Chapter Ten Basic Considerations for Human Unification

Previous discussion has made it clear that today’s level of science and technology is enough to satisfy the technical conditions required of a unified human society. Moreover, though the move from a nation-based society to a world power will be the greatest social change in human history, we have proved that the resistance it will encounter is relatively minor. All this clearly tells us that as long as the goal of unification is reasonably implemented, it may be achieved in a relatively short period of time.

Thus, this chapter will discuss the reasonable implementation required to achieve our goal of unification. In other words, what path must we chose to realize world unification?


One: The Basic Idea: A Peaceful Transition

The unification of human society will bring about the demise of countries and the advent of one centralized world government. In a unified society, the highest administrative power will be transferred from state governments to the world government, from coexisting multinational states to the sole world power. Such a transfer will be unprecedented in human history, and it is the only way to guarantee the most essential and fundamental interests of all mankind as well protect humanity from self-extinction.

In spite of this, the realization of a unified society will threaten the visible interests of some people. While some of these people may put the interests of humanity first and support unification, others will go against the interests of mankind and resist—by armed opposition if necessary. There are two possible events that may lead to global unification: peaceful transition or all-out war.

Generally speaking, no sort of large political change can be reached through peaceful negotiation or war alone. More often than not, change is achieved through a combination of peaceful negotiation and war. The general approach to global unity can either be a one-step program or a transitional tactic.

The one-step program refers to a direct process of achieving unification in which the multinational society is transformed into one global entity governed by one world power. The transitional tactic refers to the establishment of an intermediate transitional phase in the transition from a state-based society to a large, unified society. In this transitional period, factors that are not conducive to achieving unification or long-term peace and stability of the unified society will be targeted, remedied, adjusted, and transformed.

The great cause of unification is above all an attempt to save humanity. It is a great cause of incomparable justice. Naturally, any just cause should also be promoted through just means—which eliminates war as a tactic. Therefore, peaceful means will be the basic starting point of our design. Previous analysis shows that unification is universally consistent with the fundamental interests as well as visible interests of all mankind, and it greatly benefits the top leaders of human society; thus, a peaceful transformation is actually possible. When we consider the actual steps needed to word towards a unified society, however, the immense difficulty of bringing together so many different regions and countries comes to light.

First of all, there is an enormous divide between the countries of the world. Economically, there are hundredfold differences in the per capita income of the richest and poorest countries. This type of wealth gap makes integration very difficult, and it requires compromise that is hard to achieve. Moreover, huge economic differences will inevitably lead to different education levels, living habits, and personality traits. Integration of a society made up of so many different elements will be immensely challenging.

Secondly, from an ethnic point of view, a certain level of ethnic conflict and even hatred exists between the many nations in the world. It will be equally difficult to overcome ethnic disputes that have been passed down for generations. Even if ethnic unification can be achieved, there is no guarantee that these problems will be truly laid to rest and not cause future unrest. Ethnic killings and blood revenge may still occur and will have a serious impact on people’s recognition of a unified society. All this may bury seeds of dissonance in the fundamental governance of a unified society.

Third, religious issues could impede the process of unification. The historical hatred of some religions in the world has lasted thousands of years, and the power of religious belief often makes acceptance exceedingly difficult. Even more troubling is the fact that a handful of countries in the world are religious extremists. Concessions to countries dominated by infidels are seen as a form of religious betrayal. Religious sentiments will be a big hurdle in the path for compromise.

Factors that affect the process of unification far exceed those listed above. For example, political and cultural differences may also affect the realization of a unified society. The attitude of national leaders is another crucial factor that may determine the success or failure of unification. The will of a nation is often manifested primarily through the leaders of that nation, and while democratic leaders may respect the opinions of the people a little more, authoritarian rulers will certainly not hesitate to impose their own will on their citizens. Global unification will include all the countries of the world; some may be democracies, but there will be many others under autocratic rule. The complexity and variables of the situation can only be imagined. With so many countries in the world, it is inevitable that some national leaders will try to hinder global unification by all means possible.

Because of the abovementioned series of factors, we believe that a transitional process for global unification may be more feasible; therefore, peaceful resolution and a transitional tactic will be the basis for our plan to achieve a unified human society. Even so, we cannot deny the possibility of a one-step approach. If broad consensus were to be reached all over the world, and people of all countries truly grasped the sense of crisis, the handful of opposition and difficulties mentioned above could be overcome. We are only discussing the transitional approach here because the ideal situation of one-step unification is much more difficult to achieve.

During the transitional process from a nation-based society to a unified society, the following should be achieved:

1. Balanced economic and social development across the world

Low-income areas should receive assistance in terms of development, and mature scientific and technological achievements should be promoted to these low-income areas. Theoretically, once existing scientific and technological achievements are evenly applied throughout the world, the per capita income level in all regions should equalize.

2. Regional integration promotion

The promotion of regional integration will be one of the most fundamental tasks and ultimate goals of the transitional period. Much work must be done in this area, such as constant dilution of the concept of nations and strengthening of the concept of mankind; promoting unified moral values, a unified language, unified living habits, and promoting ethnic and religious integration. This could promote a soft environment for world integration and harmonious coexistence.

3. Gradual establishment of the hard (technical) environment for world integration

Today’s technical conditions have fully satisfied the requirements of a unified society and made world governance infinitely achievable; however, we should also see that the world is still unevenly developed. Many countries do not yet have highways, and many areas still lack lights, telephones, radios, and even cars. The transitional period will be tasked with communication exchange and technical integration to create a favorable hard environment for a unified society.

In addition, the transitional period will also be tasked with the exploration of an effective management approach for the future unified society. At the same time, since many aspects of the transitional period will differ from those of the country-based society, actions to limit the development of science and technology can also be explored.

Two: The Basic Choice: Close-Knit Groups of Absolute Superiority

The transitional period will be established to promote a smoother transition from a country-based society to a unified society, but it will also seek to guarantee more effective, stable, and long-term governance for the unified society.

During this period, many factors will affect the realization of these two goals. These factors must be adjusted, rectified, rebuilt, and eliminated in order to ensure the smooth progress of global unification.

There will be many possible options for the transitional period, and any option that will be conducive to the aforementioned goals can be seen as a viable option. In fact, the determination of the transitional approach will be largely determined by the attitudes of national leaders as well as the public. No option will receive a 100 percent satisfaction rate, but the ultimate option will be the one that receives maximum support from the most influential leaders and countries. This may not be the most reasonable option, but that is the reality of human society. We can analyze and study the conditions of human society to generate the most theoretically reasonable option and use it to sway the general public as well as the most influential political leaders in the world. This may pave the way for a most suitable transitional program.

The transition to a unified society can be generally understood as the consolidation of all countries in the world into one whole. In that way, this transitional process will have the features of country consolidation. Historically, the most peaceful means of country consolidation have been achieved through the coalition of nations. Let us analyze the transition towards nation coalition as a starting point for our discussion.

1. Several Possible Forms of Coalition

The use of coalitions for transition relies on the links between countries to form a more powerful national coalition. This type of national coalition will be established for the sole purpose of promoting unification. It will continue to strengthen the close ties within the coalition as the timeframe matures, until the entire world is united into one.

If all countries were allowed to form coalitions on their own, their motives for aligning would be multifaceted. Even if the principle of unification were widely recognized on a global scale, it would be impossible to ensure that all alliances would be formed purely in regard to this cause.

Some of these coalitions may be designed to promote global unification, but some may be devised for other purposes.

The forms of coalitions will certainly be manifold. There may be economic alliances, political alliances, military alliances, and so on. Furthermore, these alliances may be closely or loosely linked; closed or open; regional, ethnic, cultural, or ideological. In any case, we can be certain that some forms of national coalitions will not be able to shoulder the task of unification promotion. For example, it would be difficult for a national coalition linked solely by economic ties to achieve global unification. Any loosely linked national coalition would also fail under such heavy responsibility.

The coalition most likely to achieve unification would be a closely linked one that contained important elements like politics, military affairs, and economics. It will require participation from the supreme powers of the world so that no contention will be possible. Only a national coalition of this scale will be able to win the recognition of other non-coalition countries and carry out the cause of global unification.

There are many kinds of alliances today—too many to clearly count. Examples include the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the League of Arab States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Warsaw Pact, the North American Free Trade Area, and the South Asia Free Trade Area. Some coalitions are very close-knit; federal states are so closely aligned that they are actually a single country. Other coalitions may be so loose that there are no actual restrictions among countries. We will only focus on the national coalitions capable of directly promoting and playing leading roles in unification.

