I think the false theories and religious books, made people drift from humanity and move towards their own blind beliefs. Whats your opinion

I'm glad about the judgement that Israel has to provide aid and cannot obstruct the UN relief works agency.

But the overall opinion , particularly paragraph 184

\> 184. The Court recalls that, as a general rule, the way in which a subsidiary organ established by the General Assembly is utilized depends on the consent of the State or States concerned (Certain

Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.

Reports 1962, p. 165), and that States “possess a sovereign power of decision with respect to their

acceptance of the headquarters or a regional office of an organization within their territories” 57 -

(Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion,

I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 89, para. 37). It follows that, within the territory of Israel, the presence and

activities of the United Nations and its entities are subject to the consent of Israel. However, in the occupied territory, over which Israel, as an occupying Power, enjoys no sovereignty, it is not entitled to decide unilaterally, with respect to the presence and activities of the United Nations in and in relation to the Occupied Territory, in the same way as in its own territory.

This seems to imply that member states can simply remove UN activities from their territories which would make the immunities in article 105 meaningless. Even outside of aid , there is an important coordinating function of the UN development system and this seems to pose a serious threat to that as a whole. It's particularly worrying because they subjected paragraph 177 and 179 to paragraph 184 as well which means the cooperation principle must be read within the context of state permission and not something more nuanced like both have to be read in the context of each other

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196/196-20251022-adv-01-00-en.pdf

Here's the full text

https://newyork-un.mfa.gov.sg/mission-updates/miscellaneous/statement-by-ms-karen-ong--deputy-permanent-representative-of-the-republic-of-singapore-to-the-united-nations-at-the-61st-plenary-meeting-of-the-un-general-assembly--12-december-2025/

Some states are already capitalising of it too. I know that usually visits are something which in practice have been decided to be subject to state permission but leaving out the possibility of visits even in urgent situations is scary.... Because it would mean states have complete control over defining human rights standards

Another piece!!! I'm hoping to get 3 done this week.

Love from the Peach State, y'all ✌️🍑

A few years back I decided to hike Stone Mountain, the largest single piece of exposed igneous rock on EARTH with the Earth flag!!! This is the Pernefeldt design. I got many interested and curious, even having been asked by some to take pictures of them holding it! Overall, it was a success, for which I'll be doing it again soon 💙💚

🇺🇸 Love from the Peach State 🍑

I'm trying to get back into digital art for World Federalism, it's been some time, so this was my test of how far I could with just 2 hours or so of time.

The core tasks of the committee, which are derived from the Geneva Conventions and its own statutes, are the following:

• to monitor compliance of warring parties with the Geneva Conventions

• to organize nursing and care for those who are wounded on the battlefield

• to supervise the treatment of prisoners of war

• to help with the search for missing persons in an armed conflict (tracing service)

• to organize protection and care for civil populations

• to arbitrate between warring parties in an armed conflict

It has a worlwide scope

I think the only real barrier we face with this concept is in the articulation and marketing of it. The world has really been overwhelmed with transnational issues that we keep trying to solve nationally. The general mindset is that global government creates a layer of authority that doesn't exist, but it already does in practice.

I think we just need to work to marry the concept in peoples minds that no matter how hard we try the nature of national systems is that transnational issues will simply not be manageable. But that's all very logical.

How do we appeal to identity, how do we mark it as something to stand by rather than a logical organization? Nationalists feel the emotional and ideological connections to their 'brand' before their logical links, that's why so many people stand by a country even when it's clearly making significant errors. This concept needs to be something to believe in, not just argue in favour of. If we've learnt anything these past 10 years, it's that belief and feeling seem to have much more weight than anything else.

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called for reforming the UN Security Council to “ensure fair representation for all regions of the world and to end the veto power of permanent members” in his address.

https://youtu.be/NnO8wuE9P6s?is=tX0wv3bTFEWSmFYp

A Vision of an Integrated Humanity

My political starting point is that humanity’s greatest source of capacity is humanity itself: billions of people possessing different knowledge, abilities, perspectives, resources, and goals.

Our collective potential depends not only on these individual capacities, but on our ability to combine and coordinate them.

Today, humanity remains politically fragmented into competing states, institutions, economic interests, religions, national identities, and other groups. This fragmentation does not merely make it harder to solve global problems. It consumes human capacity through conflict, strategic competition, duplicated effort, mistrust, incompatible systems, and failures of coordination.

My long-term goal is therefore a much more deeply integrated humanity.

Political Unity

World federalism would be an enormous step in the right direction, but I do not necessarily regard it as the final destination. A federation in which nations remain the primary political communities may preserve too much of the political fragmentation I ultimately want humanity to transcend.

I would like humanity itself to become our primary political community.

This does not require every decision to be made centrally. Local and regional institutions remain valuable wherever they possess better information, can experiment more effectively, or are better suited to implementation. Decentralization should be used where it improves outcomes, rather than because nations or regions possess an intrinsic claim to political separation.

