Doesn't it seem that with the inevitable further growth of globalization, borders between sovereign nations will become even fuzzier than they already are? Technology and other factors are no doubt bringing Earth's people closer together, so perhaps the global legislative powers ought to catch up with the "oneness" phenomenon by consolidating and broadening their reach enough to accommodate the global chaos. The blurring of borders brings with it a host of problems including intellectual property rights, freedom of information, cultural clashes, environmental impacts, terrorist networking, criminal gray areas, economic impacts and the rise of non-state actors. These are not trivial issues that should be left to an invisible hand to solve. We should assume that invisible hands are serving mostly themselves.Come now, what have you got in your hand there?
The effects of these modern developments make the rationality for a world government at least somewhat convincing. Yet a redefining of state sovereignty may be difficult to swallow even when looking at recent trends towards consolidation such as with the European Union. Talk of a North American Union which utilizes the so-called “Amero” currency has been met with assurance by
Globalization takes on political, environmental, military, cultural or criminal forms, all perpetuated by non-state actors. In the modern world, such actors interact across borders through economic organizations, advocacy organizations, service organizations, terrorist organizations and criminal organizations (Payne 10-11). With such divergent interests abound, people have recognized the need for a unifying factor to bring order. The major flaw in the current international regulatory system is that it is controlled by sovereign nation-states who are self-interested and unbound by the system’s rulings. This makes for a highly ineffectual world-protectionist power. The supposed unifying factor, be it the United Nations or the World Trade Organization, is made up of national political identities that have divergent political and economic interests.
When national governments have absolute power in the world, their country or self-interest usually comes first when making decisions. Why else would George W. Bush scrap the environmentally friendly Kyoto Protocol? Obviously because it was not in the apparent interest of American businesses. If sovereign nations always put their own people first, what authority is there that puts the world as a whole first? There is a need for such a binding regulatory system that holds all nations fully accountable for their actions. Advocacy organizations have courageously taken up the role of watchdog thus far in the globalizing era but have had to rely on non-binding promises and incentives for cooperating nations.
Several objections have been raised against the idea of a world government which should be considered. The major objections have to do with unfeasibility and desirability of a world government. Indeed, the idea of a world government appears quite unfeasible without the full participation of all nation-states. And it seems unlikely, particularly in the realist’s mind, for a world of egoistic nation-states to voluntarily give up any power (Krasner 42). However, there are a number of reasons in the modern world why a government might submit to a higher authority. With the threat of a nuclear holocaust for example, nations would be more likely to submit to an entity that has authority to penetrate any space that might pose a threat to the world environment.
In regards to desirability of a world government there is the danger of a tyrannical power gaining control over countries. The philosopher Dante conversely envisioned a world under one ruler who “because he possesses everything … would not desire to possess anything further, and thus, he would hold kings contentedly within the borders of their kingdoms, and keep peace among them” (Dante 169). While quite a utopian vision, it may not even be necessary to envision such a god-like figure ruling over the world. A more reasonable structure of world government would not be a monarchy, but rather would have checks and balances similar to the power that the federal government of the U.S. has over its states.
There is another argument against the desirability of a world government which views it as potentially homogenizing the world. Michael Walzer argues against the desirability of compromising nation-state sovereignty without destroying diversity.
“[I don’t] see how it could accommodate anything like the range of cultural and religious difference that we see around us today. … For some cultures and most orthodox religions can only survive if they are permitted degrees of separation that are incompatible with globalism. And so the survival of these groups would be at risk; under the rules of the global state, they would not be able to sustain and pass on their way of life” (Walzer, 172 and 176).
I don't know exactly what sort of global state Walzer is thinking of, but in a global state that is run in a similar way that the U.S. runs its states, religions and cultures would have no problem prospering so long as they were in accordance with basic human rights. Though the
Those opposed to a world government and redefinition of sovereignty acknowledge that sovereignty does not allow a nation to do whatever it pleases. They may argue that there are natural checks and balances which cause nations to ally and stand up against globally detrimental acts performed by other nations, thus a world government is unnecessary. They may invoke the hypothetical example of a burning house: Although the owners of the house are the owners of the property, naturally there is external intervention without consent in order to quell the fire and prevent it from spreading to other houses. Indeed, rich countries often jump at the opportunity to aide nations that have suffered a natural disaster.
But do outside nations always come to the rescue when another nation is facing an emergency? There is a fundamental difference between natural catastrophes (such as tsunamis) and manmade catastrophes (such as genocide). Governments can argue until they are blue in the face about whether a nation had the right to cause a particular catastrophe and should be stopped or even whether the catastrophe actually exists, while they will run to the aide of tsunami victims without ever questioning whether Mother Nature had the right to inflict such an act. A world government would help bring aide to people in a timely manner, such as victims of war in Darfur.
Even though Americans value their private property ever so dearly, they are nonetheless systematically subject to state and national laws. Likewise, sovereign nations must be systematically held accountable for their acts under international laws. The International Criminal Court’s role is limited insofar as a national court prosecutes criminals. By broadening the ICC’s scope of crime into the realm of environmental, economic and military, the world as a whole would benefit – just as the nation as a whole benefits from reasonable laws on personal freedom.
