Report on Session 3B: Governance and Security
UNOG/WAAS Conference: Opportunities and Challenges for the 21st Century-Need for a New Paradigm
This session was divided into seven separate themes. The first theme was the Evolution of the Global
Rule of Law which was presented by Winston P. Nagan. The second theme was on Disarmament and
Development and there were two presenters: H.E. Ambassador Abdul Minty and Mr. Marc Finaud. The
third theme was Disarmament and the End of War presented by H.E. Ambassador Sujata Mehta. The
fourth theme was The End of War presented by David Holland. The fifth theme was The Role of Religion
in Our Work for Justice and Peace presented by Rev. Dr. Olav Fykse Tveit. The sixth theme was
Democracy and Global Security presented by Dr. Emil Constantinescu. The final theme was From
Competitive to Cooperative Security presented by Mr. Alain Deletroz and H.E. Ambassador Bertrand de
Conbrugghe.
In this report I shall summarize my own contribution at the end of the brief summary and report of the
other contributions. First, I note that we could distinguish a significant shift in the dialogue in general
between those participators representing governmental authority and those representing civil society.
Quite clearly, diplomacy places constraints on language and discourse and more importantly, does not
necessarily encourage speculation or imaginary scenarios that are too far removed from the real world
of inter-governmental relations. On the other hand, these are not necessarily the constraints that limit
the discourse from the non-governmental sector. It is obvious however, that these are two very
different worlds of discourse. It is also probable that in such discourse, the parties march past each
other and not much leaches off between them. In this session, we had three Ambassadors and their
responses were predictably limited, and very constrained. On the other hand, those participators from
outside the sphere of official governmental sanction were freer to imagine possible scenarios for the
future. The question is whether diplomatic realism is ultimately an exercise that may be too short
sighted to effectively grapple with the solution to the urgent problems of our time. Those who are
commentators from the outside must strike a chord that establishes the salience of a realistic rather
than a crack pot realism. That at least would be a starting point for grappling with a new paradigm for
the Rule of Law.
The second theme Disarmament and Development was presented by Ambassador Minty. He gave a
rather conventional view of the necessity for trans-state rules in the global system. We have air
transportation. Air transportation requires rules and regulations that essentially implicate a multitude of
territorial sovereigns. This a very pragmatic way of touching on the rich and important practice and
theory relating to the necessity of international law in world affairs. The Ambassador then went on to
point out that the system does not adequately address the issue of states that are disadvantaged and
underdeveloped, when the rule of international law speaks to the sovereign equality of states. He thus
draws attention to the classic problem that had been festering in the earlier North-South dialogue. His
focus however is essentially on a state-to-state solution to the problems of structural inequality.
However, these problems are not matters of formal international law but matters of international
politics, pressure groups, interest groups, and a wide range of participatory actors. However, the
Ambassador did not allude to these issues.
The second speaker, Mark Finaud was a strong presentation on the problems presented by the
production and distribution of nuclear arsenals on a global basis. He focuses on the technical problems
of proliferation, the problems of reducing nuclear stockpiles, and the problems of new nuclear weapons
states. He particularly draws attention to the importance of examining the perspectives of the critical
decision making participators. In particular, a better understanding of their motives and what they
perceive to be threat perceptions. His paper also explored the importance of certain steps to facilitate
cooperative security. These steps include the notion that membership in the Security Council for
permanent status should not be tied to the notion that permanent members must be nuclear powers.
This seems to be an added reason for reforming the Security Council. His second point examines
proliferation in terms of regional tensions and conflicts. His third step requires a connection between
regional initiatives and global disarmament. His fourth step examines the idea of nuclear enabled states
adopting new security doctrines that move away from nuclear unilateralism to accommodate more
values, stakeholders and factors that can provide for a more cooperative environment for reducing the
nuclear threat. His paper also suggests a less state centered role in these matters and greater
contributions from non-state actors. His paper concludes with an excellent exploration of the conditions
necessary for a world without nuclear weapons. He stresses here the importance of law in consolidating
such a regime illustrating this with reference to a convention banning nuclear weapons and the
revitalization of the concept of a general and complete disarmament. His initiatives are suggestive of
important steps taken toward a new paradigm of cooperative security.
Ambassador Sujata Mehta is an expert on the conference on disarmament. This conference has made
little headway since the states cannot agree on how to move the disarmament agenda forward. The
Ambassador did not see any promising changes in this environment. In part because the sovereign
states were comfortable with a no-movement process. She could not imagine how this could change.
