The Universal Republic: A Realistic Utopia? by Mathias Koenig-Archibugi explores the value and feasibility of a global government, an Enlightenment idea often dismissed as utopian and impracticable. Despite this dismissal and the resurgence of political isolationism, the book presents strong evidence of public support for a world democratic state. Simon Arthur writes that this thought-provoking reappraisal of the universal republic will interest scholars in international relations and politics.

The Universal Republic: A Realistic Utopia? Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. Oxford University Press. 2025.

The current state of international politics does not, at first sight, appear to be moving towards a united front towards any number of the threats that the world faces. American isolationism and unilateralism under Donald Trump, Britain’s exit from the European Union and a (seemingly) hard divide of ideologies implies that Mathias Koenig-Archibugi’s new book The Universal Republic: A Realistic Utopia? may be a case of bolting the door after the horse. Yet, as the associate professor of Global Politics at LSE states in the conclusion, his offering may “help open spaces for political deliberation and contestation that risk being foreclosed by insufficiently examined assumptions and inhibitions” (198). 

The hypothesis of A Universal Republic (UR) was born during the Enlightenment when Kant “maintained that the establishment of a ‘world republic’…or ‘state of peoples’ was demanded by reason (2). While what Kant faced was fundamentally different to us, such modern issues as nuclear proliferation and global warming seem impossible to resolve without global co-operation. Koenig-Archibugi notes that interest peaked in the 1950s, and while some organisations continued to work for it (such as the World Federalist Movement), many concur with Condorcet who, despite seemingly supporting the UR, wrote in a posthumously published manuscript that it was a “puerile illusion”(2). Attempts at a supra-federal government are often viewed with suspicion; it is hard enough to get people within a country to concur, let alone between countries. 

While the leaders of some countries are leaning towards increasingly isolationist policies, is this a fair reflection of the feelings of the citizenry of the world? The answer is, according to the data, no

Frederick the Great rejected the idea of a European Federation (“The thing is most practicable; for its success all that is lacking is the consent of Europe and a few similar trifles” (18), which leads to a key element of Koenig-Archibugi’s work: feasibility.  Theoreticians find it easy to dismiss UR as a hopeless dream, but does the empirical evidence support their claims? Koenig-Archibugi duly splits the book into two sections, focusing on achievability and feasibility. The first half discusses the chances of the realisation of the UR, as there would be little point in having this discussion if there was neither appetite for such a move nor the ability to materialise it. He goes on to examine what kind of restraints there may be on its actualisation, and whether they are insurmountable. The three key areas are motivational (do agents want to realise this: those in power are rarely, it is suggested, happy to sacrifice power), structural (would deeper differences between populations – such as size and cultural hegemony – prevent assimilation at a higher level?), and institutional (can we move any more power to international organisations, or are they at their limit?). 

While the leaders of some countries are leaning towards increasingly isolationist policies, is this a fair reflection of the feelings of the citizenry of the world? The answer is, according to the data, no. Koenig-Archibugi uses the International Authority Database to show a fair amount of power has already been transferred away by states and that “a non-negligible share of citizens in multiple countries is already sympathetic towards a democratic world state [which] suggests that the proportion of supporters would further increase under the right conditions” (97). Indeed, he finds that none of the theoretical resistance to a UR stands up to actual empirical interrogation. He concedes that it might not last for ever, but also reminds us that no democratic state does, yet there is little resistance to pushing countries to become more democratic. In fact, the UR has an above average chance of survival compared to such states, but the phenomenological is given unfair priority over the imagined for no good reason. Hannah Arendt may have feared “that a world state would become ‘a forbidding nightmare of tyranny’ (64), yet we find no evidence that this is truer than other existing states which are already sliding towards despotism.

While there is tension between the local and the global, this tension must also be faced up to

This leads the author to the focus of the book’s second half: while UR may be achievable, is it worthy of support? Commentators from Dante to Einstein have pushed for it. (Discussing the threat of nuclear annihilation, the latter commented that “I am convinced there is no other possible way of eliminating the most terrible danger in which man has ever found himself” (101)). Can a global government actually help us govern the world more effectively and democratically? 

It would hopefully, Koenig-Archibugi argues, treat everyone equally, promote personal autonomy, enforce laws which would enable this autonomy and create institutions that would be controlled by those affected by them. While there is tension between the local and the global, this tension must also be faced up to, a fact that Kant made as long ago as 1795, quoted saying “the earth’s surface on which, as a sphere, [human beings] cannot disperse infinitely but must finally put up with being near another” (112). Some decisions can be made individually, but increasingly we face issues – such as COVID-19 – that require a globalised response. 

The tension that exists in our globalised world is that we must pick two out of the following three options: continued international interdependence; the sovereignty of the nation state; and democratic responsiveness. Koenig-Archibugi argues that, as we cannot abandon the first – this is a fact of the world today – the next best option is sovereignty, if strong barriers are put in place to prevent the abuse of power, accepting that they need to be stronger than at national level due to the greater threat it would pose. Furthermore, there are issues that cannot be individually separated and voted on without sacrificing the optimal income. Said another way, there are actions that require a global unified decision to maximise positive outcomes.

There are always going to be unanswered questions in this kind of project, otherwise it would be infinite. However, one question I would ask is, how would this be funded, and in which currency? Using US dollars might be easiest, but how would that affect and change relationships? Furthermore, we have seen that when countries do try and act in an organised manner, things do not necessarily work out. The COP (the Conference of Parties, which meets under the UN umbrella to make decisions on climate change) is in its 29th year, and seems no closer to reaching a solution, while the UN itself (which states it is “the one place on Earth where all the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity”) faces pushback from China, Russia and America. What makes us think that another global talking board will be a success? 

We should be comparing a theoretical UR to existing democracies and not to utopian ideals of democracy

Koenig-Archibugi makes it clear in the introduction that he uses “a substantial number of assumptions that some readers may find unpersuasive or dubious” (8). Furthermore, he does not believe that a UR is an automatic solution to every issue. Rather, the book is an attempt to look at how we argue for or against it, and the need for empirical scrutiny of both sides. We should be comparing a theoretical UR to existing democracies and not to utopian ideals of democracy. UR cannot possibly live up to its own ideals, but in attempting to bring it into existence then it can help bring about positive change and improvement.  

The book successfully makes one both consider the possibilities and values of bringing about greater global governance and challenging the belief that the world is retreating into isolationism and protectionism, with strong support from empirical data. By doing this, the author hopes to fundamentally shift the conversation into supporting a UR, or at least grounding it in reality and not idealism. Students of IR, politics would find this book an interesting discussion about global democracy, whilst academics and researchers will find it a valuable jumping off point for further investigation into how a world federal government might look. 

Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image: Map sampler made at Pleasent Valley Quaker Boarding School by Polly Platt (1809) via The Metropolitan Museum of Art. License: Public Domain.

Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to our newsletter for a round-up of the latest reviews sent straight to your inbox every other Tuesday.