Government the Issues of Government in Today\'s

¶ … Government

The issues of government in today's world are quite interesting, elusive and difficult to ascertain. Slaughter & Burke-White's (2006) article illuminated many points about the relationship to domestic governments and international organizations seeking to rule and serve over the local institutions. The purpose of this essay is to discuss some of the important aspects of international government and how they relate to smaller, domesticated governments. This essay will suggest the international governments have little jurisdiction over its targeted groups while presenting a global nuisance to most citizens around the globe.

The authors of the article built their argument on the premise that "states can be part of the international legal system to the degree they choose by consenting to particular rules, (p.328). The important word in this sentence is "consent." Governments can only rule when they are given consent by the people who wish to rule over them and control their lives. While states are imagined to have consent, consent is a personal and subjective decision made at the individual level.

Before even admitting to the validity of this article's claim that despite the necessary consent, " international law and the international community itself are thus coming to have not only the right but in many cases also the obligation to intervene in and influence what were previously the exclusive jurisdiction and political processes of national government, (p.352). This egregious and aggressive stance taken against individual liberty and choice demonstrates these authors' fear of their own personal power and is seen as groveling towards the mammoth corporate power structures that appear to hold much power in today's world.

International governments, or any domestic government, have not rights, for these are not people and can hold no rights. People giving their consent to government is the only way that these institutions maintain this power. International government needs global consent, which, seems rather unlikely if not inane. What is real is the perceived threat of international government that these two authors appear so willingly to usher in despite the liberal traditions that have been earned and fought for over the last few centuries. While these two authors may be willing to hand over their personal power to international institutions, my perspective dictates a different outcome for most of the rest of the world.

The authors ignore practical issues as well in dealing with an international government. A quick glance around the world shows that governments are not very effective in maintaining any type of peace and order. How do international governments enforce their rules and regulations? This also is a problem for those looking to install this type of institution.

There is reason to think that international government can succeed when financial and economic systems that are in place today serve as quasi-global control systems. Paul Warburg, a banker instrumental in forming the federal reserve system, which is neither federal nor deals in reserves was quoted as saying in the late 1940's as " We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." Although these words seem fearful, they are but bloviated pleas to placate large banking egos that put too much faith in their own craft.