Human Union Project

 Basic Definition of Human Union

Key points of Human Union definition

 How does this compare with the United Nations (UN)?

The commitment to a minimum set of common political values such as democracy and human rights distinguishes the concept of a Human Union from the UN which does not require any common political standards or values of its members. That is why the UN can include both dictatorships and democracies amongst its members. That is also why the UN has failed to build a world based on respect for human rights and democracy and a genuine global human political community.  A Human Union could only allow membership to states which agreed to uphold its agreed upon common standards in relation to human rights democracy and other agreed upon standards.

Will a Human Union replace the UN?

There is no reason for a Human Union to replace the UN, at least initially. They perform different functions; the Human Union would be a steadily growing group of states committed to common political values such as democracy and human rights.  The UN provides a much needed forum where all the states of the world can meet and express their views regardless of their differences. The UN provides a communications forum in our current world. The Human Union is about building a better world. So they could exist alongside each other for a long time.

Whats the difference between a Human Union and similar projects like World Federation and World Government?

The main difference is in how it will come about. The Human Union plan is to be achieved steadily over time. Most world federation or world government proposals seem to assume that the whole world will come together and agree to build a world federation.  This is possible.  But it is far more likely that a new world system will come into existence gradually.  A century of steady progress can build a Human Union. A century of advocating that the whole world agrees at once will probably be a century wasted. One of the main criticisms of most world federalist type proposals is that it seems impossible to get the whole world to agree.  But a Human Union can start small, it can begin with as few as one country issuing a Human Union Declaration and over time build up from there. It is not impossible at all, nor does it require every country to agree at the beginning. As a Human Union evolves its members, of course, may well agree to form a federation. A democratic world federation would be a gigantic step forward for the world. If one existed there would be no need to advocate starting a Human Union. But while a democratic world federation doesn't exist starting a Human Union can be an achievable goal.

The Human Union can start small, it can begin with as few as one country issuing a "Human Union Declaration" and over time build up from there.

Why call it a Human Union?

There is no special magic in the words "Human Union".  The proposal is "Human" in that it is based on the idea that all humans are entitled to basic justice and protection; justice does not stop at national borders. It is a "Union" in the sense that it transcends national borders to offer opportunity one day to all of humanity. It transcends borders not to abolish nation states but to ensure human justice. So the word "Union" is used to signify the similarity of the concept with "unions" like the  United States where states still have rights and are not abolished or like the European Union where nation states also still have rights. Of course the Human Union won't have exactly the same set of arrangements as either the US or the EU but referring to them shows how a "Union" does not mean the destruction of the original constituent states.