Toward a New Architecture of Peace, Representation, and the Will of Peoples

There are institutions that are born from a particular era.

And there are institutions that must learn to accompany every era that follows.

The United Nations belongs unquestionably to the first category.

Created in 1945, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the United Nations represented a historic rupture: the nations of the world decided to establish a permanent space in which states could meet, dialogue, negotiate, and collectively seek solutions to threats to international peace.

Nearly a century later, the world has changed profoundly.

Borders have evolved.

Empires have disappeared.

Dozens of new states have emerged.

The world's population has multiplied.

Technology has transformed societies.

The economy has become global.

Communications now make interaction possible between billions of people almost instantaneously.

Environmental challenges recognize no borders.

Financial crises cross continents.

Pandemics can affect every region of the planet simultaneously.

Artificial intelligence, outer space, the oceans, climate change, natural resources, migration, and emerging technologies now raise questions that extend far beyond the traditional framework of national sovereignty.

And yet, the fundamental architecture of global governance remains largely inherited from the world of 1945.

The question, therefore, is not whether the United Nations should be abolished.

The much more important question is:

How can the United Nations evolve so that it can progressively reflect the political, human, and social reality of the twenty-first century?

Universal Peace Era proposes that we begin this reflection.

I. The United Nations: A Historic Achievement That Must Evolve

The United Nations should not be regarded as a failure.

Quite the opposite.

It represents one of the major institutional achievements of contemporary history.

Today, it remains one of the very few spaces in which virtually all nations of the world can meet within a single organization.

The United Nations currently has 193 Member States. Two states — the Holy See and the State of Palestine — hold non-member observer-state status, which explains why the figure of 195 states is frequently used when referring to the international community.

This universality is precious.

But universality does not necessarily mean perfect representation.

The United Nations is fundamentally an intergovernmental organization.

It represents states.

It is not, in itself, a direct political representation of the world's citizens.

This distinction is essential.

A state may speak on behalf of its population within international institutions, but the population itself does not possess, at the global level, a universal parliamentary institution directly dedicated to expressing the different aspirations and interests of humanity's peoples.

There is therefore a space between the sovereignty of states and the will of peoples.

It is precisely this space that a new architecture of global governance could seek to address.

II. From Many Nations to a Global Community

The expression "United Nations" already contains an extraordinary intuition.

Different nations can be united without ceasing to be different.

Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity.

A global community could therefore be conceived not as the disappearance of nations, cultures, or states, but as the institutional organization of their common interests.

From this perspective, Universal Peace Era proposes a concept:

a gradual transition from the United Nations Organization to an Organization of the United Nation.

The difference may appear grammatical.

In reality, it is philosophical.

The "United Nations" emphasizes the association of multiple nations.

The "Organization of the United Nation" would place greater emphasis on the gradual emergence of a global human community capable of acting collectively on matters affecting humanity as a whole.

This would not mean creating a world state overnight.

It would not mean erasing national sovereignty.

It would not mean eliminating cultural identities.

It would not mean asking peoples to abandon their histories.

It would mean progressively constructing an additional level of representation and cooperation, dedicated to the common interests of humanity.

III. A First Principle: No People Should Disappear Behind Its State

State sovereignty remains one of the fundamental principles of the international system.

The United Nations Charter explicitly recognizes the principle of the sovereign equality of its members.

This principle remains essential.

But it can be complemented by another idea:

states are not the only human realities that make up the international community.

Behind every state are millions, sometimes billions, of people.

Generations.

Minorities.

Communities.

Regions.

Cities.

Civil society organizations.

Researchers.

Entrepreneurs.

Workers.

Students.

Children and future generations.

A twenty-first-century international architecture could therefore seek to make several levels of representation heard simultaneously.

Level One: States

Governments would retain their central role in international relations.

Level Two: Peoples

A global representation of populations could gradually be developed to enable the expression of citizens' concerns at the international level.

Level Three: Future Generations

Decisions concerning climate, resources, technology, or artificial intelligence will affect generations that have not yet been born.

The international system could therefore progressively incorporate mechanisms dedicated to their interests.

Level Four: Humanity

Some questions transcend the particular interests of individual states to such an extent that they directly concern humanity as a whole.

World peace.

Climate change.

Existential technological risks.

The oceans.

Outer space.

Pandemics.

The protection of humanity's common heritage.

For such questions, a global institution could seek not merely compromise between governments, but the definition of a common interest of humanity.

IV. Reform Rather Than Destruction

The transformation proposed should not begin with the destruction of the United Nations.

It could begin with its evolution.

The question would therefore be:

What institutions should we add, transform, or democratize in order to progressively bring global governance closer to the peoples of the world?

This debate already exists.

