Kommentar til artikkelen som sto på trykk i KK i dag:
----- Forwarded message from John Hermann <hermann@picknowl.com.au> -----
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: Troy Davis <troy_davis@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: troydavis@post.harvard.edu
Organization: World Citizen Foundation
Subject: How To Rule The World - George Monbiot
----------------------------------------------
Dear friends and colleagues,
Below is a copy of my letter to The Guardian in London in response to an
article by George Monbiot of 17 July 2001, called "How to rule the world:
Rich nations should stop running the planet and give way to global democracy"
in which Monbiot mentions the World Citizen Foundation.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,522865,00.html)
Troy Davis.
----------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
George Monbiot is right to call for World Democracy and a World
Parliament. We must apply the same principles of democratic
representation locally, nationally, and globally. The fact that a
particular level does not work well (e.g. Europe) is not a principled
flaw, but a design challenge. There are good reasons why it will be
easier to write a World Constitution than a European one and why a
World Parliament will be more popular than the European one. But the
World Parliament is unlikely to be a simple one-man - one-vote
system. Almost no parliament in the world follows the rule (e.g. rural
areas are over-represented) and rich countries would not accept
it. Democratic perfection is impossible but we can start quickly with
sound principles, then improve.
There are two other reasons (in addition to Monbiot's) why a World
Parliament is the key missing link of the global architecture: taxes
and justice. The movement for a Tobin tax makes no sense without a
World Parliament. It would be irresponsible to create any global tax
without fulfilling the basic democratic principle of "No Taxation
Without Representation". Anything less betrays the foundations of
democracy. Both 1776 and 1789 started as tax revolts.
Secondly, justice: Critics of the Hague court and of the future
International Criminal Court have a point when they question their
legitimacy. Milosevic rejected the court, saying that the "General
Assembly" did not authorize it. But Milosevic and his allies are not
against the rule of law per se. They believe it is not legitimate
because the closest existing equivalent to a World Parliament today
(the UN General Assembly) did not create it.
Claude Jorda, President of the Hague Court, said openly at the UN that
the judges are stepping in the shoes of a still non-existing world
legislator (thus flouting the principle of separation of powers) and
that this is a cause for concern. "The UN Security Council entrusted
to us - the Judges of the Tribunal - with the sensitive mission of
adopting our Rules of Procedure and Evidence ... it vested in us an
extraordinary legislative power ... We are well aware that this
legislative capacity is enormous and open to criticism."
Only a global legislature can ultimately legitimize a global
judiciary. If we want global justice, a global legislature with
unchallenged moral authority must make the rules, not the UN Security
Council or diplomats.
Yours truly,
Troy Davis,
<troydavis@post.harvard.edu>
President/CEO, World Citizen Foundation, http://www.worldcitizen.org
Secretary, Global Campaign for World Democracy
----- End forwarded message -----
--
______ _________________________________________________
/ | jonivar skullerud jonivar@bigfoot.com |
| jon | http://www.bigfoot.com/~jonivar/ |
\______ | |
\ | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those |
ivar | | who falsely believe they are free. -Goethe |
_______/ |_________________________________________________|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03-08-01 MET DST