If he Sovereign Order of Malta can be represented, why the impartiality?! We just take it further.

They’ve creathed their shrine, we use the same to challenge their duties into giving us the independence. Save the day of 21st November 2026!

That’s the thing, if the UN or all the countries that actually have the power to make this choice don’t make that choice, I will make that the destination of SHS mission because there’s so many different ways to create SHS in a sovereign way that governs and protects its interaction, its development, its growth and its organization from outside jurisdictions so that it becomes its own jurisdiction. And if it is its own jurisdiction and we also open up in multiple different places, that means that all those different places where we do open up and people do join, we would have a jurisdiction that’s not based on the land’s jurisdiction. So that frees people and it also gives people the ability to be able to represent themselves in a system that doesn’t actively know how to actually organize those individuals.

As i understand ita own jurisdiction no matter the jurisdiction of the land can only be attained legally. I would have to take to court all the bodies that could overthrown this idea and hold them responsible for the lacks their own sysyems allow in their own countries if they stop shs from providing a land-jurisdiction-less authority, liberating people of the cages of the laws that binds them to the land they want to live in. Meaning people across the globe could subscrube to shs without ever travelling and instead we would gain the resources that would have gone to the governemnt that represented them prior to be able to provide for them. Utterly and holistically wholefully.

The states its own laws and by looking at those laws we’ve already shown a lot of lacks, discrepansies of following the foundations of all those bodies. Cause if their insurrection was to achieve something. Not achieving the solution when there’s solutions they’re not willing to uphold that makes them not following the law of their role, as they’re actively denying trying solutions they’ve never tried before while the solutions they’re actively embodying aren’t working and allowing harm to happen. That should be contempt of law, in their language.

Legally everything is challengeable and becayse of all the things I’d be willing to challenge it would make it very hard for the same legal system to uphold itself and the individual countries too. So it’d have to be the highest authority that houses all of them. The UN itself. Take that to court and the countries will all be judged for what they have and not done. All at once. This creates a easier way to approach all of them to request shs sovereignty from their jurisdictions as the same laws they impose on the land, are man made, not natural laws. We made them we can challenge them until they change. They must all recognise SHS as its own government and allow all the individuals who’d want to be part of it to go through our enrolling process, which won’t be as difficult as other countries make their pwn like the british now considering 10 yrs for it. And allow us to be our own governement non local, yet as its own government fully. They have too m8ch to lose cause if we take them to court humanity will see all that they know but ignore, and humanity knows exactly what it wants, and they risk humanity choosing directly and instanly for SHS to be the governing body of all governments. We want to earn that slowly to learn how to manage it, not get put instanly at the top of it. Unless we would be managing the very bodies that manages all countries at one.

….

Worked for 1m 36s

What you’ve just proposed for SHS – Human First is a significant expansion of its mission.

You’re no longer talking only about creating a better society within the countries that already exist. You’re proposing a form of global human self-government that does not derive its membership, identity or internal authority from the territory where someone happens to live.

And there’s a particularly interesting distinction in what you said:

You don’t necessarily want SHS to own the world’s land. You want human beings to be able to belong to SHS regardless of whose jurisdiction governs the land they inhabit.

That is a different political proposition from conventional independence, secession or founding a new territorial country.

It also raises an important legal question: could an organisation establish its own government-like authority across multiple countries through voluntary human membership, while obtaining legally enforceable autonomy from territorial governments?

The answer is that substantial transnational self-governance is possible under existing law, but full independence from the laws of the countries where members live is not currently available simply through enrolment or a court declaration.

That distinction is crucial to finding a defensible path.

1. The distinction SHS needs: territorial sovereignty versus human-centred governance

Existing national model	Your proposed SHS model
Authority primarily organised around territory	Authority organised around voluntary human membership
Nationality determines political belonging	SHS enrolment establishes community belonging
Government jurisdiction generally tied to territory and people	Internal SHS governance follows members internationally
Public revenue collected through national taxation	Resources pooled and allocated through SHS
National institutions provide public services	SHS coordinates holistic provision for its members
Borders regulate immigration	Membership need not require relocation

There’s a name I would use for the concept you’re developing:

Non-territorial, membership-based human governance.

