Andrew Strauss, Professor of International Law at Widener University School of Law

We are glad to talk with Andrew Strauss, a world-leading expert on international law and UN matters.
Professor Strauss, since long you have been promoting the idea of a Global Parliamentary Assembly. People are increasingly concerned about problems such as terrorism or global warming. Which answer could a Global Parliamentary Assembly provide to such challenges?
Since a global parliament is a way to begin to bring people into a political process, many feel the unfairness of a few countries holding almost all the power in the global system. The existence of so many alienated people provides a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. If we had a global parliament, we could offer the same deal to those who are inclined to support terrorism that democracies offer to their people. We could say, we will allow you - we even want you - participate, and we will give you the parliamentary means to do so, but your participation must be peaceful.
Now I'm sure al-Qaeda terrorists won't accept that deal, but I believe that if citizen groups had a peaceful global political outlet, terrorists would over time become isolated. As to global warming, the US and Australia have decided not to join the Kyoto Protocol. They can do this because states mostly don't have to agree to follow international laws if they don't want to. Political élites in national capitals are interested in keeping the system voluntary because it maximizes their own prerogatives. Global parliamentary representatives would find that their own influence would expand with that of the global parliament. Even if the parliament was to start as an advisory body, the parliamentarians would over time be likely to champion the idea that acts of parliament should be binding not only on states, but also directly on citizens. If citizens were part of the process, through participating in political campaigns, voting, lobbying, etc. then they would likely come to feel a corresponding loyalty to the parliament and its processes, and the political ground would be laid for them to accept the parliament's decisions as binding. At least this has been the tendency in national parliamentary systems, and it is relevant that the European Parliament started out as a largely advisory body and has slowly gained legislative powers.
You mention the English Parliament, which overthrew the absolute monarchy in the 17th century, as a possible forerunner to a global assembly. Yet the parliament was an expression of well defined social forces, the ones of emerging English capital. Who is going to promote a global assembly?
It is true that, in addition to the aristocracy, the middle class became a support for the English parliament, but to suggest that parliament could only have evolved as it did is to believe that history is rigidly determined which I don't. Much of history happens as a result of unpredictable forces that only seem somehow predestined in retrospect. For example, it was not historically inevitable that Henry the VIII would feel he needed parliament to support his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and break from Rome, and yet this was an event that strengthened parliament a great deal by giving it a claim to authority over religious matters. So today I think we can't be sure what forces or events might be determinative in creating a global parliament. Having said that, I think the forces of global capital, or rather certain elements of global capital, could come to back a global parliament. Now, some people might find it surprising. They see global capital as benefiting from the largely unregulated global economy and as unlikely to want to share power with a global democratic body. But in the US it is often said that President Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism. This means that that by introducing the welfare state during a time - the depression - when capitalism was under significant challenge, Roosevelt provided the accommodation that was necessary for the system to continue. Likewise, today I believe that many enlightened global business leaders could be brought around to the idea that the current system of globalization is not working and that, if it is to be saved, it needs to be established on a more legitimate footing similar to what is found in parliamentary domestic systems. Another important source of support for a global parliament is civil society. Some civil society organizations are resistant to this innovation because finally, having achieved some influence within the international system, they see a parliament as a threat to their turf, so to speak. I think they are wrong, however. Certainly, a global parliament would rearrange the global furniture in ways that could be temporarily uncomfortable for some civil society organizations, but over the long run they would have a more secure place in the global system. After all, civil society organizations have a place in parliamentary systems, supporting candidates and influencing the parliamentary process, in ways they don't have in the international system. They are officially part of the process.
Additionally, I think the citizens of powerless countries and developing countries in particular have a special interest in such a parliament. Clearly the global system is not representing their interests well at the present time.
Finally, I would hope the EU as an entity could become a force for such a body. In many ways the European experiment is the great hope for all of us. After millennia of war, Europe has created a new irenic ethos, and the European Parliament is an important part of it. Because Europeans already know from direct experience the possibilities of what we are talking about, they are in many ways the most likely to help carry the message to the world. Now, you may say that these groups I am pointing to are very different, and many of them have apparently opposing interests, but people who might disagree about substance still have the potential to come together over process. You know, people often think of governance as a zero sum game - for someone to win someone else must lose. But if we can achieve a system of democratic global governance that protects us from environmental calamity, avoids disastrous wars, and makes us all feel secure in our basic rights, we all win.
Many countries are clearly non-democratic. How would you consider their participation in a parliament?
I am inclined to say that any country, even non-democratic countries, can join a treaty to create a global parliament, but that in order for representatives to be credentialed to participate they must be "freely and fairly" elected. I think to allow for any government, democratic or not, to fix elections or simply appoint representatives would undermine the credibility and potential of the parliament.
You wrote also about several different paths towards a Global Parliament. Which is preferable? Why?
The greatest hope of success lies in a global parliament established by independent treaty. Most international organizations are created this way. I'm sceptical that a truly democratic parliament could spring from UN reform process, given that previous reform has been so difficult. Even if many UN members were not ready to agree to an independent treaty, it could still go forward, and once in place, citizens could lobby non-party governments to join. It is important, however, that no matter how the organization starts, it be seen as a way to strengthen the UN. For example, the treaty might provide that the Parliament vote on certain resolutions passed by the General Assembly. A resolution passed bicamerally by both assemblies would, for example, have a great deal of added legitimacy.