideas and arguments translated from the lexicon of the learned to the language of the layperson, so that they can reach the government officials and the earth’s educated citizens who could appreciate, and would be most affected by, her "new world order."

By James G. Apple, Co-Editor, International Judicial Monitor and President, International Judicial Academy

In this issue

In Review: New Publications on International and Comparative Law

In Review:
New Publications on International and Comparative Law