The Pact for the Future adopted by UN Member States in 2024 recognizes the need to transform global governance and calls, among other things, for reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, effective, democratic, and accountable.

This demonstrates something important:

reforming global governance is not an idea external to the United Nations system. It is already an important institutional issue within it.

The question is how far this transformation can ultimately go.

V. Rethinking the Security Council

The Security Council is perhaps one of the clearest examples of the historical gap between the architecture of 1945 and the contemporary world.

It currently consists of 15 members.

Five states hold permanent seats and veto power: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

This structure reflects a particular historical moment.

But the world of 2026 is no longer the world of 1945.

Reform could therefore explore several possibilities:

• more balanced geographical representation;

• stronger representation for Africa;

• stronger representation for Asia and Latin America;

• greater representation for small states;

• stronger accountability mechanisms;

• greater transparency;

• limitations or safeguards concerning the use of the veto;

• mechanisms allowing the General Assembly to play a stronger role when the Security Council is unable to act.

The Pact for the Future itself recognizes the question of the veto as a central element of Security Council reform.

But an even deeper transformation could be imagined.

VI. Toward Dual Representation: States and Peoples

Imagine an Organization of the United Nation progressively structured around two major chambers.

A Chamber of Nations

It would represent states.

Each state would retain its legal personality and sovereign role.

This chamber would inherit and develop the institutional function currently performed by the General Assembly.

A Chamber of Peoples

It would represent the populations of the world.

Its composition could be studied through different models:

population-based representation;

regional representation;

direct elections;

proportional representation;

or combinations of several mechanisms.

No single model should automatically be considered self-evident.

The essential objective would be to create an institution capable of introducing a genuine global civic dimension into international governance.

The two chambers could have different powers.

One would primarily represent the sovereignty of states.

The other would primarily represent the human and civic dimension of the global community.

Such an architecture would avoid creating an artificial opposition between two realities:

states and peoples.

Both could be represented.

VII. The Voice of the 195 Countries

A genuine transformation could not be designed solely by the great powers.

It would need to begin with a global consultation.

The 195 countries commonly counted within the international community could be invited to present their institutional demands, priorities, concerns, and proposals.

Not only the great powers.

Not only the wealthiest countries.

Not only states with significant military influence.

But also:

small island states;

least developed countries;

landlocked countries;

regional powers;

emerging economies;

developed countries;

developing countries;

and states whose populations represent a significant proportion of humanity.

Every society has a different history.

Every nation has its own priorities.

A global reform should therefore not begin with the question:

"Which power should dominate?"

It should begin with:

"What do we want to build together?"

VIII. From the Will of Nations to the Will of Peoples

There is, however, a fundamental difficulty.

The position of a government is not necessarily identical to the will of its entire population.

That is why a future global architecture could progressively develop mechanisms for direct consultation of populations.

These could take different forms:

international consultative referendums;

global citizens' consultations;

randomly selected citizens' assemblies;

secure digital consultations;

transnational petitions;

regional forums;

youth representation;

consultation of Indigenous Peoples;

structured participation by civil society.

These mechanisms would not necessarily replace governments.

At first, they could complement them.

The objective would be to create a more complete chain of representation:

citizen → community → nation → region → world.

This could gradually give rise to a new conception of international democracy.

IX. Toward a Complementary Global Citizenship

Global citizenship would not necessarily replace national citizenship.

An individual could remain French, Algerian, Japanese, Brazilian, Indian, Nigerian, Canadian, or any other nationality while participating in a global political community on certain common issues.

Plurality of identities could become an institutional strength.

One could be:

a citizen of one's city,

a citizen of one's region,

a citizen of one's country,

a citizen of a regional community,

and progressively a participant in a global community.

Global identity would therefore not necessarily have to be conceived as an identity that erases all others.

It could be an additional identity.

An identity based on a simple reality:

we share the same planet.

X. Humanity as a Community of Destiny

For much of human history, peoples could regard their problems as essentially local.

Today, that separation is increasingly difficult to maintain.

A financial crisis can spread across the world.

A virus can cross borders within hours.

Pollution can travel between continents.

A technological decision can produce planetary consequences.

A regional war can generate international population movements.

A climate catastrophe can affect several generations.

Globalization has therefore created a paradoxical reality:

we have become interdependent before fully constructing institutions that correspond to that interdependence.

The Organization of the United Nation could be conceived precisely as an attempt to address this paradox.

XI. A Global Organization That Would Not Be a World Government

This distinction is fundamental.

An Organization of the United Nation would not necessarily need to become a world government.

It could remain based on the principle of subsidiarity:

what can be decided locally should remain local; what can be decided nationally should remain national; what requires regional cooperation should be addressed regionally; and what genuinely concerns humanity as a whole should be capable of being addressed at the global level.

