Abstract
The “New World Order” has been a highly debated political concept for over one hundred years by many conspiracy theorists. The global government system has also been a topic of discussion for political scientists and world leaders for decades. Can this global political construct be realized in the modern world of globalization? This paper will examine past, present, and future concepts of world governing bodies, including the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the unforeseen global government that will enforce international law. There are numerous benefits to a global government, this paper will examine them all with an optimistic view. This essay will also analyze the shortcomings of an international political body but give possible solutions for realized concerns. The New World Order is already a reality to a certain extent in the form of the United Nations. This paper will examine the possibility of developing this New World Order concept into a more perfect reality by establishing checks and balances. The system of checks and balances recommended for a future global government will promote globalization and prevent totalitarianism. This paper will propose a balance of three councils to lead the global political system that hampers any dictatorship attempt by a person or nations. It will also form seven international regional unions to check the global governing system to defend against a worldwide police state.
Keywords: New World Order, World Government, Globalization, International Law, Divine Right, Global Government, International Union, Totalitarianism, Dictatorship
History Of A New World Order
The idea of a New World Order or World Government is not new; it is steeped with conspiracy theories and rumors. In reality, I will prove that the concept of a global government is already in effect but in a flawed manner. A true world government will include every single sovereign nation and give them an equal seat in a world body. This will allow for international laws and agreements to be enforced, which will decrease the number of global conflicts. The League of Nations failed because it did not include all countries, since the countries involved had their interests and little ability to enforce treaties or stop conflicts. The United Nations is a modern version of a global government, but it also fails to include all sovereign nations and, by its design, favors a few. This paper will examine the advantages and disadvantages of a global government that is becoming more necessary with the advancement of globalization.
The New World Order is a concept traced back to biblical times. Many leaders of empires attempted to conquer the known world, but only a man named Jesus claimed to have authority over the entire Earth and Heaven. Although religion and politics are rarely discussed in public nowadays, it is crucial to understand that many kings or other world leaders in the past used their “divine right” to establish their own rule. Divine right is a religious and political doctrine that gives power to the monarch from God. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus states, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”” (King James Bible, 1769/2025, Book of Matthew 28:18). Technically, Jesus’ authority and many kings of the past would claim their authority comes from a divine jurisdiction which would be higher than any international authority. The framework of a global system that governs the entire world is given to believers in the prophetic books of the bible. A global political system has never encompassed all sovereign nations with the ability to enforce international laws in the history of mankind. It is critical to understand that international relations are currently in anarchy, which is the lack of a government that can enforce laws in a jurisdiction. Globalization and the advancements of technology, such as artificial intelligence and air travel, will require more agreements with the current 195 sovereign nations. With the rise of globalization, the speed of travel, and advancements in military technology, the risk of conflict has increased significantly.
The modern idea of the New World Order, popularized by Dante Alighieri, is more of a global monarchy. Alighieri writes, “There must therefore be one person who directs and rules mankind, and he is properly called ‘Monarch’ or ‘Emperor.’ And thus it is apparent that the well-being of the world requires that there be a monarchy or empire” (Ghassim and Pauli, 2024). The idea of Alighieri’s international dictatorship, which some scholars believe would lead to corruption or tyranny, is dated. Alighieri may have never considered a democracy for the entire world, which could have relieved the concern of tyranny that many modern scholars have today. Even today, when a world government is mentioned, many people might scoff or dismiss the idea based on old ideals.
The Argument For A New World Government
Some of the oldest popular negative viewpoints of a global government are most notably expressed by Immanuel Kant. Ghassim and Pauli write, “For instance, Kant (1795, 38) argued that a world government would bear the danger of turning into a global tyranny—or ‘soulless despotism,’ as he called it” (Ghassim and Pauli, 2024). These feelings of soul less despotism by Kant may be accurate since a world monarchy is being examined by him and not a world democracy with checks and balances. It is my belief, based on research, that a democratic world government would be more beneficial to its citizens than detrimental. For tyranny to exist, real democracy cannot exist. After World War II, Albert Einstein was an advocate for a world government, possibly due to the invention of the nuclear bomb. In theory, a world government would be against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would give individual nations the ability to wipe out fellow citizens of Earth and fight the world power structure. It is easy to assume that nuclear weapons may only be used by the world government to fight external threats to the planet, such as hostile extraterrestrial nations in the future, if they exist, or asteroids that may be headed toward the planet.
