Authors: Martijn Smeets

The submission addresses the needs for consensus and identity and representation in global governance within the UN model. It proposes to remove veto-rights in the UNSC altogether and allow all five continents to elect one representative to represent their continent for a certain period of time. This new UNSC would make decisions based on a 4/5 vote. The model also proposes the creation of four agencies representing the UN in each member-state in the fields of justice, healthcare, education and economics. These four agencies would be able to involve the world’s population in global matters, while allow the UN to gain better knowledge of the specific needs and problems in the different nations. The four agencies would give the UN the power to both incentivize and penalize member states in accordance to their actions, as the effects of the agencies are keenly felt in everyday life. In order to finance the agencies, a flat tax on global trade would be instituted.


1. Abstract


The model is designed to bring equality and consensus while at the same time it creates incentive for nations to develop further and work together in an effective, environmental friendly and peaceful way.

The model I’m presenting is seeking to reorganize the United Nations in such a way that it deals with obstacles in two major areas. These two major areas are identified as being ‘Consensus’ and ‘Identity and Representation’. The model itself has been deliberately designed as centralized and straight-forward as possible to make it easier to implement while at the same time also allows for smooth and swift processes.


Consensus has been identified as a, if not the most, problematic area the United Nations is facing. A lack of consensus is challenging the legitimacy of the organization and is slowing down, or in some cases blocking, successful implementation of policies. It is important to note that often there is general agreement about the existence of the problem faced, but that the lack of consensus only appears in the solution-stage.

The cause of this lack of consensus is the political and economic differences between the developed and developing nations. In the past years this has caused developed nations to pull out of the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol and the looming collective exit of the African Nations (developing nations) out of the Rome Statute. Unfortunately both these two examples are concerning the important issues of climate change and justice.

If we look at inequality it has to be noticed that all five founding members with veto-rights are developed nations. On top of that, three of these five are European nations. If the United Nations seeks a more equal system it is suggested to remove veto-rights altogether and allow all five continents to democratically elect one representative to represent their continent for a certain period of time to replace the current Security Council.

This new UN Council will make decisions based on a 4/5 vote. Since there are no longer veto-rights it will require two of the five to stop implementation of proposals. This also serves as to remove a certain ‘perceived immunity’ for founding members. Although in this model there is no physical Assembly it has to be noted that all nations are represented through their elected representative and that all nations are free to discuss all matters with their representative and other nations at any given time.

Of all the changes to the current system this model is suggesting this must be the hardest one to implement. But if the United Nations seeks a truly equal and democratic system it has no choice but to abandon the veto-rights. There is simply no way that in an organization consisting of 193 members it only takes one member to stop a resolution to be executed and still call it a democratic system.

Identity and Representation have been identified as the other major problematic areas. There will never be any general global consensus or support for the organization if the people don’t know what they do or what they stand for, although the United Nations is actively involved in almost every aspect of our lives. To test this theory I randomly asked people to name me three United Nations organizations or organizations that are subsidized by the United Nations. Conclusion is that if the United Nations was a commercial company it would have to sack the entire marketing department.

The model brings forward four agencies that will be representing the United Nations in each member-state. These four agencies will be active in the fields of justice, healthcare, education and economics. The idea is that the United Nations is truly and physically there for all people. It also allows the United Nations to gain better knowledge of the specific needs and problems in the different nations.

While UN Health and UN Education are going to be two agencies that supply mainly advice, resources (for example a free education platform) and assistance, UN Public Protector and UN Market will be executive agencies. The International Criminal Court and UN Peace will see major changes in order to provide swift justice and assistance. The main focus of the new justice system will be at prevention rather than prosecuting.

In a capitalist age and society nothing makes more sense than to place a strong executive arm in the marketplace. UN Market’s main goal will be to put out incentive for nations to follow up on agreed policies and, if necessary, penalize nations. The basic idea is to reward nations for following up on agreements and discourage wrongdoing.

Since UN Market is involved in every single member-state it can also effectively and swiftly implement and control embargos in case of acts of war or aggression if the UN finds this necessary. Penalties, sanctions or embargos towards a nation coming as a result from a verdict by the International Criminal Court and will be executed by UN Market.

