The World Council was an intergovernmental organization that succeeded the United Nations, which dissolved after 1968. Among its stated objectives were the protection of human rights, the preservation of peace, and the promotion of universal norms. It inherited many structural features of the United Nations; for example, it used the exact same flag as the UN, and the existence of five permanent members was retained in the new organization—namely the Federated States, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China. In addition, seven new permanent members were included: Canada, Spain, the German Confederation, Italy, India, Australia, and Japan. Thus, the World Council had twelve permanent members. In adopted resolutions, the positions of these major states were decisive and carried disproportionate weight. However, other states were not entirely devoid of influence within this structure. Secondary powers and regional blocs exerted pressure through coalition-building, procedural maneuvering, economic leverage, and the formation of voting blocs in subsidiary assemblies and committees. Non-permanent members, observer states, and transnational institutions could shape agenda-setting, initiate draft resolutions, and influence public legitimacy, thereby constraining or amplifying the decisions of the permanent members through diplomatic and reputational costs. In practice, these mechanisms occasionally delayed, diluted, or symbolically challenged major-power initiatives, even if they rarely overturned them.
To avoid appearing discriminatory, the previous United Nations granted non-permanent memberships to countries according to regional allocations, with elections held in the General Assembly. During their term, their votes carried significance because they were treated on par with those of the permanent members—though they lacked veto power. This practice was continued by the World Council, which meant that eight non-permanent members were elected each year, and they could not be elected again until five years had passed. Accordingly, even a poor African country could, for a brief period, have the same voting weight on the Council as the world’s most developed economy. Still, this ultimately gave the organization an oligarchic structure, as key powers remained in the hands of major states, and minor polities were frequently ignored. This was also driven by the desire to make rapid decisions—suppressing prolonged deliberation—and by the fact that the organization functioned essentially as a wartime emergency authority. Nevertheless, a few states that considered this unjust decided, despite difficult internal circumstances, to boycott the Council and did not join it. However, the apocalypse pushed nations into connectivity—because diplomacy became indispensable for survival—which prevented this number from growing large.
In this context, the World Council began to impose resolutions on Aldira, which resulted in it being viewed as a pariah state. Although informal channels were established to delay more radical responses from the Council, Aldira never submitted a formal response to any resolution during its existence. The world legislated against a regime that refused to acknowledge the existence of the legislature.
The USSR’s tendency to view the organization fundamentally as an apparatus serving NATO, and to regard Aldira as an entity that would disperse Western power and attention, led it to abstain in all resolutions as a Cold War strategy. The Spanish Commune held a similar view and believed the organization primarily benefited the Western world; however, since it was not a Soviet satellite and operated under a comparatively more democratic and humanist regime, it not only abstained in many resolutions but also voted in favor of some others that it regarded as “unacceptably brutal and demonstrably totalitarian.” In India, although most did not fully align with its philosophy—finding the Order too ambitious and purpose-driven to support a genuinely selfless and minimalist life—Aldira had hundreds of thousands of sympathizers due to its doctrinal influence on belief communities there, especially those shaped by monastic and ascetic traditions. The Indian government, already struggling with various Indian statelet formations that had declared independence amid internal turmoil, feared that this segment might lead to another uprising; therefore, it abstained in many resolutions and avoided being seen openly as anti-Aldira.
Resolution 1977/47 – The Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Aldira
The World Council noted with concern the emergence of Aldira as a newly consolidated political entity whose internal governance structures remained largely opaque to the international community. Based on preliminary reports from diplomatic missions, humanitarian organizations, and indirect testimonies from individuals who had departed the territory, the Council observed indications of significant restrictions on civil and political liberties, including limitations on freedom of movement, expression, association, and access to external information. The absence of independent media, the centralization of social institutions under the authority of the Order, and the lack of transparent legal mechanisms raised questions regarding the protection of individual rights and due process within Aldira.
