James T. Ranney: World Peace and Harmony through International Law

Mr. Ranney is a 1969 graduate of Harvard Law School (and University of Wisconsin, 1966), with prior experience as an assistant district attorney (Philadelphia, 1970-1976), law professor (University of Montana, 1977-1987)(constitutional criminal procedure; legal history; and peace studies seminar); University Legal Counsel (1987-1988); and private solo practice (Missoula, Montana and Philadelphia, PA)(criminal law; employment law; and class actions).He left a very successful law practice in order to return East to do more and better work on the peace issue.

He founded or co-founded the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center; Montana Lawyers for Peace; and Global Constitution Forums.

Bio: Mr. Ranney is a 1969 graduate of Harvard Law School (and University of Wisconsin, 1966), with prior experience as an assistant district attorney (Philadelphia, 1970-1976), law professor (University of Montana, 1977-1987)(constitutional criminal procedure; legal history; and peace studies seminar); University Legal Counsel (1987-1988); and private solo practice (Missoula, Montana and Philadelphia, PA)(criminal law; employment law; and class actions). He left a very successful law practice in order to return East to do more and better work on the peace issue. He founded or co-founded the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center; Montana Lawyers for Peace; and Global Constitution Forums.
-------------------------------------------------

Economic Progress
Why we should formalize our shared humanity into a Global Constitution
Apr 24, 2019
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/why-we-should-formalize-our-shared-humanity-into-a-global-constitution
----------------------------------------

World Peace Through Law

Replacing War with the Global Rule of Law

By James Taylor Ranney

World Peace Through Law:Rethinking an Old Theory and a Call for a UN Peace Force

World federalists make an argument for world federalism which runs as follows.There are only two ways to resolve true conflict (meaning conflict that cannot be mediated) at the international level:(1) by war (not such a good idea any more, since WWIII would entail the almost certain extinction of at least our species), and (2) by law.Therefore, they say, choose law.And by “law,” they mean law that is the only kind worth having, enforceable law, enforceable upon individuals, i.e., world law, created by a global legislature and enforced by global courts and global police, unlike the inadequate currently-existing international “law” and the weak system of UN-based “collective insecurity” that we now have.^{^[2]}

One can spend much time arguing about the feasibility and desirability of such schemes.Or one could realize that there are perhaps other ways of securing “world peace through law,” both in the short term and in the long run.

As a former law professor, amateur legal historian, practicing attorney, and on-again off-again world federalist myself, I would like to suggest this:We are already on our way, while scarcely realizing it, to “world peace through law” through the one-step-at-a-time brick-by-brick, law-by-law, norm-by-norm accretion of a body of mere “international law” which is gradually becoming a body of genuine “world law” right before our unsuspecting eyes.And this has been happening even during the recent administration of a U.S. government more scornful of international law and international institutions than any in

U.S.

history.

What am I talking about?Well first, I am talking about a huge body of international law, built up over several centuries.It is worth looking at a mere “short-list” of the highlights of international law and institutions over the years, to remind ourselves of the progress that has been made, despite the many shortcomings that yet remain.

What the above partial list makes clear is that, starting from the smallest steps, on up through the sweeping changes of the post-WWII years, a growing body of global law of considerable depth and breadth has gradually been accumulated.^{^[3]}And while current international law and institutions are weak and ineffective (especially in the area of global security), they have grown stronger, despite the desperate opposition and scorn of the real-politikers.^{^[4]}To take one example in the area of international trade:Initially the GATT (1947) operated only upon a consensus decision-making basis.Now, however, as of 1994 the new WTO has precisely the reverse rule:sanctions are now automatic upon a finding by the WTO tribunal in the absence of a consensus blocking them.^{^[5]}Similarly, the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982) replaces conflicting power-based claims with a comprehensive rule-based framework to regulate all ocean space (70% of the globe), its uses and resources, from navigation rights to definition of territorial waters and related boundaries to fishing limits and other ocean resources regulation, all enforced via compulsory dispute settlement procedures.^{^[6]}Although the Law of the Sea Convention is the result of a number of UN-sponsored conferences, the UN has no direct operational role in its implementation, so that it is free of the P-5 veto in the Security Council.^{^[7]}These two examples of “stronger” international law are emblematic of the kinds of evolutionary changes that have taken place and will only continue to occur over time.And gradually, as the edifice of “international law” becomes more and more impressive and gains greater acceptance, the philosophical debates between the “legal positivists” and the so-called “natural law” school will become largely irrelevant, as people awake to the simple notion that “law” is merely the body of decisions of those empowered to decide controversies^{^[8]} or legislate international norms, and that that power can come from mere general acceptance in the real world and need not come from a World Parliament[9].