2. The Characteristics of Coalition in a Free State

Historically, coalitions between states have formed out of free will. As the most supreme powers of human society, countries are free from external restraint and can decide the objectives, content, and actions of coalitions according to their own needs. Coalitions cannot limit the actions of independent states, and countries are usually free to act as they will. We will refer to this unrestrained state of the countries as the free state.

a. Coalitions are either formed due to confrontation or generate confrontation due to formation.

Free-state coalitions are generally established for confrontation. Even when they are not established for this express purpose, they often generate confrontation by disturbing the objective balance of power. These confrontations can be economic, political, military, or comprehensive in nature. For example, the pan-Islamism movement emerged due to the invasion of Western countries and the proliferation of Christian civilization. The goal of the pan-Islamism movement was to unite all Islamic nations into one big alliance to better resist the invasion of Western powers.

The Axis powers were established in an attempt to dominate the world and strive for German occupation. Hitler united Italy, Japan, and Germany in order to form a national coalition capable of opposing the overall powers of Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The attack of the Axis powers took Europe by surprise; as a result, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union quickly became allied nations. Eventually, they were joined by the United States and China. The same principle applies to the NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War era.

Economic alliances are also formed for competitive advantage. The North American Free Trade Area was formed to compete economically with the European union; the ASEAN Economic Community was established to contend with the powerful economic forces of China, Japan, and India. Of course, economic competition is usually less fierce than political and military confrontation, and receives less attention from the world.

The League of Nations and the United Nations were both coalitions that sought to include all nations in the world; therefore, they are different from the national coalitions discussed above. In other words, if the League of Nations or the United Nations had been able to completely influence global affairs, they would have completed the transition into a unified society, and our discussion would be meaningless.

b. Coalitions in the free state are pluralistic coalitions.

Since free-state coalitions are always born of or generate confrontation, their confrontation must also be somewhat targeted. Once a national coalition is established, their target will be established as well, whether they choose to publicly disclose it or not.

The aligned force produced by a national coalition is a repositioning of the balance of power among all member countries. Correspondingly, in order to resist targeted action and enhance their own strength, the country or countries being targeted will contact other countries with similar interests to form their own coalition as well. The confrontational nature of national coalitions means that they will always be pluralistic, not singular. That is to say, one or more of the same type of national coalition will always coexist in the world at the same time. They may not be established simultaneously, but the time gap will not be too large. This is true of economic alliances, cultural alliances, military alliances, and political alliances, with the latter two being particularly obvious in this regard.

c. Confrontational coalitions will continuously expand.

Since national coalitions are usually founded in rivalry, they will appear in pairs and both sides will constantly seek to overpower their opponents. This characteristic is especially strong in military and political coalitions, since any weaknesses could threaten the survival of countries. The initial size of the national coalition will not be maintained but will expand continuously to absorb new members and consolidate competitive advantage. Since all opposing camps will be making such efforts, the size and scale of each coalition will be constantly increasing.

Before World War I, France moved to further alliance power by aligning with Britain after it gained Russia as an ally, establishing the Allied Powers. But this was only the beginning. As the competition between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers intensified, the race for new alliances intensified as well. Eventually, even Italy, originally a Central Power, was absorbed into the Allied Powers, along with Romania and Greece. Even distant countries like China, Japan, and the United States were won over by the Allied Powers. This influx of members ultimately changed the balance of power and led to the success of the Allied Powers.

The Central Powers made great efforts as well. They succeeded in attracting Turkey and Bulgaria, both countries with important strategic positions and strong land armies. More importantly, the Central Powers successfully forced Allied Powers member Russia to sign an alliance before the war ended. Russia was forced to make financial and land reparations and ultimately withdrew from war, thus lifting the Eastern threat to the Central Powers.

During the Cold War, NATO only had twelve initial members; it was the addition of Greece, Turkey, and West Germany that consolidated its strength. In reality, the power of NATO was not limited to Western European and North American countries. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in the Far East were all under NATO’s influence.

The rival Warsaw Pact Group was doing exactly the same thing. Not only did it win North Korea, Vietnam, China, and other countries in the East, but it also succeeded in distancing NATO heavyweight members such as France and West Germany from the alliance.

d. Semi-close coalitions are most likely to result in conflict.

In a closely linked coalition, the rise of the member states is very consistent, and all countries will be careful to act according to agreements. Since parts of each country’s sovereignty has been assigned to the coalition, the coalition will act like one nation when dealing with foreign matters (federal states are such coalitions).

Semi-close coalitions will function very differently. On the one hand, the members of the coalition will extend mutual aid and agree to binding agreements; on the other hand, these countries will also take separate actions outside of the coalition’s scope. This is when problems arise. Since each country has their separate and individual interests outside of the coalition, they will likely take actions that may conflict with members of the opposing coalition. The more members each coalition has, the more conflicts will arise and with greater frequency. Furthermore, since members of the same coalition share similar interests and obligations and will hope to receive aid in situations of conflict themselves, they will support their coalition members without questioning right or wrong. The members of the opposing coalition will act along similar reasoning; thus, the conflict between two countries will quickly escalate into large-scale conflict between two coalitions.

To put it simply, under a semi-close coalition, individual countries will easily drag the entire coalition into confrontation over some small trouble. Since individual countries will come across conflicts frequently, semi-close coalitions will often be engaged in large-scale conflicts. For example, World War I was ignited by a small clash between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had long entertained territorial ambitions toward Serbia; the assassination of the Archduke of Austria was merely an excuse for war. The ensuing world war was an escalation of this regional dispute between Austria-Hungary and Russia. Without the support of the Central Powers—especially Germany—Austria would not have dared to invade Russia. And without support from the Allied Powers, Russia would not have been able to resist Germany and Austria-Hungary alone. It was the interference of the two coalitions that ultimately resulted in global war.

Such huge confrontations would be less likely to occur between completely loose coalitions, since such coalitions would generally ignore the plight of their member states. On the other hand, close-knit coalitions would rarely allow such independent actions. Only semi-close coalitions are likely to be dragged into large-scale conflict due to the actions of certain member countries.

3. Free-State Coalitions Cannot Shoulder the Heavy Responsibility of Unification Transition

A coalition-based transition method relies on the coalition to strengthen the bond between countries and expand the scale of the coalition. Once the coalition has all members of the world as its members, and the members are closely united as one country, the unified society will become reality. If transition were dependent upon a free-state coalition, what would happen? Since free-state coalitions are always pluralistic alliances that expand continuously, the world would ultimately be split into two opposing coalitions. This is because in the course of global unification, countries will join coalitions due to two motives. Some will form a coalition to play a leading role in unification; these countries will be extremely powerful and large in scale. Others will join a coalition to protect themselves from being marginalized in unification; these countries will be small- or medium-sized countries of less power; therefore, the coalition for global unification will be dominated by major powers and participated in by small and medium-sized countries.

Not all major powers will gain leading roles in the process of unification, and not all smaller powers can be protected from marginalization. Those countries that are unable to receive the attention and benefits they desire will be crowded out from one coalition to form another coalition; thus, the relationship between various coalitions will always be competitive and antagonistic. This is the law of coalitions. As soon as global unification becomes generally accepted and the need for national coalitions starts to arise, various coalitions will rise up. These coalitions will all try to absorb as many new members as possible in order to guarantee a leadership position in the unified society.

If no large-scale wars break out during this period, changes will start to occur as national coalitions develop. The weaker coalitions will recognize their disadvantage and be absorbed into large coalitions. Alternatively, medium-sized coalitions of similar power will choose to merge together to form a new, stronger coalition. The two abovementioned situations may take place simultaneously and complement each other.

As coalitions continue to develop and mature through mergers and acquisitions, it is likely that two superpower coalitions will emerge, each occupying half of the globe. Both of these coalitions will hope to emerge as the dominant force in the crucial historical moment of global unification, and they will be locked in opposition as a result. At the same time, during their initial and intermediate stages, national coalitions will be semi-close in nature, because most countries will have joined the coalition to avoid marginalization. In reality, they will play a very small role. The coalitions will be dominated by very few countries. The leaders and peoples of most countries will not be happy to surrender full control and sovereignty to the national coalition, so they may give up portions of power gradually. Since the national coalitions will be eager to attract more members and retain existing members, they will not insist on absolute power transference right away. It will be some time before these national coalitions mature enough to have practical significance; the earlier national coalitions will only be semi-close in nature.