Given the scarcity of verifiable data and the Aldiran regime’s limited engagement with international monitoring bodies, the Council emphasized that its findings were provisional and based on observable patterns rather than comprehensive investigation. It called for increased observation of Aldiran authorities with caution, the facilitation of access for independent observers, and the provision of detailed information regarding the legal and institutional safeguards in place for fundamental freedoms. The Council further expressed its intention to continue monitoring developments in Aldira as the state’s role in regional and international affairs evolved. For this reason, a governmental body will be established solely to monitor Aldira’s activities and to better expose its internal structures, as the government does not allow foreign journalists due to its secretive nature and limited diplomatic engagement, which diminishes cooperation.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, Republic of India, People’s Republic of China
Abstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Spanish Commune
Against: None
Resolution 1980/102 – Human Rights Issues and International Measures Concerning Aldira
The World Council noted with increasing concern the accumulation of credible reports regarding systemic human rights violations within Aldira, which had become more consistent and corroborated since the adoption of Resolution 1977/47. Evidence provided by diplomatic sources, humanitarian organizations, defectors, and indirect surveillance indicated the expansion of ideological detention practices, enforced social conformity mechanisms, and the continued absence of independent legal and media institutions. These developments suggested that earlier observations were not isolated irregularities but components of an integrated governance model.
In light of Aldira’s continued refusal to cooperate with international monitoring mechanisms and its lack of substantive response to prior inquiries, the Council determined that the situation warranted preliminary restrictive measures. It decided to impose limited sanctions and to recommend the suspension of certain trade and exchanges with Aldira, pending further clarification of the regime’s internal practices. The Council further called upon member states to consider additional diplomatic and economic measures aimed at increasing transparency and encouraging compliance with international norms, while acknowledging that the full scope of Aldira’s internal system remained insufficiently understood.
The Council emphasized that these measures were provisional and reversible, contingent upon Aldira’s willingness to permit independent observation, provide verifiable information regarding its internal legal and social structures, and engage in dialogue with international bodies. It expressed its intention to intensify monitoring and to reassess the situation as new information became available.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, People’s Republic of China
Abstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Spanish Commune, Republic of India
Against: None
Resolution 1982/96 – Military Hostilities and International Measures Concerning Aldira
The World Council noted with grave concern the confirmed bombardment of civilian and strategic targets within the territory of the Commonwealth of Australia, which multiple member states attributed to Aldiran military assets and affiliated operational proxies. Independent satellite data, intercepted communications, and eyewitness accounts indicated that the incident constituted a deliberate violation of maritime boundaries and was widely perceived as a violation of international treaties, though with limited material damage reported. The Council observed that this constituted a marked escalation in Aldira’s external conduct and represented a xenophobic and aggressive attitude toward other states.
This text was taken from Royal Road. Help the author by reading the original version there.
In response to these developments, and in light of Aldira’s continued refusal to engage in dialogue or provide clarification regarding its military activities, the Council determined that the situation posed a serious threat to international peace and security. It decided to expand existing sanctions, including comprehensive trade restrictions, and the exclusion of Aldira from international financial and intergovernmental institutions under the Council’s purview. Member states were urged to sever non-essential diplomatic relations and to restrict Aldiran participation in multilateral forums until substantive compliance with international norms could be demonstrated.
The Council acknowledged that the internal decision-making structures of Aldira remained insufficiently understood, but emphasized that the scale and nature of the attacks rendered further ambiguity untenable. It reaffirmed its commitment to monitor Aldira’s activities closely and to consider additional collective measures should hostilities continue or further evidence of aggressive conduct emerge.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Spanish Commune, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, Republic of India, People’s Republic of China
Abstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Against: None
Resolution 1983/164 – Occupation of Hokkaido and Maritime Security Measures Concerning Aldira
The World Council noted with extreme concern the confirmed occupation of territories within Hokkaido. The presence of Aldiran units on Japanese territory constituted a direct violation of sovereignty and a serious breach of international law. The Council observed that this action marked a further escalation of Aldira’s agressive demeanor and posed an immediate risk to regional stability in East Asia.
In response, the Council decided to impose a comprehensive severance of maritime trade with Aldira and to initiate measures aimed at isolating Aldira from international sea lanes under Council jurisdiction. It further authorized the deployment of a World Council maritime protection fleet to secure Hokkaido and the surrounding straits of the Japanese mainland, with the stated purpose of preventing further hostilities and ensuring the integrity of international navigation. The Council reaffirmed its intention to consider additional collective measures should Aldira fail to withdraw or escalate further.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, People’s Republic of China
Abstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Spanish Commune, Republic of India
Against: None
Resolution 1987/141 – Execution of American Diplomatic Personnel and Comprehensive Blockade Measures Concerning Aldira
The World Council noted with profound alarm the confirmed execution of diplomatic personnel of the Federal Union of American States within Aldiran jurisdiction. Verified diplomatic communications, intercepted transmissions, and independent intelligence assessments indicated that the executions were carried out under the authority of Aldiran state institutions, constituting a grave violation of international diplomatic conventions and established norms governing the inviolability of foreign representatives. The Council observed that this act represented an unprecedented escalation in Aldira’s hostility toward the international community and a direct repudiation of the legal foundations of intergovernmental relations.