She talked about the possibility of new forms of dialogue but essentially the world of civil society
appears to be precluded from the fora of disarmament. She presented the classically state centered
view of the promise or the lack of promise of global disarmament.
The theme of The End of War was introduced by David Harland. Given the impressionistic image in that
the global situation on war and armed conflict is a rapidly deteriorating fact, Harland presented
statistical evidence on a timeline that in fact the casualties and deaths relating to armed conflict armed
on a global basis are on the decline. This brings in the importance of science and scientific based fact to
appreciate the scale and salience of diminishing consequences of armed conflict for the global condition.
The theme that relates to the role of religion in working for justice and peace is another important
factor in realistic appraisal of the global value conflicts and prospects. The importance of religion is that
at an appropriate level it compels us to keep within the focus of our global Rule of Law paradigm, the
most important values of human co-existence. The UN Charter secular values are an ideal complement
to the deeper religious values of universal peace and justice. The next step is probably to downplay the
sectorial differences and to emphasize value agreement across religious lines. One caution that must be
kept in mind is that religious values are justified by reference to trans-empirical sources. When those
values are invoked to promote conflict they become a powerful justification for conflict itself. It is here
where I think the values the UN Charter have some practical consequences.
The session dealing with the theme of Democracy and Global Security was presented by the former
President of Romania, Emil Constantinescu. The speaker drew our attention to the fact that “the Rule of
Law thus stands in a peculiar state of being the preeminent legitimating political ideal in the world today
without any agreement upon precisely it means.” Constantinescu bases his presentation on personal
experience as a President seeking to institutionalize the Rule of Law in a state in which it has been
depreciated. He found this a difficult exercise since seeking to put in place governance under law
impacted upon many constituencies that benefit from governance without law. He was eventually able
to generate many Rule of Law developments but the trade off was that once his term was over, he
would not seek re-election.
The session dealing with From Competitive to Cooperative Security represented a vigorous and
contested dialogue between a diplomat and a representative of the international crisis group. From the
perspective of the crisis group cooperative security at least in the European Union, if not in myth was a
largely disappointing and ineffectual exercise often highjacked by gutless politicians. This speaker made
it clear that these are matters that he had personally witnessed. The diplomat did not see the EU’s
security agenda as a matter of a half empty glass but one that was half full. He drew attention to the fact
that the alliance had secured peace in Europe for a period longer than other European periods in
history. He saw the EU as slow on cooperative security but in the longer term a success. This view was
contested by the international crisis group.
I now come to my contribution, which introduced the session. I spoke on a more general theme relating
to the evolution of the global Rule of Law. I stressed that there were three things that we could identify
in the global Rule of Law. First, its fundamental values relating to the protection of human well being
and human dignity. Second, its institutional expression was largely by the technique of constitutional
decision making. Third, the symbol of the Rule of Law as also an occasion to project a developmental
vision of possible desirable futures sustained by law.
The central fact today is that we have a global constitution. That constitution services a planetary
community. The UN Charter reflects this, but imperfectly. It speaks ambiguously of we the people, but
membership is limited to territorially organized sovereigns. This means that the constitution seems to be
a constitution for the sovereigns and not necessarily for all we the people stakeholders. This matter
touches on both the efficacy of the UN Charter as a constitution and the authority foundations of this
process. A new paradigm for the Rule of Law would therefore have to focus on a radical expansion of
the authority foundations of the UN, which would be much broader than being confined only to the
states. That is a challenge that requires thought to be given to expanding ultimately the space for the
individual in the global constitutional system. In short, authority that requires such an expansion, and
realism mandates it. A constitution ultimately to function optimally must account inclusively for all its
stakeholders including we the people.
My presentation also touched on the question of a developmental vision under the Rule of Law. One of
those visions could include a vision of expanded human happiness. For example, if we consider that
innovations affect employment perhaps the shared benefits of such innovations would be to provide
humanity with more leisure time. The challenge here would be to facilitate such free time for the
process of encouraging the co-creative capacity of humanity to be innovative and creative in improving
the human prospect. Perhaps this would implicate a human right to aesthetics. The possibilities here are
an incipient paradigm of a renaissance in human creativity and innovation. The Rule of Law could inspire
other possible desirable futures. The central point here is if you cannot imagine a desirable future, it will
never happen.