Such a principle could prevent excessive centralization.

The world does not necessarily need a single power.

It may need better institutions for cooperation between different levels of governance.

XII. The Next Step: A Parliament of Humanity

In the very long term, another institutional evolution could be considered.

A World Parliament.

Not necessarily a parliament possessing all the powers of a national legislature, but an institution directly representing the world's populations in specifically defined areas of competence established through international agreement.

Its role could initially be consultative.

Then, depending on agreements reached among states, certain limited competences could progressively be entrusted to it.

Such an evolution would need to be gradual.

A global institution cannot obtain genuine legitimacy simply through its legal existence.

It must build that legitimacy through trust.

XIII. Peace as Institutional Architecture

Peace is not merely the absence of war.

Peace is also architecture.

An architecture of dialogue.

An architecture of law.

An architecture of representation.

An architecture of cooperation.

An architecture that allows states and peoples to express competing interests without resorting to violence.

This is why reforming global governance is also a question of peace.

The more societies possess credible mechanisms through which their grievances can be heard, the less violence needs to become the ultimate language of international relations.

Sustainable peace therefore requires institutions capable of absorbing political conflicts and transforming them into negotiation.

XIV. A Transition in Stages

Universal Peace Era does not propose pretending that an Organization of the United Nation could emerge overnight.

A transformation of this magnitude would likely unfold across generations.

First Stage

Reform existing institutions.

Second Stage

Improve geographical and political representation.

Third Stage

Strengthen the authority and representativeness of the General Assembly.

Fourth Stage

Create permanent mechanisms for global citizen consultation.

Fifth Stage

Study the establishment of a global parliamentary representation.

Sixth Stage

Develop a genuine multi-level architecture of global governance.

Seventh Stage

Progressively evolve the United Nations into an institution representing both nations and the global human community.

This process could take decades.

And that is precisely why we should begin thinking about it now.

XV. The United Nation Is Not a Single Nation

This distinction is fundamental.

The United Nation should not mean:

one people, one culture, one language, one religion, one political system.

It could mean:

different peoples capable of recognizing that they share certain common responsibilities.

Unity would therefore not mean uniformity.

It would mean cooperation.

Diversity would not be an obstacle to unity.

It would be one of the conditions of that unity.

XVI. From Peace Between Nations to Peace Among Peoples

The United Nations was created after a world war.

The next great institutional transformation could be created not after another catastrophe, but before one.

That may be one of the great responsibilities of our generation.

Not to wait for another world war to rethink the global architecture.

Not to wait for another planetary crisis to recognize our interdependence.

Not to wait several generations before creating the institutions that our era already demands.

The twenty-first century could become the century in which humanity begins constructing a new stage of multilateralism.

Not a world without nations.

But a world in which nations cooperate more deeply.

Not a single government.

But more representative global governance.

Not the end of identities.

But their institutional coexistence.

Not the abolition of sovereignty.

But its articulation with common responsibilities.

XVII. A Question for Future Generations

One day, perhaps, historians will look back upon the United Nations of 1945 as we look today upon some of the foundational institutions of previous centuries.

They may recognize that it represented an extraordinary historical step.

Then they may recognize that humanity continued to evolve.

And they may ask a question:

Why did we wait so long to build institutions corresponding to the actual interdependence of our world?

We do not yet know the answer.

But we can begin constructing the question.

CONCLUSION — ONE PLANET, ONE HUMANITY, ONE COMMON RESPONSIBILITY

The United Nations was one of the great political inventions of the twentieth century.

The Organization of the United Nation could become one of the great institutional questions of the twenty-first century.

The question is not whether every nation should think alike.

They never will.

The question is not whether peoples should abandon their identities.

They should not.

Nor is the question necessarily whether we should immediately create a world state.

That is not necessarily the issue.

The real question is simpler:

Can we build institutions capable of more faithfully representing nations, peoples, and the common interests of humanity?

No single person can answer that question.

No single nation can answer it.

No single generation can answer it.

It must be built collectively.

Perhaps we should begin with the 195 countries.

Then listen to their peoples.

Then their regions.

Then their citizens.

Then their future generations.

And gradually discover that beyond all our political, cultural, historical, and geographical differences, there is a reality that no one can abolish:

we inhabit the same planet.

The future may therefore lead us from a logic of coexistence among nations toward a logic of cooperation among peoples.

And perhaps, one day, toward something greater still:

a humanity capable of recognizing itself as one community without ceasing to be many.

On that day, the United Nations would not necessarily disappear.

It would simply have continued its history.

It would have become something else.

The Organization of the United Nation.

Universal Peace Era — Building the Institutions of Peace for Present and Future Generations.