Is It Correct That One World Concept Violates National Sovereignty?

There who favour the "one world" concept, point out that fore better international relations and for creating mutual understanding in international matters, the doctrine of so-called classical sovereignty ought to be given up by nation-state in the larger interests of improved harmony and economic exchange. According to them, this surrounding of absolute sovereignty does not mean end of national sovereignty.

As a matter of fact the concept of one world does not require the readjusting of geographical boundaries of nation states only each nation should part with some of its national sovereignty for improving international environment. In such an arrangement, it cannot be said that the sovereignty of a state is being interfered with or is being taken away and the state is losing one of its fundamental concepts.

History bears testimony to this that one has to take different concepts of national sovereignty even within a nation state itself. Gone are the days of the so-called absolute sovereignty. The world to-day believes in what is so called plural sovereignty as opposed to absolute sovereignty. The concept of pluralism in international sphere is, therefore, absolutely justified and necessary if the world has to survive and make better purpose.

Very often the failure of U.N. has encouraged those who are opposed to the one world idea. This school of thought feels the organization is weak, ineffective and cannot under present set-up become strong. Any strong super one-world government cannot actually be established unless there is also a world military force at the command of the U.N. It is true that force is a necessary part of any sovereign state.