"The UN is based on the principle of absolute respect for the sovereignty and independence of its members."

This is incorrect. Sovereign equality is a foundational feature of international legal system, and by extension, the UN system, but that is not the same as what is claimed here - absolute Westphalian sovereignty and moral relativity. It is simply false to claim that the worst human rights abusers have the same standing in the international community as the most benign democracies. The UN has pariah regimes and good international citizens in equal measure - notwithstanding that they might share sovereign equality. In terms of obligations, we have an evolving corpus of international peremptory norms which clearly delineate standards from which states cannot derogate - such as slavery, piracy, crimes against humanity and genocide. For the less established ones, we have human rights conventions and their associated compliance bodies

Lyndon Storey `s Global human union is a wonderful example of how all humanity could transcend differences between us to become of one mind, A global human union acknowledges our common humanness , our origins from our planetary home and biosphere and how the very nature of human life, if it is to survive, has to be based on an understanding and expression of interconnectedness.
It is for this reason that the global citizens for peace, http://www.globalcitizensforpeace.com/index.html was formed in February 2007 We realized that with increasing Global population requiring more and more resources with tremendous inequality of distribution our planet is reaching breaking point in terms of economic and ecological crises. This is having profound social and cultural effects. We require urgent ecological, social, economic and political solutions to problems which affect billions of people if we are to survive sustainably
we also initiated a programme for the formation of Commission for Peace and Non Violence - and the appointment of a Commissioner for Peace http://www.globalcitizensforpeace.com/commission.htm
- so that the voice of the peace makers be heard at the professional and institutional level, and so provide equal opportunity with those who speak for the environment, agriculture, education, finance and armed defence
Dr Michael Ellis -- Michael.Ellis@ozemail.com.a

The proposal for a global Human Union does have merit. Our perception of our common humanity is an idea that is re-awakening in our crowded planet. Homo sapiens have no doubt shared the view in early human history.

The urgent need to think and act globally has been brought about by common global challenges we face. Global warming, eliminating world poverty and civil war, enhancing global trade, tapping into global communication and sharing our human vision for enlightenment through science and ethical, sustainable living are issues we need to talk about.

Who will be the first political leader to take this small step that could be fated to be memorialised in world history? If it's one of our own mob, we may well be able to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. The first step Australians can take to changing course will be on 24 November 2007. Fresh thinking. Thinking Green.

Finally, somebody has introduced a truly positive approach to international politics! If only Australian leaders would pay attention. Whether we seek security or justice, or both, surely the approach outlined by Dr. Storey is more promising than our current conceptualisation of international interaction which delivers neither.

Further, BBoy seems to have missed the point. As Dr. Storey explains, the UN gifts membership to states regardless of their behaviour, whereas the EU rewards states with membership only after they meet certain basic standards of democracy, human rights and economic openness. Even if one was to accept BBoy's point that human rights abusers have less standing in the international community, this does alter the fact that the EU has been much more successful in bringing change to conflicting nations than the UN.

If only one of Australia's political parties could see that true security and justice comes through community and respect for every human being, maybe we could play an inspiring role in bringing change and stability to international politics. The approach currently adopted and proposed by all Australian political parties only seems to take us further away from these ideals.

Now hold on Lyndon. Just exactly what does a global human union really mean?

In particular, what would it mean for Australia?

You seem particularly concerned about Australia’s border protection policy.

You write; “This (the human union) is not simply a humanitarian goal but a necessary one, as the policy of defending our relative privileges through border protection and wars that we follow abroad will only be the prelude for more wars and more “need” to protect our borders.…”

Wow!

So would a human union lead to weaker border protection with a large influx of asylum seekers, or perhaps to entirely open borders?

If there is any chance of that, then STUFF IT entirely!!

Australia can contribute the most to global issues of poverty and environmental degradation if it has a strong and secure economy, quality of life and sustainability ethic. If our quality of life is forced downwards by a large-scale weakening of border controls, then civil unrest and all sorts of domestic issues will consume us and make sure that our international aid effort dwindles.

The same would happen across the developed world if borders became porous.

On the other hand, if a human union could get the Australian government to commit a much larger portion of its income and energy towards addressing poverty and sustainability issues, at their sources, then it would have my full support.

I think its an excellent idea and a goal to aim for.

I think Australia should maybe try and form something similar here in the Pacific with countries like NZ, Singapore, HK, Japan, Canada, USA and Korea.

Another idea would be maybe to become a “partner” with the EU.

Micheal – Your idea for global citizens for peace is although a good idea would not work in practice because the only people who would join it would be the sheep. Mean while the wolves would be quite foolish to join because it would go against everything they believe in. You cant just have a peace movement you need somebody with a big stick as well.