Walter Cronkite Quotes

However difficult it may be to bring it about, some form of world government, with agreed international law and means of enforcing the law, is inevitable.

We could try and establish a world in which the great and the powerful adhere to that international law which they require ordinary mortals to adhere to. In other words, there is one international law, and even America and even Russia and China and Japan must adhere to it, and Australia must adhere to it.

We must face the fact that the United Nations is not yet the international equivalent of our own legal system and the rule of law.

Britain must be the champion of international law.

What we need now is a Treaty of the World not a Treaty of Rome.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.

In a shrinking world, the absence of order among nations is becoming less and less tolerable.

If the savior of man would revisit and declare himself for a League of Nations, I would be opposed to it.

Multilateralism is the democracy of international society.

World government is a premature concept at this stage. We are moving more and more into supernational arrangements, but it is too early still.

It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

If the U.N. is ineffective, the whole concept of multilateralism will collapse.

There was an implicit conviction that the UN would be stronger than the sum of its constituent member-states.

The U.N. can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission.

There are nearly 200 countries and a population of over 6 billion in today's world. International affairs should be addressed by all countries through consultations rather than monopolised by a few powers.

There is a movement to get an international criminal court in the world, voted for by hundreds of states-but with the noticeable absence of the United States of America.

We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.

Now, the United Nations is an organization that I believe was founded with good intentions. As a matter of fact, a prominent Tennessean named Cordell Hull was very involved with it.

We shouldn't discuss the world of tomorrow in terms of becoming a balance to the United States. The real issue is whether the United States will define herself as part of the U.N. system-or not.

As the highest ranking American official in the United Nations organization, I came to understand thoroughly that the national constitutional processes of the member states define the status of territories under their sovereignty.

I don't know that there is much the United States can do except work with the international community.

The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members.

The nations must be organized internationally and induced to enter into partnership, subordinating in some measure national sovereignty to worldwide institutions and obligations.

If the U.N. didn't exist, we'd be inventing it right now.

As a conservative power, the United States has a vital interest in upholding and expanding the reign of law in international relations.