The above characteristics will increase the probability of conflict between coalitions. Since each coalition will have a massive number of members, escalated confrontation may very likely occur and even lead to global war. This world war may end up pitting one half of the world against the other, and all means of high-tech murder techniques could be employed. It would be a war of truly destructive power.

We can conclude that free-state coalitions may give rise to the possibility of a devastating world war. This is obviously contrary to our goal of achieving unification through peaceful transition. Free-state coalitions, therefore, are not the best option for the transition approach.

4. Conclusion: Absolute Superiority Can Prevent Mass Murder

Since free-state coalitions can easily lead to the outbreak of devastating world war, we must avoid the emergence of pluralistic coalitions. To do this, we must first eliminate the free alliance between countries; that is, we cannot allow countries to form coalitions at will. One central, singular coalition must be formed and further expanded on according to a strict timeline and a mature plan. This coalition will systematically absorb new members until it naturally transitions into a unified society.

The key to this idea is the limitation of free unification within a country-based society. Only a few specific countries can be allowed to form one singular coalition aimed at promoting global unification. Realistically, this approach will limit partial powers of most countries. Such an act has never been tested in history, since international organizations have never been powerful enough to do so. What kind of power would it take to accomplish such a feat?

All countries in NATO take orders from the United States, and the countries of the Warsaw Pact followed the lead of the Soviet Union. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had the absolute strongest strength within their respective camps.

In the Chunqiu period (also known as the Spring and Autumn Period) of China two thousand years ago, many states of various sizes existed spread in the Huaxia area. As the might of the Zhou dynasty diminished, the five most powerful states emerged. These five states respectively dominated China’s affairs in different periods and were known as lords among their peers. At the time, many countries did not heed the orders of the Zhou emperor, but they did not dare disobey the lords of the time. This shows that strength has always been the ultimate deciding factor in a country-based society.

Although international organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations cannot control the actions of countries, the major powers of the world can. Many smaller countries can ignore the orders of the United Nations but must bow down before larger, more powerful nations. In NATO, France and Germany challenged the authority of the United States in succession, but only because they had each gained considerable strength of their own. In the socialist camp, China challenged the Soviet Union as well and eventually withdrew from the Soviet-centric camp. This was also because China had gained enough capital to be placed on equal footing with the Soviet Union.

Looking back on the issue of coalition pluralism, we can conclude that only an absolute power could be strong enough to prevent the free alliance of countries. Furthermore, this type of power can only come from countries. We are not speaking of one singular country; no country could possibly hold so much power. We are talking about a superpower coalition with strong political, military, and economic ties and consisting of the major powers of the world. This superpower coalition would be an uncontested giant in the world, and no other force on Earth would be able to challenge it. Even if challenges were leveled at such an entity, there would be minor resulting damage.

We know from history that any war with extreme disparities in strength will not result in large-scale casualties and losses. For example, there were only 130 casualties on both sides when the United States occupied Grenada in 1983, most of which were Cuban aid troops. The United States succeeded in occupying Grenada in only three days. In 1989, it took only four days for the United States to capture Panama and escort Panama’s president, Noriega, to await trial in the United States. Only three thousand casualties resulted on both sides and more than half of them were civilians. The 1991 Gulf War was considered a large war, but even then less than twenty thousand casualties were reported. In particular, the US-led multinational force lost less than one hundred people and took only forty-two days to force Iraq to withdraw its troops from Kuwait. These circumstances were all made possible by the absolute military, political, and economic advantages of the United States relative to the other countries involved.

In comparison, the Iran-Iraq war that took place between 1980 and 1988 resulted in far greater damage. As two medium-sized countries with similar power, Iraq and Iran were embroiled in war for over eight years. The war resulted in 2.5 million casualties and nine hundred billion dollars in war expenditures. In the end, neither party conquered the other, and the only result was that two oil-rich countries became poverty-stricken.

Both world wars were also confrontations between evenly matched powers. The confrontation between the Allied and Axis powers in World War II was particularly brutal and dragged half the world into the abyss of war. These two world wars caused unprecedented damage and casualties; the destruction to culture, society, and humanity is impossible to calculate. Countless historical events illustrate one truth: evenly matched confrontations will surely lead to extremely brutal wars, but conflicts between disproportionate powers will usually avoid excessive bloodshed.

This issue can be explained in the following way. When the gap of power is extreme, not only will the weaker party be more willing to surrender and obey, but the stronger power will often feel more merciful. This is similar to how a giant may choose to spare defenseless, vulnerable children. While matched powers will inspire competitiveness, absolute superiority can often inspire kindness and a desire for peace within countries and national coalitions. In order to ensure the peace and mutual inclusiveness between countries and national coalitions, power of absolute superiority is necessary.

We can conclude that one close-knit national coalition formed by the strongest powers in the world is necessary for successful global unification. This coalition must be strong enough to deter all other countries in the world from forming alliances freely, thus changing the free state of countries. This absolutely superior coalition is the only power capable of achieving peaceful transition to global unification through one singular alliance without any destructive war. We will refer to such an entity as the “absolutely superior coalition of countries,” or the “superior coalition” for short. Identifying and selecting a superior coalition is the most appropriate transitional approach towards global unification.



Now that we have determined that a transitional stage led by a superior coalition is the necessary and most suitable approach for global unification, our discussion should turn to the formation and operation of such a superior coalition. We believe that the superior coalition’s establishment and operation strategy should conform to three major principles: the legality principle, the feasibility principle, and the justice principle. The “legality principle” refers to the coalition’s conformity with international law; the “feasibility principle” refers to the smooth establishment of the coalition as well as its successful promotion of ultimate global unity; and the “justice principle” refers to the balance of interests from all regions and groups in the world while fully considering the democracy and human rights of all peoples, as well as the achievement of desired results for as many people as possible.

One: The Legality of the Strategy

1. The Legality Principle

Since the legitimacy of the superior coalition falls under the purview of international law, we must first understand the characteristics of international law.

Most people have some basic understanding of their domestic laws. We accept authority and are subject to the constraints of domestic law on a daily basis, both consciously and unconsciously. Domestic law is devised by the legislature of the state in accordance with certain procedures; it is broadly binding and its main body is comprised of all relevant persons and groups within its domain. Domestic law is upheld by institutions of the state, such as the army, the police, and the courts; thus, it is guaranteed to be effectively implemented. The scope of domestic law does not extend to other countries, nor does it involve the entire international community.

International law is also known as Public International Law; it is completely different from domestic law. The main body of international law is comprised of countries, intergovernmental organizations, and national liberation organizations seeking independence. International law seeks to mediate the relations between the abovementioned subjects. It generally does not mediate between the subjects of domestic law. International law is effective within the entire international community.

Comparative to domestic law, international law has two distinct characteristics. First, the principles and systems of international law are formulated by sovereign states and other subjects of international law in accordance with the principle of equal consultation, usually in the form of treaties, conventions, and agreements. The second major source of international law is international customs—customs that have been repeatedly applied in international practice and are generally recognized as having legal character. Second, from the perspective of law, there is no institution higher than the state that has the power to enforce international law. International law can only be enforced by the subjects themselves or through collective action.

For example, the Treaty of Westphalia established after the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 was a document of international legality. The Covenant of the League of Nations also had international legality; the Charter of the United Nations, established after World War II upon the birth of the United Nations, is also a document of international legal validity. Other treaties of smaller scope have the same legality as international treaties, such as the 1815 Holy Alliance Treaty signed by Russia, Austria, and the United States. The Four-Power Treaty (signed by the United States, Britain, Japan, and France in 1921), the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance (signed by China and the Soviet Union), and many other treaties all carry the force of international law.

According to the characteristics of international law, we can see that international law and international relations are inseparable. The latter is the basis for determining the former. Whether it is the conclusion of treaties, conventions, and agreements between countries or the international customs of international affairs, international laws are often a reflection of international relations. Therefore, it is fair to say that international law is determined by international relations.