UN Market will also be responsible for the funding of the United Nations Treasury. It will introduce an UN tax on global trade to replace the current funding system.

In the model UN Market falls under the Development Group. As part of this group UN Market will also create incentive for the development of environmental friendly and effective forms of energy, agriculture, transportation and production in general.

There will also be Resource Distribution which will focus on bringing down the cost of essential food and water in a way that minimizes financial impact on the markets.

The model is designed to bring equality and consensus while at the same time it creates incentive for nations to develop further and work together in an effective, environmental friendly and peaceful way. In the following pages I would like to take the model apart and in detail discuss the different groups, their tasks and responsibilities, connections and funding.

2. Description of the model


When we speak about authority in this model we speak about the international rules and regulations the member states agreed upon. Sanctions and resolutions by either the ICC or International Trade, approved by the UN Council, are also considered binding.

It is important to notice that membership is voluntarily and that it is understood that all members are seeking prosperity without causing harm to others.

Although the United Nations will not interfere in the internal affairs of any member state the people of the state can appeal for assistance from the UN Public Protector if human rights get violated. The UN Public Protector will then liaise with the Justice Department of the state. If no solution can be found within a reasonable period of time, the UN Public Protector will refer the matter to the ICC.

The regulating departments in the model (Peace, Energy and Resource Development) will negotiate and oversee agreements between member states.

– The (International) Peace department will oversee territorial disputes and other military related developments. If necessary they will refer matters to the ICC.

– The Energy and Resource Development departments will oversee agreements related to environmental impact and if necessary will refer matters to International Trade.

– If a matter cannot be resolved by the ICC or International Trade, or if any party is not satisfied with the solution, matters will be referred to the UN Council.

For this model to be feasible we now need to establish how this new United Nations is going to be financed. I mentioned in the introduction that one of the responsibilities of UN Market is the funding of the United Nations Treasury. I therefore would like to continue the description of the model by focusing on this topic.


If we look at the current funding model for the United Nations we can identify serious weaknesses. The system in its own way acknowledges this by the terms like ‘assessed and voluntary contributions’ while there are set ‘ceiling and floor rates’. This system leads to endless negotiations and discussions, piles of paperwork, and it really needs to go.

The most fair and equal form for financing the United Nations would be implementing a tax on world trade, hence this becomes UN Market’s responsibility. To emphasize how minimal this tax can be one only has to look at the numbers. The two-year budget for 2012/2013 was $5.512 billion, which works out to an average $2.756 billion per annum. In the following year (2014) the value of global trade totalled to $19 trillion. Global trade alone could have financed the United Nations in this case if it was taxed by a mere 0.015%.

For the United Nations to provide a decent life for all on this planet, and create emergency funds, a tax of 1% will give them 66 times the current annual budget. For the members this will bring benefits outweighing the costs. It is not hard to imagine that the global economies, especially in developing countries, will grow at a faster rate as the UN supplies improved education, healthcare and resources.

This 1% tax will also create greater equalization and fights corruption. The past has shown that there are (developing) member states which are not helped by contributing absolute floor rates and getting financial assistance due to high levels of corruption. In the new model developing countries and their people would be lifted by direct input of resources and assistance through UN Public Protector, UN Health, UN Education and UN Trade rather than financial aid.

In the part “Economic Development” I will explain how International Trade is going to utilize this 1% taxation in detail.


I would like to continue by having a closer look at the Development section of the model. This section is most important as this is where we find solutions for issues like poverty, food shortages and environmental problems like global warming.

It also contains International Trade to create incentive for fair and equal distribution of resources and investments. Education is placed in this section as I believe that development and education should go hand-in-hand. Both have a very emergent nature and the organization as a whole should benefit from scholars, innovators and developers kept close together.

At the heart of this section we find Resource Development. Global warming and potential over-population are both related to our own way of living together on this planet with Mother Nature. The problem with the growth in the population is not that there is no space. The problem is our CO2 footprint and further growth will lead to an unsustainable situation.

