I started a similar thread in the International Politics forum, but I wanted to focus this one more on the theory of current political unions and if you think that they're good or bad ideas. Undoubtedly, there has been a shift from the nation-state to international or global institutions, and elements of continental and global government have been developing in recent years. Of course, there are definitely economic and political circles that want to maintain the role of the nation-state as the primary actor in the international arena, and they do have a lot of popular opinion on their side; however, it seems highly unlikely now to completely turn back the clock on international developments since the 1990s.

So what is continental"ism"? Is this the middle ground between globalists and nationalists--a compromise? Or is it just a natural step in the formation of a world government meant to parallel the world economy? Perhaps most importantly, do you see any of these transformations as a good thing?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Well I don't think there will ever be a "world government." There are too many different groups, languages, religions, cultures, for one body to manage. There will I think be a movement toward larger regional bodies, like the EU, but i don't know how much farther it will go, politically, from there.

The closest i can see us getting to a world government is a united economic system of some sort. Globalization is already proving that borders mean little to corporations. I can conceive something like the EU where there is a united currency, but still independent countries of sorts.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

The general trend right now seems to be the formation of continental unions, like you said, but efforts at further consolidation are being frustrated by some. Popular opinion seems to be against the trend.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

It's understandable why. Further Unions are hard just because of the differences between two areas. Just look at the difference between Mexico and the US. while much trade (and people for better or worse) go across the border the situations in both countries are radically different.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

The is a trend in both directions, think about the the considerations of independance in Scotland or in the Flemish areas in Belgium.
I assume, that there will be always a desire for national identity and culture. A federalistic structure is more or less necessary for all big states. But a lobal governmentz, even with federal structures, is impossible, as long there isn`t a consensus about the common constitution and human rights.

__________________
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else

Claude Frédéric Bastiat

National movements are still strong, true, and it would be difficult to establish a global federation because of different norms in law and cultural values. Perhaps continentalism is a more pragmatic approach to international cooperation and governance. Reducing the number of international negotiating parties to seven or eight would certainly seem to ease the process of finding a consensus.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Namaste,

There is an interesting corollary that many people miss. The development of global interaction is paralleling much of evolution. Let me explain.

In the beginning of life there were individual cells. These can be compared to individual people. As time progressed cells started working together to create multicultural organisms and further levels of cooperation - organelles, tissues, organs, organ systems and so on. These are all part of the steady progress towards more complex interactive systems.

In the beginning of civilization there were individuals. They started working together in groups, then tribes, then cities and then nations. We are seeing the further cooperative efforts in civilization -- continental cooperatives and other works towards global civilization.

Of course, much like life there are those organisms that resist the next level. I am quite sure that cells resisted being incorporated into the larger organisms. In the same way, there are those who resist the further inclusion of themselves into larger and larger cooperatives. Nations who don't want to cooperate. Religious groups that don't want to cooperate. Racial groups that don't want to cooperate.
In the end, I don't think it will matter that some resist the idea. If society follows evolution then the changes will come and those who resist will simply become extinct.

In Peace,
Eglaein

__________________

One-celled organisms are far from extinct. Its not a very exact metaphore i think. Plus I dont think there are organism who 'resist' going to the next level. They are just built best for a certain task in the balance of nature. Changing would be counterproductive for them.