<How do we ensure against any form of future global tyranny>

Answer- We can't.

<In a world based on the concept of the nation state it is hard to come to terms with the emerging realities of the global village"

The realities of the global village is that there is still bloody tribal (ethnic and civil ) territorial wars in countries all over the world. There always have been and multiculturalism will just result in more of these. A global village is just a far off utopia in the minds of silly Western idealists. It doesn't exist. Except in the form of advanced media and satelite communications and global companies ripping as much territorial wealth and slave labour off others as they can.

It's not just American companies either,there are some very wealthy chinese companies,and the I'll bet the Arab shieks have got their billion dollar petro dollars invested in a lot of wealthy companies as well.

There is no brotherhood of man and there is no global village either along with no Santa Clause or Easter Bunny.

<How do we effectively guarantee minium standards of fundamental human rights for all persons on the planet."

Answer- at the point of a gun. (I do understand the irony in that statement)

You would need a huge army to enforce this on to regimes that don't feel like complying.

It would take world domination by caring armies. Since caring armies really don't exsist to any great extent. Fundamental human rights for all persons on the planet is a long way off. Probably a few more centuries to a thousand years depending on mankind's future evolutionary tendencies.

Maybe the fact that we are thinking about it is a beginning of that evolution. But then Jesus thought of it too, but thinking it didn't change one ounce of the bloody violation of human rights and wars that have happened since then.

Capitalism and banks are not so popular right now. People protesting the G20 propping up of banks - and excessive executive remuneration - is met with warnings of 'there will be violence'. Which the police subsequently provides.
Almost as if King John of APEC and his 'let them eat cake' playbook was being followed ... since the economy does not appear to be doing so well, the masses must be subjected to some more Social Darwinism. Let's have some more conflict, as the solution? No, I didn't think so either.

I just read the full text of the speech that Iran's President with the difficult name so controversially gave, courtesy of the BBC. It seems to me he rallies against invasions and land occupation, excessive grabbing of assets by some, to the detriment of the have nots. How unreasonable!
Never mind what the main stream media has reported on the UN convention in Geneva, read the text of his speech for yourself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8010747.stm

MX- The Iranian president rallies against invasions and land occupation.

It depends what you call land occupation. Millions of Arabs many from Iran have flooded into Europe,Briton and Australia. I call this land occupation. The overpopulation in their own countries has made conditions miserable so now they want to flood into countries who haven't overpopulated.

The religious Arab leaders plotted with Hitler in World War 2 to exterminate the Jews. So after the British won the war they gave some Arab land to the Jews.
Later on when the British withdrew the Arab states raced over to try and kill the Jews but the Jews having been through the holocaust were heavily armed and beat them in six days. It was called the six day war because that's how long it took the Jews to beat them and take possession of the Gaza strip.

What about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait the looting and rapes went on night and day for at least 3months. This wasn't just the Iraqi army,a witness account said the ordinary Iraq people were coming to Kuwait the whole time in any old truck or car they could find and looting non-stop.

Then there's the statement from the Iraqi president that said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Hardly a statement ralleying against invasion and land occupation.