The Last Social Contract, Chapter 2: Contract

The Last Social Contract, Chapter 2: Contract

“The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.”

Thomas Hobbes, “The Leviathan”

In “The Leviathan” Hobbes explains that, in order to escape from a state of anarchy, which is a state of war of every man against every man, all men have to agree to transfer their sovereignty to one man or to an assembly of men, which will therefore hold the power to do all that is necessary in order to guarantee their protection against foreigners and to uphold the peace within the republic.

What I propose is a revised form of the social contract, where the parties are not individuals but republics. Since we live in a situation of international anarchy, which is a state of war of every nation against every nation, in the same way as the state of nature is a situation of war of every man against every man, then every nation should transfer its sovereignty to a common power, who will hold the necessary powers to maintain the peace between nations.

After hearing this proposal, many will criticize it. Some will say it cannot be done. Some will say it cannot be sustained. And some will say it should not be done. However, to all those critiques, I have answers. And if human kind truly aspires to perpetual world peace, than there is no other way to achieve it but this one.

To those who say that such a contract cannot be done, I must say they are wrong, and I shall explain how this contract is possible. There are in the world many international organizations. Some of these are more powerful than others. Amongst the most relevant of these are the UN, the EU, the African Union, the MERCOSUL, NATO, NAFTA and the Organization of American States. These are organizations which are composed of nations, like nations are composed of men. Of the organizations which have been mentioned, only one has a global scope: the UN. To a great extent, the UN has been created in an attempt to fulfil the role of a world power capable of maintaining world peace. It has been created after the most destructive war in the history of mankind: the Second World War. In an attempt to avoid new global wars, the UN has been established. In fact, the UN is not an original idea, since it was preceded by the League of Nations, which in turn had been created as a response to the First World War. The problem is that, like the League of Nations, the UN does not have the powers which are necessary to enforce the peace in the world. Thus, it comes as no surprise that neither the League of Nations nor the UN have been successful in avoiding wars between nations. Imagine a small country. Now imagine that the sovereign of that country does not have an army. Imagine also that, although he is given the power to create laws, and is allowed to build courts of justice and to hire judges, he isn’t allowed to recruit men to enforce the laws and the courts’ decisions. If these were the conditions in such republic, could there be any order in the country? Although people might still consider their sovereign as such, his position would hold no significance other than a title, devoid of power and significance. It happens that the UN, like the sovereign in the example, is only a name and a symbol and has no real power or significance. Where there is no coercion, there is no power. A powerless sovereign cannot keep order. Where there is no order, there is anarchy. If there is anarchy, there can be no peace. International Law, which is embodied in the UN, is useless because it cannot be upheld. If a nation decides to attack another the UN can say it is acting against the law, and tell it to stop the aggression, but if that nation does not stop, the UN has no power to enforce the law. If a dispute between two countries is settled by the International Court of Justice, and the losing party does not agree with the decision, than there is no way to enforce the sentence. Thus, international law without an enforcer is void. The solution to this problem is to provide the enforcer. Either the United Nations must be transformed in order to become an efficient super-structure, capable of enforcing international law, or another organization must be created to assume this function.

I argue that the best way is to create a new organization, rather than to reform the already existent United Nations. This is because the UN has a considerable amount of structural flaws that do not allow it to become an efficient enforcer. In order for the current system of International Law to work the UN must possess a coercive power that allows it to surpass the power of even the strongest of nations. Naturally, in order for this to come true, the creation of a UN army would be necessary. The creation and existence of such an army, however, poses certain difficulties. For instance, who would pay for this army and who would control it? An army that big would cost a great amount of money to maintain and that money would have to come from member–nations, some of which would probably be unwilling to contribute with their share. However, the biggest difficulty comes from the fact that an army that powerful would be in the hands of a small body of people who are not even elected by the people. It is unthinkable to assume that the most powerful nations in the world would abdicate their power in favour of the secretary of the UN. Yet, in order for a UN army to be viable, such a transfer of power would be necessary. It is for this reason that the creation of a UN army is so difficult and unlikely to happen. Yet, other forms of coercion are not sufficient to allow the enforcement of International Law. The system of collective security, for instance, which is supposed to be used like a United Nations army and for the purpose of punishing governments that invade countries illegally, is extremely flawed. Arguably the system could be improved in a number of ways, but it would always be ultimately dependent on the will of the superpowers to work. In fact, the inadequacies of the system of collective security as a mechanism of enforcement of international law have been put in evidence in a consistent way for the last sixty years, with the sole exception of the gulf war, which can be seen as the only successful application of the system. History has equally demonstrated that the economic sanctions imposed by the UN are not, by themselves, sufficient in order to uphold international order. If we combine all these factors, it becomes clear that the UN has structural problems which make it very hard for it to be used as a guardian of International peace. Another very different system should and must be used in order to, in an efficient and feasible way, guarantee perpetual world peace.

Thus, I propose the creation of a world federation, where the power is divided between three levels of government: regional, national, and international. A federation is the only way to successfully transfer the power from the nations to a super-entity, capable of ensuring that the nations do not attack each other. Therefore, the ultimate social contract must be agreed upon between the nations of the world in which each one of them give up their sovereignty to create an organization with the means to enforce world peace.

Unlike the UN, in such a world federation the very condition of member would reflect the willingness of the member-state to be part of this new community, and thus to transfer part of its sovereignty to a higher structure of power. As such, the world federation should and could not be built in a day, since its members should join the federation progressively and slowly, and not all at the same time. This kind of federation has only one precedent in the history of mankind: the EU. The process of European integration stands as a perfect example of how a new order of international law must be formed, where sovereignty is divided between multiple levels of government, replacing a situation of competition between nations for a situation of cooperation between them. The European integration process has proven two things. The first is that the best way to transfer sovereignty to a higher level of government is by a slow and progressive process of power transfer. The second is that a superior entity, capable of providing a framework of cooperation between nations, and thus prevent war between them, ultimately benefits all the citizens of the federation.

However, the process of European integration is not yet complete. The last stage is still to come, and it is essential that it should come. Because without that last step, the social contract between the nations of Europe, and later the social contract between the nations of the World will never be complete. The last stage of integration is the transfer of military power. Until the moment when the armies of the member-states become one single federal army, war is always going to be a possibility, albeit remote. But when all the nations are “kept in awe” by one “common power” (the federal army, which is controlled by the institutions of the federation) than peace is guaranteed since there will be no power in the world capable of generating chaos anymore. (Hobbes, 1660, chapter XIII) This is how the mere existence of a federal army, and the non-existence of national ones, is a sufficient condition to guarantee perpetual world peace. The only thing which would be then left to be feared would be that great common power itself, the federal army and the ones who control it, the ultimate Leviathan.

Yet, aren’t we already afraid of our current national armies and rulers? And haven’t we found ways to control those? Even a beast so powerful can be controlled by good laws, fine institutions and the reverential will of the people. We are not obliged to create a Leviathan with no restraints, because if we did we could all end up as victims of the monster. Let us then create a Leviathan which serves the people, which is a servant of the laws, and which is controlled by institutions that are democratic and accountable. Let these be the terms of the ultimate social contract, which has been designed to grant the people of the world lasting peace and freedom.