The legitimacy of international law changes over time. Acts that were once considered legitimate may be considered illegal in other time periods, while illegal acts today may become lawful in the future. Due to the constantly adapting nature of international law and international relations, we must emphasize the following points:

First, the establishment of a new international order usually requires a major war. For example, the framework of modern international relations was established on the ruins of European feudal theocratic power of the Middle Ages. The religious reformation movement in sixteenth century Europe spread to all other countries and exerted profound influence on European society. At that time, the Habsburgs in Austria were the main defenders of Europe’s feudal system, and they were in fierce opposition with the Protestant countries.

The Thirty Years’ War between 1618 and 1648 started with religion, but it quickly evolved into a political war that encompassed almost all of Europe. The war ended in victory against the Habsburg dynasty. The signing of the Treaty of Westphalia marked the end of the war and the establishment of a new system of international relations. The world order of prewar Roman theocracy was completely broken, and the Habsburg dynasty was forced to recognize the sovereignty of all the vassal nations. This new system of international relations was called the Westphalian system.

Under the Westphalian system, the main participants in European affairs were Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria—until the French Revolution broke out. At that time, France was a major power in Europe, so the influence of the French Revolution on world politics and international relations was extremely far-reaching. In order to stifle the French revolution, European powers like Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia promoted the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty. The ensuing war with the First French Republic established by the French Revolution and then Napoleon I’s First French Empire lasted over twenty years. The victors of this war rearranged Europe and established a new order of international relations. This was the Vienna system.

The Vienna system was followed by the Bismarck system. The dissolution of the Vienna system and the establishment of the Bismarck system was caused by a series of wars, including the European revolution, the Crimean War, and the German reunification war. The united Germany soon became a major power in Europe. The German prime minister, Bismarck—a manipulative diplomat and far-sighted politician—formed a new international order known as the Bismarck system. This system lasted until the outbreak of the First World War.

World War I resulted in tens of millions of casualties and led to the final disintegration of the Bismarck system and the establishment of the Versailles-Washington system.

The collapse of the Versailles-Washington system and the subsequent establishment of a new system of international relations was the result of World War II. The system of international relations formed after the war was called the Yalta system, because the commanders of the United States, Soviet Union, and Great Britain held their postwar meeting in Yalta in February 1945. It was in this meeting that the victors of World War II rearranged the postwar world order and established a new system of international relations.

Second, international relations determine the standards of international law. International relations are the foundation of international law and they determine the standards of international law. Both international treaties and international customs are a reflection of international relations. The emergence of a new system of international relations will inevitably lead to new changes in the content of international law, because the establishment of new international relations is usually ruled by a series of important international treaties and conventions. International customs are also changed as international relations adapt.

The legitimacy and justice of international law are not always the same thing. Since the establishment of a new system of international relations is generally accompanied by large-scale war, the leading establishers of the new international system must be the victors of war. As victors, they will undoubtedly put the interests of their countries first. Only after national interests are fully tended to will they take into account the interests of other countries. The victorious countries will also inevitably impose unequal conditions upon the defeated countries, and the defeated countries will be powerless to resist. All this is just common practice. These actions are certainly not fair and reasonable, yet they are legal from the perspective of international law because they have been established by means of treaties to which all parties have agreed and endorsed.

2. Seeking Legitimate Strategies within the UN System

Here we will seek an appropriate approach to the superior coalition strategy based on today’s system of international relations and laws. Since the establishment of a superior coalition has never been attempted before, there is no readily formed code of conduct or case precedence. We can only formulate a suitable approach by analyzing international history and relying on logical reasoning.

The establishment of contemporary international relations and law systems stems from the Second World War. After World War II, the event of highest international influence was the establishment of the United Nations and the signing of the UN Charter. The establishment of the United Nations as a focal point in global affairs is the most prominent feature of postwar international relations. Recognition of the Charter of the United Nations as the core source of contemporary international law is the most prominent feature of postwar international law.

The UN’s role in global affairs is most similar to the role the world power will play in a unified society. Considering the United Nations’ role in international society and its functional similarity to the future world power, it is only natural to seek legitimate strategies for the superior coalition within the UN system. In fact, the UN has always been seen as a transitional program that brought the international society from anarchy into the possibility of world unity. This is because the functions and purposes of the UN itself are very similar to that of a world power.

At present, 193 countries are members of the United Nations, including all the major countries of the world. These countries have the obligation and responsibility to act within the UN system in accordance with the UN Charter. In fact, the scope of the United Nations and its coordination is not limited to its members but actually exceeds its members and has extensive global significance in the fullest sense. It is stipulated in the UN Charter that within the necessary range of peace and security maintenance, the United Nations should ensure that non-member states also comply with the principles set forth. As can be seen, the status of the United Nations as a mediating force is entirely global.

a. The Agencies of the United Nations

In order to seek legitimate strategies for the superior coalition within the UN system, we must first analyze the organizational structure and operational mechanisms of the United Nations. The United Nations has six main organs: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. A series of subsidiary organs are also located under these principal organs.

i. The General Assembly

The UN General Assembly is the main deliberative body of the UN. It is composed of all the UN members, and each country has one vote. No country can have more than five representatives on the General Assembly.

The main duties of the General Assembly are to discuss the cooperation among nations and the maintenance of international peace and security (including the principles of disarmament and arms control); to advise member states or the Security Council on the above principles; to study and promote political international cooperation; to promote the progressive development and codification of international law; to promote international cooperation in all fields of economy, society, culture, education, and health; to accept and consider reports on the work of other United Nations departments; to appoint the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the Security Council; to elect non-permanent members of the Security Council; to discuss the admission of new member states on the recommendation of the Security Council; to discuss the decision to remove member states; and to discuss and decide on the budget of the United Nations. The General Assembly discusses a wide array of issues, but it cannot discuss any issue that the Security Council is deliberating.

The General Assembly is convened and presided over by the president of the General Assembly, who is elected by the previous General Assembly. There are also twenty-one vice-presidents. The president of the General Assembly rotates regionally. The distribution of the president and vice-presidents is as follows: six from African countries, five from Asian countries, one from Eastern European countries, three from Latin American countries, two from Western European countries and other countries, and five from the permanent members of the Security Council.

ii. The Security Council

The Security Council is composed of five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members (formerly seven non-permanent members, increased to ten in 1965). Non-permanent members are elected by the General Assembly for a term of two years and may not be re-elected successively.

The main duties of the Security Council are to maintain international peace and security, as well as to preside over and promote international disarmament and arms control. In addition, the functions of the Security Council also include: exercising the United Nations’ trusteeship role, electing judges to the International Court of Justice separate from the General Assembly, taking measures to implement the judgments of the International Court of Justice, recommending the Secretary-General and new members states to the General Assembly, and recommending the suspension or expulsion of member states to the General Assembly.

iii. The Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council, referred to as ECOSOC, is comprised of fifty-four members (formerly eighteen members, increased to twenty-seven in 1965 and then fifty-four in 1973). The members of the council all serve a term of three years, and eighteen new members are elected by the General Assembly every year. Re-election is possible once the term expires. The Economic and Social Council is responsible for coordinating international economic, social, cultural, educational, and health works and making recommendations in regard to these tasks. In addition, at the request of the General Assembly, the Security Council, or other UN agencies, the council will also provide intelligence and assistance as well as hold international conferences when necessary.

iv. The Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council oversees the trusteeship of territories and examines relevant trusteeship reports and petitions. The Trusteeship Council is composed of three country categories: member states administering the trusteeship of territories, permanent members of the Security Council that do not administer the trusteeship of territories, and a necessary number of Assembly-elected three-year member states. With the gradual reduction and complete disappearance of trusteeship administrators, the current board of trustees consists only of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

v. The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice is set up to deliberate and deal with international legal issues and to settle international disputes through judicial means. It is composed of fifteen independent judges of different nationalities. These independent judges are elected by their respective countries and then selected through a series of specific procedures.

The International Court of Justice has judiciary functions and advisory functions; it does not accept cases from individuals. Once the court passes judgment, if one party chooses not to comply, the other party can ask the Security Council to enforce the judgment. The advisory function of the International Court of Justice mainly includes advising the General Assembly and the Security Council on legal issues at any time. Other United Nations agencies—if authorized by the General Assembly—may also request the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on legal issues within its scope.

vi. The UN Secretariat

The UN Secretariat is the administrative organ of the United Nations and is comprised of one Secretary-General, one Deputy Secretary-General, several Assistant Secretary-Generals, and other administrative staff. The Secretary-General is recommended by the Security Council and appointed by the General Assembly for a term of five years; they can be re-elected. The Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the United Nations; they manage and oversee the work of UN staff and exercise the authority as well as fulfill the responsibility of the Secretary-General in all the principal organs of the United Nations.

b. The UN’s Core Authority Lies in the Security Council

The voting systems of the United Nations fall into three broad categories: “one-country, one-vote” consensus, “one-country, one-vote” majority, and “one-country, multi-vote” weighted system.

The one-country, one-vote consensus refers to a system in which each country has one vote and all resolutions require unanimous consent to pass. The unanimity principle of the Security Council relies on this type of voting system; it gives every member state the same right to veto.

The one-country, one-vote majority refers to a system in which each country has one vote but all resolutions only require majority vote to pass. This system can again be divided into simple majority and specific majority. The former only requires more than half of the votes to pass, while the latter may need a specific majority—like 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, and so on—to pass. The UN General Assembly as well as most of the specialized agencies of the United Nations relies on the one-country, one-vote majority system.

The one-country, multi-vote weighted system refers to a voting system that allocates votes to countries according to specific parameters like responsibility, contribution, and other conditions. This may result in unequal distribution of votes among different countries.

Among the organs of the United Nations, the two most important are the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly is the supreme organ of authority designated by the UN Charter; the Security Council is the sole authority that can make and implement decisions for all member states of the UN. The resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not universally binding; only the resolutions of the Security Council carry true compulsory force. Therefore, the core authority of the United Nations lies in the Security Council, not the UN General Assembly. The Security Council is the most important implementing agency of the United Nations.

In order to join the United Nations, a country must first be recommended by the Security Council and then its membership will be discussed and voted on by the General Assembly. Similar procedures apply to members who have been suspended or expelled. When it comes to issues being discussed by the Security Council, without express request from the Council, the General Assembly cannot discuss the same issues. When judgments of the International Court of Justice are not executed, complaints and implementation requests are submitted to the Security Council, not the General Assembly. The General Assembly only has advisory power when it comes to the maintenance of international peace and security, but the Security Council has the authority and power to make concrete decisions.

The Security Council’s powers are not only extensive but also superior to all else. In fact, the powers of the Security Council far exceed the parameters stated above. The Security Council is also responsible for formulating disarmament and arms control programs; exercising the UN trusteeship functions; selecting judges to the International Court of Justice; recommending the Secretary-General to the General Assembly; suspending or expelling the rights of member states; participating in amendments to the UN Charter; and other responsibilities.

The above details are enough to demonstrate that the power of the United Nations lies in the Security Council. As a universal representative, the General Assembly acts like a world forum; it’s comparable to how a parliament would function in a country. Meanwhile, the Security Council functions like the government that holds actual power.

The core power of the Security Council lies in its five permanent members: the United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France. However, every member on the council—permanent or temporary—has one vote. All procedural matters require nine out of fifteen votes to pass, while non-procedural issues require “yes” votes from all nine temporary members and consent from all five permanent members—that is to say, every permanent member of the Council has veto power. However, if permanent members do not participate in voting or abstain their vote, it does not constitute a veto.

It is worth noting that all permanent members also have the right to decide whether or not an issue is procedural or non-procedural. They can exercise their veto power if they decide that an issue is not procedural and must be voted on accordingly. This means that all permanent members actually have “dual-veto” power. The essential implication of this dual-veto power is that every permanent member of the Security Council has the power to directly or indirectly veto any issue.

The Charter of the United Nations bestowed extraordinary power upon the Security Council and also empowered the five permanent members of the Security Council, so UN affairs are generally dominated by these five permanent members. This is the reality of the United Nations; it may not be reasonable, but it is legitimate.

3. Specific Approaches

Since the centerpiece of contemporary international relations is the UN system, the core source of international law is the UN Charter. When formulating a design for the superior coalition, we can rely on the UN Charter as a guideline to determine the members that will make up this coalition.

First Inference: The power structure of the superior coalition should mirror that of the UN

In order to establish a legitimate superior coalition, let us first examine the functions and powers the coalition should possess.

The superior coalition should lead all mankind toward global unification (i.e., it should play a leading role in the transition to a unified society).Although countries will still remain in the transitional period, their sovereignty will not be complete. Portions of their power will have been transferred to the superior coalition; thus, all countries will have to follow the lead of the superior coalition.

What kinds of principles must the superior coalition be based on in order to be in conformity with the principles of international law? Since there are no precedents in the history of humanity for the establishment of a superior coalition, it is impossible to obtain provisions from existing international law. We can only determine some possible principles by analyzing the basic principles of current international relations and international law.

One thing is certain: one of the most crucial legal challenges will be the determination of which countries are most qualified to lead the world. In other words, which countries would most deserve to be chosen to form the superior coalition?

The only existing organization that can be compared to the superior coalition is the United Nations. According to the UN Charter, the powers conferred on the United Nations by various countries are manifold. The primary power of the UN is aimed at the maintenance of world peace and stability. In this regard, the United Nations can take all measures to ensure world peace, even armed force when necessary. At the same time, the United Nations shoulders the responsibilities of promoting international cooperation, promoting the development of human society, and safeguarding human rights. Its covers almost all major areas of politics, economics, military affairs, culture, and society. In theory, the scope of the United Nations extends to the world, which is consistent with the scope of the superior coalition.

Since the United Nations is an international organization, it is different from the superior coalition in two ways. First, the United Nations is not as powerful as the superior coalition due to a lack of its own global army. Comparatively, the superior coalition will have overwhelming military capabilities and will be able to exercise its powers to a far greater extent than the United Nations.

Second, the power of the United Nations is not as in-depth as the superior coalition’s will be. For example, the United Nations cannot interfere in the internal affairs of countries and must recognize the independence and sovereignty of nations. The same does not apply to the superior coalition. In the transitional period, countries will be required to transfer some of their power to the superior coalition in order to better facilitate the transition to a unified society. Without at least claiming some parts of each country’s sovereignty, it would be impossible for the superior coalition to command global affairs.

We can make the following approximations based on the above two points:

First, the superior coalition will increase the power exercised by the United Nations. The inability of the United Nations to properly exercise its power when needed is a fatal flaw, and the superior coalition will rectify this flaw. Therefore, the superior coalition will be more conducive to the fundamental interests of all mankind. We can conclude that the superior coalition will acquire power in the same way as the United Nations, but the former will exercise its power more effectively. This is in accordance with the principles of international law.

Second, the United Nations possesses some powers to safeguard the fundamental interests of mankind. These powers are endowed by the UN Charter, which is an extensive multilateral agreement signed by all member states; therefore, the power of the United Nations is in fact gained by willful transfer from member states. The superior coalition will gain power in the same way, only on a deeper scale. Since the prevention of human extinction is of highest priority, it is in accordance with international law that countries transfer more of their power to the superior coalition to facilitate global unification.

Second Inference: The superior coalition should be modeled on the framework of the Security Council.

When designing the superior coalition based on the United Nations, the following two elements must be considered:

First, sovereign states voluntarily confer their power to the United Nations by signing the UN Charter. (The principle of national independence and sovereignty is very important to contemporary international law.)

Second, only the member states of the United Nations sign the UN Charter—that is, members only surrender part of their sovereignty when they wish to become a part of the United Nations.

Members of the superior coalition will be very limited in number; it may be a few or a dozen at most. There are more than two hundred countries in the world, which means that 90 percent of the world’s countries will not be included in the initial superior coalition. The majority of countries will undoubtedly be unwilling to hand over their sovereignty to a superior coalition comprised of few member states. Even if a document similar to the UN Charter were signed, there would be no guarantee that the treaty would be signed willingly by all parties; thus, the ensuing acquisition of power by the superior coalition would be illegitimate.

In order to solve this issue, we must first discuss the institutional framework and distribution of power within the United Nations. Among the various agencies of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly is the symbol of supreme authority. The General Assembly is composed of all member states, and all members have the right to one equal vote; however, it is impossible for such a vast number of countries and their representatives to exercise substantive power in such a large assembly. In fact, the resolutions of the UN General Assembly are not even universally binding. Among the UN agencies, it is the Security Council that holds true authoritative power. The Security Council is composed of a very small number of members, yet its decisions are final and binding upon all members of the United Nations. From this we can reason that the Security Council holds the true power to represent the United Nations in leading the actions of the world.