It is true, of course, that many of the more recent advances (e.g., the ICC and the Law of the Sea Treaty) have not yet been signed by the

United States

.This, despite the fact that many in the U.S., such as Ambassador Elliot Richardson, chief U.S. negotiator at the Law of the Sea Conference, and Bill Pace, Convenor of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, played a key role in their creation.But this will change.

America

will eventually see through the neo-con con games and their politics of fear, and, in short, come to its senses and rejoin the world community.We will also come to realize that the cost of being World Cop is something we can no longer afford, with our current financial difficulties hastening this realization.

When that happens, and we (the U.S. and the world) gradually reform a host of international laws and institutions to (1) accord greater respect for human rights, (2) create a meaningful UN Peace Force, available within days instead of months, to address genocide and other threats to world peace (rapidly evolving into the only acceptable and, eventually, the only possible way of using force at the international level), (3) implement economic development in a fair and sustainable way, and (4) institute other reforms long urged by globalists of all sorts, we may find that we have arrived at a place where we have in fact substituted the rule of law for the use of force to resolve international conflict.If and when that day comes, we will have realized humanity’s long-time dream of world peace through law, regardless of whether or not world federalists would want to call it true world federalism and/or world law.[10]

This ongoing historic process, which is gradually turning weak “international law” into enforceable “world law,” is very like the growth of the early common law.In twelfth and thirteenth-century

Britain

, the common law crimes and torts grew up one by one, gradually converting various self-help mechanisms into Pleas of the Crown and causes of action enforceable in the central royal courts.^{^[11]}Similarly, various legal institutions, such as trial by jury and an independent parliament, only gradually came into existence, after much hard work and acts of individual courage and even occasional battles, transforming what were arms of royal power into democratic individual-freedom-enhancing legal institutions.^{^[12]}This, it is submitted, is what can happen and will happen and is already happening at the international level.

What will it take?It will of course take more than mere “legal” change.It will take social and political change.^{^[13]}It will take increased understanding amongst countries, facilitated by vastly increased exchange programs, twinned-universities, worldwide internet and interfaith exchanges, a sharing of the most precious children’s literature of all cultures, and the like.And since law is merely public sentiment crystallized, each of us has a crucial role to play.^{^[14]}

Short-range policy prescription:Assuming that the above theory of long-term social change is correct, what are the practical implications in terms of short-range action plans or at least mid-range strategic vision?For me the answer is simple.I believe that we do need some kind of meaningful UN Peace Force, such as the founders of the UN appear to have contemplated prior to the outbreak of the Cold War.This could be effectuated via a “Law of the Sea approach,” avoiding the veto problem of the UN Security Council, and without the need to create a global government.^{^[15]}And in the short term, we need a UN Emergency Peace Service,^{^[16]} we need to sign the ICC Treaty,^{^[17]} and we need to abolish nuclear weapons.^{^[18]}