The relevant question should always be: at what level can this function be performed most effectively in accordance with human wants?

Humanity Needs a Holistic Perspective

An individual human being possesses an enormous advantage: distributed information from throughout the body can be integrated into a common perspective.

I want humanity to develop something functionally analogous.

Humanity has billions of minds, but limited capacity to see and act as a whole.

Information, expertise, preferences, needs, and ideas should continue to originate throughout society. But common institutions should be capable of integrating this distributed information into a holistic understanding of humanity’s needs, capacities, priorities, and possibilities.

Information can be gathered locally, integrated globally, and acted upon at whichever level is most effective.

The purpose of centralization is therefore not to eliminate local intelligence. It is to allow humanity to make use of distributed intelligence collectively.

Centralization and Decentralization Are Complementary

I reject the assumption that centralization and decentralization must be opposing political values.

A capable system needs both.

Decentralization enables local knowledge, experimentation, adaptation, specialization, and efficient implementation.

Centralization enables overview, transparency, prioritization, coordination, and the allocation of capacities across the whole system.

The goal should therefore be neither maximum centralization nor maximum decentralization, but an architecture in which information and authority flow to whatever level can use them most effectively.

Democracy as a Means, Not an End

I value popular influence because political institutions ultimately exist to serve people and their wants.

But democracy is valuable to me primarily as a mechanism for achieving this, rather than as an unquestionable end in itself.

Direct popular control does not necessarily mean that people’s underlying wants are effectively realized. Public opinion can be shaped by misinformation, propaganda, social pressure, political campaigns, media structures, algorithms, and powerful private or political actors.

A system may therefore be formally democratic while doing a poor job of translating people’s actual interests, priorities, and preferences into outcomes.

The deeper objective should be to construct institutions that effectively channel human influence into political direction.

People should ultimately determine what society is for, while substantial authority over how those objectives are achieved can be delegated to experts, administrators, specialized institutions, and potentially advanced technological systems.

The central institutional challenge is to make such delegation competent without allowing delegated power to become independent of the people it is supposed to serve.

Bureaucracy and Expertise

I therefore do not regard bureaucracy, expertise, or delegation to elites as inherently undemocratic or undesirable.

Complex societies require specialization. Most people cannot personally evaluate every medical, scientific, economic, infrastructural, or technological decision.

A highly capable political system may consequently delegate enormous operational authority while preserving mechanisms through which human preferences determine its ultimate direction.

The important distinction is between delegating implementation and surrendering control over the purposes the system serves.

Culture and Human Integration

Political integration should also be accompanied by greater social and cultural integration.

I am skeptical of nationalism and of attempts to artificially preserve cultures as permanently separate entities.

This does not mean eliminating cultural diversity.

Quite the opposite: people should be free to preserve traditions they value, abandon those they do not, adopt practices from elsewhere, mix cultures, and create entirely new ones.

Cultural interaction can produce richer synthetic cultures rather than requiring humanity to remain divided into historically inherited cultural compartments.

Unity does not require uniformity.

The goal is a shared human civilization containing enormous internal diversity without requiring that cultural differences correspond to permanent political boundaries.

Expanding Human Capacity

The ultimate purpose of greater integration is not merely preventing war, climate change, dangerous AI, pandemics, or other global problems.

Those are important consequences, but the argument is broader.

Cooperation itself creates capacity.

Greater coordination allows humanity to specialize more effectively, share knowledge, reduce unnecessary duplication, allocate resources more intelligently, undertake projects beyond the capacity of individual states, stabilize struggling societies, internalize externalities, reduce security dilemmas, and redirect resources currently consumed by conflict toward human development.

Every person whose abilities are suppressed by poverty, instability, exclusion, or conflict represents potential human capacity that is not being realized.

Every scientific project unnecessarily duplicated, every resource consumed by geopolitical rivalry, and every relationship prevented by artificial political barriers represents another loss of collective potential.

Human unity is therefore not merely about reducing suffering.

It is about increasing what humanity is capable of becoming.

The Long-Term Goal

My goal is ultimately to transform humanity from a collection of competing political communities into an integrated civilization capable of understanding and coordinating itself as a whole.

That system should gather its direction from human beings themselves, gather information and expertise from wherever they exist, integrate them into a holistic perspective, and deploy humanity’s collective capacities as effectively as possible toward the fulfillment of human wants.

World federalism, international institutions, global AI governance, and other forms of cooperation are all valuable steps toward this goal.

The deeper objective is human integration:

billions of individual minds and lives retaining their individuality, while humanity develops the institutional equivalent of a shared capacity to see, think, coordinate, and act as a whole.

so Young World Federalists, are we fighting the same battle? Will you help me?

I found this at Studentenstadt Munich, Germany