We must end war. Whether we realize it or not, how to avoid a nuclear war is the most important issue facing humanity.¹ Most people now agree with what H.G. Wells said back in 1935: “If we don’t end war, war will end us.” Or, as President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev said in their joint statement at the November 1985 Geneva Summit: “a nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

We have not yet thought through the full implications of the above statement. For if that proposition is in any wise true, then it follows that we need to develop alternatives to war. And therein lies the crux of our proposal: international alternative dispute resolution mechanisms—primarily international mediation and arbitration, backed up by international adjudication.

History of the idea. This is not a new idea, nor is it a radical idea. This idea traces its origins back to the famous British legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who in his 1789 Plan for an Universal and Perpetual Peace, proposed “a Common Court of Judicature for the decision of differences between the several nations.” Other prominent proponents include: (2) President Theodore Roosevelt, who in his long-neglected 1910 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech proposed international arbitration, a world court, and “some kind of international police power” to enforce the decrees of the court; (3) President William Howard Taft, who espoused an “arbitral court” and an international police force to compel resort to arbitration and adjudication; and (4) President Dwight David Eisenhower, who urged creation of an “International Court of Justice” with compulsory jurisdiction and some kind of “international police power universally recognized and strong enough to earn universal respect.” Finally, in this regard, under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, a “Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations” was negotiated over several months by U.S. representative John J. McCloy and Soviet representative Valerian Zorin. This McCloy-Zorin Agreement, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 20, 1961, contemplated establishment of “reliable procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes” and an international police force that would have had a monopoly of all internationally-usable military force. The McCloy-Zorin Agreement was not ultimately adopted, however, and since that time there has been very little discussion of such proposals.

Our proposal in summary. Our proposal is simple, and less drastic than the McCloy-Zorin Agreement. It has three parts: 1) abolition of nuclear weapons (with necessarily accompanying reductions in conventional forces); 2) international dispute resolution mechanisms; and 3) enforcement mechanisms, ranging from the force of world public opinion to an international peace force.

1. Abolition: necessary and feasible: It is time for a Nuclear Weapons Abolition Convention. Ever since the January 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal editorial by the former “nuclear realists” Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Senator Sam Nunn, William Perry (former Secretary of Defense), and George Shultz (former Secretary of State), elite opinion worldwide has reached a general consensus that nuclear weapons are a clear and imminent danger to all who possess them and to the whole world.² As Ronald Reagan used to say to George Shultz: “What’s so great about a world that can be blown up in 30 minutes?” Thus, all we really need is a final push to convert the already broad public support for abolition³ into actionable measures. At the global level, once the United States and Russia and China agree to abolition, the rest will follow.

2. International ADR (alternative dispute resolution): A World Rule of Law Treaty would set up a four-part system of international dispute resolution—compulsory negotiation, compulsory mediation, compulsory arbitration, and compulsory adjudication—of any and all disputes between countries. Based on experience in domestic courts, about 90% of all “cases” would be settled in negotiation and mediation, with another 90% settled after arbitration, leaving a relatively small residue for compulsory adjudication. The big objection raised over the years (especially by the neo-cons) to compulsory jurisdiction in the International Court of Justice has been that the Soviets would never agree to it. Well, the fact is (unreported in any American newspaper) that the Soviets under Mikhail Gorbachev did agree to it, starting in 1987.

3. International enforcement mechanisms: Many international law scholars and historians have pointed out that in well over 95% of the cases, the mere force of world public opinion has been effective in securing compliance with international court decisions. But the admittedly difficult issue has been the role an international peace force would play in enforcement. Currently the problem with any such enforcement is the veto power in the UN Security Council. But various possible solutions to this problem could be worked out, in the same manner that the Law of the Sea Treaty devised adjudicative tribunals that are not subject to the P-5 veto.

Conclusion. The abolition of war is a difficult task, but it is by no means impossible nor is it unrealistic. It does not require creation of a global parliament, nor the broad acceptance of pacifism; it only requires common sense and commitment. This is something we ought to be able to accomplish in the next 20 years. We will do this.

1. Former West German Chancellor Willie Brandt: “Peace is not everything; but without peace, everything is nothing.” [↩]
2. Among the hundreds of military personnel and statesmen who have come out in favor of abolition: Admiral Noel Gaylor, Admiral Eugene Carroll, General Lee Butler, General Andrew Goodpaster, General Charles Horner, George Kennan, Melvin Laird, and Robert McNamara. As Joseph Cirincione recently quipped, abolition is the favored view “everywhere…except in D.C.” in our congress. [↩]
3. Polls shows about 80% of the American public favoring abolition. See www.icanw.org/polls. [↩]