In today’s age, with information at the touch of the fingertips, the whole world can make decisions together that govern their ideas, laws, and lives in a majority rule system. In the article, Global governance: present and future, the authors write, “Global governance is arguably inevitable for the survival of the human race in present and future generations” (Rashchupkina, 2016). Due to globalization, rising tension between nations, and the need for stability, a world government will be needed in the future to settle international disputes and enforce international law. There is currently no way for a sovereign country to enforce international law unless it uses its national military forces. The ambitions of a world government to resolve a conflict between two or more countries is crucial and more significant today than it has ever been.
Rashchupkina gives five reasons why the future of global governance is inevitable. First, social media in the information age allows citizens to be more involved in politics than they were a hundred years ago. Secondly, due to “individual empowerment,” a global government will need to pay more attention to the physical safety of its human population. Third, “institution complexity” may allow for third-party non-state actors (like Elon Musk) to have transnational agreements that can affect government behavior. Fourth, the changing international political landscape will keep evolving with more countries increasing multilateralism on a global scale. Finally, Rashchupkina states, “States and non-state or transnational actors tend to be more cooperative with global governance when a liberal world order is maintained” (Rashchupkina, 2016). It is important to note that global conflicts may still exist in a global government with hegemonic nations facing off with each other, but if liberal paradigms remain strong, conflict resolution would be more easily attainable. It is significantly easier for a world government to negotiate with two or more sovereign nations than with third-party nations’ involvement with little or no financial interest and weak political power.
In A Hobbesian Argument for World Government, Saetra writes, “A commonly used argument in favour of government is that without it, we would have chaos” (Saetra, 2022). Chaos can take many forms in a world with 195 sovereign nations vying for power. The most alarming consequence of Earth’s lack of a world government is the likelihood of more wars and unequal distribution of goods and services. Not only can a world government reduce the number of deadly conflicts around the world, but it would also have the ability to distribute medicine and food to parts of the world that need it most. Saetra states, “While international relations might not be pure anarchy, states currently exist in a situation in which there is no common power who can govern like national governments do on the domestic level” (Saetra, 2022). It is well known that the enforcement of international laws and treaties rely only on the nations in the agreement, but a world government could dedicate its resources to ensure that laws and treaties are fair and in the interest of the world’s citizens. This may appear to be unacceptable to major countries that participate in the United Nations today, but when new powerful nations arise, it will ensure more stability for all the nations since there will be more equity. For example, a world government will be able to make international laws that can be enforced regarding forces of nature, such as climate change and natural disasters that cross international borders.
The world government cannot simply be for show or secretly run by a few powerful nations since it must carry enough force to sway several sovereign nations or states in a smaller union. Saetra goes on to say, “Kant’s federation would, however, have no coercive power over what would remain sovereign states” (Saetra, 2022). It is not my argument to create an artificial global government that has no power or to take away the sovereign rights of a nation. Instead, the world government must prove itself to be more powerful than any sovereign nation or smaller group of nations. Not only must the global government have overwhelming military force, but it must also maintain justice, objectivity, and concern for human rights that may be ignored by some sovereign nations. The world government must be able to win and hold the hearts and minds of its fellow citizens to achieve longevity.
Another argument for the creation of a world government is the potential for economic stability in the world. Gone are the days of trade wars and unfair tariffs used as soft power weapons against nations. A world government can end trade tariffs and ensure the balancing of wealth to reduce global poverty. In Review of International Political Economy, “Treating countries in different economic conditions differently has been a common feature of the world trade regime since the mid-1960s, classifying countries either as ‘developed’ or ‘developing’” (Weinhardt and Barro, 2025). The classification of developed or developing country has further segregated the poor and disenfranchised countries from benefiting from their abundant resources in most cases. In some cases, countries in Africa with vast natural resources still struggle economically due to high-interest loans and bad treaties made by corrupt officials. A world government can limit the interest countries must pay or repay and ensure the treaty between nations is to the benefit of all citizens on Earth.
It is important to remember that international trade, without a world government, has fewer benefits since it must rely on a patchwork of agreements that carry more concerns. In certain situations, international trade can also cause social upheaval without a true governing world government. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Trade And Development Report 2023 states, “While international trade can bring significant benefits, it has also generated environmental and social concerns” (UNCTAD, 2023). Even with the best of intentions, global trade can be unpredictable and predatory. I believe that an international world government would be able to mitigate most of the social and environmental problems with its ability to enforce rules across international boundaries.
It may be common sense to most political scientists that a world government can offer more efficient problem solving with issues such as space exploration, pandemics, and international politics. Instead of the current anarchy that exists in the international realm, a stable world government can offer all sovereign nations solutions to the complex situations that may arise from technological advances in the future. Can we honestly say that the Moon or Mars belongs to one nation when we stare at it in the night sky? Or can we efficiently distribute medicine in the event of a pandemic to all countries on Earth to prevent the spread of the disease? These complex problems in today’s age would be non-existent to future generations with a world government.
