Joseph E. Schwartzberg
Transforming the United Nations System: Designs for a Workable World
Tokyo-New York-Paris, United Nations University Press, 2013


Although I am not a federalist, I have always had a deep respect and consideration for federalist ideas due to their realism and political and juridical coherence, as demonstrated in numerous debates and discussions within and beyond universities. That many federalists are realists and coherent scholars of political and juridical sciences is due to the fact that, although being idealists, they are seldom utopian, and are generally aware of the problems afflicting international relations and the enormous difficulties in dealing with them. This is exactly what the author states in the Introduction to his important book: “Although my proposals are idealistic in conception, there is nothing utopian in what I shall be presenting…I do not foresee a world free from conflict…Nor do I envisage a world free from economic want and serious social and environmental stress…I have no illusions that any of what I shall propose will come about easily”¹.

The book is organized in 15 chapters, preceded by an authoritative foreword by Ramesh Thakur. The foreword includes a long list of impressive endorsements (among which are those of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Brian Urquhart, Hurst Hannum, Lucio Levi, William Pace and Thomas G. Weiss). The system Schwartzberg proposes is “workable,” rather than perfect, and centered largely on the already-existing foundations of the United Nations. The UN is to be improved, not put aside or turned upside-down. Some of Schwartzberg’s many organic proposals for redefining UN governance stem from existing institutional frameworks (General Assembly, Security Council, Human Rights Council, etc.) and seek to enhance their efficiency and representativeness. Other proposals suggest creating new bodies [a World Parliamentary Assembly, an Economic, Social and Environmental Council (ESEC) to replace the ECOSOC, a UN Administrative Academy,etc.].

Rather than being revolutionary, Schwartzberg’s proposals are evolutionary and ameliorative. One would not expect a different approach from a scholar who – like our eminent author – has traveled extensively, worked long in the field of international relations, and has been an untiring advocate for change at the global level. He has thus come to understand, with wisdom and farsightedness, the virtues, as well as the faults, of the existing system. Throughout the work, he offers severe moral (but never moralistic) judgments on contemporary international relations and suggests reasonable paths aimed at ensuring greater systemic efficiency.

A key feature of many of Schwartzberg’s proposals is the adoption of systems of weighted voting in UN agencies, from the Security Council downward. Since, in our economically and politically interdependent world, new and realistic parameters are needed for allocating political power in decision-making institutions, the author’s weighting formulae are based largely on new and relevant principles. They respond to the need to improve representativeness and efficiency, to provide better performance in a system that is not just “international” (a society of States), but also new and “global”. Such a global society would be incorporated within a transformed UN with the participation by NGOs and other non-State actors, including a World Parliamentary Assembly (Chapter 3). This assembly would represent people, grouped within electoral areas, some corresponding to portions of given nations, and others comprised of small neighboring nations (as, for example, in Central America), rather than by nations only.

Through such double-level participation (ensuring representativeness for both State-level agencies and previously excluded non-State actors), Schwartzberg responds to the challenging question of how to promote cooperation between the State system and the larger “global society”. Especially pertinent in this regard are Chapters 10 (“Engaging civil society: NGOs and other non-state actors”), and 15, indicating pathways to a workable system: improving the “domestic climate for change”, promoting “global education”, nurturing a “cosmopolitan ethos”, and creating “effective civil society networks”. To these I would add the need to reform peacekeeping and peacebuilding (Chapter 12), especially the creation of a UN Peace Corps, an Administrative Reserve Corps and an Administrative Academy.

Let us now consider the key question of the level of utopianism (and, inversely, of realizability) of Schwartzberg’s proposals. The author correctly observes that the time available for designing a more workable future is running short, perhaps as little as a couple of generations. But, so short a time-frame would pose insurmountable problems for the international State system, which is likely to persist throughout the 21^st century. It is, therefore, hard to put forward credible arguments for a radically transformed system. Recognizing this, Schwartzberg suggests numerous systemic compromises consistent with federalist beliefs. What he proposes is not the ambiguous “global constitutionalism” so dear to the part of the international-law doctrine relating to legal politics (often with little regard to the norms actually in force). Nor does he advocate a world super-State. Those are unrealizable solutions. The former would require radical transformation of the very structure of political and juridical international relations; the latter would institutionalize bureaucratic global constitutionalism and lead to the disappearance of the legal subjectivity of States. Instead, Schwartzberg argues for (Chapter 14) a “new global governance architecture” based on “a constitutional system of democratic federal world government”². This, in my opinion, will promote cooperation between State and non-State actors. It envisages a bi-cameral world legislature wherein “one house, the General Assembly would represent States…while the other, the World Parliamentary Assembly would represent peoples³. In this model, States and international organizations would continue to play significant roles within a context of negotiated rules and procedures. Over time, extensive reorganization would become possible. For example, the Security Council could be replaced by an Executive Council “made up of a specified number of elected individuals… rather than representatives of member States”⁴.

Schwartzberg’s text is marked by caution and pragmatism. This contributes to the credibility and authoritativeness of his arguments. He does not claim that “every selected target for reform needs to be addressed in the foreseeable future. [Rather, his]…aim is to promote a world that is workable, not a future utopia”⁵. Fundamental questions must be raised and workable answers must be sought: 1. Are States here to stay? No doubt. Then, let’s build around them an ad-hoc system incorporating the golden parameters of enhanced efficiency and systemic representativeness. 2. Is “global society” an inescapable non-State actor in international relations? No doubt. Then, let’s enable it to progressively transform the system, based on open dialogue with States, and international organizations. 3. Is the world an interdependent entity? No doubt. Then, let’s devise a cooperative federal model with a well-designed multi-level division of competences. Happily, Schwartzberg writes about global governance as a realistic, enlightened observer who, better than many others, has understood that another UN system and a more workable world are possible. Promising paths lie before us. For choosing how best to approach our goal, Schwartzberg’s book provides a precious guide.

Translated by Lionello Casalegno

¹ Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Transforming the United Nations System: Designs for a Workable World, Tokyo-New York-Paris, United Nations University Press, 2013, p.3

² Ibidem, pp. 296-300
³ Ibidem, p. 301
⁴ Ibidem
⁵ Ibidem, p. 297