Understanding Emerging World Law: Nine Basic Distinctions

Glen T. Martin

Kolkata, June 17, 2008

1.   The purpose of world law is to deal with all those global issues that are beyond the scope of nation-states.  World law will not encompass all aspects of law legislated by democratic societies.  Only those necessary requirements of law that are beyond the scope on nation-states will be the subject of world law.  The Earth Federation will include a number of levels of government, and therefore shared or cooperative sovereignty at levels from the local to the regional to the state to the nation to the world. 

The World Parliament will deal with laws necessary for civilized living at the world level.   These necessary laws encompass the so-called “global crises” of our day.  They can be summarized in six categories, each requiring enforceable democratically legislated world law if we are to overcome these crises and create a decent future for our children.

(1) War and militarism. The world spends nearly one trillion U.S. dollars per year on war and militarism.  There have been some 250 wars since the U.N. was founded claiming some 25 million deaths, 90% of these civilians. War is clearly beyond the power of the nation-states to control and clear beyond the ability of the U.N. to abolish.  Only enforceable democratic world law can end war and militarism in the world and disarm the nations by making the development of weapons of war illegal. 

(2) Massive human rights violations worldwide.  Our world of the early 21st century is plagued by torture, murder, political assassinations, beatings, disappearances, violation of due process, displacement of persons, millions in refugee camps, collateral damage in war, sale of women and children, systematic starvation, destruction of homes and sources of survival, and other horrors.  The system of so-called sovereign nations actually institutionally encourages all these crimes in the world since many of them flourish because of the conflict between nations or because nations enforce laws only within their own borders and cross border crime is very difficult to deal with.  Clearly, only enforceable democratically legislated world law can deal with this human rights nightmare.

(3) Global poverty and misery.  Half the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, live on less than 2 U.S. dollars per day. Much of these immense poverty is located in the global south and is deeply linked with the nation-state system so that entire nations function as economic basket cases in which their populations are trapped, through no fault of their own, in misery and disease.  Under the system of sovereign nations, each nation is supposed to be competing on the international market to bring itself out of poverty, but the market, like the nation-state system, is structured not only to make this impossible.  These are structured to ensure that control over the wealth-producing process in the world flows from the poor of the world to the rich, from the peripheral countries supplying only cheap labor and resources to the capital rich center countries reaping the fruits of this unjust global economic system.

It should be clear that only enforceable democratic world law representing all the people of Earth equally and not merely the G-8 countries or the militarily powerful countries or the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council can deal effectively with this horrific problem.  The problem is beyond the scope of the nation-state system.  The problem of creating universal prosperity can only be dealt with at the global level.

(4) Disappearing forests, agricultural lands, fisheries, and fresh water.  Tropical forests are being cut down destroying the ability of the Earth of move fresh water from the oceans into the interior of continents, destroying the habitat of millions of species which are rapidly going extinct, and altering the very climate of the planet. According to James Gustave Speth, about five million acres per year (an areas the size of Connecticut) are cleared every year from the Amazon alone.  Agricultural lands are similarly being degraded and rapidly losing their productivity, leading toward desertification and barrenness. Speth writes that “about three-fourths of the world’s drylands are degraded, and about a fourth of all land is degraded to a degree sufficient to reduce its productivity” (2004, p. 31). 

Overharvesting of ocean fisheries, and degradation of their breeding grounds, has led to collapsing fisheries, such as the giant former fishery in the North-Atlantic.  Speth writes that “”the global fish catch has shown a strong and consistent downturn every year since 1988….Overfishing and nutrient pollution of the coastal areas are the main culprits” (p. 33). Forty percent of the world’s population live in countries suffering from chronic fresh water shortages today while the world demand for fresh water continues to rise sharply (p. 32). Underground aquifers have not been recharging as rapidly as water withdrawals for agricultural irrigation or the water needs of vast cities and wells must be sunk hundreds of meters into the ground whereas in most areas hand dug wells were once sufficient to draw fresh water in many areas of the planet.

As the resources of the Earth continue to disappear, who will control or distribute the shrinking pool of resources necessary to sustain life?  It is clear that under the nation-state system there will be wars, appropriations, economic blackmail, and mass suffering in consequence as the nations struggle with one another for control of the shrinking resource pool of the planet.  Clearly the resources of the planet can only be protected and restored where possible by a central authority representing all the people of Earth equally.  The protection and restoration of the Earth’s resources necessarily requires enforceable democratic world law.