Our CO2 footprint is not just caused by energy production and deforestation. It’s also what we eat. Fortunately we see a growing number of people who realize that a vegetarian or vegan diet is not only more animal friendly but that it also do reduce our CO2 footprint dramatically. Unfortunately too many people still believe that meat is an essential part of our diet. Since various clean resources already have been developed to produce energy it is now up to Agriculture and Education to create a more sustainable environment.

Besides reducing the CO2 footprint Agriculture will also be responsible for implementing more effective ways for the production of food. One cause for the rapidly growing population that has to be taken into consideration is the rise in life expectancy. The consequences of this will be further discussed when we take a look at Health, but out of agricultural point of view we need to find more effective and sustainable ways to provide enough food.


Environmental Impact Research will keep a close eye on not just our CO2 footprint but also on the effects on the entire environment, including all flora and fauna. Uses of harmful pesticides for example are a threat to essential insects like bees. If those insects are becoming extinct it will negatively influence all life forms on this planet. It is crucial that we find ways to increase food production without damaging the environment.

Global Research will focus on what crops can be grown where, when and how. Our planet has a rich variety in climates and soils. In order to eradicate hunger and malnutrition we need to study this out of a global point of view. Global Research can take the total global demands in consideration and make suggestions accordingly. Studies will also be done towards alternative ways to grow crops.

Energy Globalization will study and promote environmental friendly production. It can also negotiate agreements between nations and use incentives or investments through International Trade (Resource Distribution) to stimulate utilization of wasteland areas suitable for production. One can imagine how much solar and wind energy can be harvested in for example the Sahara Desert if an agreement and investment could be arranged by the United Nations.

Resource Development will oversee general agreements relating to environmental friendly and sustainable ways of production, transport and infrastructure.

Water Works will study and negotiate cost-effective ways to supply drinkable water globally. The reality is that in many developing nations many people don’t have access to drinkable water. Economic circumstances and low prioritization or corruption by governments are the main causes of this. Water is essential for life and should be acknowledged as a right and not a privilege. Resource Distribution (International Trade) will also be involved with this as it will create incentive.


The main duty of Education will be the establishment of a global UN Education System. This system is not meant to be a replacement for existing systems. It will function as an interactive platform where knowledge regarding different fields (for example Agriculture or Health) is made freely available as study material. It will also allow students to follow and interact with research teams.

This system will be accessible not only to students but also to the general public. A farmer for example has access and can follow developments in his field of work and interact with others or a research team for advice if necessary. Lawyers and prosecutors can discuss ongoing cases worldwide on forums that also include law students.

The main goal is to make the latest knowledge and developments available to all and create equal access worldwide. UN Education will create networks of ‘hotspots’ in areas where access to the internet is not easily available or unaffordable. At those points people are offered access to the platform and assistance.

These systems will also relief religious and racial tensions as the people will be generally better informed and thus more accepting.

Although UN Education does not replace existing systems it will offer assistance or integration with education systems if requested.


In “Fair and Equal Taxation” I described the 1% taxation on international trade as funding for the new United Nations. In this part I would like to describe how International Trade is going to utilize this taxation to reach the goals of this model.

It is a common practice in trade and economics to use rates as means to get desirable ends. Economists and lawmakers should then not be surprised when this model is using this same principle as means and ways. Almost all problems we face (wars, poverty, hunger, health, environmental, etc) are rooted in economic profits and positions. This model intends to reverse this by creating a situation wherein harmful acts lead to undesirable economic losses and weakened positions instead of profits and strengthened positions.

An example we can all easily understand is the ongoing war in the Middle East. Whatever motivations were ever given via the official channels, many understand this is about control of the ‘black gold’ and maintaining the US dollar as the world’s leading currency. In the model suggested here UN Market would have taken measures the moment the first bomb hit the ground.

By adapting rates an economic climate would be created in which the USA would instantly become a very undesirable trading partner. In the existing model this is simply impossible as the USA has a veto-right in the Security Council. In the democratic new model a 4/5 vote is necessary in a council with no veto-system. So even if it was the case the USA was elected to represent the continent of North America, the other four still can hold the USA liable and give UN Market the green light to proceed with measures.

