Do you have a route for it to gain power in the first place?
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulWell I guess it depends how uniform you want the world to be. I mean, the UN could maintain different economic systems and provincial political systems from region to region.
The military force could be a voluntary force of UN "peacekeepers" (since any kind of war is an internal issue, it's peacekeeping).
You could have UN organization for population control, space development, extraterrestrial territories (like a moon base).
^^ There are several possible ways. Neon Genesis Evangelion demonstrates one: A borderline Class 1 global disaster that puts the world on the brink of collapse for a few years (to quote Fuyutsuki, the first post-Second Impact years "were Hell").
^ Well, I wouldn't mind ideas for as many approaches as possible, be it a unitary one or a (con)federation. The one common factor is that this version of the UN is (at least de facto) at the top of the world powers' hierarchy.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Well, the United Nations is a technically intergovernmental organization since it's theoretically founded by multiple national governments. Is that distinct from an N.G.O.?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Well if it becomes too powerful i suppose it stops being an NGO. I would picture it has a volunteer service, because it's recruiting from the entire world population it would probably have to reject a lot of candidates rather than the opposite.
It could grow consensually to cover its power over most of the lesser and middle power nations (Africa, Mideast then parts of Europe, East Asia, South America, Canada and then finally it might be a last ditch war by USA/Russia/China, or China backs the UN, before finally taking over the world).
Do note that there is no single agreed upon definition for "non-governmental organization" in Real Life; what definition are you using?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Rezzing topic. Been so busy the last few months... Here's to hoping that the thread catches more responders this time around.
On another note, I'm interested in knowing the closest national government equivalents to the UN's five principal "organs"
:
- Secretariat
- UNKNOWN.
- General Assembly
- UNKNOWN; upper house of legislature? That's what one image caption in the page on the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly
says, anyway.
- Security Council
- UNKNOWN; not "department/ministry of defense/war", though. The closest that I can think of is the national security councils
(and equivalent government agencies) of various countries.
- Economic and Social Council
- UNKNOWN.
- International Court of Justice
- High court/ultimate judiciary (obviously).
edited 11th Mar '11 4:39:48 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.The Secretary-General of the UN is most like a president, having no ability himself to pass legislation (except he has no veto power).
The UNSC is most like upper legislature, such as a Senate.
The UNGA is more like lower legislature, such as a Parliament or like the USA, House of Representatives.
The rest would just be like ministries. The WHO would be health ministry, the economic one would be something of a ministry of industry/economics/finance or whatever.
How it would be organized depends on how you want it to affect the plot. Is it an actual independent entity, able to make decisions without (or even against) the will of its member nations? Is it more like a police force, only acting on things decided by member nations? Assuming you want it to have some autonomy but not be entirely independent, and have the teeth to enforce its rules, I'd organize it something like this.
The legislative branch would be the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Assembly would work basically like it does now; each member nations gets one representitive with one vote. The Security Council, however, instead of consisting of a few of the member nations, is filled by people brought up from within the ranks of the UN itself, so it's members are not beholden to any particular country. It still has veto power, though now it requires a majority instead of just one vote.
The judicial branch would be the World Courts. It would be used to resolve disputes between member nations, and to try individuals accused of crimes with global significance (assassinations of heads of state, war crimes, etc). In both cases, no appeal is available.
The executive branch would be organized largely as it is now. The Secretary-General is the effective head of state, various groups (WHO, etc) acts as government ministries, etc. Of course, now they're actually enforcing laws rather than organizing and making strongly-worded suggestions, which means it would need new agencies to do so. This would be things like custom checks with travelling between countries; a nation may have their own customs, but all member nations are subject to UN customs and border patrol agents.
Naturally, there would be a military arm. It would be a volunteer army (eg no conscription; in situations where conscription would be required, they co-opt national militaries instead) with a small "active" force and a large "reserve" force. Anyone can sign up for the UN military, but one cannot be a member of a UN military and a national military at the same time. Military units are deliberately mixed between different nationalities, ethnicities, and religion in order to discourage those sorts of issues from arising. Member nations would be required to allow the UN to set up a certain size/number of military bases on their territory; such land would become "UN territory" for the duration of its use, similar to how embassies work. The active force would deal with routine issues — gunboat diplomacy, civilian search-and-rescue operations, working against smugglers and pirates, etc. The reserve forces would be kept trained, but only activated in the case of actual warfare between or against member states. In war, their objective would be to end the war as quickly as possible and nothing else. If that means occupying a defending nation in place of an attacking nation in order to force both parties to the negotiating table, then so be it.
The whole thing would be funded by a tax on member nations. Paying the tax (a flat X% of your nation's GDP) would get you membership in the UN — entitled to a vote in the General Assembly, automatic inclusion in any UN-wide trade agreements, etc — in return for being subject to its laws. A member nation cannot be ejected from the UN (or refused entry) for any reason but refusing to comply with its laws or failing to pay their membership fee. Ejection is a last resort; up until that point comes public denouncement, economic sanctions, etc. If the conflict that prompts the ejection is with another member nation (eg, a territorial dispute), then ejection is usually followed by a declaration of war. Any member nation can drop out at any time for any reason, but immediately lose all benefits of membership, and are still liable for any unpaid membership dues. Any prepaid dues are not refunded.
Whew. There's probably a thousand details that you'd need to figure out for a proper story, but how's that sound as an outline?
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I was thinking along similar lines. I'll give a more detailed response later, as I am in dire need of much needed sleep. ^_^;
edited 3rd Mar '11 6:05:51 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Okay, I'm trying to flesh out a hypothetical framework for a One World Order-like N.G.O. Superpower version of the United Nations *, and would like to collect ideas on its various aspects.
Note: The following list is by no means exclusive; if you have an addition to it, you're welcome to post it.
New issues will be added when they come up.
edited 9th Oct '10 12:38:44 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.