(5) Climate collapse and global warming.  Climate change experts such as Dr. Jim Hansen of NASA or Dr. John Cairns, Jr. of Virginia Tech University speak of “tipping points” in the process of global climate change. Tipping points are points of no return from which the process of the warming of the planet and destruction of its ecological balance moves in stages beyond any conceivable human restoration.  The melting of the Arctic ice cap is an example of such a point of no-return that only accelerates the warming of the planet. Ice reflects 90% of solar radiation back into space, while dark ocean water absorbs 90% of that same solar heat.  As the ice fields melt, the Earth itself becomes an absorber of ever-more solar radiation thus enhancing the massive climate changes that will inevitably disrupt the planet’s ecological balance, changing rainfall patterns worldwide, increasing massive storms and other natural disasters, possibly altering the vital ocean currents, and causing massive disruption of the stable climate patterns that have sustained life and human life since the dawn of civilization.

The world has seen two decades in which dozens of environmental treaties among nations have been worked out (Speth pp. 91-101), yet the global warming continues unabated and tipping points are regularly reached that will spell ever-increasing disaster for future generations.  The problem is clearly the fragmented system of sovereign nation-states that enter into mere voluntary treaties among themselves with their own interests in mind and very little real consideration for the common good of the planet or future generations.  Only enforceable democratically legislated world law can preserve what we have and begin the process of restoring those aspects of the global ecology that can be restored.  Again, we see that world law deals only with those problems that are beyond the capacity of nation-states.

(6) An ever-growing number of problems with no global coordination, planning, or action for the whole of humanity.  With the micro-electronic, chemical, and automated industrial revolutions of the 20th century, thousands of new risk factors to health and the environment have been introduced each year, largely without adequate testing, study of their synergistic effects, or coordination in the light of planetary ecology and the common good of future generations.  According to Speth, “today several hundred new chemicals are introduced commercially each year. Of roughly eighty thousand chemicals in trade today, about half are thought to be definitely or potentially harmful to human health” (2004, p. 47). He concludes that “societies have been largely unable to assess new technologies and direct technological change in ways that avoid huge environmental costs” (p.127).

 The U.N. is entirely inadequate to monitor and report on the immense number of new factors introduced into life on the Earth each year by human beings.  And even if it could assess and monitor these things, it has no authority to deal effectively with the dangers they pose.  Once again, we see the need for democratic world law, adequately funded to monitor the health of our planet and its inhabitants, and capable of taking effective action to ensure that the Earth becomes a healthy and happy home for present and future generations.

            These six areas require enforceable democratic world law.  Under Article 1 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, exactly these six areas as the areas of concern and necessity are identified as the “broad functions” for Earth Federation law. These functions of the World Government under Article One of the Earth Constitution commit the government to:  (1) prevent war and secure disarmament, (2) protect human rights worldwide, (3)  create the conditions for universal prosperity, (4) regulate and protect world resources, (5) protect the environment and the ecological fabric of life, (6) devise solutions for all problems beyond the scope of national governments and plan for the future. Here we have the raison d’être for democratic world law.

2.  World law establishes a peace system by institutionalizing peace. Peace between individuals, groups, or nations is predominantly a function of the institutions by which these levels of society become organized.  Certain ways of organizing promote conflict, criminal conduct, and war.  Other ways promote peace, freedom and justice.   Peace can only be institutionalized through democratic world law enforceable over individuals     

The system of “sovereign” nation-states in intrinsically a war system.  This has been pointed out repeatedly since the system first began in Europe, for example, by philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant.  A “sovereign” nation-state, under this system, is by definition one that recognizes no enforceable law over its self.  It has autonomy over its internal affairs and complete freedom in its foreign policy.  Since there is no enforceable law over the collection of some 193 nations, each nation is free to build bombs and militarize as it sees fit, and often international prestige and power correlate with military power.  As militaries are built up, other nations feel correspondingly insecure and seek to enter the arms race.  The perpetual temptation is there with every big nation to secure its “interests” through force of arms, and history shows that this has often occurred as a consequence of the system itself. The result is the chaos of militarism and war that have characterized modern world history; the result is the chaos of lawlessness, war, and potential to break into war that we see in the world today.

