Annotation
Original title: Will the real International Federalist please stand up?
Date: Mar 31, 2011.
Comments: Originally by Knootoss; reproduced with author's permission. The source is a NationStates forum thread that contains a lot of useful follow-up discussion.
[Source]
Document
Will the real International Federalist please stand up?
In politics, labels matter. The 'right' label can help ideas become more popular. The 'wrong' label can hold ideas back. Regular participants in World Assembly debates have traditionally divided themselves into two camps: the National Sovereigntists, represented by the National Sovereignty Organisation, and the International Federalists. I will argue that the label of "International Federalist" does not apply to the group that currently uses it, and that the "National Sovereigntists" are better off claiming it for themselves.
International Federalists believe in the creed of "improving the world, one resolution at a time." They argue that sovereignty only exists in areas where the World Assembly has not yet chosen to legislate. They believe that the World Assembly may pass resolutions on any subject, provided that it is passed by a voting majority of regional delegates and member nations. This idea allows them to propose or support resolutions in any given area, but they are especially fond of proposals which use the authority of the world Assembly to enforce "universal" minimum standards. They tend to trust the World Assembly agencies and distrust the motives of individuals and the governments of unwilling member states, who might try to "cheat" out of their resolutions.Typical resolutions proposed by International Federalists:
- Write resolutions that go into a lot of detail about what member nations should do into their own countries.
- Create "Agencies" of the World Assembly that make sure that countries are following these detailed rules.
- Write their resolutions so that more rules can be written on the same topic later.
The label "International Federalist" was coined a long time ago, for those member states who would like to see the [strike]United Nations[/strike] World Assembly grow into a sort of "Federation", implying a single government, or at least a World Assembly that can do whatever it likes to fix all the problems in the world.
However, the term "federalism" is more commonly used to describe a system where sovereignty is divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). A constitution that determines which tasks the Federal government can do, and all the other tasks are left to these political units. Federalism is therefore a system in which the power to govern is shared between the different levels of government.
Because International Federalists are opposed to putting limits on what the World Assembly can do, their label is misleading.
National Sovereigntists, on the other hand, see the incredible power the WA has, and want to make sure that it is used responsibly. The World Assembly is an incredibly diverse place, with nations that have very different cultures, different levels of technology, and which may even be populated by entirely non-human species. This diversity makes it hard for any resolution to do justice to the specific circumstances of all nations. National Sovereigntists tend to think that these differences need to be respected. They trust individuals and member nations to work things out the best they can, and they tend to be sceptical about creating World Assembly agencies. Typical resolutions proposed by "National Sovereigntists":
- Deal with "international" issues, problems that member states cannot solve alone, and issues which affect everyone in the World Assembly. Often, states need to work together to solve these problems.
- Talk about big "principles", but leave the details up for member states to work out themselves.
- Write resolutions as the "final say" on a given topic.
Because they want to let member states decide about more things than the "International Federalists" do, this group has taken up the label of "National Sovereigntists". This label became popular when the nation of Texas Hotrodders wrote an essay called "National Sovereignty and the NationStates World Assembly". In this essay, they argued that just because a resolution can legally be passed, it does not follow that it must be passed. Many of the principles mentioned above were first described in this essay.
However, the ideas of Federalism that were just described, such as limited and constitutional government, fit much better with the ideas of the National Sovereigntists. What they are arguing for is, essentially, a kind of federalism. Therefore, if the so-called National Sovereigntist who wants to own the debate, he or she should feel no shame and stand up to say: "The real International Federalist? That is me. Right here."