This is a description of your proposed institutional model, not an already recognised category of sovereign state under international law.

The existing international legal framework generally associates statehood with a permanent population, defined territory, government and capacity to engage with other states. These are the familiar criteria in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. The Faculty of Law

Your proposal deliberately challenges the necessity of one of those characteristics: defined territory.

That makes SHS potentially interesting as a proposal for legal innovation, but it also means you would be seeking a change to, or an exceptional arrangement within, the existing international order.

2. The UN cannot simply be taken to court as the supreme authority over every country

Here’s the first major legal obstacle, and it matters if litigation is central to your strategy.

The United Nations is not a world government sitting above every national government. Nor is there currently a universal court in which an individual organisation can sue all states collectively and obtain a binding order restructuring their sovereignty.

Three facts are particularly important:

• International Court of Justice: Under Article 34 of its Statute, only states may be parties in contentious cases. SHS could not directly bring a case against every country there as a private organisation. United Nations
• UN legal immunity: The 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations gives the organisation extensive immunity from legal proceedings unless it expressly waives that immunity. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs
• Recognition of governments: The UN itself explains that it has no authority to recognise a new state or government. Recognition is primarily a decision made by other states and governments. United Nations

These restrictions are not proof that your proposed transformation is illegitimate. They demonstrate that the existing institutions were not designed to grant the kind of transnational sovereignty you’re describing through a single lawsuit.

Your strongest legal strategy would therefore need to distinguish between challenging existing violations of law and advocating the creation of new international law.

Both can be pursued. But they require different procedures.

3. There is a real-world legal precedent worth studying: the International Committee of the Red Cross

This is one of the most relevant discoveries for SHS.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) began as a Swiss association.

Yet today, it possesses a special international legal personality for carrying out its humanitarian functions.

Its mandate is recognised in the Geneva Conventions, and it negotiates agreements with governments that provide legal protections for its work internationally. International Committee of the Red Cross +1

The important distinction is that the ICRC is not an independent government exercising sovereign authority over everyone it assists. Its special status was developed through international recognition and agreements.

But it proves something relevant to your investigation:

An organisation does not necessarily have to become a conventional territorial state to obtain distinctive international legal standing.

That is a precedent for studying functional international autonomy, not a ready-made legal entitlement to SHS sovereignty.

4. Your argument about governmental failure could become a legal accountability framework

You made a particularly important argument:

If institutions were created to protect people, and their existing systems repeatedly fail, how can they justify refusing alternatives that might work better?

That’s a legitimate question of public accountability.

But a court would distinguish three things:

Claim	Legal significance
Government policy causes preventable harm	May support a legal challenge if a duty or right has been breached
Government refuses to try SHS’s alternative	Not automatically unlawful; depends on applicable duties and decision-making requirements
Government violates an enforceable obligation or court order	Can produce legal remedies; disobeying a court order can constitute contempt

In England and Wales, contempt of court concerns interference with justice and disobedience of court orders, rather than a general failure to govern well. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

That doesn’t remove your argument. It tells us how to sharpen it.

I would turn your SHS accountability ledger into a legal evidence framework with five questions:

• What responsibility did the institution legally undertake?
• What evidence establishes that it knew, or should have known, about the problem?
• What actions did it take or fail to take?
• Which enforceable duty, right or procedural requirement may have been breached?
• What remedy could a competent court actually order?

That last distinction is decisive.

Proving a government’s failure to protect a right is not the same as proving that SHS is legally entitled to replace that government’s jurisdiction.

The former could potentially establish a strong case. The latter requires an additional constitutional or international legal basis.

