It would make it difficult to know who’s in charge.
Per Wikipedia article on anarchy in international relations.
Wikipedia defines anarchy in international relations as “the world system is leaderless: there is no universal sovereign or worldwide government”. Wikipedia also defines the international system as “independent states with no central authority above them”. According to the Wikipedia article on anarchy in international relations, “The Realist theory of international relations asserts that states are the main power players in international politics.”
I believe that the G-192 summit, modeled after the G-8 summit, would function as a worldwide government. I believe that the G-192 will show whether the Realist theory of international relations is true and whether or not there is a central authority above independent states. I am proposing the G-192 summit to be a summit where the only people in attendance are the 192 heads of government.
I take issue with the claim by Niccolò Machiavelli that the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed nature of humanity.
Questions in addition to the question in the thread title:
Could there be a central authority above the international system?
How would the Realist theory of international relations apply to the G-192 summit?
I’m not sure what you mean by “above the international system”, but there are certainly many attempts to create supranational organisations. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. Could there be one? There are several. The EU is one of the only examples of functionalism, and though it is by no means perfect, so far it is working.
It’s a good example of what is wrong with the realist theory, though I suppose it depends a little on if you want to take realism as being descriptivist or prescriptivist (it’s usually taken as being descriptivist, I think). You really need the theory of liberalism, neo-realism or functionalism to more accurately describe contemporary global politics. Liberalism (not to be confused with the term as used in US politics) argues that non-state actors also have a large role in politics. There are many levels of connections between states that constrain conflict. The complex system of interdependence means that often states benefit much more from cooperation. That does explain supranational organisations and you’re right to say that Realism does not.
How is the supra-national government chosen? What powers does it have?
Modeling your proposed supra-national government on the G-8 or G-20 summits doesn’t make any sense, because the existing summits are a perfect example of the lack of supranational governance. Member states are only members of the organizations because it suits them to be, and they are only bound by decisions made at the summits if it suits them to be. And decisions can only be made by consensus, which means every decision must be unanimous.
How is that going to work with 192 member states who have vastly different governments and goals? If you demand consensus of 192 states before an agreement can be reached, that means no agreements can be reached, and we’re back where we started.
And how do each of the member governments derive their authority to speak for their citizens?
The United Nations was founded, not as a global governing body, but as a talking shop where states that might otherwise be at war could potentially work out disagreements before they lead to war. That meant the United Nations was unconcerned with the legitimacy of the governments of the member states, the whole point was to engage with actually existing governments whether they were totalitarian communist dictatorships, absolute monarchies, theocracies, or liberal democracies, or any flavor in between. We didn’t need to agree with the Soviet Union just because the United States and the USSR were both members of the UN. The USA would never agree to a setup that allowed the USSR power over the internal workings of the US, and vice versa.
A legitimate national government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. And so would a legitimate supranational government. And that means that authoritarian states cannot be allowed to dictate policy to liberal states. Nor should tiny states dictate policy to large states, a government where the government of Tuvalu has equal say with the government of China is nonsensical.
A just supranational government must be freely agreed to not just by national governments but by the citizenry of the member states. And this is why there can be no supranational government at present, because states like China could not legitimately subordinate their citizens to the supranational government. Of course, the current national government of China isn’t democratic and currently holds power simply by virtue of not being so egregiously awful that the population revolts.
In short, I would not agree to be ruled by the Premier of China on one hand, or by the Prime Minister of Tuvalu on the other hand.
It could lead to a lot of deaths from alcohol poisoning when everyone take a shot when the number 192 is used in a drinking game.
I think that the G-192 would work better than the UN. There could be the G-192 in addition to the UN. Look at what happened at the recent UN General Assembly: US and Israel walked out while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was giving a speech. Agree or disagree with Ahmadinejad, it was still disrespectful for them to walk out. Not only was it disrespectful but also deleterious to deliberation, to democracy. Ahmadinejad is one of the 192 heads of government after all.
Now put all 192 heads of government in a room. What could happen?
They could talk to the ones that speak the same language. Or they could play some video games.
Inablility or unwillingness to talk does not preclude other forms of communication.
I think that was why they walked out. They don’t approve of the things Ahmadinejad says about their countries or the actions of the Iranian government (and Iran has no diplomatic relations with the U.S. or Israel).
Very little. From what I can tell, real diplomacy happens in much smaller settings and not in public.
Why does the prime minister of Tuvalu (population 10,000) get the same voice as the premier of China (population 1,300,000,000)?
Look, the heads of government of various countries meet all the time. The problems of global governance are not caused because the prime minister of Tuvalu and the Premier of China and the king of Saudi Arabia have never been together in a room.
As for the United States and Israel walking out of Ahmadinejad’s speach, well, that’s the point isn’t it? Countries disagree. Putting the heads of government together in a room isn’t going to get to agree. And if Iran decides that Israel should be dismantled, and 87 heads of government agree, does that mean Israel is obligated to dismantle itself?
Global governance only occurs when states agree to abide by global governance. No government is going to feel itself bound by the decisions of a bunch of dictators, that is why organizations like the G-8 are run by consensus–that is, the only things that happen from the meetings are the things that every state agrees should happen. Otherwise, states will simply drop out of the organization. China isn’t going to become a liberal democratic state no matter how many times a group of liberal democracies votes that it should be. And we here in Europe and America are not going to submit to the rule of a pack of dictators, no matter how many authoritarian governments decide we should.
A real supranational government can only come about as a federation of liberal democratic states that only allow other liberal democratic states to join. And decisions cannot be made by unanimous consensus, because that means nothing can ever get done. And it cannot be done by voting by state, because that means Luxemborg and Belgium and Denmark and Tuvalu get to dictate what happens in states with tens or hundreds or thousands of times the population. Nor can it be decided by vote by population, because that means Germany and France get to vote that Luxemborg should be dismantled and the population sold off for medical experiments.
It would be really interesting, to say the least, if Ahmadinejad were in room with Obama, the head of government of Israel and all the other heads of government - and no one else.
So then the G-192 would be run by consensus. The only things that happen from the G-192 summit are the things that every head of government agrees should happen.
No. No it wouldn’t.
Why not?
Because ambassadors at the UN don’t do anything more or less than what the heads of government tell them to do. Cutting out the “middleman” won’t make any difference at all. Not one bit.
Why would it be?
Interpretive dance?
Kozmik, I thought you believed that such a thing already existed. Is that the case?
Because, among other things, Ahmadinejad said in his UN speech that the voices of the “99 percent” were not heard in policy making decisions.
Ahmadinejad is wrong. The 192 heads of government are involved in policy making decisions, not the 99 percent, nor the 1 percent.