New world order

A world where the traditional rule by states becomes meaningless requires a new approach to international governance.

This would mean a 'United Nations' of the future would cease to be based on representing states, but would instead represent the most popular foreign policy-related frameworks.

With votes weighted by the number of people who have opted into these frameworks, the views of citizens would contribute directly to international governance as well as their own local governance.

Such a body could set meta-requirements for all other policy frameworks on important global issues such as human rights or the environment.

But a new world order, like a new national order, does not come without a series of issues which need to be considered.

How do basic human rights and environmental protection actually get enforced through such a system? Could the Taliban form its own policy framework and threaten war or otherwise terrorise people with differing views?

Protections at an international level would work in the same way as those at a national level.

For example, frameworks might be required to comply with 'UN' rules on human rights or cultural rights before they can be approved at a national level.

And the key remaining role of the state would be to ensure that choices are both administered as desired and chosen freely.

Could there be more subtle forms of cultural coercion that inhibit genuinely free choice? Yes, but there would be no reason to believe that these would be any more severe than at present.

And if any one group did resort to physical violence in order to enforce its views, then it is possible to imagine a UN-equivalent organisation adopting a meta-requirement that all taxes be increased slightly in order to contribute to a standing army which would be available to deal with such situations. Given that such a force would be funded globally, would not be at the command of any one state and would be enforcing norms agreed by people globally, its legitimacy in undertaking any such action would be far greater than any force can claim at present.

There are other potential problems too. Is it possible that national vetting could become a pinch point that allows the censorship of policy frameworks? This is always a possibility, but given the range of censorships in place around the world at present, it cannot be considered a step backwards. And given the tools that would be required to make such a system work, including user commenting, attempts at censorship are likely to be both obvious and swiftly exposed to criticism.

What implications might flow from such global institutional changes? Processes at the new UN would be different, with less of a role for power politics as it is currently practiced.

The dictum that 'politics ends at the water's edge' would cease to be applicable, replaced instead with a two-way flow of alliance-building and disagreement between like-minded citizens across states.

National interests become less distinct as different groups within individual nations find shared interests with foreign counterparts.