1

Jia Zhen Yap

Rhetoric R1B, Sec. 8
Annotated bibliography
1. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species
Membership. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006.
Martha Nussbaum is an American philosopher and Ernst Freund Distinguished Service
Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago whose works focus on topics such as
political philosophy, ethics, feminism, and animal rights. In this book Nussbaum talks about
three unresolved social problems, namely the problem in providing justice to people with
physical and mental impairments, the issues in extending justice to all world citizens, and the
problems in justice involved in our treatment of nonhuman animals. She proposes capabilities
approach as a solution for all three issues. This book discusses many philosophical theories such
as John Rawls's contractarian theory of justice and Aristotles philosophy. Therefore, it is
obvious that the targeted readers of this book are those who are interested and prepared to engage
in complex philosophical thinking. Also, Nussbaum discusses about the feasibility of a global
state in this book. Although she is an advocate of ethical cosmopolitanism, Nussbaum does not
support the formation of a global state. This paper argues, as does Nussbaum, that a global state
is not only unnecessary but not feasible because the size and scope of such a state would make it
very difficult to focus on individual citizen and might lead to undesirable cultural and linguistic
homogeneity. Nussbaum also explains that national boundaries has moral importance and
promotes autonomy. All these arguments support the argument of this paper against formation of
a global state.

2. Yunker, James A. Rethinking World Government: A New Approach. Lanham, Md.:

University Press of America, 2005.
The author of this book, James Yunker, is a Professor of Economics at Western Illinois
University, Macomb, Illinois. He also holds a Ph.D. from Northwestern University, Evanston,
Illinois. Unlike the previously mentioned book Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality,
Species Membership by Nussbaum, Yunkers Rethinking World Government: A New
Approach is in favor of forming a global state with centralized global government. The book
urges people to start acting towards forming a global state in lieu of continuing fruitless
discussions on the feasibility of a global government. James states several problems that
might arise along with the formation of global government, such as monopoly, nearmonopoly and heavy weaponry. However, instead of proposing solutions for such issues,
James urges all to focus on global governance for the greater interest in long term since the
mentioned issues exist even without centralized world government. This paper thus argues
that these issues will not have impact as disastrous under state government compared to
global government because the scale of state government is smaller. In a nutshell, this book is
slightly biased and intended for proponents of world government as it does not mention any
related but contradicting views on global state.
3. Benhabib, Seyla. Another Cosmopolitanism: Hospitality, Sovereignty, and Democratic
Iterations. London: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Seyla Benhabib is a Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University, and
director of the program in Ethics, Politics, and Economics. She also holds a Ph.D. from Yale
University. Just like Nussbaum in Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species
Membership, Benhabib supports ethical cosmopolitanism but not global state. In this book,

Benhabib discusses political cosmopolitanism and a tension within the world of liberal
democratic cosmopolitanism. She explains using examples of European countries that the
tension between the right to democratic self-determination within a particular boundary and
the universalizing demands of ethical cosmopolitanism is challenging but not impossible to
resolve. Benhabib proposes a resolution through processes of democratic iteration in which
majority within nation-states themselves embrace cosmopolitan values and incorporate such
values as their own (49) through their national legislature and other democratic bodies.
Unlike Nussbaum who focuses on the adoption of the capabilities approach by democratic
states to resolve issues of justice, Benhabib is more concerned about the fairness and
inclusiveness of democratic iteration. She believes that existence of national borders is
crucial to ensuring and expanding peoples ability to have a say in their own governance, and
this belief supports the argument of this paper that global state is not necessary since national
states are better in taking individuals voice into consideration. Although Benhabib believes
in the vitality of nation borders, she thinks that such borders can and must be porous (68)
to allow the freedom of exiting. This books intended audience is perhaps one who enjoys
serious conversations on political theories and cosmopolitanism as it involves basic
knowledge of European law, Kants and Arendts theories.
4. Miller, David. "Against Global Egalitarianism." The Journal of Ethics, 2005, 55-79.
Accessed April 9, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115815.
David Miller is an Official Fellow and Professor in Social and Political Theory at
Nuffield College, Oxford who received his BA from the University of Cambridge and his
BPhil and DPhil from the University of Oxford. In this article he proposes a radical idea of
redefining the understanding of equality and states that global government is not necessary

