Considering the reasons for the creation of the UN after WWII, does it seem driven by
political necessity or political utility? In plainer English, do states need the UN more than
the UN needs the states? Or do states both large and small find the UN a useful tool for
improving their relative power and legitimacy vis-à-vis other states and global
institutions? Is there some position in-between?
 Identify at least 3 reasons that states might defend the intrinsic legitimacy of the UN as a
governing authority. In reverse, identify at least 3 reasons that states might criticize its
legitimacy and authority. In short, make an argument for the limits and possibilities of the
UN as a legitimate governing authority in a world of sovereign states.
 Using biblical and extra-biblical sources (The Bible, commentaries, teachings, other
writings, etc.) to inform your own reasoning, comment on the compatibility of a
Christian Worldview with the idea of World Government. [Attention: The Instructor does
not view the question as rhetorical, nor the answer self-evident. So, reason carefully.] For
example, if the logic of collective action under the Articles of Confederation—the logic
of state sovereignty—failed to secure American liberties as well as the ‘more perfect
union’, the new Constitution established by the Framers in 1787 to replace it, effectively
requiring states to cede sovereignty to a larger collective authority, why would the same
logic of collective action not justify the UN as a ‘more perfect union’ to replace an
anarchic system of sovereign states putting the world at risk in a nuclear age?