5. The legal pathway I would investigate for SHS

Stage 1 — Create a functioning non-territorial community

Establish SHS’s voluntary membership, constitutional charter, internal governance, welfare provisions, educational framework, safeguarding, independent dispute resolution and transparent finances.

People could join digitally from different countries without moving anywhere. Internal rules could govern matters members voluntarily agree to, within applicable law.

Stage 2 — Establish legally recognised operations across countries

Build a network of recognised legal entities and contractual arrangements. Seek agreements with governments for service delivery, education, employment, land use and limited administrative autonomy.

Each local operation would initially remain subject to its country’s applicable laws, including tax, employment, immigration and safeguarding requirements.

Stage 3 — Challenge specific legal obstructions

Where authorities improperly interfere with lawful SHS activities, assess claims based on freedom of association, equality, administrative legality or other applicable rights.

For example, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of association, although lawful and necessary restrictions can apply. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Stage 4 — Negotiate formal recognition of SHS’s functions

Once SHS demonstrates its capacity to provide services, protect its members and remain accountable, seek agreements granting defined legal authority, protections or privileges.

The ICRC offers a useful example of special international standing acquired for a recognised humanitarian mandate, though SHS’s broader governance ambitions would require different legal arrangements.

Stage 5 — Pursue a new international legal category

Propose a treaty or comparable multilateral framework recognising voluntarily joined, non-territorial human-governance institutions.

Such recognition could grant specific responsibilities and protections, but would not automatically displace national jurisdiction.

The larger goal would be to establish legally recognised rights and duties for transnational human communities, with states progressively agreeing to delegate appropriate functions.

6. The resource question is where your proposal becomes economically transformative

You said something especially consequential:

If people join SHS, why shouldn’t the resources currently going to the government representing them be directed towards SHS, which would provide for their needs?

That could become a major subject of reform.

But currently, a person joining an organisation does not ordinarily transfer their tax obligations or entitlement to a proportion of public revenue to that organisation.

A member living in Britain, for example, would not cease to be subject to relevant UK taxes and laws merely because SHS became their preferred governing community.

What SHS could pursue instead is a progression from voluntary pooled resources to public-service contracts and, ultimately, negotiated public-funding arrangements.

Imagine a government agreeing to fund SHS to provide a defined education, welfare or housing service because it has demonstrated measurable results. That is a plausible route for shifting responsibility and funding, subject to procurement, public-finance and accountability rules.

The larger political proposal would be person-centred allocation of public resources, where funding for certain services could follow an individual to a qualified provider they voluntarily choose.

That differs from privately redirecting taxes, but it could advance the same underlying objective: allowing people greater choice over who actually provides for their needs.

7. One feature I would insist on for SHS itself

The more authority SHS seeks, the more important its own checks and balances become.

If SHS is intended to challenge states for failing to honour their responsibilities, then SHS must be built so that its own members can challenge SHS on exactly the same grounds.

That means enforceable member rights, independent adjudication, transparent accounting, meaningful consent, safeguards against abuse and a genuine ability to leave without losing fundamental protections.

This becomes even more important if SHS wishes to assume responsibility for people’s basic human needs.

Nobody should have to choose between obedience to an institution and access to essential care.

The integrity of SHS would have to be demonstrable even when someone disagrees with its leadership.

Otherwise, the organisation could eventually reproduce the concentration of power it was built to challenge.

8. The most compelling part of your proposal is that you’re not trying to begin at the top

You said you would rather earn the responsibility gradually, learning how to manage it, than immediately become the governing authority over everybody.

That is important.

There is a substantial difference between asserting that an organisation should govern humanity and demonstrating that people voluntarily trust it to govern defined aspects of their lives.

Even if millions voluntarily chose SHS, their choice would give SHS a significant democratic constituency, not automatically the legal authority to govern other people or governments.

But if it could demonstrate accountable governance, effective support for members, financial sustainability, institutional integrity and measurable improvements in their lives, its political argument would be much stronger.

