In this chapter as a prelude to outlining the details of a possible supranational World Authority, the theories which underlie the contemporary set-up of the geopolitical world order are examined critically. This philosophical critique expands on the basic criticisms of the nation state as morally dubious and economically obsolete by going into the detail of what influential realist International Relations theories have proposed regarding the organisation of a world order based on sovereign nation states. The two predominant theories in this field are those regarding balance of (“great”) powers and zones of influence for the aforesaid “great” powers. It is shown that both theories are completely indefensible and even reprehensible in philosophical terms. Balance of powers theory has signally failed to bring peace to the world and is moreover based on a cynical premise of implacable hostility among nations and so among human beings, and this implacable hostility is even celebrated in tales of (violent) heroism and in educational curricula. Such a theory cannot recognise that while human beings are often evil and violent, they are also capable of love and peaceful cooperation. In the world of implacable hostility, the “great” powers claim a right to zones of influence so that they can feel secure, a claim very much on display in our own day. But zones of influence again assume irreducible implacable hostility among peoples, and they cannot but involve supremacist presumptions on the part of the self-appointed “great” powers in relation to smaller states.