Humanity wants a World of Peace and Justice Julio Mas Estelles DWF NEWS

We have a brand-new Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is massively violated at the global level, countless wars underway, and an unjust global governance system based on the force of the absolute national sovereignty of states, governed by a system of international relations that, years ago, Willy Brandt defined as “organized madness.”

Likewise, within that system of alienation, we enjoy an Organization, the United Nations, with good intentions and purposes, but which in practice has amply demonstrated its failure.

Consequently, humanity cries out for a world where peace and justice reign—even happiness, as some Constitutions reflect.

The problem, as always, is to specify and act in a world like the one a colleague of the PWP recently highlighted in her article titled “The Soulless Republics and the Current Cruel Dystopia.” It seems as if even bad situations are capable of worsening when people with training and technological success propose a future of cruel struggle and competition far removed from the most elementary humanity values, even justifying and contributing with that cutting-edge technology to the perfection of weapons and to genuine processes of genocide.

Against this, some ideas emerge such as those of various World Federalist Organizations, that is the case with CEMERG (Mexican Center for Global Responsibility), whose Manifesto of 12-31-2023 recognizes the “sovereignty of Humanity” and the legitimacy of a constituent process for the transformation of the UN into a World Parliamentary System, proceeding with the same authority as the states that constituted it in 1945 and through the procedure of Article 109 of its Charter. The sovereignty of Humanity is also what gives birth to the World Constitution of the Earth Federation, in its current process of the Provisional World Parliament (PWP) stage. In both cases, their implementation would depend on massive popular support or on some state invoking Article 109 of the Charter.

When I said earlier that the UN has failed, this does not mean only the negative outcome of a well-intentioned attempt, but that it was “ab initio”; the UN has been an Organization with fatal malformations and still alive after over 80 years. There are many examples we may find:

The UN emerged as an act of power by the victorious powers of victors of World War II.

Nor was it an act of justice, nor is the privilege of the veto right of the permanent members of the Security Council today. Likewise, it was not born as a democratic institution; the modern theoretical basis of the “Democratic
Principle” was not fully developed in 1945 but it is today, and the UN has had more than enough time to incorporate it.

We do not even know its nature with certainty—whether it is an Institution or an International Treaty (Professor Díez de Velasco provides arguments for both).

It is also interesting to note the festive/diplomatic character of its inauguration in 1945. This can be seen in the existing photos of the event: elegance and smiles that contrast with the negotiators’ lack of preparation, even regarding translations, which also explain both the terminological problems (noted by M. Akehurst) and the very existence of Article 109 of the Charter (everyone was aware of its provisional nature and that, with more calm, more “serious” work would have to be done).

To all this, it can be added its habitual failure in wartime and humanitarian security crises, which has turned it into almost a non-governmental organization.

Throughout its existence, the United Nations has failed to comply with its own Charter. Examples of this include the Charter review procedure under Article 109, scheduled for before its tenth anniversary, or the changes of permanent members of the Security Council (from Nationalist China to the People’s Republic of China, and from the USSR to the current Russian Federation). In both cases, the requirements established by the Charter were not accomplished and the UN should have been dissolved.

Another beautiful purpose transformed into horror, wars and suffering, it was the “decolonization process,” generally carried out nominally and leaving in power in the new states anarchies or corrupt dictators who would allow the continuation of the exploitation of resources and the economy in general of the former Colonies.

And the height of it was the creation, to the UN’s discredit, of a new “colonization by occupation” in Palestine, as was the State of Israel in 1948. UN subsequent evolution confirms its actions: like bad politicians, it not only fails to solve problems but creates them.

After its “brilliant” evolution, world public opinion began to question the UN in the 1990s with much academic literature on its reform on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992–1996) tried, obtaining the result of being the only Secretary-General not re-elected for a second term. Subsequent reform attempts by Kofi Annan can be described as a bureaucratic mockery.

In any case, what I want to point out now is that, although the UN may have failed, it can still render—whether consciously or unconsciously—a final service.

Thus, in addition to the arguments pointed out by CEMERG and the PWP and their moral legitimacy, there is another that converts them into legal ones, and even surpasses the constituent argument for the creation of the UN in 1945, as this Event combines arguments and procedures, resulting in what I consider the definitive argument. Thus, in the UN’s Millennium Declaration of 2000 states: “We solemnly reaffirm, on this historic occasion, that the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We therefore pledge our unlimited support for these common objectives and our determination to achieve them.” (1)

Legally and democratically speaking, concrete and effective actions in the aforementioned areas are demandable. The legitimizing character of the Millennium Summit must be noted. The most important aspect of the Summit’s Declaration is not its nature as a UN General Assembly Resolution, but that it is signed by 147 Heads of State and Government and a total of 189 Member States, and “they assumed the collective responsibility to uphold and defend the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level.” (2)

1) United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 55/2. 13 September 2000.
2) Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization. General Assembly, Official Records. Supplement No. 1 (A/56/1). United Nations. New York, 2001.
——
The fact that some of the signatory States cannot be fully considered democratic does not cloud the unanimity of their signatures. From that same unanimity it also follows that, in addition to a global constituent legitimacy, there would also be another legitimacy of the same nature in any state in the world, given that said state also signed that Millennium Declaration.

And the only requirement would be that it uphold those general principles which, curiously, essentially coincide with the (theoretical) purposes of the UN Charter and of our World Constitution of the PWP.

Currently there are movements coinciding in the same direction of the transformation and replacement of the UN. Among them, one can highlight Brazilian President Lula da Silva, the BRICS group of countries, Africans or the Global South.

Perhaps some will achieve the objective, although the best would be the union of efforts. As an old Spanish saying goes: “all roads lead to Rome.”

And the force of reason and moral legitimacy can be supported by that legal argumentation and a normative procedure already provided for in the Charter.

If Article 109 is not achieved nor does the legitimization of the Millennium Declaration work, personally, as a Spanish citizen and, therefore, belonging to the European Union, I would be delighted if France renounced its membership in the UN Security Council. In that case, according to Article 23 of the Charter, the UN should disappear.

Julio Mas Estellés, Law Graduate. Diploma in Advanced Studies in International Relations. PhD in Legal Sciences and Sociology with the Thesis “The Democratic Principle and the Reform of the United Nations. Human Rights and Global Governance.” PWP Delegate to the Earth Federation and member of the Legislative Review, Ratification, and Peace and Disarmament Commissions.