With the above reasoning, the establishment of the superior coalition can be easily solved. Since the Security Council has the power to represent the United Nations on a global scale and it is composed of a small number of countries, the superior coalition should be modeled on the framework of the Security Council. In other words, in order for the superior coalition to have international legal basis as well as effectiveness, it should be established according to the compositional characteristics of the Security Council.

Based on the above conclusions, we may further examine the representative nature of the Security Council to determine its suitability as a precedence for the superior coalition.

We know that the Security Council is composed of fifteen countries: five permanent members, and ten non-permanent members. These countries are among the largest and most powerful countries in the world. They are also countries of global representative power.

Among the six major organs of the United Nations, the Security Council and its members hold core power. In fact, the power of the Trusteeship Council belongs to the five permanent members of the Security Council as well.

There are fifty-four members in the Economic and Social Council. Since the members of the Security Council are all major players on the world map and generally hold membership within the ECOSOC as well, they also hold great influence in the Economic and Social Council.

Within the General Assembly, not only do the members of the Security Council all hold their own seat, but the five permanent members are also guaranteed fixed vice-president positions. This is a deliberate special arrangement made in concession to the permanent members of the Security Council; no other country receives similar privileges. In addition, the non-permanent members of the Security Council are also important countries in the world and have the potential to become president or vice-president of the General Assembly.

Even without the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the five permanent members of the council alone have considerable power and prestige in the United Nations. It is safe to say that they can decisively influence most of the countries in the General Assembly on any topic or resolution.

The fifteen independent judges of the International Court of Justice are elected through an absolute majority vote by both the General Assembly and the Security Council. This means that the Security Council can veto any judge selection they disagree with. Moreover, all five permanent members of the Security Council will usually each have a judge of their own in the International Court—making up more than one third of the judges.

The Security Council can also recommend the appointment of the chief administrative officer of the United Nations—the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is essentially handpicked by the Security Council.

We can see that the Security Council not only holds the core power of the United Nations but also has the ability to influence the other organs of the UN. It has decisive power on the decisions and actions of the United Nations. The governing bodies of the Security Council more or less make up the full controlling power of the United Nations, making them great candidates for a legitimate superior coalition.

Should the superior coalition be composed exactly like the Security Council? That is, should the number of countries be five (permanent members) plus ten (non-permanent members)? That is not necessary from a theoretical point of view.

In the decision-making process of the Security Council, all procedural decisions require nine “yes” votes, while non-procedural issues require the five permanent members to not exercise their veto power in addition to nine “yes” votes. If all five permanent members reached consensus, further consent from only four non-permanent members would be required to pass a resolution.

A superior coalition is comprised of countries, but once these countries join the coalition, they will integrate and cease to be independent nations. We can hypothesize that all decisions of the superior coalition will be unanimous.

From this perspective, nine countries with sufficient representative power will be enough to form a legitimate superior coalition. Such “sufficient representative power” should be analogous to the representative power of the members of the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Security Council will be de facto members of the superior coalition. After this, only four more members will be required to establish the superior coalition. This condition can be called the “5 + 4 condition”; that is, four more suitable countries plus the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France.

Of course, other conditions must also be considered in the establishment of the superior coalition. The 5 + 4 condition is merely the minimum standard. If the reasonable addition of members would further the function of the superior coalition, it should be considered.

Two: The Feasibility of the Strategy

It is not enough to discuss the legality of the superior coalition; the feasibility must also be considered. We must consider whether a superior coalition can be established, and whether it has sufficient strength to lead the world towards unification.

In order to make the superior coalition feasible, the following factors should be established:

1. The Number of Countries in the Superior Coalition

Needless to say, the fewer the number of countries in the superior coalition, the easier it will be to form and integrate because religious and ethnic conflicts, as well as living conditions disparities and economic differences, will be less intense with a smaller number of countries. This will make negotiations and integration less chaotic.

At the same time, the number of members in the superior coalition cannot be too small. If numbers were too small, the superior coalition will not have broad representation and will lack necessary strength. There are a number of very powerful countries in the world today. These countries must be absorbed into the superior coalition, both for the advantage of the coalition and to prevent them from becoming threats to the coalition. If these countries formed alliances of their own independent of the coalition, they would undermine the leadership position of the superior coalition.

The number of members in the superior coalition cannot be too large or too small. From the aspect of feasibility, as long as it does not affect the formation and integration of the coalition, we should err on the side of more rather than less.

2. The Economic Scale

The economic scale of coalition member states should be as large as possible, since economic strength will always be the foundation of any country or organization. Since it would be impossible for the superior coalition to absorb too many member states, every member state will have to possess maximum economic strength.

3. Territory and Resources

Broadly speaking, territory and resource problems are essentially the same issue—that is, a resource issue. Territories are also a type of resource, but the concept of resources includes a wider range of components like oil, iron ore, coal, water, and forests. Some countries may be small but resource-rich, while other countries may be vast in territory but scarce in resources. It is difficult to analyze the resource situation of a country; for the sake of simplicity, we will use territory as the standard.

We adopt this simplification for three reasons: first, territory is generally proportional to the total amount of resources; secondly, resource situations may change day by day (before the discovery of oil, the Middle East was a barren desert); thirdly, the importance of territorial areas often transcends the concept of resources (from a military strategy point of view, a vast territory means superior military advantage). Therefore, the criterion of territory is enough to summarize the issue of resources as well as the further issue of strategic advantage. This makes territory a good standard to judge the strength of member states against.

The contiguity of territory is also an important factor to consider when discussing territorial issues. In other words, we should not only try to select countries with large territories, but we should also consider the integration potential of all member states. If the members of the superior coalition were distributed all over the globe, it would be difficult to maintain effective governance and management.

Many other conditions must also be considered in the choice of member states. If it is necessary to choose a country whose territory is distanced from other members, it should be in one or few isolated incidents. The main body of the superior coalition should be closely linked territorially.

4. Military Strength

There will be no guarantee for peace without absolute superior military strength. The superior coalition will only be able to dominate the world and lead other non-member countries through absolute military strength. Military strength will be an important criterion when judging the selection of coalition member states.

5. Consistency of People’s Living Standards

The consistency of people’s living standards refers to the idea that the member countries of the coalition should have similar average living standards among their citizens. If living standards were too far apart, there would be large differences between people’s lifestyles, education levels, and behaviors. This would make social integration very difficult and global governance largely ineffective.

It is impossible to expect completely equal living standards among the people of all member countries. In fact, living standards within a single country are often uneven. In China, the per capita income in Shanghai is nearly four times the per capita income in Guizhou. This gap cannot be underestimated, and it brings many social problems with it. However, the social stability of China is still relatively good among the countries of the world.

The gap in living standards should be considered in conjunction with many other factors. Though we wish to strive for as small a disparity as possible, we must admit that there is a huge gap in the living standards of different countries. As long as this gap is smaller than ten times, it should not affect integration too much. If handled properly, even large living standard gaps can be overcome. When calculating the per capita living standards of countries, the more scientific “purchasing power parity” should be the standard.

6. Religion and Ethnic Extremism

In today’s world, religious and ethnic extremism often lead to social instability. Terrorism emerged as a by-product of extreme religious fanaticism and ethnic sentiment. The extremely exclusive and vindictive nature of religious hatred and ethnic extremism makes them both highly incompatible with the spirit of global unification.

Ethnic and religious extremist countries should not be considered as initial members of the superior coalition, but that does not mean that they will be indefinitely excluded. After the superior coalition is established, the coalition will guide all other countries to constantly improve in accordance with the requirements of unification. Such guidance will include policies that downplay religious and ethnic beliefs and promote abandonment of extremist policies. Once this transformation attains a certain level of maturity, former extremist countries will be safely absorbed into the coalition.

Three: The Justice of the Strategy

The justice factor refers to whether the formation of the superior coalition can reflect the principle of fairness and reasonableness as well as give equal opportunities and power to all regions and groups of the world. Further analysis shows that the key component of the justice factor lies in the broad representative power of the superior coalition. Only through broad representation can the members of the superior coalition fully reflect democracy and human rights. Broad representation will also establish a broad basis of support and ensure that all countries will be willing to accept the leadership of the superior coalition. What elements should be considered when determining the justice factor?

