Doing things by halves: On intermediary global institutional proposals

Abstract

Various cosmopolitan theorists offer global institutional prescriptions intended to be understood as residing conceptually between a system of separate domestic states and a federal world state. In this article I assess such 'intermediary' models, and claim that they are an unprofitable mix of idealism and misplaced pragmatism: they are ostensibly illustrations of future-oriented institutional ideals, and yet they are infused with concessions to present-day reality. In some cases, the concession is merely rhetorical: we are offered world state visions in intermediary clothing. In other cases, the concession is substantive, with the ironic result that intermediary models are in fact less feasible than the idea of a world state which intermediary theorists quickly reject. The overall aim of the argument is not to fully defend the idea of a world state, but rather only to demonstrate that there are reasons, from a cosmopolitan perspective, to consider a world state superior to intermediary models.