The critical analysis of the UN developed in this book neither rests on, nor entails an outright rejection of international organisations as such. The fact that international organisations violate human rights and that existing mechanisms for dealing with these violations are inadequate does not refute the idea that international organisations might be, and in many ways are, a good thing. One could be a cosmopolitan and still accept much of what I have argued in this book.

Nevertheless, the systemic liberty deficit of the UN – and of international organisations in general – does raise troubling questions. The transfer of power from states to international organisations is seen as an essential aspect of globalisation. For many, especially in the field of international law, it is a desirable inevitability. But is it really inevitable? And is it really desirable? The consolidation of a novel form of power, vested in international organisations, but also in NGOs, may conceal the emergence of a new leviathan – bigger and in some situations perhaps more powerful, but also more mercurial and less accountable than the state. Think about how the most politically ambitious of all international organisations, the EU, is often perceived and you will realise that for much of public opinion the new leviathan is already here.