1. The Number of Countries and the Population Mass

Undoubtedly, the superior coalition will have most extensive justice if it encompasses all the countries of the world; however, this would be extremely difficult to achieve in the initial transitional period. In fact, it is more in line with the ultimate goal of the unified society. Conversely, if the superior coalition were only composed of one country, its breadth of representation and justice level would be abysmal. In essence, this would be the beginning of a vast hegemonic world dictatorship instead of a coalition.

In terms of formation difficulty, the former approach is definitely the hardest, while the latter is the easiest; however, both of these approaches are extreme methods that will not produce desirable results. Under the principles of legality and justice, it will only be reasonable and realistic if an appropriate number of representative member states are selected for the coalition.

In terms of population mass, the more the population is represented by the superior coalition, the better the coalition’s representative power will be. A coalition that represents a great population will not only have broader representation but also a greater degree of confidence. Countries accustomed to equating population with power will feel less resistant to being led by a coalition with great population mass; thus, coalition member countries should have the largest possible populations.

2. Ethnic and Racial Issues

The superior coalition must have broad representation in all aspects, including ethnic representation. There are more than ten thousand ethnicities in the world, and it would be unrealistic and unnecessary to include every ethnicity in the superior coalition. Since the racial issue is simpler than the ethnic issue and it encompasses ethnicity, we can consider the broad representation of ethnicities through racial representation.

Generally speaking, the races of the globe can be divided into white, yellow, and black—that is European, Mongoloid, and Equatorial. These three racial categories are distributed among various countries around the world. If we use race to substitute ethnicity when considering broad representation, the issue can be simplified.

When incorporating member countries, the superior coalition must ensure that each of the three races occupies a majority position in some of countries selected. The member countries in the coalition cannot be dominated by one or two races.

3. Geographical Representation

The world is divided into Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Australia. Geographical representation is an important component of broad representation within the superior coalition.

Every continent is home to different people. Different geographical characteristics determine the different ethnic statuses, living conditions, cultural backgrounds, and historical developments of various peoples. Geographical sentiment is a force that cannot be neglected; the collective resentment of one continent would hinder the progress of the superior coalition far more than resistance from a small or medium-sized country. Moreover, geographical representation is an integral part of global justice. As a leader in human justice, the superior coalition should choose member countries based on fair and reasonable geographical representation.

4. Religious Representation

Religion is an important form of spiritual support for all mankind. There are more than one hundred thousand religions in the world today, most of which are newly emerged religions. Three of these religions are widely acknowledged to be global religions: Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Even though some religions are not global, they are still large in scale and widely influential, such as Hinduism and Judaism. Religions are often divided into many branches, such as the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant factions of Christianity, or the Shiite and Sunni factions of Islam.

The superior coalition cannot possibly represent all one hundred thousand religions of the world due to its small number of member states; thus, we need only consider religions of wide influence when discussing religious representation. The members of the coalition should subscribe to the main religions of the word, but religious extremists should not be considered due to their exclusive nature. Among the major religions, it is only natural that the three major global religions be included first.

The spiritual significance of religion makes it a very important component of broad representation. Suitable religious representation can unite different peoples and effectively avoid conflicts and killings caused by religious hatred. Exceptional religious representation is necessary to establish a stable external environment for the effective leadership of the superior coalition.

Four: Rethinking the Plan for Unification

Previous elaboration designates the United Nations and the UN Charter as the most legitimate, feasible, and just model for developing a superior coalition. This approach is possible, but it will require consensus and sacrifice from all mankind as well as the abandonment of various differences across the globe.

I believe that humanity would be able to unite and overcome all above differences if aliens invaded Earth today. That is because the overall threat to human survival would be visible and straightforward in such a case; however, human extinction from the continued development of science and technology is much less visible and may not even happen within our generation; therefore, global unification may take more time and effort to achieve. That is why we are adopting a method of peaceful transition as our ultimate strategy. Of course, it is still the author’s personal wish that unification can be achieved in one step through peaceful means.



Here we will set out two possible scenarios for unification based on the theoretical principles elaborated above. Both of these scenarios are arrangements for peaceful transition. It must be noted that these two scenarios are merely envisaged approaches; they are not the only options—we are discussing them as points of reference. The most important part of peaceful transition will be the political negotiations between major powers. The attitudes of major global leaders will be the deciding factor for our final approach.

One: Scenario One: Core Country Transition

1. The Basic Idea

The basic idea for the core country transition approach is to unite the major powers in the world to form a superior coalition in accordance with the three major principles of legality, feasibility, and justice. This superior coalition should move from loosely bound to close-knit in quick succession, resulting in one closely integrated entity that functions like one country.

This superior coalition should become a country with special significance. It should have a relatively fixed jurisdiction and population; unified authorities, policies, and decrees issued by relevant centralized agencies; and it should be able to exercise full unified administration.

This “country” will be distinguished from the average country by the great mission upon its shoulders—that is, leading human society into global unity. It must continuously absorb new, mature countries to expand its reach; it must compel and supervise the limitation of science and technology development across all countries; it must coordinate the economic, social, and cultural development of the world; it must also establish political, economic, social, and cultural systems for the future unified society. This country must be the standard for the whole world and the leader of all nations.

We will call this country the “core country,” delineating it to be the center figure and leader of the world. All countries outside of the core country will be known as ordinary countries. Ordinary countries will all have a certain amount of national sovereignty, but they will have an obligation to obey the unified leadership and policies of the core country on the subject of unification.

The unity of the core country will be guaranteed through a core country constitution and a strong national mechanism. The parliament, courts, army, and police of the core country will all be crucial tools to ensure its stability and long-term unity. Though the core country will have evolved from the concept of the superior coalition, it will have discarded the characteristics of a coalition and will function more like one unified country.

As an absolute and powerful nation, the core country will be tasked with the responsibility and obligation as well as corresponding authority to lead the world towards unification. Many of the decrees and policies of the core country will have compulsory administrative power; ordinary countries should and must obey them.

The establishment of a core country does not signal the realization of the unified society but is merely the first step in the right direction. Much work will remain after the core country is established, and a further period of transition will still be necessary. During this transitional period, ethnic, religious, linguistic, social, economic, cultural, and artistic issues as well as people’s living habits and moral values will be integrated further. Once such integration reaches maximum maturity, the time for unification will come.

2. The Specific Plan

According to the principle of legality, we know that the minimum standard for the core country will be the 5 + 4 condition. This has established the basic framework for the core country’s makeup.

a. Analysis of the Five Major Countries

The feasibility factor focuses on the overall strength of core country members. As the five most powerful countries in the world, the five major countries undoubtedly pass this test; however, the power of these five countries alone is not enough—the other most powerful countries of the world should also be absorbed.

The element of justice focuses on the question of broad representation. The five major countries as well as the other members of the core country must satisfy a broad range of representation. First, we should examine the representation of the five major countries.

There are four representative indicators for the principle of justice: population, race, geography, and religion. In terms of population, the total population of these five countries is estimated to be nearly two billion, which is a sufficiently large number; therefore, we will focus on the other three indicators in the following discussion.

i. The United States

Race: more than 10 percent black, a portion yellow, but overwhelmingly white (80 percent)

Geography: The United States can represent North America.

Religion: Americans are mainly Protestant or Catholic Christian. In order not to complicate matters, we will not subdivide religious denominations; therefore, the United States represents Christianity.

ii. Russia

Race: white

Geography: Russia spans Europe and Asia, but its political and economic center as well as its main population are all in Europe; therefore, Russia will represent Europe.

Religion: Russians mainly subscribe to Orthodox Christianity, which is a branch of Christianity; therefore, Russia will represent Christianity.

iii. China

Race: yellow

Geography: Asia

Religion: 90 percent of Chinese citizens are atheists, and China is a country that has been relatively apathetic towards religion throughout history. However, China is one of the main centers of Buddhism, and though Buddhists account for a small portion of the Chinese population, the overall number is still large due to China’s huge population; thus, China can represent Buddhism.

iv. The United Kingdom

Race: white

Geography: Europe

Religion: 80 percent of British people are Protestants, while others are mostly Catholic; thus, the United Kingdom represents Christianity.

v. France

Race: white

Geography: Europe

Religion: Christianity

To summarize, apart from China, which represents the yellow race, all four other countries represent the white race. There is no country to represent the black race. Geographically, Africa, South America, and Australia are not represented. Religiously, Islam does not have a representative among the five major countries.

b. Choosing Other Member States

According the to the 5 + 4 condition, once the five permanent members of the Security Council have been granted candidacy, we must choose four more countries to satisfy the legitimacy of the core country. In order for the core country to have truly wide representation, all the most powerful countries of the world must be considered.