I don't deny the current unfeasibility of undertaking such an unprecedented leap to world government. Such a massive effort 
could only be achieved within the appropriate context made possible by an event of proportional magnitude. However, the possibility of such a far-reaching event becomes more likely as the freedom of non-state actors continues to go unharnessed. The least we can do now is create a sense of global community as best we can through open-minded exchanges with fellow Earthlings. An established sense of patriotism for the globe will allow the world to gain order if and when an international catastrophe presents itself. Even now, a global economic crise is underfoot, making apparent the need for economic regulation in a world that has depended so heavily on
One of the most plausible reasons for a world government is to tightly control the production of nuclear weaponry. Albert Einstein argued in 1946 that to maintain peace “A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons” (Einstein 138). The demand for such a system must be created from the ground up in order for it to attain the legitimacy it needs to become supreme. Just as demand is created for goods through advertising or word-of-mouth, such an idea for a world government can be advertised through globally accessible mediums. Such advertisements must support the uniqueness of individuals’ national identities and the importance of national patriotism, while calling on people to make room for international patriotism. A sense of international patriotism for the Earth among the majority of inhabitants is necessary for bringing about an effective world government.
Patriotism becomes a heartfelt voice when there is a sense of community. It is community that creates a sense of belonging and dependence on one another. The unease that people have in regards to a duty-to-rescue arises mainly where there is no sense of community – “members of a crowd witness an assault in a subway station; apartment dwellers hear screams at night in the street below; motorists speed by an accident on the highway” (Glendon 102). Similar scenarios play out in the international arena, for example the genocide in
A world government could take on a variety of shapes, from dangerously coercive to ineffectively passive. Ideally, it would serve as a system that effectively addresses the underlying causes of conflict before they manifest into destructive symptoms. The current global context requires rich nations of the United Nations to scramble to the aide of countries facing catastrophe. Yet people of some nations, such as North Korea - not a member state of the U.N. - may be out of luck when disaster strikes. Food aide to
Those in power of a world government cannot be ideologically driven by self-interest motivations. They must be akin to referees whose analyses and decisions are driven by experts in an interconnected web of professional fields. They referee the world’s playing field pragmatically and in accordance with the relative moral ethical standards practiced in each culture. The freedoms expounded in the U.S. Constitution would not be altered, nor would the cultural norms regarding religious practice in the
The world may be moving closer to a world government than most people recognize. Many conditions that philosopher Immanuel Kant asserted as being necessary for a world government have become a reality. The first condition that Kant finds necessary is for every nation to be ruled under a constitution that guarantees equal rights and representation to all citizens. This condition is obviously not realized, but the developed world actually provides other countries incentives in the form of aide for them to move towards such a republic. In some cases, as in
The second condition that Kant expounds is for these stable states to enter into a federation of states. A “pacific federation (foedus pacificum) … does not aim to acquire any power like that of a state, but merely to preserve and secure the freedom of each state in itself, along with that of the other confederated states” (Kant 104). The United Nations is an advance towards this second condition, though it does not represent complete world solidarity. The third condition for a world government to be realized is a cosmopolitan right or a “universal hospitality” which is a realization of the universally equal rights to Earth by all people. This condition has been greatly aided by technology, especially the Internet, which brings disparate cultures closer together. The third condition guarantees that world citizens can visit foreign countries without trying to conquer them. This condition has perhaps been the most realized, indeed the entire tourist industry has been built up around this condition.
I have suggested throughout this analysis of the proposal for a world government, that such a development may not only be beneficial, but inevitable. The space that unifies the world where a cacophony of voices shout at once, the space where no unified national identity exists, the space where the U.N. has unsuccessfully tried to call order, that is the space that must be systematized. In this rapidly changing world we live in, it becomes increasingly necessary to fill this space with an over-riding power; one which speaks for no one nation, but for human-kind and the Earth as a whole. Only an authoritative borderless entity can effectively protect the world from equally borderless entities.
Works Cited
Payne, Richard. Global Issues: Politics, Economics, and Culture. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007.
Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: The Free Press, 1991.
Nye, Joseph. Understanding International Conflicts. 4. New York: Longman, 2003.
Dante. Convivio (The Banquet) [c1304], in Readings in Medieval Political Theory 1100- 1400, C.J. Nederman and K.L. Forhan (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catherine Lu, 2006. 25 October 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/
Kant, Immanuel. Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784), and Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, in Political Writings, H. B. Nisbet (trans.), Hans Reiss (ed.), 2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 41-53 and 93-130. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catherine Lu, 2006. 25 October 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/
Einstein, Albert. Towards a World Government (1946), in Out of My Later Years: the Scientist, Philosopher and Man Portrayed Through His Own Words, New York: Wings Books, 1956. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catherine Lu, 2006. 25 October 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/
Walzer, Michael. Arguing About War, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catherine Lu, 2006. 25 October 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/
Krasner, S. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Catherine Lu, 2006. 25 October 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/
Michael Franti : "Hello Bonjour"