The Case Against A Global Government
While there are many more examples of beneficial outcomes of a world government, I would be remiss if I did not mention the arguments against such a venture. As mentioned earlier, theorists like Immanuel Kant believed that a world government could lead to global tyranny. This may be the case if only one person or nation was in charge of such a world government, but a modern global government will more likely have the attributes of a constitutional republic or democracy. However, even in a global democracy, some would try to subvert the constitution and process for their exclusive gain. Checks and balances would be necessary for a successful world government, but without a system of checks and balances, there is a great threat of tyranny that has never been seen before. Imagine a single person with the ability to wage a successful war with multiple nations for personal gain. Or a likely scenario could be a world police state that infringes on human rights globally. Add to those concerns a slow, enormous bureaucracy that does not adequately address the needs of nations or their citizens. These significant concerns must be examined with viable solutions to prevent such tragedies in a future of further globalization.
Kalypso Nicolaidis & Gregory Shaffer write in Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance Without Global Government:
On the one hand, there is no ‘government’ at the global level, whether in the form of a global legislature, global executive, or global court with mandatory jurisdiction and enforcement powers. On the other hand, the world is globalizing in terms of the intensity and extensiveness of exchange, governance mechanisms are emerging to deal with those exchanges, and publics are demanding that these mechanisms be more accountable (Nicolaidis and Shaffer, 2004).
Even though experts admit there is no global government to enforce international law, it seems that the concerns with bureaucracies and cooperation prevent its implementation. With changing times come changing strategies and tactics to deal with other nations on a global scale. Allowing globalization to continue at its current rate and naturally allowing the system to adapt is the stance of many experts in the field of international relations. Although the reasons range from accountability to the intensity of exchange, if left unchecked, we will only experience more chaos in the future. To mitigate the concerns, a well thought out global political system will be necessary for globalization to increase. The patchwork of agreements between two or more countries can be terminated without notice, with devastating effects on the countries involved. The global government may be a high-risk, high-reward situation that stable countries see no reason to be a part of. However, the more powerful the world government is, the less likely sovereign nations, even strong ones, will be able to resist. A global government that dominates foreign trade may be a threat today but an ally tomorrow.
Another downside of a global government may be the most obvious, which is implementation. Today, it is extremely difficult to get three nations to agree to treaties, but having 195 countries competing in a global setting with strong oversight may be enticing. If substantial gains of membership in the global government are made, more sovereign nations will likely participate. In Ruling ourselves: The deliberate evolution of … (2018), the authors write, “Today, evolution of global governance is limited primarily by the ability and willingness of the world’s nations to cooperate” (Harack et al., 2017). The most difficult part of implementing a world government is getting a majority of countries to join the global political system and come to a consensus. Due to the unpopularity of the idea of global government and the real concerns that may exist, many nations do not take the idea seriously, or they may feel that being a part of the United Nations is enough. The United Nations is progressive, but it lacks every country’s participation, and five permanent members of the UN Security Council can veto the wishes of the majority. A true global government should see all nations as equals, with representatives being voted on by the sovereign nations’ representatives to an executive council, legislative council, and judicial council within the world government.
Global government not only needs to involve every sovereign nation, but it must keep up with future technological advancements with the power to enforce treaties. Harack et al. go on to write, “It must not only solve enduring problems like war and climate change, it must also provide a structure for navigating newer and more difficult problems such as the prospective dangers of emerging technologies” (Harack et al., 2017). Predicting world issues is not a science that can be mastered. The ever-changing world will always have new problems and solutions that may or may not present themselves. It is easier for a world government with vast resources to address an international crisis than a single sovereign nation with limited resources. Furthermore, the beginning stages of a world government may likely have some problems until it is more properly established. The United Nations could be a great foothold or the genesis of a world government since it already has so many members. The design of the United Nations Security Council and the lack of admittance of every sovereign nation are considerably flawed.
Although many solutions can be gained from a world government, we must also consider the most threatening scenario. Ilya Somin (2024) writes the following:
As problematic as a democratic world government might be, things will be even worse if it becomes a dictatorship, or—in the worst-case scenario—a totalitarian state. A world government might start off as some sort of democracy, and is at the very least highly unlikely to begin as a totalitarian nightmare. But history shows that authoritarian and totalitarian political movements can seize power in a previously relatively free society, especially during a crisis.
