¶ … Government: An Unviable Solution to a Complex Need According to Anne-Marie Slaughter, "world government is both infeasible and undesirable," an assertion that is supported by the historical record as well as contemporary experiences. This paper provides a review of the relevant literature to determine why a world government is unviable, as well as the differences between a world government and global governance. A discussion concerning how these concepts relate to world order, globalization, international integration and the rise of new actors is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Problems with a World Government

On the one hand, people need global institutions in an increasingly globalized marketplace. For instance, according to Slaughter, "Peoples and their governments around the world need global institutions to solve collective problems that can only be addressed on a global scale. They must be able to make and enforce global rules on a variety of subjects and through a variety of means" (2005, 292). On the other hand, though, global institutions such as the United Nations and various economic fora as markedly different from a true world government. In this regard, Rachman reports that, a world government would require a far more than mere cooperation among countries. Rather, "It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws" (Rachman 2008, 1). The "United States of Europe (GmbH)" that has emerged in the form of the European Union could serve as a model for a world government, Rachman suggests, for several reasons, including:

1. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

2. It is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international...

It could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that for the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.
The simple fact that something is possible, though, does not make it desirable (for instance, it is possible for the United States to destroy the world with thermonuclear weapons). Consequently, Rachman (2008, 1) adds that, "A change in the political atmosphere suggests that "global governance" framework could emerge in the near future and these issues are discussed further below.

World Government vs. Global Governance

From a strictly pragmatic perspective, is it reasonable to suggest that most people do not want an overarching governmental framework in place that erodes their civil liberties and directs their day-to-day behaviors. Indeed, some of the world's problems can be attributed to the manner in which arbitrary geopolitical lines have been drawn. In response, according to Weiss, in recent years, "Mainstream thinking about international cooperation has shifted decidedly away from beefing up the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and toward what many of us now call 'global governance'" (2009, 3). When it comes to distinguishing between a "one-world order" as evinced by a world government and the mechanics required to ensure that international commerce can proceed, the semantics become nebulous, though. For instance, Weiss points out that the term "Governance," not only "represents of course the range of both informal and formal values, norms, practices, and institutions," but that "It is most useful to think of global governance at any moment as reflecting the capacity of the international system to provide government-like services in the absence of a world government" (2009, 3.). From a modern perspective, it is disingenuous, though, to suggest that it is possible to create the types of global frameworks that are required to administer and sustain progress at the local level. These same issues caused one of the bloodiest and most costly wars…