I took part in a contest for global governance concepts in 2018. The Global Challenges Foundation promised the main award of at least USD 1 million. I did not win it. Yet I think I did better than 3/4 of the participants who registered for the contest and did not submit anything in the end. Below is a summary of my concept and a link to the full text.
The Global Council (hereinafter referred to as the GC) appeared as a result of the initiative of several states and NGOs. It received broad powers to pursue its purpose – to secure the survival of the humankind. It became attractive for other states and membership-based groups because of its effectiveness in coping with regional problems, such as security, humanitarian and environmental issues. Promotion of the views that ‘everyone is a global citizen’ and ‘responsible means global’ helped create the public mood in which the states staying outside the GC were considered ‘rogue’ with questionable value for others. After a successful vote in the UN General Assembly, the GC replaced the Security Council. The necessary changes were made to the charter of the UN, the charters of the counter-balancing bodies – the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ), UN International Criminal Court (ICC), and to other legislation.
The creation of the GC signaled a paradigmatic shift in the international law. First, the directly applicable resolutions of the GC limit the sovereignty of states. Second, a group becomes the main subject of the international law. A group denotes a formal association of two or more people. A group can be, for example, a state, region, international political party, NGO, corporation, ethnic group etc. Land-based groups such as states are gradually losing their weight and are seen increasingly as service platforms for membership-based groups.
Groups send their representatives to the two chambers of the GC – the (lower) Chamber of Representatives and the (upper) Chamber of Judges. Groups assign their Representatives to the lower chamber according to the share of the global population they represent. To counter the selfish motives that are likely to dominate in the lower chamber and to ensure that the GC works in the interest of all, the upper chamber is composed differently. The groups nominate their candidates to it – reputable people with high moral, and then the groups vote in proportion to their weights, but they cannot vote for their own nominees. The top voted candidates become the Judges for three years. In addition, a duplicate GC is formed by the same rules and stays ready to act if the GC is unable to function for any reason, as determined by the ICJ.
Upon the initiative of any of its Members, the GC considers matters within its mandate (to secure the survival of the humankind). If time allows, it conducts a representative public survey, the results of which have consultative value. The lower chamber develops a draft resolution and adopts it by qualified majority of more than 50% of the chamber votes coming from more than 50% of the groups. This qualified majority principle protects minor groups from abuse by a small number of big groups. The adopted draft is then submitted to the upper chamber. The Chamber of Judges decide by simple majority of votes if the proposition is fair and should be approved, or not fair and should be returned with comments.
The GC can establish rules for all entities on the Earth, give orders and recommendations. They are directly applicable unless the GC decides differently. They prevail over national and other international law, including existing conventions that should be applied accordingly from now on. The only exception to the powers of the GC is the legislation that regulates the GC itself, including the legislation governing ICJ, ICC and other competent courts.
The GC resources come from: a) global environmental taxes (on air, international waters, exosphere, minerals etc) that are paid directly where practical; b) contributions from states and other groups. In addition, the GC can ask or order other subjects to lend some resources to it against compensation, including human or institutional resources – for example, R&D or military capacity. When compensation is not possible, the GC can expropriate some resources.
Non-fulfilment of the GC resolutions can be prosecuted. Individuals and membership-based groups are prosecuted in national courts, but states and other land-based groups are prosecuted in the ICJ. When other means are not effective, the fulfilment can be enforced by the action of the GC.
As the GC’s actions affect all, everyone shall have the possibility to influence them, and not only by delegating representatives to the GC, but also by knowing what it does and being able to counteract. All the GC sessions are public, and everyone can recourse to justice against the global government. Not only the GC as a whole, but also its Members can be prosecuted. The corresponding judicial system consists of the competent national courts and the ICJ as their supreme court with regard to the GC, and the ICC that has special powers to prosecute the GC Members. To ensure access to justice for everyone, the corresponding UN courts expanded and increased their efficiency.
The ICJ can pause or limit application of a GC resolution, or cancel it, wholly or partially. A compensation can be awarded to the injured party. A competent national court can adopt the same resolutions, but they can be appealed against in the superior national court and, after that, in the ICJ. The GC employs legal representatives to defend its resolutions in the corresponding courts.
The GC Members have diplomatic immunity during their office. However, they can be deprived of it and prosecuted thereafter. First, any person can file a claim against a GC Member to the ICC. If the Court finds sufficient grounds for prosecution, it can withdraw that Member from the GC by nominating him for replacement. Second, any Member can be nominated for replacement by the GC itself.
Transformative future analysis shows that the model can survive, with some adjustments, main transhumanist challenges, e.g. appearance of new races or species recognized to have personhood and certain rights. Other risks posing indirect threats to the model (e.g. dramatic rise of inequality) should be dealt with by the global government as part of its purpose – to secure the survival of the humankind.
Full text in pdf: here.