The 1% trade tax is a floor-rate to guarantee operational costs of the United Nations are covered. If nations are penalized for not functioning according agreements International Trade will raise the rate applicable for this nation. If a nation disagrees with International Trade regarding the rate applicable to them they can apply for the UN Council to review the matter. In a trade between two nations were different rates are applicable the highest rate applies.

Tasks for International Trade include economic development and resource distribution. Like I mentioned before, the 1% is to cover the operational costs. All additional funds collected will be held by Treasury and can be used by the departments of Economic Development and Resource Distribution.

Economic Development will supply non-financial resources to developing nations to assist in their economic growth. We will have a look at the example of the Kyoto Protocol and how Economic Development could have assisted here. I like to use this example because it concerns agreements regarding CO2 emissions and thus shows the connection between developing economies and environmental issues.

When the first period of Kyoto targets ended various developed nations announced they will work on reducing CO2 emissions but were not prepared to be part of a new agreement. One major reason was that targets were basically non-existent for developing nations. Most developing nations could not realistically afford for example to replace old coal-burning energy plants with newer environmental friendly alternatives. This is understandable. But then developed nations had to live up to their targets and watch more CO2 going up into the atmosphere in the first ten years of the Kyoto Protocol than was emitted in the 10 years before the agreement. A failure.

What could Economic Development have done here? They would have build solar and wind farms in developing nations. This is just an example. But in this case targets could have been set as well for the developing nations and they could all have been part of the agreements as equal parties.

As another example, Economic Development can also assist with water purifying facilities or involve developing nations into projects with Energy Globalization. The main goal is to create economic equality between nations by uplifting the ones that have fallen behind and create incentive for strengthening of economic ties between the developed and developing nations. The rates system UN Market uses does not just punish, it can also reward.

Resource Distribution will focus more on fair distribution of essentials like food. Markets in general like to give away the impression that there is scarcity. And in the way they frame it, they don’t really lie. But have a look what is happening right now in March 2017.

The United Nations have food programs running in South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria and need $5.6bn funding for this year to avoid a catastrophe.

There are two questions we should ask ourselves here. Firstly, would the precondition exist in these nations if the suggested model was implemented 20 years ago? And secondly, should essentials like food and water come with such a price tag due to the market system?

The new model would have created far more equality and little or no wars so it is unlikely the same preconditions would exist. Nigeria has a very lucrative business in the oil industry but due to corruption most of the profits ‘vanish’ and the government is not looking after its people. If in the UN Market system Nigeria has any hope of continuing their oil trade they have to change their position towards their own people.

A lack of financial means leads to real scarcity of food in developing nations or in the aftermath of disasters. But let’s have a look at the difference between real and perceived scarcity (the way the market system frames it). At this moment we living on this planet with 7.5 billion people and we produce enough food to feed 9 billion people. Hence the fact we will need Resource Distribution to secure that internationally traded essentials like food products are available to all at a minimal cost and we don’t have people starving for bigger profits.

How is Resource Distribution going to function? There is a great danger in the monetary value of essentials, or at least the profitability of the trade. Not only are they hardly affordable for the poor as it is, in times of turmoil militant or corrupt organizations use ‘trading’ in essentials as a way to finance among other things weapons. Resource Distribution should establish that essential food products (caviar is not essential) are available and affordable to all, and at all times, using even UN Justice channels and UN intervention if necessary.

Ever heard the saying “Only humans pay to stay on this planet” and thought about it? It shows the absurdity of the system. I dare you when you see a tiger drink from a river or eat his prey to go and present him a bill. We can’t just transform the entire system into a non-monetary Resource Based Economy (for example) overnight. But the industrialization eventually brought an end to scarcity and so there is no justification for increasing food prices. As a matter of fact, since there is abundance prices should actually decrease.

Resource Distribution will set ceiling profit margins on essential food products and water. In order to still maintain sufficient incentive for the agricultural sector there will be a subsidy system to reward farmers based on their production and CO2 footprint. A similar incentive system will be in place for governments that ensure drinkable water is supplied effectively at a minimal cost to the people.

