I agree with Joseph Sisco {"Next Move at the U.N.," op-ed, Aug. 15} that a United Nations' command and multinational forces should replace the U.S. command in Saudi Arabia, but I don't think Mr. Sisco should have stopped at that point.

The crisis illustrates that our world is still plagued by the anarchic and archaic war system. The only way to avoid deadly crises like this one is for our world to replace the war system with one based on just and enforceable world law. The crisis keenly shows us that we need to work vigorously to strengthen the United Nations in many ways, including the need for the general acceptance of the International Court of Justice so that disputes such as that between Iraq and Kuwait could be adjudicated, the need for standing U.N. peace forces and the need for an International Criminal Court to try individuals accused of violating internationally recognized crimes, such as aggression and drug trafficking.

Mr. Sisco's suggestions for President George Bush are very sound, but our precious Earth deserves more than ad hoc partial solutions; we instead need to transform the United Nations into a United Nations World Federation to tackle problems that need global solutions so that nations can work on international problems crying out for attention. ANTHONY ALLEN Washington

As frightening as it surely is to confront a world-class tyrant like Saddam Hussein, one nevertheless should take great encouragement by the temporary banding together of nations in defiance of his aggressions. The U.N. Security Council's unanimous condemnation of Iraq's belligerent actions {front page, Aug. 3} was a landmark decision, worthy of note. If indeed a U.N. force is created to stand against Saddam Hussein's recklessness, could there not be after all some far-reaching good to come out of this affair? A world that stands united in defiance of aggressive, unlawful actions would be a relatively secure one for all nations. Hasn't the time come for just such cooperation? Doesn't Saddam Hussein's invasion prove the need for it?

In time, one can hope, we may even thank the unscrupulous Saddam Hussein for helping steer the world toward a new era in global equilibrium. TIMOTHY COOPER Washington

The crisis in the Persian Gulf, in which the interests of the United States and its major partners clearly are at stake, is one more example of the need for new international institutions in which joint economic, political and security consultations and actions can be undertaken.

A generation ago, Jean Monnet undertook to bind together the previously warring Western European countries in new cooperative institutions and then to bind those institutions to the United States in a trans-Atlantic partnership. On this side of the Atlantic, George Marshall, Dean Acheson and others acted on a similar vision. Their efforts helped make possible the vastly changed international situation that confronts us today.

Yet the Iraqi aggression in the Gulf only serves to remind us how badly we need consultative and cooperative institutions relevant to a new period. Unilateral actions by the United States, Japan or European countries would be unthinkable and unsuccessful in the Gulf situation -- yet some have urged them. Equally, we hear calls for unilateral actions relating to the Uruguay Round international trade negotiation on the GATT and regarding military strategies in which we are linked to many partners. Such actions would be equally ineffective in those realms.

The president and Congress should give priority to development of multilateral, interdependent strategies appropriate to the Cold War's end and the consonant diffusion of economic, military and political power that has resulted. As the Gulf crisis demonstrates, such strategies already are overdue. J. ROBERT SCHAETZEL Washington The writer is president of The Jean Monnet Council and former U.S. ambassador to the European Community.