Click on the arguments below to find out more.
Excessive carbon consumption is causing drought, famine and rising sea levels that threaten life on our planet.
Our current system of hoping the most industrialised countries will restrain their own consumption has failed.
The simple reality is that leaders of these countries have not been elected to represent those facing famine in Africa or rising sea levels in the Pacific.
If we want to protect our environment we need everyone to have an equal say in how we use it, not just those with an interest in abusing it.
Climate change can only be stopped with a global, democratic response.
In a globalised economy it is impossible for states to protect labour rights.
Corporations naturally seek the cheapest labour for their needs, moving factories to regions where labour standards are lowest.
Attempts to improve the situation of workers are met with threats of divestment to other regions.
In a classic "race to the bottom", states compete with each other in a bid to make their labour markets more attractive to investors.
While corporations benefit from lower labour costs, workers either lose their jobs as work is moved elsewhere, or are left with no option but to work in exploitative conditions.
The only solution is to give workers a global, democratic voice.
There is no international court of law, though the UN Security Council in Article 39 of the UN Charter has the ability to rule on the legality of war.
However, since China, France, Russia, UK and US have a veto over all decisions of the Security Council, it is ineffective in resolving disputes involving these countries or their interests.
We need a global democratic body that can decide when war is legal or not. Without it, either side in a conflict can claim its own interpretation of International Law - exactly what happened in the case of the ongoing Iraq war.
Without an global and democratic court of law, it is the voice of the strongest that wins.
The UN Declaration for Human Rights was signed more than 60 years ago, however there is still no effective body for defending those rights.
Today's highest body, the UN Human Rights Council, is an inter-state group, where countries negotiate resolutions based on political interest, rather than a real interest in human rights.
In the current international system, states rights are more important than human rights.
This is because the players at the global level are states and not people.
If we believe in having human rights at all, we need to be able to define and defend them in a transparent and democratic way.
Over 200 million people cross borders every year. Their reasons are varied, ranging from persecution, war and famine, to better job prospects, work and tourism.
However, the ability to travel between countries is heavily dependent on where you (and often your parents) were born, leading to a discriminatory system of movement that could be considered a form of apartheid.
These restrictions, often in the form of barbed-wire fences and prisons, claim thousands of lives every year.
It is clear that alongside the benefits of migration, there are challenges to sending and receiving communities that need to be addressed. However, it is not for receiving communities to dictate the terms of migration. We should be able to debate the issue in an open and democratic way.