            Peace is not merely a spiritual ideal, it must be established, by law.  A peace system is one in which war and militarism become outlawed by democratically legislated laws enforceable over individuals.  Within its borders nearly every nation has a peace system.  Individuals violating laws can be investigated, brought to trial, and punished if guilty. Individuals are relatively helpless against the combined efforts of civilian police. Nothing of the sort exists with nation-states.  You cannot bring a militarized nation-state to court, you can only go to war against it. And militarized nations are far from helpless. 

            Peace must be institutionalized in the rule of enforceable world law. The Earth Constitution establishes a peace system in a multiplicity of ways.  It (1) establishes unity (world law and universal human rights) in diversity (protection of the multiplicity of cultures, religions, nations, races, ethnic groups and persons within that unity), (2) demilitarizes the nations,  (3) provides universal equality before the law, (4) holds individuals responsible to the law, (5) establishes reasonable economic equality worldwide, (6) mandates equitable use of the world’s resources, (7) protects human rights and due process of law worldwide, and (8) establishes conflict resolution, education, and mutual understanding programs worldwide.

3.  World law is binding and enforceable over individual persons. “International law” is neither genuine nor legitimate law.  What is called “international law” is most fundamentally a set of treaties among sovereign nations: agreements that these nations have reached with one another about weapons, security arrangements, trade relations, environmental issues, or other spheres within which they interact.

            For this reason, following international law is voluntary on the part of nations.  If a nation’s perceived self-interest is threatened, no nation is likely to honor its treaties.  Examination of the UN website for international law makes this very clear.  The U.N. has a campaign to encourage obedience to and respect for international law, but the website states that nations may exempt themselves from these laws, withdraw from their treaties any time they wish, or write separate clauses for themselves.  In other words, international law is unenforceable. What is unenforceable, that from which one can except oneself or withdraw oneself, is not law.  Suppose the government of my city passes a law that I do not like.  I simply say to the government that this law is OK for others but it I exempt myself from it.  It does not apply to me.  Exactly this absurdity comprises the very heart of international law.

            International law by and large applies to nations, not individuals.  If the Security Council decides, therefore, that some nation has violated the peace, it is authorized under Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, to attack that nation economically or by “land, sea, or air.”  Entire populations of innocent people must suffer because of the absurdity of the sovereign nation-state system.  Even where it applies to individuals, as in the Nuremburg accords or the statutes of the new International Criminal Court, it is unenforceable except by the victors in a war. Hence, Nazis were tried in Nuremburg by the victors in World War Two and the principle of individual responsibility for carrying out military or governmental orders was enshrined. 

However, every military in the world inculcates blind obedience into its soldiers and encodes very stiff penalties for disobeying orders.   Soldiers face an impossible dilemma: certain punishment for not carrying out atrocities or other commands of their military that violate so-called international law versus the vague prospect of someday being called to account for their deeds should their nation loose one or another war.  Clearly most soldiers will opt for the former and the international laws for holding individuals accountable for their deeds becomes entirely ineffective and laughable.

The International Criminal Court statutes are directed toward holding individuals accountable for torture, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. However, these statutes do not even give the court the power to order arrests, command turning over of evidence, or other normal functions of a real courts.  Because the ICC is based on a treaty of the Assembly of States Parties who have agreed to the court, the court must merely request evidence or arrest from the participating nations, which these nations have to power to refuse.  This again shows the ineffectiveness of so-called international law.

            The Earth Constitution creates democratically legislated world law enforceable over individuals.   The second reason why so called international law is not law is that it is not democratically legislated.  It is a treaty of so-called sovereign nation-states.  But the foreign policy of most nations is the least democratic feature of these nations, since the over-all system is a war system and secrecy, public propaganda, and deception are structural demands of the system. In the U.N. treaties creating “international law,” the signatories may be prime ministers or ambassadors of many nations that are profoundly undemocratic.  The U.N. itself is profoundly undemocratic in a number of ways that I will not go into here, since these are quite well known.  Most modern theorists of democracy affirm that legitimate law is democratically legislated law (as German philosopher Jürgen Habermas does, for example).  For this reason, these undemocratic treaties of sovereign nations have little in common with legitimate law.

