World government is the concept of a single political authority with jurisdiction over all of Earth and humanity. It is conceived in a variety of forms, from tyrannical to democratic, which reflects its wide array of proponents and detractors.[1]
A world government with executive, legislative, and judicial functions and an administrative apparatus has never existed. The inception of the United Nations (UN) in the mid-20th century remains the closest approximation to a world government, as it is by far the largest and most powerful international institution.[2] The UN is mostly limited to an advisory role, with the stated purpose of fostering cooperation between existing national governments, rather than exerting authority over them. Nevertheless, the organization is commonly viewed as either a model for, or preliminary step towards, a global government.[3][4]
The concept of universal governance has existed since antiquity and been the subject of discussion, debate, and even advocacy by some kings, philosophers, religious leaders, and secular humanists.[1] Some of these have discussed it as a natural and inevitable outcome of human social evolution, and interest in it has coincided with the trends of globalization.[5] Opponents of world government, who come from a broad political spectrum, view the concept as a tool for violent totalitarianism, unfeasible, or simply unnecessary,[1][6][7] and in the case of some sectors of fundamentalist Christianity, as a vehicle for the Antichrist to bring about the end-times.
Definition
editAlexander Wendt defines a state as an "organization possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence within a society."[8] According to Wendt, a world state would need to fulfill the following requirements:
- Monopoly on organized violence – states have exclusive use of legitimate force within their own territory.
- Legitimacy – perceived as right by their populations, and possibly the global community.
- Sovereignty – possessing common power and legitimacy.
- Corporate action – a collection of individuals who act together in a systematic way.[8]
Wendt argues that a world government would not require a centrally controlled army or a central decision-making body, as long as the four conditions are fulfilled.[8] In order to develop a world state, three changes must occur in the world system:
- Universal security community – a peaceful system of binding dispute resolution without threat of interstate violence.
- Universal collective security – unified response to crimes and threats.
- Supranational authority – binding decisions are made that apply to each and every state.
The development of a world government is conceptualized by Wendt as a process through five stages:
- System of states;
- Society of states;
- World society;
- Collective security;
- World state.[8]
Wendt argues that a struggle among sovereign individuals results in the formation of a collective identity and eventually a state. The same forces are present within the international system and could possibly, and potentially inevitably lead to the development of a world state through this five-stage process. When the world state would emerge, the traditional expression of states would become localized expressions of the world state. This process occurs within the default state of anarchy present in the world system.
Immanuel Kant conceptualized the state as sovereign individuals formed out of conflict.[8] Part of the traditional philosophical objections to a world state (Kant, Hegel)[8] are overcome by modern technological innovations. Wendt argues that new methods of communication and coordination can overcome these challenges.
A colleague of Wendt in the field of International Relations, Max Ostrovsky, conceptualized the development of a world government as a process in one stage: The world will be divided on two rival blocs, one based on North America and another on Eurasia, which clash in World War III and, "if civilization survives," the victorious power conquers the rest of the world, annexes and establishes world state.[9] Remarkably, Wendt also supposes the alternative of universal conquest leading to world state, provided the conquering power recognizes "its victims as full subjects." In such case, the mission is accomplished "without intermediate stages of development."[10]
Pre-industrialized philosophy
editAntiquity
editWorld government was an aspiration of ancient rulers as early as the Bronze Age (3300 to 1200 BCE); ancient Egyptian kings aimed to rule "All That the Sun Encircles", Mesopotamian kings "All from the Sunrise to the Sunset", and ancient Chinese and Japanese emperors "All under Heaven".
The Chinese had a particularly well-developed notion of world government in the form of Great Unity, or Da Yitong (
Contemporaneously, the ancient Greek historian Polybius described Roman rule over much of the known world at the time as a "marvelous" achievement worthy of consideration by future historians.[12] The Pax Romana, a roughly two-century period of stable Roman hegemony across three continents, reflected the positive aspirations of a world government, as it was deemed to have brought prosperity and security to what was once a politically and culturally fractious region. The Adamites were a Christian sect who desired to organize an early form of world government.[13]
Dante's Universal Monarchy
editThe idea of world government outlived the fall of Rome for centuries, particularly in its former heartland of Italy. Medieval peace movements such as the Waldensians gave impetus to utopian philosophers like Marsilius of Padua to envision a world without war.[14] In his fourteenth-century work De Monarchia, Florentine poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri, considered by some English Protestants to be a proto-Protestant,