World Government: The United Nations

Better Essays
There are world issues that cannot be resolved by individual states alone. Attempts of international governance were seen within the League of Nations, and now the United Nations. The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization, not a world government, but the possibility for it to transform to one is not unlikely. The United Nations has its fair share of success and failures, but whether the movement towards a world government is a good idea or not is debatable. In the case for a world government, world issues continue to move and affect people even if the UN does not. There needs to be a creation of a central world power to push change and resolutions forward. Thomas G. Weiss, from The Graduate Center, The City University of …show more content…
States are usually reluctant to use their own military because the state loses its resources, yet when states are willing to use their military, there are questions of hidden agendas (Pellicer 313). A world government dismisses the concerns of states acting with hidden agendas. The world government acts with an agenda for the world
In the case against a world government, states must give to receive and there is no assurance for a fair system. States can gain and loose with the creation of a world government. Walter Cronkite called for a world government, but he also said, “To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty” (Jasper 11). In order to receive the benefits of a world government, states must cooperate and fall in line to world government demands and
…show more content…
On one hand, the argument for a world government is like an argument for state governments. It is beneficial to have one to prevent injustice, disasters, and to protect freedom in exchange for following laws. To be free and get the benefits of government, people must give some freedoms in exchange and it is not a bad deal. But on the other hand, there is no perfect form of government and not everyone will be satisfied with the results. Balance of power has put states on check with each other, but there is nothing to put a world government on check because it would be the top authority. Because it is much a difficult issue to tackle, I feel like world governance is the best solution for now, until a situation is big enough push the need for a world government and force the creation of it. But then, there comes the issue of acting too late. Considering the risk of acting too late, I think I am for a world government simply because the world might not be able to afford acting too late. Yes, some nations will not benefit as much as other, but the world will benefit if issues like climate change gets

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    American Greed Analysis

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages

    As I do notice, however, that the times where citizens try and revert the government back to a more Creedal like system, things are generally better in the United States. But that is not what the government is in place for. It isn’t in place to be an individualistic body that just does things every once in a while, but generally remains incapable of doing something against the individual. The government is created to be that strong, central power that sometimes has to do certain things. Generally, the job we ask our government to do is essentially unwinnable for them.…

    • 1498 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    As a Federalist I believe the people of the United States should ratify the Constitution because we would fall to pieces without it. In Federalist paper 84 they say there is no purpose for a bill of rights because it is dangerous and unnecessary in multiple ways, such as allowing the government to gain more power than it is granted. Also in Federalist paper 51, they talk about the importance of maintaining separate branches and protecting the rights of the people. However, anti-federalists strongly disagree with these claims. There shouldn’t be a bill of rights because including a listing of rights would only make the people feel as if those are their only protected rights, which aren’t their only protected rights.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Therefore, even if Hobbes hoped for a more submissive constituent that only questions government in result to a direct threat of life, this cannot be the case in our current political time. There is no homogenous group in one society, therefore a ruler cannot truly make one decision that appeases all, they can, however, make decisions that help some and hurt others. This is when Hobbes theory on ownership for self-preservation becomes flawed. Although his way of thought has informed many governments it has also done what he hoped it wouldn’t; provide an unsafe environment that directly threatens lives. Proving that ownership cannot guarantee a free society it is only a quick resolution to a mountain of overlying issues that may possibly go…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Realists do not believe that the states should achieve in perpetual peace and harmony in the world. Actors needed to be faced with the fact that the world is a diverse place and one must accept and live by it. Power to them is the centerpiece of a political life ensuring one’s safety in an environment with no central government protecting them from others. On the other hand, liberalists argue that realism is an outdated justification where the increase of globalization, the rise of communication technology and international trade are resources that cannot be relied on militaristic power. It is the international system that offers a collaboration within the political actors and states.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Starting with Cold War isolationism and containment, then to the present; from Truman to Obama. Obviously, in today’s world isolationism is not possible. As a result of globalization, our world is increasingly connected through global trade networks and diplomatic alliances. What worked in the Cold War and before World War I is not a good strategy today’s world. The best option for today would be a balance of power that would aid allied countries to work together, protect human rights and common good.…

    • 1563 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The government won’t be the best it can be until it starts to appreciate their power source, the people. The most important thing to remember is that the government will stop overpowering the people once the people can prove they can handle life peacefully and respectfully without the government. When people start to act kindly to one another and handle bad situations calmly, there will be no need for a government. If we can be fair and smart about things, the government will become useless and will back off. The government will never go away, but having a laid back government is much better than having a government that doesn’t allow you to do what you want to do or support what you believe in.…

    • 732 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Bucket Policy Essay

    • 1689 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Many argue that the world’s last standing superpower, The United States, which has the disproportionate ability to solve this issue single-handedly, should do so. But the United States has no interest in being ‘the best shot’ for the world at this time, believing it does not gain the disproportionate benefit from solving the problem, therefore it is only willing to cooperate to a certain extent. The most reasonable solution in the short-term to address this dilemma would be if all major nations joined together to form a community of shared purpose; a community that understood the incentive of lowering greenhouse gas emissions ultimately would benefit…

    • 1689 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This government provides an ideal balance between personal rights and federal power. Terrorists and white supremacy groups such as the KKK reject the values of equality and cause conflicts while attempting to revoke the rights of many Americans. But this dissent is ultimately defeated in the face of a solidified political structure.. Government has an obligation to enforce the rights of all people, meaning that dissenters now have less influence on democracy. Dissent can still cause discord, but because today’s federal government has much more power and stability than its early American counterpart, dissenters are now unable to seriously threaten American…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Summary: Benjamin Franklin didn’t fully agree to the Constitution, but he believed that one day it would be possible to believe in what it says. He thought a general government is necessary, even though eventually it will turn into a harsh ruling country because of the corruptness of people. There is no better option than this Constitution,…

    • 186 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays