Do People Have the Right to Bypass Existing Governments?
According to John Locke, governments derive their power from the consent of the
governed. The power of government is the sum of the of the rights that government is given
by the individuals in the society it governs. As Locke states it the power of government
is "that power which every man, having in the state of nature, has given up into the
hands of the society, and therein to governours."(1)
Having given up some rights to national governments, do individuals retain control of
those rights so that they can transfer rights to an international government? Here we seem
to confront a puzzle in Locke. Rights must be alienable in order for individuals to give
rights to governments, yet citizens retain rights that allow them the right of rebellion.
There are passages in Locke that suggest that rights can be permanently alienated, such as
when Locke discusses a person who performs an act that "deserves death" such as
one who initiates a state of war. This person forfeits all the rights defined by the law
and can be "stripped of all property."(2) Some
rights have to be alienable, but at least one is inalienable. Locke argues that the
parental 'right of honour' that a child owes a parent cannot be given up or transferred.(3)
There is a distinction that can be drawn between rights that can and cannot be alienated.
Rights that exist in the state of nature cannot be given up, such as the right of parents
to honor. People cannot give up their freedom and accept being slaves, and people cannot
consent to the rule of absolute or unlimited political power, because all of these violate
the rights that exist in the state of nature. While people can give up rights to form a
government, they also retain rights that they had in the state of nature, which includes
the right to form a government.
Locke holds that each person in each generation must decide whether give consent to
governments. Rights can only be alienated from those who hold them, and only individuals
can transfer their rights. We are not bound by the consent given by past generations.
Locke states that a person "cannot by any compact whatsoever bind his children or
posterity."(4) We have the freedom to decide whether we
want to transfer some of our rights from one level of government to another, from the
national to the international level.
Is It Desirable to Have a World Government?
We can learn the necessary conditions for peace between nations by examining the
necessary conditions for peace within nations. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both claimed
that having a common authority was a necessary condition to having peace within a state. I
examine their arguments for accepting a national authority and claim that the same
arguments apply to the acceptance of an international authority. John Locke argues in The
Second Treatise Of Government that when people do not have an authority to judge
their conflicts, they end up in a state of war,
Men living together according to reason, without a common Superior on Earth with
authority to judge between them, is properly the State of Nature. But force, or a declared
design of force upon the Person of another, where there is not common Superior on Earth to
appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and 'tis the want of such an appeal that gives
a Man the Right of War even against an aggressor, though he be in Society and a fellow
Subject.(5)
It is interesting to note that Locke believes that people guided only by reason end up
at war with each other, and he argues for a non-rational method of settling
disputes—the acceptance of authority. Thomas Hobbes shares Locke's view on the limits
of reason.
As I read Hobbes' Leviathan, Hobbes makes a distinction between factual
questions, that reason can settle, and non-factual questions that reason cannot settle. He
believed that questions of right and wrong, religion, and possession cannot be settled by
individuals reasoning together.(6) Since peace depends on
settling these questions, and they cannot be settled by reason, some other method is
needed. While we may differ on the necessity of settling religious questions, all Hobbes
need for his argument is that we grant that there are some disputes that reason cannot
settle. I believe that Hobbes argues rationally for the acceptance of a non-rational
method of settling the disputes that reason cannot settle. That method is the acceptance
of authority.
What is an authority? Above all else authority is a method of conflict resolution.
Other words for "authority" in this context are "arbiter",
"representative", and "sovereign." Thomas Hobbes explains how this
method of conflict resolution works. "A multitude of men, are made one person, when
they are by one man, or one person, represented; so that it be done with the consent, of
every one of that multitude in particular. For it is the unity of representer, not the
unity of the represented, that maketh the person one. And it is the representer that
beareth the person, and but one person: and unity, cannot otherwise be understood in
multitude."(7)
The institution of authority replaces the reason of many with the reason of one. Hobbes
speaks of the difference between the reasoning of private individuals and the reason of an
authority.
"It is not that juris prudentia, or wisdom of subordinate judges; but the reason
of this our artificial man the commonwealth, and his command, that maketh law; and the
commonwealth being in their representative but one person there cannot easily arise any
contradiction in the laws; and when there doth, the same reason is able, by
interpretation, or alteration, to take it away."(8)
Here, then, is a method for removing contradictions of interests and viewpoints by
having the conflicting parties accept the judgment of a third party. The representative
they accept represents both; yet, because the arbiter is one person, the arbiter speaks
with one voice. The arbiter represents them in that he or she acts for them, and they give
up their ability to act. This method resolves conflicts by making it so that the formerly
disputing parties can no longer express their conflicting views.
Locke also argues for the acceptance of a national authority as a method for settling
conflicts:
To avoid this State of war (wherein there is no appeal but to Heaven, and wherein every
the least difference is apt to end, where there is no Authority to decide between the
Contenders) is one great reason of Men's putting themselves into society and quitting the
State of Nature; for where there is an Authority, a Power on Earth from which relief can
be had by appeal, there the continuance of the State of War is excluded, and the
Controversy is settled by that Power.(9)
An authority provides a way to settle conflicts. A person seeking an end to civil war
does not have to remove the causes of conflict. According to both Hobbes and Locke, there
will always be conflicts that reason cannot resolve. People need only a method for
resolving these conflicts.
