Beyond UN: Could world build a people’s Parliament for Peace?

After three parts examining the history, limitations and democratic questions surrounding the United Nations (UN), one final question becomes unavoidable: If the existing international system is not enough, what could come next?

One possibility is not simply to reform the UN, but to develop a new or parallel global institution based on stronger direct popular representation. Call it a World Parliament. Or call it We Are International Community (WAIC). The name matters less than the principle: The people of the world should have a direct institutional voice in decisions affecting the humanity’s future.

The first pillar would be direct representation. A future World Parliament could be elected directly by citizens rather than composed exclusively of government representatives. Its constitutional design would need to address difficult questions: How many representatives should each population receive? How should smaller countries be protected? How should minorities be represented? What powers should the Parliament possess? How would it interact with national governments? How would its decisions become legally binding? There are no simple answers. But global governance need not depend entirely on governments speaking on behalf of their populations.

The second pillar would be carefully designed digital democracy. Modern technology makes global consultation increasingly possible. A secure digital platform could allow citizens to participate in international debates and, subject to strict constitutional safeguards, potentially vote on certain global questions. Blockchain technology might form part of such a system, but technology alone cannot guarantee democratic legitimacy. Any global digital voting system would require strong protections against cyberattacks, identity fraud, coercion, misinformation, exclusion and unequal technological access.

The third pillar would be stronger regional institutions. African Union, ASEAN, European Union and other regional organisations demonstrate different models of regional co-operation. A future international system could give regional organisations greater responsibility for conflict prevention, mediation, humanitarian protection and peacebuilding.

It could also seek more independent and transparent international financing, reducing excessive dependence on any single powerful state. One proposal might involve an internationally agreed global levy or contribution system, but such a mechanism would require extensive negotiations among states and meaningful public consent.

Then comes the most distinctive idea in this series: YES / NO / ACTION: The concept should not be understood as an unrestricted military command, but as a proposed constitutional framework for international peacekeeping and collective decision-making. “NO” could represent a binding international decision against a war or act of aggression. “YES” could authorise a defined peacekeeping or civilian-protection mission under international law. “ACTION” could permit a specific, legally authorised operation under clearly defined rules, objectives and limits.

The crucial principle would be restraint. No military action simply because a political leader demands it. No open-ended authorisation. No permission for indiscriminate violence. No unlimited mandate. Any use of force would require a clear legal basis, civilian-protection obligations, independent oversight and accountability.

The idea that every soldier in the world would immediately put down their weapons because a future World Parliament said “NO” is not a present-day political reality. Soldiers operate under national chains of command.

For such a system to become real, states would have to agree to transfer specific powers to an international institution, while military personnel would need a legally established relationship with it. That would be an enormous constitutional, legal and political challenge. But the underlying question remains: Can the humanity eventually create a system in which military force is subject to genuinely international democratic authority rather than primarily to individual states?

That is the deeper meaning of YES / NO / ACTION: Moving ultimate political authority over the use of force away from unilateral decision-making and towards transparent, internationally agreed rules.
Trygve Lie died in 1968. We cannot know what he would say about a World Parliament, digital democracy or YES / NO / ACTION today. It would be misleading to claim that he would endorse the proposal. But his career leaves behind a historical question that remains relevant. He led the Norwegian delegation at the 1945 San Francisco Conference, chaired the commission dealing with Security Council (SC) provisions, and became the first UN Secretary-General (SG) in 1946. He resigned in 1952.

His experience belonged to the formative years of the UN, when the organisation was already confronting post-war power politics and the emerging Cold War. His career demonstrated both the possibilities and limitations of international institutions. That history gives today's generation a reason to ask whether the international system can be designed differently.

Perhaps the future does not require the immediate disappearance of the UN. Perhaps it requires something more evolutionary: A reformed UN. A stronger General Assembly- UNGA. Greater representation for developing countries. A stronger role for civil society. A People’s Assembly. More accountable international institutions. Stronger regional organisations. And, eventually, new forms of democratic global governance.

The objective should not be to replace one powerful political class with another. It should be to create institutions in which power is more transparent, accountable and directly connected to the people affected by international decisions. For eight decades, the UN has provided the table around which governments meet. But the world of 2026 is no longer the world of 1945. Technology has changed. Power has changed. Societies have changed. The global economy has changed. Conflict has changed.

In the meantime, climate change, pandemics, AI, cyber security and cross-border economic instability have created new challenges that no single state can address alone. The question for the next generation is not simply whether the UN should survive. It is: Can the humanity build an international system in which the world's people have a direct and meaningful voice in decisions concerning the world's future?
Perhaps one day WAIC (We Are International Community) will mean more than governments meeting in diplomatic halls. Perhaps it will mean humanity itself.

And perhaps the ultimate measure of a future global peace organisation will be neither the number of resolutions it passes nor the number of speeches delivered. It will be whether the system can make war harder, make peace more enforceable, make power more accountable and give people a more direct voice. The UN was born from the ruins of WWI. The next international institution, if the humanity ever chooses to build one, should be born from a different ambition: Not merely to manage a world divided into states, but to give the people of that world a direct voice in deciding whether humanity moves towards war or chooses peace.

The central question of the four-part UN Review is simple: Who is International Community �" governments, or people? And if the humanity needs a new international order, what should it become next? The answer is WAIC.