Introduction

Abstract

Theorizing about world government has a long and pedigreed history. Formulations of some version of the idea already appear in Chinese, Indian as well as ancient Greek thought and later supporters include Dante and Erasmus (while others, such as Bentham and Kant, offered qualified support only). Today the idea appears to enjoy a small renaissance (as it did, briefly, after the Second World War for, perhaps, obvious reasons). This is not surprising. The world is encountering several global existential challenges, among them climate change, global injustice, and the threat of (nuclear) war. Some, such as Luis Cabrera (2004) or Torbjörn Tännsjö (2008), think that there is only one adequate answer to these challenges: to create a world state that governs the entire globe. Does the ‘world’ agree? For a long a time after the last great war it looked like it did (or, to be more precise, that it was in ‘qualified agreement’): for many decades after 1945, the world has seen the continuous development of multilateral, international, supranational institutions, the crowning achievement of which, arguably, was the setting up of the European Union. Of course, all these developments fell well short of anything like a world government, but one could see—especially if one wanted to, driven by, for example, certain theoretical assumptions or commitments—a perhaps inevitable path to this ultimate end-state.