This is indeed interesting. That charter reads like a git diff on the current one. Exactly the stuff I was looking for, thanks.

World Bank ties though? Oof. People are going to call me a lizard person. /s

Creating bigger and stronger governments will only lead to the protection of an elite that is way too irresponsible with their powers.

Well I clearly see the danger. The many against the few is a problem as old as society. And where there is power, there will be abuse. And every system we have, like separation of powers and checks and balances, is flawed. But the cold hard truth is that we have run out of time and I don't really see any other viable solutions. If somebody has one please let me know, that's why I made this post.

It’s genuinely very hard to find someone that says: “I don’t care about microplastics, “I have no issue with air pollutants causing cancer” and “I don’t care we are trashing the ocean”.

I know what you mean, most people would agree on this. But sadly it is very easy to find the people who would say so. Cui bono? Who is benefiting? So we need to regulate them. And then of course there are people too consumed with simply subsistence to care about any of this.

I don’t know if governments and corporations will solve the climate crisis, but goddamn I’ll do my part and help businesses and others do their part too.

On this we agree.

Yeah in a way. That particular keyword has a big conspiracy factor when you search for it though. :D

Local international institutions are of course an obvious avenue whether you aim for a world government or not, but I doubt they have velocity required for the problems we are facing, old and new.

Bodies like the LvN and UN are inherently going to fail to achieve peace because they rely on willing compliance with almost zero enforcement mechanisms.

Because having enforcement mechanisms slams face first into the principle of state sovereignty.

I agree on the state sovereignty part. But both the LvN and UN bettered the world within their limited means, while obviously more often failing than succeeding. So I don't agree on the failure part entirely. They may be inherently aspirational, but they tried and managed to improve conditions somewhat, exactly by being an (if ever so slight) impediment on state sovereignty that didn't exist before.

But yeah the general consensus seems to be that the UN is a failure, so I'm just looking for people who are thinking about what to do about that. Seems like the only people talking about it are the World Bank and Russia with its multipolar world order.

I think you are being naive.

Fair.

The LofN failed, the UN is now failing too.

That's why I'm looking for ideas to reform or replace it.

They by definition cannot solve problems. That said some related incentives have succeeded, such as the WHO.

That's kind of the crux here though, it can solve problems and it does. People are being fed by the UN every day. Yes, it's not good enough at solving the problems it is charged with solving. But that makes improving upon it the obvious course of action, does it not? What else is there except apathy?

The EU is failing because some of the individual member states are too strong. The same is true on global level where some overly large states or similar constructs form competing power blocks.

Increasing regional integration is basically a local optimum that makes global integration impossible.