by Chris Dillow

The 193 governments that met at Copenhagen were unanimous about one proposition. And it’s a remarkable one – that whereas anarchy is a bad idea within national borders, it’s a good idea across borders.

The anarchist says: “We don’t need government. Private contractual agreements between individuals are sufficient.” No-one at Copenhagen agrees with this when they look within a national boundary. But they all agree with it, when it comes to supra-national matters. They think global government – in the sense of a coercive body standing above national governments – is inferior to agreements between national governments.

The failure to reach a meaningful agreement at Copenhagen, however, throws this view into question.

What I mean is that there are clear reasons why anarchy within borders is thought undesirable. If laws could only be reached by the unanimous agreement of all individuals, the rich and powerful would only consent to be bound by them on terms onerous to the poor.



The problem of collective action means that people won’t agree to contribute to public goods, preferring that the cost of doing so falls upon someone else. And on top of this is the sheer difficulty of getting lots of people to agree to anything.

However, all of these problems were evident at Copenhagen. Which poses the challenge to the 193 governments: if anarchy is a bad idea at local levels, why is it a good idea at an international one?

The question gains force from a key fact – people have evolved rules and institutions which can mitigate the problems of anarchy at local levels. But Copenhagen shows that such institutions are, perhaps, weaker at supra-national levels.

So, what defence do the 193 governments have?

It’s not good enough to hide behind “national sovereignty.” Why should this be a value, except insofar as it ecompasses individuals’ autonomy and self-determination – which, for countless governments, it does not?

The only answer can be that the costs of global government (within limited domains such as climate policy and protecting human rights) outweigh the benefits.

Such an argument can be made by global warming sceptics. But is it really tenable for those who claim that climate change poses “unacceptable risks” to the planet?