The idea of a world government is often thought to open the door to a world tyranny. But is the idea of a global superstate really such a bad idea? With the number of conflicts on the rise, problems such as climate change transcending borders, and the world more interdependent than ever, it may be time to rethink. Mathias Koenig-Archibugi argues that far from bringing global tyranny, a single world government may be more plausible and desirable. In the hunt for a better world, no political stone should be left unturned.
A spectre is haunting political philosophy—the spectre of world government. Theorists argue passionately about what a just world order would look like, with some endorsing demanding obligations of solidarity across borders and others favouring a clear-cut distinction between what people owe to compatriots and what they owe to foreigners. They also disagree about how the world should be governed, with opinions ranging from a staunch defence of national sovereignty to advocacy of stronger and more democratic global institutions. What most participants in this debate share, though, is the aversion to the idea of a political unification of humankind under a world state. Such a prospect is a step too far even for resolute advocates of cosmopolitan ethics such as Kwame Anthony Appiah, Seyla Benhabib, Jürgen Habermas and Martha Nussbaum.
___
Major wars still break out, and conflicts between nuclear-armed powers are troubling to people who live well beyond their borders.
___
Join the conversation