            All this changes with democratically legislated world law binding on, and enforceable over, individuals. Clearly when laws are legislated through democratic processes, binding on all individuals and groups, and enforceable over all individuals equally, then we have genuine law, law as it is known and understood within all nations that pretend to be democratic.  With a civilian world police capable of enforcing binding law over every person within the Earth Federation, we have the beginning of civilized living and no more need for the pretence and sham of so-called international law.

4.   Democratic world law establishes civilian based police with no military.There are profound differences between all forms of military and civilian based police.  All forms of military are inherently destructive of democracy and the genuine rule of law. We must be very clear about this distinction.  Under the Earth Constitution, the civilian World Police will possess “only weapons necessary to apprehend individuals” as defined by the World Parliament.  Not only will there be no need for a military in a demilitarized world, the existence of any military institutions are incompatible with democratic world law.

            Military forces targets a group designated by their superiors as the “enemy.”  They try to destroy this enemy and their life support systems and, inevitably, non-combatant members of the same enemy group become the “collateral damage” of this brutal process.  As such, the military founds its mission on the exact opposite set of premises from civilian based police under democratically legislated laws.  Civilian police never try to destroy any enemy. Their mandate is to “protect and serve” all the people. They apprehend individuals accused or suspected of crimes with the obligation to use the least necessary force in the process and to not put innocent bystanders in danger.  Properly, civilian police face discipline or dismissal for doing anything remotely similar to military actions.  Police do not judge guilt or innocence but enforce due process of law: rules for apprehension, rules for protecting the innocent, rules of evidence, rules of booking, rules for the care and protection of prisoners, etc.  The military, operating in secret and with an attitude that they are dealing with an “enemy” does none of these things.  There exist, of course, military procedures and rules.  However, these are designed for dealing with this “enemy” and not for transparency and scrupulous protection of human rights.

            Civilian police investigate and apprehend individuals only, never groups, and never in the guise of an “enemy.”  Suspects are procedurally innocent until proven guilty by an independent court of law.  Military systems assume that anyone designated as “enemy” may be attacked, or killed, or have their life-support systems destroyed.  There is no due process assuming innocence of every single individual until proven guilty. Dropping bombs on people, sending missiles at people, firing tank rounds at people, etc. – all these violate the rights of the people being attacked, since the first principle of human rights is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or as the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it, the right to “life, liberty, and security of person.” All military action violates these rights.  All military procedures and assumptions directly contradict the premises of civilian police procedures in a democracy.

            In addition, the very training and atmosphere within military service is destructive of the foundational attitudes necessary for healthy democracy.  The top down command structure leads to an attitude of blind obedience to authority incompatible with effective democracy.  Even more seriously, it leads to the loss of moral autonomy for those commanded.  People in military service give up their moral decision-making capacity to blind obedience to commands formulated in secret above them.  They, therefore, give up the capacity to morally judge a situation as responsible individual persons and evaluate whether they act rightly or not within that situation. 

Since democracy is most fundamentally a set of institutions based on moral principles, military training that encourages blind obedience to authority figures weakens the capacity to independently evaluate governmental officials or policies. Those who have received military training do not often make good citizens within a democracy. Secondly, any military organization cultivates secrecy from the civilian population as well as from most of those commanded within the military.  The institution and habit of secrecy again directly contradicts the democratic transparency and openness required for a free society. 

As we saw above, military institutions destroy democratic due process in favor of the need for discipline and obedience, and in the face of the need to treat groups or persons as “the enemy.”  Militarism also wastes immense resources of society that should be used for the common good. It pours great sums of money down the toilet of bombs and missiles while the civilian infrastructure such as roads, libraries, parks, and bridges, as well as education and the health care system of a society, are deprived of necessary resources.

In addition, the economics of militarism cultivates a military industrial complex with immense power to influence events and politics thereby undermining democracy.  Finally, it cultivates an atmosphere of fear and security destructive of democratic community building.  Flourishing democracy requires an atmosphere of what philosopher Alan Gewirth calls “a community of rights.”   A sense of commitment develops among citizens devoted to mutual dialogue and debate and the abjuring of violence to solve social or political issues. Mutual respect and trust build this community of rights. Secrecy, the cultivation of fear of enemies, mutual suspicion, and training in blind obedience to authority all break down genuine communities and lead to a society of fragmentation and disintegration.  We can see such societies everywhere in today’s world within nations that call themselves “democratic” while remaining militarized.