After our previous analysis of the five major countries, we found that racially, there is no country to represent the black race; geographically, Africa, South America, and Australia are not represented; and religiously, Islam does not have a representative.

In order to satisfy the need for justice, the above missing elements must be accounted for. At the same time, feasibility must also be deliberated, and manageability and integration difficulty must also be taken into consideration. Specifically speaking, the territorial continuity, living standard gap, as well as ethnic and religious status of countries must be considered.

In terms of territorial contiguity, it would undoubtedly be ideal for all member countries to be geographically connected; however, simple analysis would show that this ideal situation is not compatible with the need for broad geographical representation. The continents of South America and Australia are already far removed from the territories occupied by the five major countries. In light of this, we will strive for the territories of the core country to be mostly connected but allow for a few overseas territories.

With regard to the differences in people’s living standards, a percapita income gap of more than ten times will make integration very difficult; however, this tenfold limit is merely an estimation based on experience and is not conclusive. If we are to apply the tenfold limit, we should use the highest percapita income among the five major countries as the standard.

Whether or not the religious and ethnic status of a country is too extreme cannot be measured by specific indicators, so we must rely on comprehensive analysis and universal assessment from the international community.

From the above analysis, we can draw some initial conclusions regarding the selection of additional core country members. The countries selected should have corresponding representation in all aspects without affecting the efficient governance and integration of the core country. Countries with strong national power should also be considered, even if they do not have strong representational power. Exclusion of such countries would not only damage the overall strength of the core country but would also present a threat to global governance.

Two: Scenario Two: World Federation Transition

1. The Framework

Similar to the core country transition approach, the world federation transition approach will also rely on the United Nations and the UN Charter as a basic framework; however, the world federation approach will implement the principles of democracy and human rights more thoroughly. The thought process for the approach is as follows.

The world federation will maintain unified management of the world during the transitional period. Under the federation government, the world will be separated into one central state and a number of autonomous states. The central state will be comprised of the strongest countries in the world, while the autonomous states will be evolved from all other countries. Thus, the central state will essentially be a superior coalition formed to promote unification.

The central state must be comprised of the strongest countries in the world in order to grant the federation government sufficient strength and authority for world governance. According to the three major principles of legality, feasibility, and justice, the constituents of the central state should be the same as the members of the core country.

The other countries in the world will all evolve into autonomous states. These states differ from countries in that they will surrender some of their sovereignty to the world federation government. Their territory and population will remain intact, as will a certain degree of regional management authority.

The world federation approach takes into account the enormous differences in the world and the ensuing need for separate development, which is why it will retain the regional and population statuses of existing countries by transforming them into autonomous states.

During the world federation transitional period, the world will operate under a unified constitution. The world federation will be required to govern global affairs in accordance with this constitution. As time progresses, the federation government will absorb the different autonomous states into the central state according to their levels of maturity. The number of autonomous states will dwindle until there is only one central state left—that is when the unified society will be born.

The world federation approach will embrace democracy more than the core country approach. The world federal government envisaged here will adopt the democratic structure universally recognized in the world today—that is, the separation of powers. Executive power, legislative power, and judicial power will be independent and mutually restrictive of each other. Moreover, the world federation government will adopt dual levels of power separation. Not only will the federation government separate its three branches of power, but it will also separate power between states. Under the administration of the federal constitution, each state will have its own executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

a. The World Federation Government

The executive power of the world federation will be in the hands of the world federal government (hereafter referred to as the “federal government”). The heads of the federal government (federal leaders) will hold the highest federal executive power in the world. These federal leaders should be a committee of three to seven people. (The author is more inclined towards a committee to better avoid dictatorship.)

The federal government will have two major management responsibilities. The first one will be to directly govern the administrative affairs of the central state. At the same time, the highest goal of the federal government will be to lead the world towards unification. Therefore, harmonizing and balancing the world development will be another important task of the federal government.

During the world federation transitional period, the world constitution will give each autonomous state considerable autonomy and the federal government corresponding administrative leadership. The federal government will exercise its authority in accordance with the provisions of the world constitution. Federal leaders will be the chief administrators of the central state as well as the chief commanders of the unification movement. They will be the heads of both the federal government and the central state government.

b. The World Federation Parliament

The World Federation Parliament (hereafter referred to as the “federal parliament”) will be the legislative body of the world federal government. In theory, the federal parliament will be the supreme power of the world federation. The laws promulgated by the federal parliament will set the code of conduct for the entire world, including the federal government. The federal courts will also be governed by the laws promulgated by the federal parliament.

The composition of the federal assembly should fully reflect the principles of democracy and human rights. The members of the federal parliament should be elected and dispatched by the various states.

Since the central state will be comprised of the most powerful countries of the world, it will take up a great portion of the parliament based on population ratio. Autonomous states evolved from smaller countries may not even receive one parliamentary seat, depending on their population. However, all states should have the right to express their own opinions and represent themselves; thus, the distribution of parliament members should lean in favor of the autonomous states.

In addition to formulating and voting for various laws and resolutions, the members of the federal parliament should also participate in the election of federal leaders. Since the members of the federal parliament will all represent their own people, their election of federal leaders will be a universal manifestation of democracy and human rights for all.

The federal parliament should also represent the people of the world to supervise and comment on the federal government’s administration as well as debate and justify major policies and decrees. If a fair percentage of votes can be reached, the federal parliament should also have the power to impeach certain unsatisfactory federal leaders.

Apart from the world federal parliament, all states should have their own parliaments as well. The federal parliament will be responsible to the people of the world, whereas state parliaments will be responsible to the people of their state. Federal leaders will be supervised by both the federal parliament and the central state parliament.

c. The Supreme Court of the World Federation

The Supreme Court of the World Federation (hereby known as the “federal court”) will be the judicial body of the world federal government. Its main duty will be to safeguard the cause of unification from a judicial level. It must ensure the purity of the world federation in the transitional period; ensure that the responsibilities, rights, and obligations granted to all states by the world constitution are implemented and fulfilled; and it must safeguard the world constitution itself.

The federal court will not accept litigations from within the states, as that will be the jurisdiction of state courts. Cross-state civil and commercial disputes will be handled by special judicial departments, not the federal court.

Half of the judges on the federal court will come from the central state, and the other half will be selected from autonomous states. This will ensure that the rights of the autonomous states be well represented along with the rights of the central state.

The federal court will have the power to interpret the federal constitution and declare certain acts as unconstitutional. The federal court will also accept lawsuits concerning unconstitutional actions.

2. The Election of Federal Heads and Parliament Members, and the Manifestation of the Principles of Democracy and Human Rights

The leaders of the federal government will hold the highest federal executive power in the world, so the universal and democratic election of these leaders will be the most important indicator of the federation’s justice. In order to properly design the democratic election process of federal leaders, let us first analyze the power characteristics of the federal leaders.

It has already been stated that the federal leaders will directly govern the central state and rely on the strength of the central state to lead global affairs; therefore, federal leaders will have some degree of control over the autonomous states and they will be the highest commanders in all matters of global unification. Federal leaders are not only responsible to the central state and the federal government, but to all the autonomous states as well. In this respect, all autonomous states should have the right to elect federal leaders.

We may propose the following design as a specific voting procedure. The central state will first conduct internal discussion and vote on candidates; the candidates with the highest votes will be recommended to the parliament and voted on by all members of the parliament. This means that the final decision of federal leaders will be made by the federal parliament, not the central state.

Since the representatives of the federal parliament are determined by population ratio in favor of autonomous states, the central state will receive no privileges in the parliament. The representatives in the parliament will all vote in the interests of their own people, so the final vote should largely reflect the will of the general population. Theoretically speaking, this will be a democratic election of the people.

The representatives of the federal parliament will be decided by each state. Each state may use their own historical traditions to determine the procedures for representative election. Representatives will be selected according to state legislature, not federal policy.

As representatives on the federal parliament, members will not only elect federal leaders on behalf of their people, but they will also exercise a series of other legislative, political, and supervisory powers in the context of global affairs. The world federation transition will take into consideration the multifaceted rights of all peoples in the world; it will be a true manifestation of democracy and human rights.

Copyright Copyright All Rights Reserved No: Beijing ICP Reserve 17047407-1