DOI: 10.1515/tfd-2016-0009
THE FEDERALIST DEBATE
Year XXIX, N° 1, March 2016
THE FEDERALIST DEBATE
Papers on Federalism in Europe and the World
___________________
Borderless Debate: Hypotheses on the Federal Evolution of the UN
For a Reform of the UN Organization Inspired by the European Experience
Robert Toulemon
At the end of his Memories, Jean Monnet wrote a sentence that his successors have sometimes
forgotten. “The (European) Community is but a step towards the forms of organization of the world
of tomorrow”. Those who assign Europe the goal to build itself into a new great power comparable
to those which in turn have dominated the Western world since the end of the Middle Ages, are
deluding themselves. Just as ambitious, but more in accordance with the aspirations of the men of
today and in conformity with the inclinations of most of the partners of France, would be a great
European design, that is to say, to contribute, through example and influence, to a genuine world
order, a true order that would meet the fundamental human needs.
Some specific features of what has been built in Europe in over fifty years justify this ambition.
These objectives have to do with ethics, rights, and politics.
Ethics first
Reconciliation is a fundamental ethical value, which is at the origin of the European
Community. The historic embrace of Colombey-les-deux-Eglises and, later on, the handshake at
Verdun did more than the Treaties for the reconciliation of Germans and Frenchmen. However
sad and tragic has been our incapacity to prevent the wars that followed the break up of
Yugoslavia, the chances for the pacification of the Western Balkans are to be found in the
perspective of their adhesion to the European Union. The appeasement of the conflict between
Russia and Ukraine will not take place without a reconciliation to which the EU will have to
contribute, all the more so as it failed to prevent it.
There is no lack of examples of ancient historical conflicts all over the world. No lasting
pacification will be possible in the Middle East without a reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites.
In the same way, the peaceful future of Asia will come from a work on memories in which
Japanese, Chinese and Koreans are slow to engage themselves.
Europe, Rights and Institutions
The juridical and institutional innovations elaborated to reach a sharing of sovereignty in Europe,
are another accomplishment from which we can draw many lessons, even by analyzing the
obstacles and the resistances that they often create. The European experience has already inspired
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:03 AM
46
DOI: 10.1515/tfd-2016-0009
THE FEDERALIST DEBATE
Year XXIX, N° 1, March 2016
various regional groups worldwide: Asean, Mercosur and, more recently, the African Union. Indeed,
it would be more difficult to apply or transpose all this to the United Nations. But how cannot we be
aware of the similarity between the problems the UN has to solve and those that have been solved
(even though imperfectly) by the EU?
The first of these problems is the conciliation between two opposed principles, first, the juridical
equality of the States and, second, the fair, equitable representation of the Citizens. In the European
Parliament and in the European Council, the representation of the States is not strictly proportional to
their population, even though it is largely taken into account. This way the balance between more or less
populated countries is achieved. The equal representation of the States in the UN General Assembly,
whether they have a few thousand inhabitants or more than a billion, deprives the institution of a
democratic legitimacy (see Ted Daley's article in The Federalist Debate, 2015, issue no. 3). A way of
reforming that, among others, would be to divide up the States in different classes according to their
population. An Assembly appointed from national parliaments is another proposal, which is the subject
of a Campaign of support. It could justify an international control of the fairness of elections.
The UN Security Council itself is less and less representative. Some very large countries are excluded
from the list of permanent members. The representation of Continents by States designated in turns,
without consideration of their system of government or their capacity to exercise international
responsibilities, is not satisfactory. The refusal to recognize one or several candidates in each continent
has foiled all the attempts at reform (see William R. Pace's article in The Federalist Debate, 2015, issue
n° 3). An entirely new way, proposed by Germany for some time, would for the Security Council to be
composed, on the one hand, of “Continent-States”, and on the other hand of regional groups of States,
whose constitution and empowerment would then be encouraged. At the same time, the exercise of the
right of veto would be newly defined, thanks to both the limitation of the yearly number of vetoes, and
the requirement of a veto coming from two types of veto-holders. Of course, such a reform would have
a chance to be taken into consideration at the condition to benefit of the support of the civil society.
The most original innovation of the European system probably is the role attributed to an authority
emanating from the States but independent, in charge of the common interest. The European
Commission, not directly elected but democratically appointed by bodies who are themselves
democratically elected, has the monopoly of initiative in the fields of Community competence. Its
function of arbiter, under the political control of the European Parliament and the juridical control
of the European Court of Justice, protects the smaller States against the always feared risk of
hegemony by a directorate of the bigger States.
The efficiency of the UN would be considerably increased if its Secretariat General were expressly
given the mission of promoting the common interests of mankind. A more collegial secretariat
constituted by the Secretary General could receive the mission to coordinate, under the authority of the
Security Council, the action of specialized World Organizations, be they juridically tied to the UN or
not. The necessity of this coordination is generally recognized by those who deplore the contradictions
which impair the policies of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:03 AM
47
DOI: 10.1515/tfd-2016-0009
THE FEDERALIST DEBATE
Year XXIX, N° 1, March 2016
Organization, the International Labor Organization, the organisms in charge of climate change.
Europe and politics: the democratic precondition
Finally, concerning politics, the European experience is rich in lessons that the UN Organization
could draw. The European institutions, in the first place the Council of Europe, then its
Communities, have brought about what we could call the democratic precondition. We know the
decisive role this precondition has played in the evolution of many States towards the rule of law,
democracy and the respect of fundamental rights. Today it remains a precious guarantee in the face
of the disturbing drifts we may notice here and there. Contrary to the European Union, which
founds its legitimacy at the same time on the States and the citizens, the UN, in fact, recognizes
only the States. Giving a meaning to the formula inscribed in the UN Charter, “We the peoples”,
should consist first of all in specifying a criterion for belonging to the Organization, consisting in
the existence of a representative government, that does not necessarily signify a democratic
government in the meaning we usually assume, but a government accepted by the population it
administers. In virtue of this principle, a State incapable of maintaining a minimum of security in its
territory or of preventing a revolt of a significant part of its population, could be deprived of its
voting rights and eventually be excluded from the Organization.
The UN has been conceived to settle conflicts between sovereign States. It is powerless in the face
of internal conflicts in its member States. Strong with the prestige due to its success, Europe should
be able to propose how to sometime loosen the principle of sovereignty of the States and to get the
UN to recognize not a right but a duty of intervention. There remains then to introduce this duty
into the Charter, accompanied by guarantees against any possible abuse. Promoting a
multilateralism of the fundamental human rights is not very popular just now, and will arouse
vehement oppositions. It is because the task is difficult that we must not procrastinate; firstly, we
shall establish ties of confidence with the numerous countries of Africa, Asia, America which have
recently attained democracy and have not always got the support that this accomplishment should
have deserved. What program would be for the European and World Federalists more attracting
than to work for the constitution of a North South world-alliance for fundamental human rights?
Translated by Joseph Monchamp
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/17/17 4:03 AM
48