Civilian based police are at the very heart of authentic democracy, for they foster mutual protection, effective and equal enforcement of law, and community building in a variety of ways.  Militarism for all the reasons cited above effectively destroys democracy and is premised on just the opposite set of principles from civilian based police.

5.   “Governance” is not government.  Just as the only legitimate form of government is democracy, so “governance” can never be democratic and forms a major deceptive mythology of early 21st century discourse.  Documents such as the 1995 study by an international blue ribbon commission called Our Global Neighborhood explicitly abjure global “government” for global “governance.”  This is often defined as a multiplicity of players and interests (normally businesses, global financial institutions like the World Bank or large private banks, NGOs, citizen interest groups, and national governments) converging to make rules and policies by which nations and persons operate internationally.  However, it is precisely this cacophony of primarily undemocratic interests that comprises a major element in the threat to human and ecological survival on this planet.  The global economic system is out of control, destroying human beings and the ecological balance of the planet.  National governments are out of control, spending untold billions of weapons and war rather than addressing the above described threats to human existence. Global financial institutions exploit poor nations in the service of a tiny super-wealthy financial elite with immense power of domination over the planet (see Brown, Web of Debt, 2008).

            The discourse of “governance” is a major mythology of our time, along side the myth of the sovereign nation-state.  It has pulled our planet into disaster, disaster that may soon lead to irreparable destruction of human life and our planetary ecology.  Only democratic world law, enforceable by civilian based democratic government can even begin to address our current suicidal problems.  “Governance” is undemocratic in the extreme and therefore is illegitimate in the extreme.  It is a code word for continued exploitation and domination, a code word for a profoundly undemocratic system of control in the service of special interests.

            The Earth Constitution creates real government, which means real democracy, not some shady, slippery immoral idea of “governance” that allows power relations and self-interest to influence the agreements reached.  Government can be democratic, because the majority or their representatives can make decisions in the form of laws that bind everyone equally.  “Governance” can almost never be democratic.  It is neither binding nor universal; nor does it enfranchise all adults equally.

6.   Democratic world law replaces endless speeches about moral ideals through institutionalizing justice.  Justice is a mere ideal unless it is concretely embodied in law enforceable over individuals.  Human rights are just an ideal unless they are embodied in enforceable law.  We need visions and ideals but these will not in themselves create justice or peace.  It is our institutions that allow or prevent exploitation of some by others. It is our institutions that promote war or structure peace.

            Take, for example, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is affirmed by the majority of the world’s nations.  Human rights, as we have seen above are violated massively throughout the world, yet most of these same nations that affirm the Universal Declaration are undemocratic in the extreme and violate the rights of their citizens.  Nations say they hold the Universal Declaration as an “ideal” but circumstances prevent them from realizing this ideal.

            Article 25 of the Declaration states that: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”  Our entire world order systematically violates this article.  Justice and ideals are worthless unless embodied in enforceable law, and only the Earth Constitution can make this Article 25 an enforceable reality and end the economic exploitation and domination that characterize our current world order of sovereign nation-states and World Trade Organization “governance.”

          Article 28 of the UN Universal Declaration states that “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”  The U.N. has been obviously incapable of realizing this right for the structural reasons that we have seen above.  It is merely a treaty system of sovereign nation-states.  It is neither democratic, nor does it have any authority to legislate binding laws.     The Earth Constitution establishes both these rights as enforceable world law: the economic right to a livelihood commensurate with human dignity and an international order capable of realizing all the rights in the Universal Declaration.

7.   Effective World Law is 90 % procedural.  Justice, democracy, peace, and freedom are all primarily procedural and therefore uniquely suited to embodiment within world law.  Many philosophers of law, such as Jürgen Habermas, emphasize that good democratic law primarily involves rules of procedure.  As we saw above, due process is at the very heart of democracy.  People are protected by rules required of all governmental authorities, not only equally applied rules of behavior and interaction for citizens.  Rules governing police behavior, rules of treatment of suspects, rules for apprehension, rules for court behavior, for prison authority behavior, rules of evidence, rules protecting each person individually, etc. All these institutionalize justice if they are good rules made on behalf of the common good not on behalf of the rich or powerful. Such rules under world law will even promote economic equity thereby overcoming the present situation where concentrations of wealth give political power and inevitably destroy democracy.

