At the WFM Congress (2025), Alyn Ware, WFM’s Program Director, presented a Report that included the important campaign: “Legal Alternatives to War (LAW not War).” At a time in world politics in which the opportunities for war between great and small powers are multiplying, this campaign must be carefully considered by all federalists. However, it is necessary to understand the relevance of the campaign in the political situation in which the United States, Russia, China and other countries face each other on various continents to assert their dominance, in some cases with the threat of resorting to nuclear weapons. How can the arms race be stopped if international law allows the use of war when a nation state considers it necessary?
“World Federalism, the Report states, envisages strong global governance to build international cooperation on critical issue for humanity and the planet, to resolve international conflicts peacefully, and ensure compliance with international law. … In October 2023 we launched Legal Alternatives to War. Increasing the universality and effectiveness of the International Court of Justiuce (LAW not War), a new global campaign to enhance the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to assist countries resolve international disputes peacefully rather than through recourse to the threat or use of force”.
This goal seems reasonable, but it appeals to good intentions, rather than the creation of institutions that prevent war. In the current international situation, an appeal to good intentions seems unrealistic because no major power – the USA, China, Russia, India, Brazil, etc. – will agree to allow the Court of Justice to decide whether or not it is permissible to wage war in Ukraine, decide whether Israel should make peace with the Palestinians, or force the US to ask permission before bombing Iran. Can the ICJ force Iran, India and Pakistan to give up the atomic bomb or China to give up the military conquest of Taiwan? There is an ambiguity in the “LAW not War” campaign, which concerns the naïve conception of international law. Current international law is not a real law as law is conceived within a nation state. We do not consider a state to be civilized in which every citizen is allowed to kill his opponent: in each state there is a police force that prevents crimes and, when the crime is committed, ensures that the criminal is subjected to the judgment of a court. In current international law, the use of war is considered legitimate, so there is the “right to kill”: a soldier must kill an enemy if his government deems it necessary. In “Perpetual Peace,” Kant states that “One cannot conceive international right as a right to war”. The slogan “PEACE not War” should therefore be adopted and current international law should be criticized as a mystification, a deception. Nation states retain the right and power to declare war and are not willing to cede this power.
My criticism is meant to be constructive: I think that the campaign for universal disarmament and peace among peoples must be improved, not abandoned. I propose that the federalists give serious consideration to Albert Einstein’s proposal dating back to 1947. According to Einstein: “Mankind must give up war in the atomic era. What is at stake is the life and death of humanity. The only military force which can bring security to the world is a supranational police force, based on world law. To this end we must direct our energies” (Nathan, Norden 1963: 407).
I would like to highlight two important aspects of this concise proposal. The first is that the crucial goal is the abolition of nuclear weapons, the first step towards universal disarmament. Of course, this goal will not be easy to pursue, but federalists must not give up pursuing it at a time when nuclear weapons have been joined by a second threat to the future of humanity: climate change, a possible irreversible ecological crisis. Today, states must choose whether to spend on armaments or devote resources to environmental security. Today the priority is the armaments race. The second observation concerns the good of security as a global public good, which no national government can guarantee. Security, Einstein argues, can only be guaranteed by a supranational police force (not an army), as is the case in nation states that guarantee the safety of their citizens through a police force. Finally, there must be global legislation and a tribunal – the International Court of Justice – that settles disputes between states and enforces the sentence with a supranational police force.
Today the “blue helmets” of the UN already exist, hypothetically a supranational police, but they do not yet have the power to force two or more governments to give up their weapons. A federalist initiative should therefore consist in proposing that national governments take the initiative to strengthen the corps of blue helmets by making their national armed forces available. If an increasing number of national governments follow this example, the UN Corps will be strengthened and will have more and more means to intervene. For example, the European Union must decide whether to give itself its own defense, a European defense, not a sum of national defenses. The Treaty of Lisbon already provides the legal prerequisites for the European Union to be able to put its “military” force at the service of the United Nations, so that it can act as an international “police force”. This is a first step. The campaign for disarmament and the creation of a supranational police force must continue until there is a great number of countries to discourage any other country from resorting to war. At this point, it may be thought that national governments are obliged to turn to the International Court of Justice to resolve their disputes.
In short, Einstein’s proposal allows us to conceive of the community of citizens of the world as a cosmopolitan community, in which all national peoples and all civilizations of the planet will be able to coexist peacefully. A proposal for “PEACE not War”, to entrust the national military forces to the corps of blue helmets, could make it possible to find many pacifist movements as allies. Peace will be the result of an intense and tenacious mobilization of all the citizens of the world. This battle can be won because peace is a political goal that all the inhabitants of the planet share.
