I am not one of those who holds much hope for any reform of the United Nations that will make it more effective or democratic. The reason for this is that the UN is totally dependent upon the member nations for its very existence, and the member nations do not want an effective or democratic UN. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that Nations depend upon the doctrine of national sovereignty as their philosophical raison d'être. Sovereignty means supreme authority. To surrender some of their war-making authority would imply that nations are not supreme in all things. That is an admission that no nation, nor a nationalist politician, is ever likely to make. The nation-state has long been the primary method of structuring human society. It is now entering into a period when it is threatened by numerous forces, both social and technological. Nation states that are trying to maintain their own status are hardly likely to want to give up ground in any area.

(...) Expecting the nation-states to abolish warfare is like expecting the Medellin Cartel to abolish the international cocaine trade. The nation-state, as a social instrument, was primarily created as a war-fighting instrument. It is a tool designed to do a specific job (a job it does very well), but it cannot be used to create peace. A world republic, with a democratic world government, in which all human beings are free and equal citizens, is what is required. And the nations cannot and will not create such a body. The people themselves, using their own power, will be the ones who will do it.