A World Parliament (principle of ultimate resposiblity)
All 3 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 20, 5:19 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Oct 2004 17:19:07 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 5:19 pm
Subject: A World Parliament (principle of ultimate resposiblity)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The United Nations stopped working, if at all. Why? Very simple. It is
the Principle of Ultimate Responsibility. No agreements are definite
because ultimate responsiblity lies elsewhere. Ambassadors have
limited powers, limited decision, are just mediators. It all has to be
decided by the leaders and their teams. It is, for many, a waste of
resources, time, hopes. Has no enforcing power, all can do is emit
resolutions.
A world instead would have representation from the people who make
decisis in their countries, like in the Nordic Council. Instead of a
plenary of ambassadors, it would be more effective to have a plenary
of parliamentarists, divided in commissions, as almost all countries
have. Representation can be based either on population (not really
advisable) or on production more recommendable).
The fact is that in the new order, with communications and
transportatio and the Internet, laws tend to be homologued, at leat in
their basic aspects. A permanent parlament would have the power to
enforce decisions as th people deciding would be the same decisithat
take decisions in their countries. Delegations would have have
internally a representation that reflects their country`s political
forces. Special interests would be more easily representable and
communications can be enhanced through the use of modern computer
systems. World databases can be used to avoid national abuses of
power, resources would be more easily commanded, etc.
And once every so often would be plenary meetings including national
leaders to ultimate details. That way decisions would be taken and
enforced by the people who have the power to enforce them in their
countries. This doesn`t mean that there would be no borders; those are
necessary for production, cultural and even population matters. But
areas where consensus can be reached would benfit from this approach
by establishing a live body of agreements and enforceable resolutions.
Objectively, save for some (several?) regional conflicts, the
prospects of an all out world war are remote. As has been said, a
major war would be the last, so main players have no choice but to
remain in a deterrent state. A world parliament would diminish even
further this possiblity if its intention is to reach consensus in
areas that affect all peoples and can be homogeneized, like basic laws
regarding commerce and business, health, police matters, international
registries, identity registries, internet communications, ecology, and
others that participants would be resposible to propose and the
enofrce inspirit if nit by word in the particular laws of their
countries. Some aspects of a world constitution are even already in
place, like human rights declarations and their implications, other
protocols, etc. Where conflict would remain, measures to seek
economically sound mechanisms, like lump sums and compensations, would
be called for to convince and protect national interests.
There are certainly other areas that can be identified where
enforceable joint approaches would benefit all countries, like
armament reduction, population control, intellectual property, frug
control, space exploration, telecommunications, public ownership of
internet backbone servers, espionage, scientific research, etc.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 21, 4:59 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 21 Oct 2004 04:59:39 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 21 2004 4:59 am
Subject: Re: A World Parliament (principle of ultimate resposiblity)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> The United Nations stopped working, if at all. Why? Very simple. It is
> the Principle of Ultimate Responsibility. No agreements are definite
> because ultimate responsiblity lies elsewhere. Ambassadors have
> limited powers, limited decision, are just mediators. It all has to be
> decided by the leaders and their teams. It is, for many, a waste of
> resources, time, hopes. Has no enforcing power, all can do is emit
> resolutions.
> A world instead would have representation from the people who make
> decisis in their countries, like in the Nordic Council. Instead of a
> plenary of ambassadors, it would be more effective to have a plenary
> of parliamentarists, divided in commissions, as almost all countries
> have. Representation can be based either on population (not really
> advisable) or on production more recommendable).
> The fact is that in the new order, with communications and
> transportatio and the Internet, laws tend to be homologued, at leat in
> their basic aspects. A permanent parlament would have the power to
> enforce decisions as th people deciding would be the same decisithat
> take decisions in their countries. Delegations would have have
> internally a representation that reflects their country`s political
> forces. Special interests would be more easily representable and
> communications can be enhanced through the use of modern computer
> systems. World databases can be used to avoid national abuses of
> power, resources would be more easily commanded, etc.
> And once every so often would be plenary meetings including national
> leaders to ultimate details. That way decisions would be taken and
> enforced by the people who have the power to enforce them in their
> countries. This doesn`t mean that there would be no borders; those are
> necessary for production, cultural and even population matters. But
> areas where consensus can be reached would benfit from this approach
> by establishing a live body of agreements and enforceable resolutions.
> Objectively, save for some (several?) regional conflicts, the
> prospects of an all out world war are remote. As has been said, a
> major war would be the last, so main players have no choice but to
> remain in a deterrent state. A world parliament would diminish even
> further this possiblity if its intention is to reach consensus in
> areas that affect all peoples and can be homogeneized, like basic laws
> regarding commerce and business, health, police matters, international
> registries, identity registries, internet communications, ecology, and
> others that participants would be resposible to propose and the
> enofrce inspirit if nit by word in the particular laws of their
> countries. Some aspects of a world constitution are even already in
> place, like human rights declarations and their implications, other
> protocols, etc. Where conflict would remain, measures to seek
> economically sound mechanisms, like lump sums and compensations, would
> be called for to convince and protect national interests.
> There are certainly other areas that can be identified where
> enforceable joint approaches would benefit all countries, like
> armament reduction, population control, intellectual property, frug
> control, space exploration, telecommunications, public ownership of
> internet backbone servers, espionage, scientific research, etc.
Indeed, a World Parliament where seats are based on a country`s
national product would have the effect of turning political
competition into economic competition and would serve as an incentive
for countries to improve their economies, as that would have the
effect of giving them more seats in the parliament and therefore more
political power. Several schemes can be devised. For instance,
countries experiencing relative high rates of growth would be entitled
to have additional seats. Proportions can be established in such way
that all countries would have equal representation if proportional
variables, like income per capita, were homogeneized. Using income per
capita as a variable would have the additional benefit of giving an
incentive to some couies to establish measures to control their
population while at the same time they increase their national
production. Also, it would give an intive to small coues in some areas
to form coalitions or economic unions, or even coalesce into new
countries if that would give them a better standing in the World
Parliament.
Another benefit of a world parliament would be to give less
opportunities for single parties and other interests to affect
decisions by reaching the representatives, as can happen in the UN,
were ambassadors are open to external influences as well as to the
possibility of coluding if that suits their interests as ambassadors,
in detriment to their national interests. World parliamentarists need
not be the same at all times; countries would be free to rotate
parliamentarists as it suits their own interests, also to avoid
encroached influences from forming if people remain the same.
Reply
PGreenfinch Oct 21, 11:38 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general,sci.econ
From: "PGreenfinch" - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:38:54 +0200
Local: Thurs, Oct 21 2004 11:38 am
Subject: Re: A World Parliament (principle of ultimate resposiblity)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
A place to discuss it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Democratic_globalization
Reply