A global government can indeed start as a democracy but transform into a dictatorship or totalitarian police state later on, but we already have the United Nations as a de facto world government. It seems Pandora’s box has already been opened, and we cannot put the genie back in the bottle. We cannot escape the need for a global government with globalization on the rise because of a fear that may or may not occur. With the ability of citizens to have the internet and the advent of artificial intelligence, people are more aware and informed today than they were in the 1930s. These new technological advancements can help and hurt us, but we do not simply stop progressing because of the possible and probable risks. I have faith in the majority rule system here in the United States because of the longevity and stability that it provides. A world government can provide the same solace if it is designed properly. Hopefully, we learn from the past so we do not repeat those same mistakes, and if we do, then it is up to the good in people to right the wrongs as we did before.
The greatest benefit of a world government is also the scariest, which is the scope of the global government’s reach. Somin writes, “If a world government becomes oppressive, falls victim to corruption, or adopts economic policies that stifle opportunity, there will be nowhere else to go” (Somin, 2024). I concur with the possibility of a world government becoming oppressive or enacting policies that may stifle progress, but if designed properly, that would not be a concern. Most countries already have continental unions such as the European Union or African Union. These unions of sovereign states will be in a better position to ally themselves for a conflict with the world government should the world government become corrupt. They may even offer asylum to people who want to leave the oppressive global regime. A proper world government would need a system of checks and balances that are much larger than a national party. This is why I would propose six to seven unions to support or oppose a world body. Each international regional union would represent multiple countries. In the case of a corrupt world body, four or more international regional unions would be able to overthrow the global government that can only recruit from the remaining two international regional unions. In this way, majority rule is still effective. I would personally propose a European Union, African Union, Asian Union, Middle Eastern Union, South American Union, and North American Union.
Figure 1.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the stories about a world government silently being created can be discredited since we have the beginnings of a public global government already in place. The fear of a global government being oppressive is a real threat, but with proper design, those threats can be mitigated. There are more benefits to a global government with globalization on the rise than there are disadvantages. The promise of a global government that can respond to climate change, global conflicts, increasing trade tariffs, pandemics, and more greatly outweighs the concern of a global dictatorship or international police state. The global government can offer immigration for refugees but also allow states to keep their sovereignty. A global government is necessary for space exploration since many countries will be competing for resources on other planets, and in the future, if we discover intelligent life on another planet, we will have a system in place to defend ourselves or make diplomatic strides. The children of the future will thank us for getting rid of anarchy in international relations. Stability, security, and access can be afforded to every citizen on our planet with proper planning and cooperation.
We need to learn from our mistakes by remembering where we come from and where we want to go. If we can imagine it, then in theory, we can achieve it. With artificial intelligence on the rise, a global political body will give us more protection from a rogue state or union of states. The biggest takeaways from a global government are fewer conflicts, more production, and more stable global financial markets. It may not be perfect in the beginning, but we need to begin before we see any results. You cannot win the game if you do not play it. In time, things will operate more smoothly, and the citizens of Earth will have a home without the detrimental and preventable problems that exist today.
Works Cited
Farsan Ghassim, Markus Pauli, Who on Earth Wants a World Government, What Kind, and Why? An International Survey Experiment, International Studies Quarterly, Volume 68, Issue 3, September 2024, sqae105, https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae105
Harack, B., Laskowski, K., Bailey, R., Marcotte, J., Jaques, S., Datta, D., & Kuski, S. (2017). 1. 1 Vision of Earth. 2 Available online: https://globalchallenges.org/en/our-work/the-new-shape-prize/rules-for-participation.
Kant Immanuel. 1795. Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius.
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original work published 1769)
Marx, A., Depoorter, C., Verma, R., Araoz, M., Auld, G., Bemelmans, J., Bennett, E. A., Boonaert, E., Brandi, C., Dietz, T., Fouilleux, E., Grabs, J., Gulbrandsen, L. H., Harrison, J., Heilmayr, R., Hernandez, A., Hoekman, B., Lambert, S. R., Lambin, E., . . . Thorstensen, V. (2024). Global governance through voluntary sustainability standards: Developments, trends and challenges. Global Policy, 15(4), 708-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13401
Nicolaidis, K., & Shaffer, G. (2004). Transnational mutual recognition regimes: governance without global government. Law & Contemp. Probs., 68, 263.
Rashchupkina Y (2016) Global governance: present and future. Palgrave Communications. 2:15045 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2015.45.
Sætra, H. S. (2022). A Hobbesian Argument for World Government. Philosophies, 7(3), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7030066
UNCTAD. (2023) Trade and development report 2023. Available from: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdr2023_en.pdf
Weinhardt, C., & Barros Leal Farias, D. (2025). Developing countries in global trade governance: comparing norms on inequality in the WTO and GSP schemes. Review of International Political Economy, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2025.2455504
Leave a Reply