That is my vision.I do not claim that this is the only way or even the most likely way to a world beyond war.But I believe it is growing more likely every day.We are already reducing nuclear forces down to “minimal deterrence” levels.As we gradually come to view these remaining forces for what they are—illegal, immoral, and cowardly weapons designed to boil, fry, incinerate, and irradiate thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children—then we may find the seemingly difficult jump to the zero option less difficult than imagined.The abolition of nuclear weapons, accompanied by reductions in conventional weapons and their restructuring toward “defensive-only” postures (such as fixed anti-tank emplacements, which can be used only defensively), will result in an infinitely safer world.And as we gain greater experience with already-existing UN peace forces, increasing their capacity and competence, we will reach a situation where the normal expectation will be that a UNPF is considered the only proper means of dealing with international conflict.Rather, the expectation will be that such conflict should be subjected to a comprehensive array of international legal dispute resolution mechanisms.At that point, we will have reached the de facto replacement of the rule of force with the rule of law at the international level.That will itself constitute a whole new world.Regardless of whether these de facto systems are subsequently converted into de jure systems, with the UNPF becoming the enforcement arm for an all-encompassing system of international justice, the main point is that a lasting structure for peace is possible in the near term via a Burkean step-by-step process without having to re-invent the world’s entire political superstructure in one giant leap.

As to possible objections:It is true that a UNPF might be less than perfect.And it might not be (at least at the outset) precisely the kind of institution that a left-leaning-liberal such as myself would thoroughly approve.But in the real world, it seems that just about nothing is perfect and, in fact, there are disadvantages to almost everything.Further, the fact that a UNPF might at some point be partially co-opted as a good idea by the very neo-conservatives that I so excoriate does not deter me.Unless a few ideas of the peace movement are “co-opted,” they will never go anywhere.

It may be said, also, that the above mid-range policy prescription is altogether too minimalist to secure world peace because it neglects social justice.^{^[19]}It is true that ways need to be found to address such concerns, not only poverty and healthcare, but also major areas of economic regulation^{^[20]} and the environment.And it may be that something on the order of a parliamentary assembly would be a good way to better address such concerns.^{^[21]} But just as you cannot have peace without justice, you certainly cannot have justice without peace.And nothing seems quite so intuitively central to securing world peace as some kind of UN Peace Force.^{^[22]}

Finally, it may be objected that there is an alternative and even simpler vision for a peaceful and just future world which is the classic idea of a mere gradual but steady decline in militarism and military spending worldwide, as part of a generalized increase in understanding amongst countries.Just as we now would not think of going to war with Canada (any more) and just as Great Britain and France would no longer think of going to war (any more), so too we and Russia and others may arrive at a similar point of mutual understanding in our joint destinies.^{^[23]}And this would be accompanied by the de facto resort to readily available legal dispute resolution systems.Thus, there might not be much need for a UNPF or at least not a very large one.

Of course, it is altogether likely that aspects of both visions will prove necessary, each in fact supplementing the other.Indeed, there are indubitably many paths to peace, things that we can do, collectively and individually, to secure a safe and sustainable world, but we must “keep everlastingly at it.”^{^[24]}For we (America and the world) face a fundamental choice:between what we have been doing for decades--bleeding the private and public sectors white with military spending while in the end inevitably falling prey to the age-old pattern in which individual empires rise and fall--and a whole new paradigm, a whole new world, providing global solutions to global problems in a world without war and with social justice.The choice is ours.

[1] Any comments may be sent to jamestranney@post.harvard.edu.

[2] See, e.g., C. Hamer, A Global Parliament:Principles of World Federalism (1998; available free off the internet; one of the most thoughtful expositions available); Lusky, “Four Problems in Lawmaking for Peace,” 80 Political Science Quarterly 341 (1965)(also very thoughtful work); and G. Clark & L. Sohn, World Peace Through World Law (3d ed. 1966)(the classic work).

[3] For an excellent overview of the growth and importance of international law, see M. O’Connell, The Power and Purpose of International Law:Insights from the Theory & Practice of Enforcement (2008).For something of a counterbalance to such views, see J. Stone, Of Law and Nations:Between Power Politics and Human Hopes (1974)(hard-headed analysis of some of the limits of international law per se).

[4] Cf., e.g., Oona Hathaway, “Why We Need International Law:Undoing the Bush Administration’s Damage,” The Nation, 11-19-07, at 35-36 (remarkable internal documents show deep aversion to international law) and Delahunty & Yoo, “Peace Through Law?The Failure of a Noble Experiment,” 106 Mich. L. Rev. 923 (2008)(yes, it’s John Yoo, who wrote the memos justifying torture).Cf. generally P. Sands, Lawless World:America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules from FDR’s Atlantic Charter to George W. Bush’s Illegal War (2006).