Argument for Accepting an International Authority
The solution to conflict is to make it so that the conflict does not lead to violence.
The solution to war is to make it so that people cannot fight wars. Just as we can prevent
violence between individuals by not allowing individuals to settle their conflicts by the
use of force, we could prevent violence between nations by not allowing nations to settle
their conflicts by the use of force.
What is the cause of war and what is the cure? Wars occur when sovereign nations
challenge each other and wars do not occur when formerly warring parties are incorporated
into a larger political unit. Why is this? It is because the larger political unit will
not allow warfare and insists that the parties that had formerly been at war submit to a
common authority to settle their disputes. The state of war ends between formerly warring
parties when they can no longer wage war and must instead submit their disputes to an
arbiter.
In examining the cause of war and the cure I will relate an experience that I believe
is instructive. I was in a restaurant when a couple came in with a little boy. The little
boy got up from the table where the couple was seated, left his plate of food, and walked
around the restaurant staring at and even asking for other people's food. The couple did
nothing. My question is, "What was the cause of the boy's obnoxious behavior?"
Was it the child's curiosity, his hunger or his not liking his own food? Wasn't the
behavior due to the fact that the parents did not stop him? Why do we have wars? We have
war because nations are allowed to wage war—because no one stops nations from waging
war.
What is the lesson from historical experience and theory? Historical experience shows
that when nations are no longer allowed to wage war, because they are incorporated into a
larger political unit, war ceases. Experience shows that when nations are forced to accept
the verdict of an arbiter, and not allowed to settle their disputes with force, war
ceases. Theory shows that there are limits to reason and the acceptance of an authority
system is sometimes the only way to settle disputes. Arbitration settles disputes by
having two parties accept the judgment of a third party. If we established an
international authority and enforced international law we would abolish war.
What would an international authority be able to accomplish? Nations with conflicts
would have someplace to go to settle their disputes peacefully. An international authority
might handle disputes between nations, and not get involved in civil disputes. Should
nations accept an international authority, as citizens accept national authorities, then
disputes between nations would be settled without violence.
Can it work? It does work. The use of a judge, arbiter, or authority, has been the main
method of conflict resolution used throughout history. The fact that every day there is
peace among the respective communities and regions of nations demonstrates its efficacy.
We do not need years of studies in conflict resolution to know that having an
international authority would provide a method of settling international conflicts.
John Locke's Theory of Revolution was used to justify the American Revolution, or more
accurately the American Revolutions. In American history we had two revolutions. The first
began in 1776 and ended in 1783, when a treaty was signed with England. From 1783 to 1787
the thirteen former colonies were united in the Articles of Confederation, which is to say
that they were no more united than are nations under the United Nations. The Articles of
Confederation had no independent taxing powers, no judiciary, and no power to enforce it
laws. The second revolution occurred when the United States Constitution replaced the
Articles of Confederation. Because the call for a World Constitutional Convention
parallels the second American revolution—the one in 1787—it is instructive to
examine what happened then.
The people who met in Philadelphia in 1787 to examine ways to improve the Articles of
Confederation had no authority under their existing governments to write a new
constitution. The Articles of Confederation clearly stated that all agreements had to be
unanimous and Rhodes Island did not even send a delegate to the conference. The
constitutions of each of the thirteen colonies stated that each former colony had
sovereign power that could not be relinquished. Yet the delegates wrote a constitution
that took powers away from states, including the power to make war. How could they do
this?
The people are sovereign and they have the right to transfer some of their power from
one level of government to another. They had the right to take the power to make war away
from states and to give it to the newly formed nation. All power resides in the people,
and the people can delegate powers to any body they choose. It is now time for the people
to exercise their sovereignty and take the power to make war away from nations. Many
global problems including providing security, protecting the environment and protecting
human rights are best handled on an international rather than on the national level. Those
who see this have the right to demand that some powers be transferred from the national to
the international level.
Human rights don't mean much if there is no power on the global level. We have rights
as Americans because we can enforce our rights as American citizens in the court system of
the United States. Human rights is a goal, an ideal—such right do not exist because
there is neither a world court nor world police to enforce human rights. The declaration
of human rights are rights that the world community has agreed upon, but the world
community has not yet created the means to enforce those rights. If we were to establish
some power on the international level to enforce those rights, and punish those who
violate people's protected rights, crimes such as those occurring in Bosnia would not go
unpunished. Protection of the rights of women stated in the Declaration of Human Rights
would improve the status of women throughout the world and result in the control of
population.
The Call for a World Constitutional Convention
Consider the beauty and simplicity of the call for a World Constitutional Convention.
Citizens, ordinary people, independent of any governments, can exercise their sovereignty
in demanding that plans be made for having a World Constitutional Convention. The
convention would be made up of representatives elected directly from the people under UN
supervised elections throughout the world. Not every country has to take part for the idea
to succeed, just as not every colony sent delegates to Philadelphia in 1787. The call for
a convention does not commit anyone to accepting the constitution that is drafted.
Once a constitution is drafted, ratification again is in the hands of the people. This
is democracy in action. It is revolutionary in that citizens of the world will be taking
some powers from the nation states and giving those powers to a world legislature. Other
powers will still reside in the nation states in a world federalist structure. Once the
world federalist structure exists this democratic non-violent revolution will abolish war.
|