In response, the Council determined that Aldira’s conduct constituted a fundamental threat to diplomatic order. It decided to implement a comprehensive blockade regime, encompassing maritime, aerial, and technological domains, and urged all member states to enact parallel measures to prevent material, financial, and logistical support to Aldira. Member states were further encouraged to suspend all remaining diplomatic and commercial engagements until Aldira demonstrated verifiable compliance with international law and accountability for the incident.
The Council reaffirmed its commitment to protecting diplomatic personnel worldwide and declared its intention to pursue further collective measures should Aldira continue its pattern of escalation and non-cooperation.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, People’s Republic of China
Abstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Spanish Commune, Republic of India
Against: None
Resolution 1990/23 – Unethical Human Exploitation and Experimentation Concerning Aldira
The World Council noted with deep concern the accumulation of corroborated reports regarding systematic forced labour in Norik camps and coercive human experimentation conducted under Project Integral. Evidence obtained from defector testimonies, intercepted communications, humanitarian organizations, and indirect surveillance suggested the existence of a state-directed research infrastructure in which detainees, political dissidents, and selected civilian populations were subjected to invasive biomedical, psychological, and sociotechnical experiments without informed consent.
The Council observed that these practices appeared to constitute a deliberate policy framework rather than isolated misconduct, indicating an institutionalized disregard for established international norms governing human experimentation, including prohibitions on non-consensual testing, forced modification of human subjects, and the instrumentalization of human populations for experimental purposes. Reports further indicated that the Aldiran authorities systematically concealed these activities, obstructed external verification, and integrated experimental outcomes into broader doctrinal governance.
In light of Aldira’s persistent refusal to permit independent inspections and its demonstrated pattern of non-compliance with prior resolutions, the Council determined that the allegations merited immediate and escalated international response. It condemned the use of human beings as experimental substrates and reaffirmed that such practices constituted crimes against humanity under prevailing international legal frameworks, irrespective of domestic legal justifications or ideological rationalizations advanced by the Aldiran regime.
The Council decided to expand existing sanctions to include a comprehensive prohibition on all scientific, technological, and biomedical exchanges with Aldira, including the restriction of research materials, equipment, and personnel transfers that could facilitate continued experimentation. It further mandated the establishment of an international investigative body tasked with compiling, preserving, and analyzing evidence related to the Norik camps and associated research programs, with the objective of enabling future legal accountability mechanisms.
Member states were urged to provide asylum and protection to defectors and witnesses, to support independent documentation initiatives, and to refrain from any collaboration with Aldiran institutions implicated in human experimentation. The Council declared its intention to pursue additional collective measures should Aldira fail to cease these practices, permit unrestricted access to inspection teams, and provide verifiable guarantees of compliance with international ethical standards governing human research.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Spanish Commune, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, Republic of India, People’s Republic of China
Abstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Against: None
Resolution 1994/98 – Use of Biological Agents and Global Security Measures Concerning Aldira
The World Council noted with grave alarm the confirmed release of a novel biological agent, designated by international monitoring bodies as the Nova parasite, in multiple regions outside Aldiran territory. Epidemiological data, intelligence assessments, and coordinated reports from member states indicated that the release was deliberate and attributable to Aldiran regime-linked research and deployment mechanisms. The Council observed that this action constituted a violation of international biological weapons conventions and represented an unprecedented escalation in Aldira’s disregard for global human security and international law.
The Council further determined that Aldira’s sustained pattern of treaty violations, prior acts of extraterritorial aggression, documented obstruction of international inspection regimes, and systematic opacity in biological research programs collectively constituted a persistent threat to international peace and security. In light of Aldira’s repeated non-compliance with investigative mandates, refusal to permit independent verification missions, and demonstrated capacity for transboundary harm, the Council concluded that conventional diplomatic and economic instruments had been exhausted and rendered ineffective. Consequently, the Council assessed that coordinated coercive measures, including the authorization of an international security intervention, were consistent with established collective security precedents and necessary to preserve international stability and prevent further biological proliferation.
In favour: Federal Union of American States, Union of Canada, United Federation of Great Britain, German Confederation, French Republic, Italian Republic, Spanish Commune, Commonwealth of Australia, State of Japan, Republic of India, People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation
Abstaining: None
Against: None