As for the logistical and retail costs and profits, here lays the potential danger for collusion. There are generally existing judicial procedures in place to prevent this and hence the UN will trust these sectors to not take advantage of this situation. In the following paragraph I would like to describe why in both the developed and developing world it will not be expected to lead to massive losses for the retail sector anyway.

The amount people spend in the developed world on what would be seen as essentials is minimal compared to ‘luxurious’ goods. In the developing world the lower prices will lead to higher quantities being sold to compensate for the profit loss ‘per item’. Let’s put it this way; if the people had 10 billion to spend on shopping today, they will still spend 10 billion on shopping tomorrow. Even better for the retailers is that if essentials become more affordable people will spend more on luxury items where in general profits are higher.


I think the first duty of society is justice” – Hamilton

“If you are neutral on situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor” were words spoken by Desmond Tutu. In the introduction I spoke about the weak identity of the United Nations and the lack of consensus the organization is facing. If Hamilton is right and justice is the first duty of society, then surely the United Nations has failed on many occasions to represent society.

Not that the effort isn’t there. But unfortunately the current model with the veto-system creates a kind of ‘immunity’ for certain members. I’m not talking merely about atrocities like the 2004 invasion on Iraq or the Russian annexation of the Crimea Peninsula, both times when the Security Council stood powerless. We have also seen NATO preventing genocide in former Yugoslavia and then had to be ‘judged’ by a commission because the intervention was apparently illegal as there was no permission from the Security Council.

Luckily the ruling was that the intervention was “illegal but legitimate”, but I think we can all see the moral complications for this current system when it comes to justice and equality. This is definitely not good for the UN’s identity and it will certainly not contribute towards any consensus. To illustrate this, NATO didn’t really bother to go to the Security Council before they acted. Or the African nations that want to pull out of the Rome Statute / ICC because of this aura of it being an unequal justice system.

This suggested model will have no veto-system and if a situation requires an UN Council decision, it does not require a unanimous vote. All matters will be primarily handled by the UN Public Protector which will try to resolve the matter without the involvement of the ICC. Only when no solution can be found within reasonable time will the matter be referred to the ICC for judgement. If the matter forms a serious threat to the people the ICC will also request a review by (International) Peace in order to establish if intervention is optional or required.

As one might have noticed the role of the ICC will also slightly change. The ICC will assume a broader position by incorporating previous tasks of the Security Council and focus less on the prosecution of individuals (although it still can if required). It seldom happens that atrocities are committed and one can isolate a single individual as the sole person responsible, hence the model works on the social and economical environment and not tries to create any ‘satisfaction’ out of the prosecution of a single individual.

Besides advising the ICC the Peace Department will have mostly a negotiating role between nations and seeks solutions for territorial disputes or other areas where tensions run high. The department will also assist in nations where militant uprisings occur and the nation itself is not capable of dealing with the situation. If military intervention is unfortunately necessary, and with the ICC’s approval, member states will be requested to assist with armed forces in exchange for economic benefits.

The UN Public Protector will play a crucial role in the field of healthcare as we will see when we discuss this subject.


Earlier I mentioned the rise in life expectancy as a major cause for the fast growing population. If this is going to be an ongoing trend in the future, or will stabilize, has to be seen and is difficult to predict. Personally I see the rise as a result from the ‘baby boom’ in the mid-twentieth century combined with improved healthcare. Since that ‘boom’ we see much less urgency in people to reproduce, hence I expect stabilization to a slower growth rate.

Either way, in the coming years these ‘boomers’ will be added to the already large group of pensioners and elderly. This will lead to economic consequences as the balance between ‘contributors to and dependants of’ the economy shifts. Taking in consideration even more people will become unemployed due to mechanization of industries the economy and thus healthcare are going to be confronted by more and more dependants.

