ULUSLARARASI ÖRGÜTLENME VE KÜRESEL YÖNETİŞİM - Deneme Sınavı - 11

World government is an old idea in political theory that one authority can and should sustain order at the global level. Pax Romana and Pax Britannica, for example, are known as eras of relative peace and order in world history that was provided by a single power- the hegemon. We see the reemergence of this idea especially after the Second World War in the theory of world government. In post-WWII world, the United States of America is considered to be the world government with military bases all around the world. Therefore, the correct option is A.

In Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau wrote as follows: “There is no shirking the conclusion that in no period of modern history was civilization more in need of permanent peace and hence, of a world state” (Morgenthau, 1978: 503). Therefore, the correct option is A.

From a liberal perspective, however, world government may not be a sound proposal to world order. The question of “how we will get there from here” has not been deeply thought by the world governmentalists; and as this question has been answered so far, it has a utopian character either by the consent, by conquest, or by the people’s initiative. 

The second flaw in world governmentalists’ domestic analogy has been the derivative of their first assumption. They not only have thought that government sustains order but also that it is the government’s having the monopoly of power which basically sustains order in domestic politics. For one thing, government does not in the first place have a monopoly of power.

Finally, another flaw in world governmentalists’ analogy may be the idea that domestic order has been sustained by governments through the enforcement of law on individuals and so world order could be sustained by the imposing of global laws on citizens of the new world. This was, in fact, the logical conclusion of world governmentalists’ plan of dismantling the state as the main political institution.

Therefore, the correct option is D.

Functionalism, as another Idealist proposal for world order, argues for the organization of international cooperation not along the line of territoriality but of specific social and economic activities. It stresses cooperative nature of world politics rather than international conflicts and, as  such, addresses the problem of war and peace indirectly. Therefore, the correct option is B.

Starting with the early 1970s some worldorder scholars have come to be known as cosmopolitanists. These scholars have had such common views on international relations: (1) Environmental conditions pose a threat to order. As a result, the state has become obsolete as a political organization and it should be modified and preferably transformed in the long run; (2) a specific understanding of justice, “distributive justice,” should be achieved at the global level; (3) a global community is on the rise and that community would help achieve distributive justice; (4) in this process many new institutions both above and below the state level would be necessary to establish. Therefore, the correct option is E.

A specific group of scholars known as WorldOrder-Models-Project (WOMP) scholars (such as Richard Falk, Rajni Kothari, Ali Mazrui, and Gustavo Lagos) have both elaborated on this morality and given specific cosmopolitan proposals for a more orderly world. Therefore, the correct option is E.

One of the criticism leveled against the cosmopolitan approach is the cosmopolitanists’ notion of  distributive justice. A social order undoubtedly requires an understanding of distributive justice. However, it may be wrong to think that this understanding can be easily applied to the global level.

Wishful thinking is one of the criticism leveled against the functionalist approach, and is one of the criticism leveled against the legalist approach.

Therefore, the correct option is E.

Charles Beitz criticized the Hobbesian or Realist morality that he calls “international skepticism” as well as the legalists’ understanding of morality, that is, “the morality of state.”

The other thoerists are the ones who used collective security as an alternative system to the balance of power.

Therefore, the correct option is D.

"Through the domestic analogy reasoning one can conclude that world order is associated with a governable system where relations among the constituent units are managed through peaceful means. "

"Emery Reves, a prominent world governmentalist, has argued that the world as divided into nation states would inevitably be disorderly and war would be the ultimate means to solve differences among the nation states."

"Meyer urged that peace-through-power reasoning is wrong and that the internationalist approach, which fails to transform this reasoning, should be discarded. Meyer’s “plan for survival” was turning the UN system into a world government."

"The concept of legalism refers to a world-order approach that considers international law as the exclusive means to sustaining and promoting world order."

Neofunctionalism has been introduced as the idea of “peace in parts” by following the idea if each region in the world were peaceful, then, we would have perpetual peace at the global level. The correct answer is E.

"More than any other scholar, Ernst B. Haas deserves to be known as the founding father of neofunctionalism".

"A specific group of scholars known as WorldOrder-Models-Project (WOMP) scholars (such as Richard Falk, Rajni Kothari, Ali Mazrui, and Gustavo Lagos) have both elaborated on this morality and given specific cosmopolitan proposals for a more orderly world. "

Order in narrow sense refers to the absence of war in the system, and the concept on which scholars have elaborated for achieving that kind of order is the management of power. The correct answer is C.

Inis L. Claude, Jr. was not among Idealist scholars who regarded collective security as an alternative system to the balance of power. He argued that the idea of collective security is “almost universally and quite definitively rejected”. This is why the correct answer is A.

"There are two ideas on the balance of power as a system that deserve attention. First, the balance of power is a “fallback system” of international relations; in a multistate system, unless an alternate system is established for the management of power, it is natural for states to take care of their own security".

" Whereas historical forces such as international economic interdependence require global cooperation, the humanity has been trying to solve economic and social problems in a system of states divided by clear boundaries. The result is being the human misery and the deprivation of individual autonomy for the sake of national power. Therefore, Reves rejected the internationalist approach to order".

From a liberal perspective, world government may not be a sound proposal to world order. Its argument that the individual will enjoy freedom under a world government is dubious. A single government at the international level can hardly be conducive to the enjoyment of individual freedom, nor is it conducive to the promotion of community values. It is also in direct confrontation with a liberal pragmatic way of establishing the desired order through pluralistic means by a slow process. The question of “how we will get there from here” has not been deeply thought by the world governmentalists; and as this question has been answered so far, it has a utopian character either by the consent, by conquest, or by the people’s initiative.