World government
Early concepts
The need for a global government to preserve the peace
between nations was discussed in ancient Greek and Roman
times, and, in modern times the idea has been recognized
since the early 14th century (Dante, for example, discusses
it in his book Monarchia, 1329). In 1625, the great
Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius wrote De Jure Belli ac Pacis
(The Laws of War and Peace), which is commonly taken
as the starting-point of modern international law. The
idea of a federation gained much momentum during the
late 18th century, a period in which the first modern
democratic federation, the USA, was established (1788),
and in which Immanuel Kant wrote the essay "Perpetual
Peace: a philosophical sketch" (1795). In his essay,
Kant describes three basic requirements for organizing
human affairs to permanently abolish the threat of a
future war:
The
civil constitution of each state shall be republican
The law of nations shall be founded on a federation
of free states.
The rights of people, as citizens of the world, shall
be limited to the conditions of universal hospitality
(i.e., people would be allowed to visit other countries,
but not to stay unless invited).
Hobbes
The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes' book
Leviathan (1651) expounded on the 'social contract theory'
of government. When 'nation' is substituted for 'person'
in the theory below, it advocates the creation of a
world government and depicts the current international
system as anarchical.
"The
natural condition of nations is a state of perpetual
war of all against all, where no morality exists, and
everyone lives in constant fear," this is the "state
of nature". Hobbes' first law states; "That
every nation ought to endeavour peace as far as they
have hope of obtaining it; and when they cannot obtain
it, that they may seek and use all helps and advantages
of war." Hobbes explains the subtext of the political
process, "We mutually divest ourselves of certain
rights, such as the right to take another nation's life,
so to achieve peace. That a nation be willing, when
others are so too, as far-forth as for peace and defense
of his nation he shall think it necessary, to lay down
this right to all things; and be contented with so much
liberty against other nations, as he would allow other
nations against his nation." The mutual transferring
of these rights is called a contract and is the basis
of the notion of moral obligation, duty and government.
From selfish reasons alone, we are both motivated to
reciprocally transfer these and other obligatory rights,
since this will end the dreaded state of war between
us.
Hobbes
continues by discussing the validity of certain contracts.
For example, contracts made in the state of nature are
not generally binding, for, if I fear that you will
violate your part of the bargain, then no true agreement
can be reached. This problem is solved by giving unlimited
power to a political sovereign who will punish us if
we violate our contracts, "that to ensure contracts
(and peace) policing power must be given to one person,
or one assembly. We do this by saying, implicitly or
explicitly, I authorise and give up my right of governing
myself, to this nation, or to this assembly of nations,
on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him,
and authorise all his actions in like manner."
The 1950s call for Legal Realism
Legal anthropologist E. Adamson Hoebel concluded his
treatise on broadening the legal realist tradition to
include non-Western nations[2]: “Whatever the idealist
may desire, force and the threat of force are the ultimate
power in the determination of international behavior,
as in the law within the nation or tribe. But until
force and the treat of force in international relations
are brought under social control by the world community,
by and for the world society, they remain the instruments
of social anarchy and not the sanctions of world law.”
“The creation in clear-cut terms of the corpus of world
law cries for the doing.” If world law, however, “is
to be realized at all, there will have to be minimum
of general agreement as to the nature of the physical
and ideational world and the relation of men in society
to it. An important and valuable next step will be found
in deep-cutting analysis of the major law systems of
the contemporary world in order to lay bare their basic
postulates – postulates that are too generally hidden;
postulates felt, perhaps, by those who live by them,
but so much taken for granted that they are rarely expressed
or exposed for examination. When this is done -- and
it will take the efforts of many keen intellects steeped
in the law of at least a dozen lands and also aware
of the social nexus of the law -- then mankind will
be able to see clearly for the first time and clearly
where the common consensus of the great living social
and law systems lies. Here will be found the common
postulates and values upon which the world community
can build. At the same time the truly basic points of
conflict that will have to be worked upon for resolution
will be revealed. Law is inherently purposive. It deserves
more purposive attention; for on its immediate growth
hangs the fate of civilization.” To date, this call
has largely gone unanswered.