The UN is now disqualified from any part in such a Federated government.
It is now largely under the control of the Organisation of Islamic Countries.
The OIC has its own Human Rights organisation and those members
have not signed the UN Charter of Human Rights as it conflicts with
Sharia Law and the Koran. However that does not stop them being
members of the UN HRC and even chairing it !

It has become an absurdity and another bit of Lefty Lunacy.

In reply to recent post by Saltpetre.

The article makes subtle reference to Confederation vs Federation. Suggesting that the current model is Confederate and the author wishes to move it to a Federal model. My reading is that the Federal model is more authoritative- it would increase the power at the top of the hierarchy. The article also suggests changing the UN structure to a Westminster- Separation Of Powers- style structure with Executive (UN Military Force), Judiciary(International Court), Legislature- but the outcome will be a world dictatorship as many commentators here have suggested.

Currently the UN is reliant on member states for their executive policing function. I have struggled with this too. But questions have to be asked- what would the UN use such a force for- and should the UN have juresdiction within countries through conventions such as the CCPR - Convention on civil and political rights- and the current pressure put on countries to create laws that coincide with these principles.

Overall the UN or similar organisations shouldn't have powers within countries but only between countries- to say otherwise is genocidal and utopian- it takes away the right of self determination- it tries to manage the individual from the top when it has no idea of the individuals circumstances.

There is the issue of genocide within countries and how to prevent it- better genocide of the few than genocide of the many- a work in progress.

Good points, Canem, but my understanding is that any UN armed force would be comprised entirely of voluntary contributions from the member states (except perhaps for a UN advisor or two). No separate UN force.

A World Government? No way. The proposal is only for a Federation approved and supported by the member states - for their own good, and for the good of the world at large.
So, the UN Federation would have to act like an arbitrator to resolve differences and disagreements between states - but with the power to apply pressure to achieve compliance, by law and presumably by sanctions, and with the application of force only as a very last resort - and then only of course with the approval of perhaps a two-thirds majority of the groupings or cadres of the member states.
I mean, you don't think one could launch an armed force (of any dimension or composition) against the US, China, the EU, or just about anyone other than perhaps Somalia or Yemen - and then only to restore order and economic stability/efficacy.
As all nations, and particularly US, China, UK, EU individual member states, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, all very much treasure their individual identities, cultures and quirks, a World Government of any ilk is so highly improbable as to be virtually an impossibility - unless, say, Earth was attacked by an alien invasion force.

The World could do far worse than have an honest, impartial, honourable and just overseer to offer wise counsel and stern reprimand to wayward movements, and more importantly to work for a far fairer utilization and distribution of finite resources and far greater cooperation to promote and realize the equitable achievement of political, economic and quality of life aspirations (and due entitlements) of all of the developing world states.
(Could also perhaps find an effective way to counter climate change, and most importantly to establish effective mechanisms to halt, and even reverse, current trends towards environmental and biodiversity catastrophe - before it's too late.)

Utopia - or Paradise Regained? (Ad infinitum?)

From the Article...

At present, the UN is a confederation of absolutely sovereign nation-states. But in a world of all-destroying modern weapons, instantaneous global communi-cation, and economic interdependence, the absolutely sovereign nation-state has become a dangerous anachronism.
Furthermore, history has shown confederations to be fatally weak.
....
In general, political federations have the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, thus avoiding the need to coerce their member states.
....
It would be helpful if the UN had a standing armed force which could act quickly in such emergency situations. The force could consist of volunteers from around the world ...

__________

The article doesn't address the fundamental "supply side" scarcity of resources and "demand side" population issues behind conflict- it appears to attempt to solve the issues by a monolithic authority. The idea behind the design of the UN is such that "everyone and no one" gets to be the boss of the world. But we have moved beyond this now- population is now probably the biggest threat to humanity not nuclear weapons. In fact nuclear weapons may be the only thing that can stop population.

Aristotle: Politics. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) describes the happy life intended for man by nature as one lived in accordance with virtue, and, in his Politics, he describes the role that politics and the political community must play in bringing about the virtuous life in the citizenry.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/

So Aristotle promoted responsibility (virtue) over simplistic freedom.

Patrick Deneen discusses the ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville that apparently favoured local forms of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Tocqueville warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of tyranny because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of individualism. "In such conditions, we might become so enamored with 'a relaxed love of present enjoyments' that we lose interest in the future of our descendants...and meekly allow ourselves to be led in ignorance by a despotic force all the more powerful because it does not resemble one"