All countries have their own ruler (president) or dominant people who make rules or discard rules according to well thinking of citizens. All rulers handle their countries by scanning problems of citizens. All countries have different kind of people with different religions, language and culture. So it is not possible to handle all problems of the world by single person. Single person will not appropriate to understand the entire problem. I think that the nation-state is best institution rather replaced with a world government.
First of all, all countries have different kind of people. They will approach to their ruler who is only from their country and who can understand their problem. They will also found easy to convenience their problems to their own ruler. If it replaced with a world government, then to approve any rule may take long time, because of a world government. It will go on long process.
Secondly, people feel inadequate if they has ruler from other country. The way of thinking of people is different in different country. Any inadequate decision or rule may create dispute among the government and people. This dispute create problem on an international level. Perhaps, it may worsen and may lead to war.
Hence, nation-state is an appropriate institution for having fewer disputes among ruler and people. It becomes easy to solve any problem of people if have a nation-state institution. We should also have hyper authority to solve dispute between countries, but it doesn't mean that nation-state institution should be replaced with a world government.
suggest me is their any correction and whether i should include more in this essay