[5] See Steinberg, “Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO:Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints,” 98 Am. J. Int’l L. 247 (2004) and Zangl, “Judicialization Matters!A Comparison of Dispute Settlement Under GATT and the WTO, 52 Int’l Studies Q. 825 (2008)(also noting increased political independence of the Appellate Body and the use of legal reasoning instead of political bargaining).

[6] Cf. generally www.un.org/Depts/los.For a good synopsis of the early history and issues, see Hudson, “The Scramble for the Seas,” Global Report, at 3-8 (Center for War/Peace Studies, v.13 no. 3, 1975).

[7] This aspect of the Convention is of particular interest.This “Law of the Sea approach”—a functionalist approach keyed to a particular problem and neatly avoiding the constraints of the P-5 veto--could be utilized in other problem areas.See Center for War/Peace Studies, “What Elliot Richardson Thinks,” Global Report, at 1 (No. 4, 1978)(Amb. Elliot Richardson is interviewed by Richard Hudson, and states:“To me the Law of the Sea Conference offers the hope of a major contribution in the building of a global order.It may well be the single most important potential to build it.”

[8] Some international and some not.See Noah Feldman, “When Judges Make Foreign Policy,” N.Y.Times, 9-28-08 (nice discussion of two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases where the Court was forced to deal with international law in resolving domestic cases).See also a classic instance:Trial of German Major War Criminals (Goering et al), International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment and Sentence (Sept. 30 & Oct. 1, 1946)(Cmd 6964, HMSO, London), at 40:“The law of war is to be found not only in treaties, but in the customs and practices of States which gradually obtained universal recognition, and from general principles of justice applied by jurists….”

[9] Increasingly, international law has what the German international legal scholar-philosopher Georg Jellinek called “practical validity” (praktische Geltung).See M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer:The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960, at 200 (2001).See also J. Goldstein, M. Kahler, R. Keohane, & A. Slaughter, eds., Legalization and World Politics, at 1, 4 (2001)(while eager to disavow any “teleological view,” the authors find that “[i]n many issue-areas, the world is witnessing a move to law.”).

[10] See also Ranney, “How World Federalism Will Likely Come Into Existence,” The Federalist Debate, v. 19 no. 2, p. 13 (June 2006).

[11] See, e.g., W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law, at 619 n.3 (1972)(crime of larceny by bailee finally recognized in 1473).

[12] See generally J. Ranney, Heritage of Our Freedoms (1987 slideshow and coursebook).

[13] See Bill Wickersham (Draft of speech captioned “The Prevention of Nuclear War” sent to author ca. 1985, while a law professor teaching “Law and World Peace”):“When people tell there is nothing they can do to prevent nuclear war, my usual reply is, ‘Yes, there is something you can do.You can educate yourself and others.Education is an essential ingredient for the solution of any social problem.’In order for us to free ourselves of the nuclear warfare trap, we obviously have to have social and political change.Social and political change requires attitudinal change.Attitudinal change requires education.”

[14] See Dwight David Eisenhower (“I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than are governments.Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”); Noam Chomsky (“[Y]ou keep plugging away—that’s the way social change takes place.That’s the way every social change in history has taken place, by a lot of people, who nobody ever heard of, doing work.”); Abraham Lincoln (“Public sentiment is everything.With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without public sentiment nothing can succeed.Hence, he who molds public sentiment goes farther than he who drafts statutes or pronounces decisions.He makes statutes or decisions possible or impossible to be executed.”); and, of course, Margaret Mead (“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that has.”).See also Lawrence Wittner, The Struggle Against the Bomb (3 vols., 1993, 1997, 2003)(fabulous work of scholarship, including research into once-secret government archives, proving that change comes from the People).