Like mentioned earlier regarding Resource Distribution, we speak about essentials. The Free-Market system has made healthcare coming with an expensive price tag in many nations. Ironically enough, if we see the USA as one of the world’s leading economies, the perceived ‘Invisible Hand’ has completely failed if it comes to healthcare. The cost of healthcare can be dramatically reduced if there would be more regulations and an end would be made to the practice of patenting in the medical industry. I would actually like to go that far as to state that exposing healthcare to the Free-Market system is pure structural violence.

International Health will continue the work the United Nations have done so far in the field of healthcare. They will also assist with resources in emergencies like outbreaks or natural disasters.

Local Health will analyze individual nations’ needs and the affordability of healthcare. Regulations in health-insurance markets differ very much globally and regulations also seem to affect those markets very differently. For example, what is so successful in many European countries for many years is a disaster in the USA. Other countries have no private sector at all and are successful. Local Health will advise governments in successfully implementing regulations in order to keep healthcare affordable.

To go back to the original point made, the mentioned shift in economic circumstances might mean more healthcare staff needs to be trained. With unemployment rates so high in many nations training programs can be started in healthcare. The fact you were educated, but unemployed, in construction does not mean you cannot look after an elderly in a wheelchair. These programs will relieve pressure on those specifically higher educated for professional healthcare and also will have preventive advantages. Although this sounds ridiculously logical the reality is that most unemployed simply cannot financially afford this.

As we can see there are no authorities or regulators in the Health Department. This is mainly due to the fact that healthcare is more responsive (in nature) to different needs, often unpredictable ones. Hence the fact the model rather gives importance to the consequences of the growing group of dependants and the high cost of healthcare, the bigger picture. The mentioned problem of structural violence in healthcare (availability and affordability) should be dealt with by the UN Public Protector as this really is a human right issue.


To end the description of this model we have to look at the elective processes and the distribution of the available financial resources.

Each continent will be represented in the UN Council and in both other organs of authority, as well as in the working committees of each of the 3 branches in the model. Each continent is free to chose the procedure and other terms and conditions in which the elect their representatives. This is to keep the process as democratic as possible and to protect cultural differences.

In a nutshell, each continent nominates (on their own terms) representatives for;

– the UN Council

– the ICC

– International Trade

– Justice

– Health

– Development

The UN Council will then appoint positions within Treasury and the working committees will appoint positions within their branches besides those directly elected. All decisions and appointments made by these ‘Groups of Five’ need a 4/5 approval. As explained earlier, this is to prevent one individual nation blocking processes and to avoid ‘perceived immunity’.

I would like to state again that the falling away of the Assembly and Security Council should not been seen as a reducing in the democratic process. The idea of the ‘Groups of Five’ is aimed at creating closer cooperation and unification between the continental nations behind the scenes and to speed up processes within the United Nations itself. In an ironic way, having an Assembly wherein every single nation has a seat and the concept of rotating members for a Security Council (with a veto-system) are defeating the point of representation in the democratic process.

Now I like to move on and look at the distribution of financial resources by Treasury. The new system for funding will see a huge increase in the United Nations budget and the policy is to preferably supply non-financial aid and assistance. There will be no allocation of budgets to the different departments, a very centralized approach.

Budgets have a very funny effect on decision making because policies are based on a budget. Development might have to postpone the building of a water purification facility in a developing nation because they only have the funds available again next year while at the same time Health is researching the physiological implications of earrings on hamsters because they are afraid next year their budget might be cut if they don’t spend more money right now.

In order to be able to respond effectively to needs in society it is crucial that decisions are made based on reasonable, rational and prioritizing thought rather than budgets. This policy is possible as it is expected more than sufficient funds will be collected. Obviously all departments must be transparent in this and be able to motivate their expenses.

Financial aid and assistance often turns out as corruptible, either intentionally or unintentionally, and in general does not solve the root cause of the problem. Let’s have a look at an extreme example like famine. If the situation is not caused by a natural disaster it indicates the food supply system was not efficient to begin with. Boosting this system with millions or billions of dollars is then also not the right solution. The most (cost-) effective solution would be for Treasury to supply essential foods as a short-term remedy and ask Resource Development to build for example vertical farming facilities in the concerned nation. This would have long-term environmental friendly benefits not just in the future food supply, but it also creates employment.