in instilling global equality since equality can be independent of justice. He argues that
pursue of equal global opportunities by global egalitarians does not make sense because
although inequalities around the world are obvious, there is no clear definition of equality.
According to Miller, equal opportunity does not mean identical opportunity unless everyone
in the world speaks the same language and shares same cultural background. Since identical
opportunity across the globe is not the goal, then there is no point in forming a centralized
world government because equal opportunity can be created within a nations borders.
Therefore, Millers view agrees with the argument of this paper that global government is not
the only and certainly not the best option in eradicating inequalities.
5. Castells, Manuel. "Global Governance and Global Politics." Political Science and
Politics 38, no. 1 (2005): 9-16. Accessed April 9, 2015.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044215.
Manuel Castells is a sociologist specializes in research on the information society,
communication and globalization. He is also recipient of 2012 Holberg Prize and 2013 Balzan
Prize for Sociology. In this article, Castells discusses the feasibility and practical improvisations
that should be done if men choose global government to be the solution for the society. Castells
points out various problems in global governance which supports the argument of this paper that
such government is not feasible. Firstly, he mentions coordination problem within a world
government that involves political, technical and organizational aspects. Not many with power
currently will be willing to lose their bureaucratic autonomy, and the effectiveness in
communication across states is still questionable. Secondly there is ideology problem where
nations that exist now will disagree on fundamental ideologies such as the priority of human
rights over the raison detat in security policy. World government does not allow exit of anyone

from any of its policy because if it does, then it is no longer a global government. This article is
for those who are generally interested in world government and it is not biased in pointing out
the challenges in such system and proposing possible solutions for the issues in order for global
government to function.
6. Ghosh, Arun. "The World Bank and the Attack on World Poverty." Economic and
Political Weekly 22, no. 44 (1987): 1844-1846. Accessed April 9, 2015.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4377655.
This article starts out by questioning the role of World Bank as a central force for
development and in lessening the pervasiveness of poverty in developing countries. Although
World Bank has taken the role of lending money to developing countries in order to support and
minimize obstacles on developments, the article has shown that developing countries have
actually paid out a net amount of $0.25 billion to the World Bank even before full repayment of
principal amount of their debt. Despite the report by World Bank stating that during the year
ended June 30, 1987, the repayment for $11.41 billion worth of loan was only $5.78 billion, the
interest income was $5.88 billion. In other words, between the repayment of principal amount of
past loans and interest in the outstanding loans, developing nations actually paid a net amount of
0.25 billion to World Bank. These figures question the role of World Bank as a central force for
development because it is actually gaining from giving out loans to developing countries.
Similarly, if we view World Bank as a model of centralized world government, it is not absurd to
question will such undesirable scenario occur as well? Will those with power in the world
government profit from the states who needs help instead of the other way round? This article
also demonstrates World Banks failure in addressing issues faced by developing countries by
using sub-Saharan Africa as an example. Although World Bank managed to identify some of the

problems faced by these countries, it has failed to propose workable and accurate solutions
because problems faced by each country are different and unique. This issue challenges the
ability and efficiency of a global government in resolving issues faced in different parts of the
world. Nation and state government is perhaps a better option as the issues addressed are more
local thus precise solutions can be done.
7. Kavka, Gregory S. "Nuclear Weapons and World Government." Monist 70, no. 3,
The Ethics of Nuclear Warfare (1987): 298-315. Accessed April 9, 2015.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903036.
Gregory Kavka was a professor of Philosophy in University of California, Irvine. He
received his B.A in Philosophy from Princeton University and Ph.D. from University of
Michigan. In this article, Kavka addresses nuclear weapon issues and opinions of many writers at
the time of the publication of this article that an international dialogue, to the extent of a world
government, should be formed to tackle such issues. In his analysis of analogous arguments for
world government, he mentions that several variants and versions of Nuclear World Government
Argument emerge, but none of them succeed in resolving issue with nuclear weapon. Therefore,
Kavka concludes by urging all to cease viewing global government as a prerequisite for the
solution of mankinds nuclear danger and concentrate on developing alternative ways of dealing
with this nuclear problem instead. Since so many versions of world government proposals have
failed, why would people still think that such government can be the solution for the issues the
world is facing currently?
8. Appiah, Kwane Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Kwane Appiah is a philosopher and a Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University who

holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University. In this book, he introduces partial cosmopolitanism
as a solution for mankind instead of ideal and impartial cosmopolitanism. This idea of partial
cosmopolitanism, unlike the traditional understanding of cosmopolitanism, allows the existence
of national borders and accepts the fact that people will tend to care more for those closer to
them, for instance, those within the same national boundary. If global state is formed and
everyone is impartial towards everyone, it is more difficult for one to care for others because one
does not comprehend the feeling of caring. Therefore, the existence of global state is perhaps
contradicting the idea of cosmopolitanism as an ideology of caring for everyone regardless of
boundaries because the most essential part of the idea, caring, is absent. Thus, Appiahs argument
support with the argument of this paper that national boundaries have their benefits and the world
is better with them than without them. This book is suitable for everyone as it does not require
the knowledge of any philosophical nor political theories. The language used is also less
technical and philosophical than the books mentioned before this. Appiah uses anecdotes and
practical examples in lieu of abstract philosophical ideologies to explain his view, making the
book less challenging to understand for many.
9. Murphy, Craig N. "Global Governance: Poorly Done And Poorly Understood."
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 76, no. 4 (2000):
789-803. Accessed April 9, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626460.
Craig Murphy is a research professor in the Department of Conflict Resolution, Human
Security, and Global Governance of University of Massachusetts, Boston. He holds a Ph.D. from
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In this article, Murphy explains that the most
persuasive form of contemporary global governance is one that avoids attacking state

sovereignty, favors piece-meal responses to crises, and has emerged at a time when creative
intellectual leadership was not matched by courageous political leadership. The global
government models proposed are paying too much attention on ethical and moral issues. As a
consequent, such government and its politics will provide an insufficient answer to moral
questions in the future. Murphy concludes that global governance is likely to remain inefficient,
incapable of shifting resources from the worlds wealthy to the worlds poor, pro-market, and
relatively insensitive to the concerns of labor and the rural poor since it focuses too much in
addressing ethical issues. However, this article is not biased as Murphy also acknowledges the
benefits of establishing a world government, such as promoting liberal democracy and
empowering women and gender equality.
10. "A World of Painthe Giants of Global Finance Are in Trouble." The Economist,
March 7, 2015, 71-72.
This article in The Economist talks about the gradual collapse of global banks in contrast
with the success of local banks mainly due to mismanagement and fierce competition. Global
banks in this article can be compared to global states idealized by many cosmopolitans. The
branches of global banks in different countries can be viewed as states under global
government. The branches of one global bank, although located physically at different places
with geographical boundaries, they are all under the management of the same headquarter.
National boundary does not exist among the branches for they belong to the same company.
According to this article, global banks are failing due to mismanagement because of
enormous scale of the company makes everything difficult to monitor. The article also
explains the challenge in communication among all branches as their subsidiaries struggled
to build common IT systems, let alone establish a common culture. It is very difficult to

establish effective communication that is crucial for any system to function properly because
many branches are far away from each other due to geographical separation. Under global
government, there will also be places and states that are too far away from each other to
communicate and share common culture. This will lead to mismanagement as happened with
global banks and then the fall of the government. On the other hand, the article shows that
domestic banks are performing relatively well compared to global banks. Perhaps due to the
relative smaller scale of domestic banks, thus national governments, communicating with
people is easier and individual needs can be better fulfilled. The targeted readers for this
article is everyone with interest and a little background knowledge on economics and
banking. Although there are some technical terms, it is an easier read compared to "The
World Bank and the Attack on World Poverty" because there are less technical terms and
figures.