[15] All that would be needed is what every criminal justice system needs:“cops, courts, and corrections” (what I used to call the “three C’s” back when I was a law professor teaching constitutional criminal procedure).That, plus the critical element of what might be called an Operational Mechanism (left vague on purpose) controlling when and how a UN Peace Force would be committed.This would have to be negotiated over time, and is perhaps the subject of a future article or book.Some will say that I have merely pushed off the problem of global governance unless this key “command and control” issue is resolved in advance.But I think that some kind of procedural mechanism (whether a weighted-voting or other device) can be negotiated, just like the LOS Treaty was negotiated.

[16] See generally R. Johansen, ed., A United Nations Emergency Peace Service:To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity (2006); www.globalactionpw.org; www.wfm.org; and H. Res. 213 (may be found via www.thomas.loc.gov).

[17] In addition to the ICC and the International Court of Justice (with compulsory jurisdiction), we may eventually need to resort to the ancient idea of an international equity tribunal of some kind, dispensing pure “equity” in a compulsory arbitration setting (preceded by mandatory mediation).See O’Connell, supra note 6, at 12-13, 31, 46-52, 196 (tracing history of this idea back to Grotius and his predecessors).Also cf. H. Kelsen, Peace Through Law, at 49 (1944)(a Central American Court of Justice was created by a treaty signed on December 20, 1907 between Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Salvador which provided for compulsory arbitration of “all controversies…of whatsoever nature”; it came to an end in 1918, after hearing only a few cases [www.pict-pcti.org/courts/CACJ/html]).On the other hand, it is possible that a reformed (veto-less) Security Council could handle such matters.A third possibility is that a reformed Security Council could have the option of referring such issues to an equity tribunal or to the ICJ with an added jurisdiction to sit specially as an equity tribunal.

[18] See generally www.projectfornuclearawareness.org; www.globalzero.org; and www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2008-events-archive/September-2008/press-launch-abolishing-nuclear-weapons (conference at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on “Abolishing Nuclear Weapons,” Sept. 22, 2008; the best discussion of this issue I’ve seen in 25 years).

[19] See John Logue, “Grotius, Justice and World Federalism,” in Asser Instituut, International Law and the Grotian Heritage, at 253-56 (1985)(classic arguments along these lines).

[20]See, e.g., Economist, May 6, 2006, at 58 (“Holes in the net”)(since shopping for low tax rates is no crime, multi-national corporations to avoid paying billions in taxes); The Week, May 8, 2009, at 13 (“Where money goes to hide”)(tax havens worldwide hold $12 trillion in assets and allow 83 of USA’s 100 largest companies to avoid paying an estimated $100 billion a year in tax revenue); Economist, May 20, 2006, at 10 (“One Basel leads to another”)(international bank regulation needed); and Bernstein, “A Major Swipe at Sweatshops,” Business Week, May 23, 2005, at 98.See generally P. De Senarclens and A. Kazancigil, Regulating Globalization (2007).

[21] Compare Falk & Strauss, “On the Creation of a Global Peoples Assembly:Legitimacy and the Power of Popular Sovereignty,” 36 Stanford J. of Int’l Law 191 (2000) with P. Kennedy, The Parliament of Man:The Past, Present and Future of the United Nations, at 215 (2006)(“It’s a lovely, idealistic proposal, but it’s destined for the dustbin of history.”).

[22] See G. Evans, The Responsibility to Protect:Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes once and For All, at 215-217 (2008); Ranney, “Beyond ‘Minimal Deterrence’—An Approach to Nuclear Disarmament,” 4 Journal of World Peace 18, 19 (Spring, 1987); and Ranney, supra note 9 at 13 nn. 6-10 (noting websites re a UNPF).