We may all have inalienable human rights, but this remains largely meaningless unless these rights are effectively protected by law, enforced over individuals (not groups), laws that include all members of government and police.   Justice and freedom are both products of due process protections under the law.

The Earth Constitution specifies the detailed rights in its Bill of Rights (Article 12) as “inalienable,” that is beyond the ability of government to alter or abolish them.  These rights are embodied in the Constitution and linked with the concept of rules.  The World Parliament will elaborate the specific rules within the procedures (rules) already set out for decision making by the Constitution. Inalienable rights require procedures to protect and implement them.  These procedures are largely the function of a democratic parliament.  Justice is no longer an abstract ideal envisioned in the largely meaningless speeches of politicians.  It becomes a living reality when institutionalized by enforceable laws.

8.   The profound differences between a founded system and an evolved system.  

            Evolution always must post-pone the ideal forever into the future. This is what has indeed happened with the U.N. system, which people have been trying to evolve ever since the unworkable system was instituted in 1947.  Conditions in the world (in all six categories listed above) are worse today than when the U.N. was founded.   Efforts to evolve and institution always meet with the resistance of those who benefit from the current state of affairs and work to prevent evolution in a truly transformative and positive direction.  Thousands of persons and hundreds of groups are fighting for the smallest changes in the U.N. system against overwhelming odds while the entire world sinks ever closer to collective suicide.

            The world certainly does not have the time to evolve in this fashion. It is confronted with the gigantic suicidal crises listed above, and the forces that resist and subvert positive evolution are vast and potent.  On the other hand, a founded world order can be premised on correct principles from the very beginning. The principles are institutionalized in a founding document and clear to everyone as the foundation for legislative, judicial, and executive decision-making.  The Earth Constitution founds a world order on universal moral principles applying equally to all persons.  The initial struggle for ratification may be difficult but the result is not then a compromise with destructive and disintegrative forces.  The result is establishment on a foundation of principles that are clear, moral, democratic, and there for all to see.  That is why it is so important to ratify the Constitution and begin a proper world order from the onset.

9.   Democratic World Law is the political embodiment of Love.  The love that is at the heart of the great religions may be characterized as the non-attached love of Christian agape or the compassion of Buddhist karuna. This love is based on the principle of equality – “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” You shall take the vow of the Bodhisattva “never to enter final nirvana until all sentient beings have been saved from suffering.”  Equality means “all.”  “And who is my neighbor?” they asked Jesus. Our neighbors include all persons on Earth. God’s love is “like the sun and the rain,” Jesus affirmed, falling equally on all.

            The present institutions of the world make this “all” impossible, since they are fragmented and fragmenting and do not embrace the entire Earth and its creatures with unity under world law. That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains an empty ideal.  To embody the equal rights and equal treatment of all within a founding document means to establish the political equivalent of love on the Earth.

            Every human being has the same dignity, needs, and rights. Every person on Earth has  the same fundamental rights of life, liberty, and security of person.  ThePreamble to the Earth

Constitution founds this document, in part, on the following statement: “Conscious that Humanity is One despite the existence of diverse nations, races, creeds, ideologies and cultures and that the principle of unity in diversity is the basis of a new age when war shall be outlawed and peace prevail; when the earth’s total resources shall be equitably used for human welfare; and when basic human rights and responsibilities shall be shared by all without discrimination…We, citizens of the world, hereby resolve to establish a world federation to be governed in accordance with this constitution for the Federation of Earth.” 

            In this statement and in this Constitution we have the political embodiment of the principle of all – the equal dignity, respect, and treatment by all without discrimination. In the principle of unity in diversity resides the fundamental meaning of love: the love of all, yet in their uniqueness and diverse individualities. There is no true justice on Earth unless it is planetary justice, embracing unity in diversity.  There is no true freedom unless it is planetary freedom, freedom for all within the diversity of cultures, races, ideas, and nations.  There is no peace unless it is planetary peace, the peace that can only be the embodiment of unity in diversity.  To embody all these principles into democratically legislated enforceable world law is the function of the Earth Constitution.  Democratic world law is the political form of love.