A solution like this might cost the UN 2 billion dollars, but it can be expected the problem is solved. Now just imagine the UN would have donated that same 2 billion dollars as financial aid? That’s where the corruptible factor comes in, intentional or not. The books will show these funds were really invested in agriculture but the people are hungry again.

To understand the magnitude of this problem with financial aid one can look at charities in general. People were shocked to find out years ago that sometimes less than 10% of what was donated actually went to the charity and that the rest disappeared in ‘administrative costs’. I state again this corruption can be completely unintentional, but for solutions to be most effective financial aid should be seen as a last resort.

By means of the increased budget and a cost-effective policy a surplus will be created. From this surplus contributions will be made to emergency funds if necessary and to support the establishment of a Universal Basic Income. This establishment of a Universal Basic Income on a worldwide scale will result in a form of redistribution of wealth. The United Nations cannot force this concept upon members though and will refund all nations per capita annually regardless of the fact if they support a Universal Basic Income.


All United Nations organizations or subsidiaries will be reviewed and allocated to the appropriate departments. For example, the World Health Organization will fall under Health and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime will fall under Justice.

UNOOSA (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs) will fall directly under the UN Council. If you never heard of this office, it’s worthwhile to have a look at it.

3. Motivation


The model's policy points focus on promoting 'doing what's best for all' and punishes wrongdoing. It also brings more equality through UN Education and the element of wealth redistribution. UN Public Protector brings protection of human rights to all member states, including the right of access to essentials like food, water and healthcare.


The model's decision making processes are centralized to ensure swift action. The model steps away from the current model of authority as key figures will be elected from all continents by democratic processes. Veto rights will disappear to protect nations with veto rights to have 'perceived immunity' in their actions.

The model also provides the option to appeal in case of disagreement over decisions taken the ICC and International Trade, which will be the primary decision makers in the model.


The model's effectiveness is ensured by it's preventing nature towards wrongdoing combined with creating incentive for doing the right thing. Implementation of decisions goes rather quickly as there will be no real physical or administrative effort required.

If you like at the big picture, the preventing nature of the model is it's strong point. No nation would get involved in actions and puts itself in serious economic distress very quickly.


The model replaces the current funding of the UN with a 'floor rate' of 1% tax on international trade. This will increase the budget for the UN drastically. It is also more equitable as a nation's contribution depends on how much it is involved in this trade. Calculating contributions based on GDP can be very flawed as it does not say anything really about how much money went in and out of a country. Creative bookkeeping minimizes current UN contributions while the tax suggested can't be avoided.

I also decided on this option because little objection can be expected if one compares the benefits of the system as a whole with a 1% tax. While normally UN contributions have to be calculated and discussed in budgets it becomes a natural thing.


This is most likely the most difficult to put in words. Again, the preventive nature of the model comes in here in the sense that it promotes cooperation and trust among nations itself. So in the environment created the UN's role is more a coaching and supporting one.

Further trust in the organization is created by increasing consensus in the equal appointing of positions within and representation of the different branches in every single member state.

On the financial side I think I can't say it better than I did in the text itself. "In order to be able to respond effectively to needs in society it is crucial that decisions are made based on reasonable, rational and prioritizing thought rather than budgets………Obviously all departments must be transparent in this and be able to motivate their expenses."


Revisions and improvements are constantly made in this model as a whole as it is of a very emergent nature and decision making processes are swift. The simplicity of the model also makes it very flexible and easy to implement improvements. Also, the removal of the veto, more democratic (equal) processes and more consensus support this flexibility.


The model has measures to protect against abuse of power. It is clear that the veto system allowed for abuse of power and 'perceived immunity'. The model replaced this by the 'Groups of Five' (with one democratically chosen representative of each continent) in the main decision making positions, where the approval requirement is 4 votes out of 5.

In addition there is the UN Public Protector that will oversee matters and can refer cases to the ICC (GoF), which then if necessary can refer it further to the UN Council (GoF). The 'Groups of Five' principle makes it basically impossible to get away with abuse of power.