[23] As hard as it is right now to envision reconciliation with our current worst enemies, I believe that we will eventually see precisely that, especially as there is a decline in what may be called religious extremism, on all sides.This will be the culmination, worldwide, of the Age of Reason.Cf. T. Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)(devastating attack on organized religion, in particular the divinity of Christ, while arguing for existence of God).Cf. also www.strategicforesight.com (fabulous organization working on an “inclusive world”); Mishra, “The Misunderstood Muslims,” N.Y. Review of Books, 11-17-05, at 15-16 (reviewing books arguing that religious and gender rights reform is already under way in most of the Muslim world); K. Armstrong, The Battle for God:Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2000)(the author in 2008 called for creation of an interfaith Charter of Compassion devoted to shared moral priorities to foster greater global understanding); I. Manji, The Trouble With Islam Today:A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith (2008)(arguing for a return to the original Muslim emphasis upon critical thinking); and Z. Karabell, Peace Be Unto You:The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence (2008).

[24] Cf. J. Ranney, “Many Paths to Peace” (1984)(slideshow presentation outlining four categories of things we need to do to move to a more peaceful world:i) rethinking and changing certain strategic doctrines and force postures [move away from first-strike-capable weapon systems, improving crisis control mechanisms, etc.]; ii) arms reductions; iii) strengthening international legal and other mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution; and iv) increasing understanding between peoples).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission Statement:Our goals are simple:global peace and justice.By “peace” we mean a world not merely free of nuclear weapons but also a world beyond war.By “justice” we mean not only a world which no longer spends a trillion dollars a year on arms, but also a world that begins to secure a modicum of social goods, such as economic justice, environmental sustainability, human rights, and grassroots participatory democracy.To secure these ends, we believe that we will need fundamental changes in global governance, a re-imagined United Nations (or totally new UN 2.0), an international peacekeeping force, and other international institutions which create the effective rule of law at the global level.Although a primary focus is on security issues, both in the long run (avoiding nuclear war) and in the short run (preventing genocide), we also address a broad range of interrelated global problems.

GCF’s Methodology:GCF will effectuate the above goals by two primary methods:(1) a series of forums and symposia; and (2) four outreach and impact institutes designed to disseminate and implement the best consensus ideas:

Mission and Method:In a sense, our method is our mission:DIALOGUE.In order to move to a world beyond war, we believe we will need what we call a “Broad March Toward Peace.”In order to begin that march, we need to elevate the dialogue, both amongst ourselves and with others.

Thus, we propose to:1) elevate the dialogue, and 2) disseminate the resultant consensus and transform it into right action.

We do not come with ready-made solutions.These will come from those who choose to participate in this dialogic process—as speakers, attendees, student volunteers, faculty collaborators, and funding entities.Our role is simple:to foster and maintain the integrity of the dialogic process.

We do believe that a new “global architecture for peace” is necessary, if we are to move beyond the Nuclear Age.Hence, the word “constitution” in our name.But precisely what that architecture might look like and how we might get there is subject to much debate:hence, these “forums.”

At these forums, we will bring some of the finest minds in the world, of somewhat varying views and disciplines, to participate in candid explorations of issues such as:

1)What forms of global governance, including world federalism, might be necessary for a safe and sustainable future?

2)Is UN reform worthwhile or a hopeless cause; what kinds of changes might work; are there alternative approaches that might work, such as the Law of the Sea approach, which bypass the UN Security Council altogether?

3)Is it possible to create a meaningful UN peacekeeping force and the concomitant global institutions that could prevent genocide?

4)Is it possible to abolish nuclear weapons without alternative global security arrangements already in place, or can the existing treaty system manage to do this, ala the McCloy-Zorin Agreement of 1961?

5)Is nuclear energy a viable partial answer to the problem of global warming, or is it instead a threat in view of waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, and terrorist-targeting problems?

7)What is the nature of social change, and what is the role of education, People Power, and leaders?

These are merely illustrative of the broad range of topics we might address.These are difficult questions, issues that need to be fully and deliberately explored, in an interdisciplinary process over several days, days in which participants will be more or less forced to learn about the interrelatedness of the problems, and each other.

Of course, these are more than “issues,” these are terribly serious problems and whatever differences there may be as to their solution, it is clear that our current approaches are not working well.But we are optimists.If we can do the Manhattan Project, we can also do a “Reverse Manhattan Project.”[1]

In sum, the need is clear and the time is now.Anyone who has had their ear to the ground in recent months has picked up on a growing groundswell movement for social change.But we need everyone.We cannot do this alone, and we will not do this alone.[2]We will collectively find the solutions to at least some of the above problems.

