World government is a theoretical single political authority with jurisdiction over all of Earth and humanity. 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. 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.
The concept of universal governance has been the subject of debate. Some thinkers have discussed it as a natural and inevitable outcome of human social evolution, and interest in it has coincided with the trends of globalization. Opponents of world government view the concept as a tool for violent totalitarianism, unfeasible, or simply unnecessary.
Definition From ancient history to contemporary times, the idea of universal governance by one polity has been the subject of discussion, debate, and advocacy by rulers, philosophers, religious leaders, and secular humanists. Alexander Wendt defines a state as an "organization possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence within a society." 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 own 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.
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. 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.
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. Part of the traditional philosophical objections to a world state (Kant, Hegel) 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.Ostrovsky, Max, (2007). The Hyperbola of the World Order, (Lanham: University Press of America), pp 320–321, 362, https://books.google.com/books?id=9b0gn89Ep0gC&q=annexation 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."Wendt, Alexander, (2003). "Why the World State is Inevitable: Teleology and the Logic of Anarchy," European Journal of International Relations. 9 (4): p 41, https://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/03wendt.pdf.
International law, also known as public international law and the law of nations, is the set of rules, norms, legal customs and standards that states and other actors feel an obligation to, and generally do, obey in their mutual relations. In international relations, actors are simply the individuals and collective entities, such as states, international organizations, and non-state groups, which can make behavioral choices, whether lawful or unlawful. Rules are formal, typically written expectations that outline required behavior, while norms are informal, often unwritten guidelines about appropriate behavior that are shaped by custom and social practice. It establishes norms for states across a broad range of domains, including war and diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights.
International law differs from state-based domestic legal systems in that it operates largely through consent, since there is no world government to enforce it upon sovereign states. States and non-state actors may choose to not abide by international law, and even to breach a treaty, but such violations, particularly of peremptory norms, can be met with disapproval by others and in some cases coercive action including diplomacy, economic sanctions, and war. The lack of a final authority in international law can also cause far reaching differences. This is partly the effect of states being able to interpret international law in a manner which they see fit. This can lead to problematic stances which can have large local effects.
Since a world government could come in several different forms, from tyrannical to democratic, it has many proponents and detractors across the broad political spectrum. Proponents see it as a natural and inevitable outcome of human social evolution, while opponents view the concept as a tool for violent totalitarianism, unfeasible, or simply unnecessary.Kennedy, Paul. (2006.) The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations. New York: Harper Collins.
Pre-modern philosophy Antiquity
The Chinese had a particularly well-developed notion of world government in the form of Great Unity, or (), a historical model for a united and just society bound by moral virtue and principles of good governance. The Han dynasty, which successfully united much of China for over four centuries, evidently aspired to this vision by erecting an Altar of the Great Unity in 113 BCE.Sima Qian II:38–40 According to Mencius (1:6) stability is in unity.Pines, Yuri & Moreno Garcia, Juan Carlos, (2020). "Maat and Tianxia: Building world orders in ancient Egypt and China," Journal of Egyptian History, vol 13: p 246, http://yuri-pines-sinology.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Moreno-Pines-Maat-and-Tianxia-final.pdf Both Mencius (9:4) and Alexander the Great (Diodorus Siculus 30:21) claimed that there are neither two suns in cosmos, nor two monarchs on earth.
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. 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.
Dante's universal monarchy The 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. In his fourteenth-century work De Monarchia, Florentine poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri appealed for a universal monarchy that would work separate from and uninfluenced by the Catholic Church to establish peace in humanity's lifetime and the afterlife, respectively:
But what has been the condition of the world since that day the seamless robe [of Pax Romana] first suffered mutilation by the claws of avarice, we can read—would that we could not also see! O human race! what tempests must need toss thee, what treasure be thrown into the sea, what shipwrecks must be endured, so long as thou, like a beast of many heads, strivest after diverse ends! Thou art sick in either intellect, or sick likewise in thy affection. Thou healest not thy high understanding by argument irrefutable, nor thy lower by the countenance of experience. Nor dost thou heal thy affection by the sweetness of divine persuasion, when the voice of the Holy Spirit breathes upon thee, 'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!'De Monarchia, 16:1
Di Gattinara was an Italian diplomat who widely promoted Dante's De Monarchia and its call for a universal monarchy. An advisor of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, and the chancellor of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, he conceived global government as uniting all Christian nations under a Respublica Christiana, which was the only political entity able to establish world peace.
Modern philosophy Hugo Grotius (1583–1645)
The Dutch philosopher and jurist Hugo Grotius, widely regarded as a founder of international law, believed in the eventual formation of a world government to enforce it. His book, De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), published in Paris in 1625, is still cited as a foundational work in the field.USYD.edu.au Though he does not advocate for world government per se, Grotius argues that a "common law among nations", consisting of a framework of principles of natural law, bind all people and societies regardless of local custom.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
In his essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (1795), Kant describes three basic requirements for organizing human affairs to permanently abolish the threat of present and future war, and, thereby, help establish a new era of lasting peace throughout the world. Kant described his proposed peace program as containing two steps.
The "Preliminary Articles" described the steps that should be taken immediately, or with all deliberate speed:
"No Secret Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War" "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation" "Standing Armies Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States" "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State, "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (), Poisoners (), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason () in the Opposing State"
Three Definitive Articles would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a foundation on which to build a peace.
"The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican" "The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States" "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality" Kant argued against a world government on the grounds that it would be prone to tyranny. He instead advocated for league of independent republican states akin to the intergovernmental organizations that would emerge over a century and a half later.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762–1814)