That is precisely why there is a strong argument to rehabilitate the UN. The case for all countries, and this includes the US, to pool their sovereignty and collectively solve and indeed prevent conflicts in a legitimate and legal fashion remains as strong as it did in 1945. It is for similar reasons that the world needs to establish an effective International Criminal Court where those who break international law or massacre their own people in genocide can be brought to a fair trial. The US is opposed to such a court, because it wants to retain its sovereignty in all matters judicial. But does the US, or any other country exercising its unilateral sovereignty contrary to global opinion, make for a better world?

The necessity to give up some sovereignty is not limited to issues of war and genocide. It extends into the sphere of economics. We need multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organisation which lay out the rules of international trade, so that powerful countries cannot exercise undue influence over the rest of the world. Just imagine if the US, the EU and Japan invoked their sovereign right to raise trade barriers? The rest of the world including India and China would be sent spiralling into recession. It also makes sense that all nations are accorded the same concessions by each member country, which is the guiding principle of the Most-Favoured Nation and National Treatment principles of the WTO.

It would be fair to say that we need international definitions of labour standards and environmental standards though these should be in no way linked with trade. At any rate it is difficult to argue that any nation should be allowed to exercise its sovereign right and make its workers work in sub-human conditions for minimalist wages, just because that gives it a competitive advantage. The International Labour Organisation does, therefore, lay out some basic guidelines for its members. The issue of climate change is more vexed. Here again the powerful countries like the US do not want to cede any autonomy and submit to international rules. But climate change is a global problem and there is a need for a global solution, which will inevitably mean that countries will have to cede their policy autonomy to pollute at will to an international agreement. Of course, we can all choose not to, until climate change destroys the environment, and then what use will sovereignty be?

... contd.