Abstract The question of whether global democracy requires a world state has with few exceptions been answered with an unequivocal ‘No’. A world state, it is typically argued, is neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, different forms of global governance arrangements have been suggested, involving non-hierarchical and multilayered models with dispersed authority. The overall aim of this paper is to addresses the question of whether global democracy requires a world state, adopting a so-called ‘function-sensitive’ approach. It is shown that such an approach is equipped to resist the predominant binary view of a world state (either accepting it or rejecting it) and offer a more differentiated and nuanced answer to this question. In brief, a basic presumption of a function-sensitive approach is that the content, justification and status of principles of democracy are dependent on the aim they are set out to achieve, what functions they are intended to regulate (e.g., decision-making, implementation, enforcement and evaluation), and the relationship between those functions. More specifically, within a function-sensitive framework, the paper sketches the contours of an account of global democracy consisting of five regulative principles and argues—utilizing the notion of ‘sufficient stateness’—that it would require supranational legislative entities and perhaps supranational judicial entities but not necessarily supranational executive entities.

中文翻译：

---

全球民主是否需要一个世界国家？

摘要关于全球民主是否需要一个世界国家的问题，几乎没有例外地用明确的“否”回答。通常认为，世界状态既不可行也不理想。相反，已提出了不同形式的全球治理安排，其中涉及具有权限分散的非分层和多层模型。本文的总体目标是通过所谓的“功能敏感”方法解决全球民主是否需要世界国家的问题。结果表明，这种方法可以抵制世界状态的主要二元视图（接受或拒绝它），并为该问题提供更加差异化和细微差别的答案。简而言之，对功能敏感的方法的基本假设是：民主原则的正当性和地位取决于其实现的目标，旨在规范的职能（例如，决策，实施，执行和评估）以及这些职能之间的关系。更具体地说，在功能敏感的框架内，本文勾勒出由五种监管原则构成的全球民主账户的轮廓，并主张-利用“足够的状态”概念-这将需要超国家立法实体，也许是超国家司法实体。但不一定是超国家的执行实体。以及这些功能之间的关系。更具体地说，在功能敏感的框架内，本文勾勒出由五种监管原则构成的全球民主账户的轮廓，并主张-利用“足够的状态”概念-这将需要超国家立法实体，也许是超国家司法实体。但不一定是超国家的执行实体。以及这些功能之间的关系。更具体地说，在功能敏感的框架内，本文勾勒出由五种监管原则构成的全球民主账户的轮廓，并主张-利用“足够的状态”概念-这将需要超国家立法实体，也许是超国家司法实体。但不一定是超国家的执行实体。