The problem of a world state: A conflict of global identity in theory and practice

Abstract

This paper represents an existing critique of Alexander Wendt’s theory of a ‘world state’ and invites responses to a new international theory. The argument is that Wendt’s account of the global identity formation of a ‘world state’ is paradoxical. It depicts the most authoritative agents in international politics as cyphers of a structural change that is one-sided and ultimately unifying rather than, as he implies, mutually constituted and defined by relentless struggle. This ‘agent–structure problem’ is addressed in this paper through a dialogue with Michael Oakeshott’s political philosophy. A more complex ideal type of a ‘world state’ is constructed and contrasted with Wendt’s. This frames an inquiry into the political rhetoric that drives a project of global reform between 2012 and 2022. A new theory of a ‘world state’ is elaborated with reference to: (i) the ‘foundations’ of agent-centred otherness in an international practice of the United Nations Security Council; and (ii) the structure to the moral judgements of a ‘We’. The theoretical conclusion is the logic of these events reveals the origins of a divisive conflict in an international practice which is irreconcilable with Wendt’s ‘progressive’ speculation about the uncontested future of global identity.