Conclusion:Some of us feel that we have spent all of our lives preparing to be where we are now, in our thinking and this work, and that we have “one last shot” at making a difference in the world.And this is it.If that sounds a bit much, so be it, because we have made tremendous sacrifices to come as far as we have come.If at times we sound a bit like Lazarus-come-from-the-dead and we know it all, we apologize for that, but we are rather proud of the results of our own internal dialogic process, and hope that we will yet be permitted to do some good, now, before it is too late.

Advisory Council:Oscar Arias (Nobel Peace Laureate, Costa Rica); Prof. David Christensen (Illinois; taught “Alternatives to War”; author of two books:“Healing the World” and “Earth is Overpopulated Now”); Ambassador Carlton Coon (Wash., D.C.; author of “One Planet”); Susan Curry (Pres., Alliance for a Sustainable Future);Doug Everingham (Former MP, Australia; Member, Australian National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament); Prof. Dietrich Fischer (Dir., European Centre for Peace Studies, Austria); Prof. Ashok Gangadean (Dir., Global Dialogue Institute, Haverford College); Myron Kronisch (Trustee, Citizens for Global Solutions; New Jersey); Cleo Michelsen (Charter Member, United World Federalists; Virginia); Robert Muller (Former UN Undersecretary General; author of “Most of All, They Taught Me Happiness”); Joel Mynders (Businessman, Lecturer & Author, Philadelphia); Prof. Dingli Shen (Founder, China’s first arms control NGO; did post-doctoral work on arms control at Princeton); Sanjeev Singh (Economic Development Consultant, South Africa); Robert Stuart (Chair Emeritus of Association to Unite the Democracies, Florida); Dr. Keith Suter (Director of Studies, International Law Association, Radio & TV Commentator and Mentor of JTR for past 25 years; Australia); Henry Thiagaraj (Founder, Human Rights Education Movement, India); Prof. Kenji Urata (Vice-President of International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Japan); and Lucy Law Webster (Exec. Dir., Center for War/Peace Studies, NYC).

Board of Directors:James T. Ranney, Esq. (Chair, GCF; former law professor [taught seminar on “Law and World Peace”]); Vince della Penna (Business Development Consultant; Wash., D.C.); Marjorie Ewbank (Former Pres., Campaign for World Government; Newtown, PA); Joy Harbeson (Former Chair, Citizens for Global Solutions, Philadelphia); Chuck Melchior (Citizens for Global Solutions, Kennett Square, PA); Pamela Packard (Treasurer, Citizens for Global Solutions, Merion, PA); Paul Raynault (Founder, Student World Assembly, Englewood, NJ); Hank Stone (Pres., Coalition for a Democratic World Government, Rochester, NY); and Barbara Walker (Princeton, NJ; author of “Uniting the Peoples and the Nations”).

[1] We joke that we are too naïve and/or stupid to know that what we are planning is impossible.Or, as one wag puts it (part of his “Universal Laws”):“Anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about.”

[2] Indeed, we are not alone.There are many organizations doing excellent work on some of the above issues.But “there are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.”(Thoreau).In terms of groups that (1) have a broad scope/big picture focus; (2) an open, inclusive, collaborative, interdisciplinary, consensus-building approach; (3) with an emphasis on dialogue; and (4) an “ideas-into-action” orientation, we believe that nobody else is doing all of the above.

[3] In addition to the usual topics of voter registration reform, electoral college reform, election day holiday (and vote by mail and/or early voting), verifiable voting (e.g., optically scanned paper ballots) and independent exit polling, nonpartisan districting, felon enfranchisement (constitutional right to vote), instant runoff voting, public funding of elections and free air time, and nonpartisan election management, this sub-unit might look at innovative ways of involving youth (e.g., Costa Rica has special mock elections for kids) and even ways to encourage good candidates to run for office.