Replacing the United Nations with a Three-Level System of Global Governance
The global order created in 1945 under the United Nations has preserved relative peace for nearly eight decades, yet it now faces profound legitimacy and effectiveness challenges. The Security Council is increasingly paralyzed by great-power rivalries, while the General Assembly’s symbolic authority rarely translates into enforceable action. At the same time, pressing global issues—climate change, pandemics, cyberconflict, and resource competition—demand mechanisms of cooperation beyond the nation-state while still respecting sovereignty.
This white paper proposes a new international order built on three interlocking levels of governance—international, regional, and individual. The framework preserves national sovereignty as sacred, empowers regional authorities as first responders to conflict, and reserves the international level for only the most vital issues of peace, security, and universally recognized human rights.
Key reforms include a bicameral global legislature balancing population size with sovereign equality, a regionalized Security Council with more representative legitimacy, a constitution limiting international authority to essential functions, and a global trade union to enforce fairness in economic relations.
The United Nations system reflects a mid-20th-century power distribution. The Security Council’s permanent five (P5) membership grants veto power to a geopolitical order rooted in 1945, leaving much of the world underrepresented. African, South American, and South Asian states—home to billions—lack permanent voices, while Europe and North America remain disproportionately influential.
Moreover, the UN Charter provides no clear enforcement for its principles, leading to selective interventions, unimplemented resolutions, and systemic paralysis. Meanwhile, globalization has eroded the Westphalian model of sovereignty in practice, even as states continue to defend it rhetorically. The challenge is to design a system that respects sovereignty while ensuring cooperation on transnational issues.
Individual Level: The ultimate legitimacy of governance derives from the protection of individual rights. No global order can be considered just if it fails to safeguard the dignity and freedom of persons.
Regional Level: Most disputes are local or regional in scope. Regional organizations are best positioned to manage conflicts, drawing on cultural, historical, and geographic knowledge.
International Level: Reserved for matters of the highest order: inter-regional disputes, global security, universal rights, and trade fairness.
Nation-states remain the fundamental building blocks of the international system. The framework does not abolish sovereignty but strengthens it through predictable rules and balanced representation. States agree to bind themselves only in limited domains under a constitutionally defined international order.
Unlike the open-ended scope of the UN Charter, the new order is constrained by a written constitution. This prevents mission creep and ensures the international authority acts only in areas explicitly defined: security, rights, and trade.
To reconcile representation by population with representation by state, the international order establishes a two-house legislature:
General Assembly:
Representation proportional to population, with a guaranteed minimum for smaller nations.
Members serve short terms, promoting accountability and dynamism.
Senate:
One representative per state, regardless of population or size.
Ensures sovereign equality.
Legislation requires approval by both houses, preventing domination by either large-population states or small but numerous states.
The current P5 structure is replaced with a seven-member Security Council:
Europe (including Russia, to ensure integration and reduce East-West rivalry)
Africa
South America
North America
Western Asia
Central and South Asia
East Asia and Oceania
Each region selects its representative according to its own procedures, creating legitimacy rooted in regional consensus.
Decision Rules:
Any member may exercise a veto.
Vetoes can be overridden with a 6-to-1 Security Council vote plus a three-fourths majority in both legislative chambers.
This ensures stability against rash decisions while preventing total paralysis.
The constitution enshrines a minimal but non-negotiable set of universal rights, including:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion and protection from persecution
Equal rights for women and minorities
Due process guarantees and access to fair courts
States must maintain secular courts with universal jurisdiction.
Parallel religious or customary courts may operate but cannot override secular courts.
Individuals may voluntarily submit disputes to religious courts if all parties agree; otherwise, secular courts prevail.
This balances cultural pluralism with universal justice.
Global economic order is often undermined by asymmetry and exploitation. To address this, the framework establishes a Trade Union for Fair Practices:
Sets standards for transparency, reciprocity, and non-discrimination in trade agreements.
Arbitrates disputes between states on trade imbalances, subsidies, and violations.
Prevents unilateral exploitation while respecting state sovereignty over domestic economies.
Disputes should escalate only as necessary:
National level – handled domestically if possible.
Regional level – escalated if bilateral resolution fails.
International level – only for unresolved disputes, inter-regional conflicts, or appeals from member states.
This prevents international overreach while ensuring that no conflict festers without resolution.
Balance of Realism and Liberalism: Realist theory emphasizes state sovereignty and power politics; liberal institutionalism stresses the value of rules and cooperation. This framework synthesizes both: sovereignty remains central, but binding institutions foster cooperation.
Comparative Models:
The bicameral design mirrors the U.S. Congress (House by population, Senate by state) and the European Union (Parliament + Council).
Regionalized representation reflects the African Union and Organization of American States, which resolve disputes before escalation.
Precedents in Rights Enforcement: The European Court of Human Rights demonstrates how supranational rights guarantees can coexist with national sovereignty.
Risk of Gridlock
The veto override rules may slow decision-making.
However, deliberate slowness ensures that only measures with overwhelming legitimacy pass.
Cultural Resistance to Rights
Some states may reject universal rights provisions.
The framework allows for gradual accession and cultural pluralism in religious courts, while requiring secular baselines.
Regional Rivalries
Choosing regional representatives may be contentious.
But such disputes are themselves part of the regional self-determination process, fostering dialogue.
The proposed framework does not attempt to abolish sovereignty, homogenize cultures, or centralize global authority. Instead, it creates a structured balance: sovereignty preserved, regions empowered, individuals protected, and the international order constrained yet capable of decisive action when needed.
By replacing the outdated UN model with a constitutionally limited, regionally balanced, and universally principled system, this framework offers a viable path toward a more legitimate, just, and stable global order for the 21st century.