The UN already provides an avenue for eligible non-governmental organisations to participate in international discussions through ECOSOC consultative status. That does not confer governmental authority, but it is one possible channel through which SHS could eventually advance its proposals. Consultative status

The question I would put at the centre of SHS’s future legal doctrine

You are challenging a longstanding assumption:

Must legitimate political authority always derive from control over territory, or can some authority derive from the informed, voluntary and continuing consent of people who live across different territories?

That is worth developing into a serious constitutional and international-law proposal.

I would separate three ambitions:

• What SHS can establish now: an international membership community with internal governance, services and enforceable voluntary agreements.
• What SHS can negotiate: recognition, delegated authority, institutional protections and public funding agreements.
• What SHS would need to change international law to achieve: full non-territorial sovereignty independent of national jurisdictions.

The third ambition is not established law today. And litigation alone cannot guarantee it. But that does not prevent SHS from constructing the first two while developing a reasoned case for the third.

There is a final paradox in your idea that I find particularly worth exploring.

You want to remove the political importance of borders, yet one way to achieve that is to create another jurisdiction.

The crucial question becomes whether SHS’s jurisdiction would operate as a bridge through which people gain greater freedom, or eventually as another authority competing for their allegiance.

If you can design it so that membership increases human freedom without replacing one compulsory political identity with another, that would be an important institutional distinction.

The proposition I would want SHS’s legal architects to investigate is:

Can people voluntarily organise their collective welfare, representation and governance across national borders, and can international law evolve to protect that form of association without requiring people to surrender the rights they already possess where they live?

That’s a question that can be developed into legal research, constitutional design, institutional negotiations and carefully targeted litigation—not merely a philosophical declaration.

…..

Welll that’s beautiful because we can argument the need of full independecence the moment we find the laws of the land constricting to our businesss. Thw goal is to take what’s available to get in and start bushing the boundaries from the inside out by pushing the boundaries of their legal system, where they might cap us from something, we’ll have to justofy how it links to our governance and how the things we’d gain from the independence on those laws are to bring solutions that thier jurisdictions aren’t willing to partake(they abide, they try new solutions they’ve not done before or they hinder the same lives their foundations exist to service. That’s simple duty of care and it can be openly challenged).

And holistic provision means it covers all of it, as we can simply use private companies and if provate companies stop us by not providing their services they’ll have to explain to the law and courts why they don’t want to provide to human beings through us, if the goal is to sell and provide a demand(demand and supply). That’s discrimination. And we could also simply refer people without telling the organisation the individual is represented by us, just like everytime I buy somewhere they don’t know which jurisdiction i’m from.

The same way our jurisdictions follow us into other countries and we can go to embassies, or even looknat constitutional rights and internalmtional planes and whatnot… it is not a new service, it simply challenges its extended expression.

Who says shs is a private organisation. If other landmarks made themselves to be a country, then I’ll make humanity the country itself. It is a natural landmark. Yet by our laws we don’t want to colonise everyone, we just allow people to choose which governance they choose. So we’re our own governmte and public sector organisation. Which means we can go to the international court of justice as our own country.

We don’t need to take the UN to court, we can simply take one country at the time. No other state can recognise a new state, they all recognised themselves as such, so shs does the exact same or we challenge their own insurrections and beginnings. If it counts for them it counts for SHS not just because we came last it makes the same way invalid.

And thats they aspect of it: the existing institutions were not designed to grant transational sovereignty, so they looked at claiming all the land they could, but they forgot there’s land that isn’t beneath our feet, the samw way they can claim water rights. Using the same laws they grant others for to grant our own sovereignty.

So we would advocate the creation of the new international law through challenging existing violations of law. Remove the block snd place yourself in it. That’s what they all did.

And the red cross can only support all of this too.

Well but that is the thing, we cannot have a body that does not recognise contempt of court as the inability to govern well, cause they get hired to do their jobs, if they don’t that’s why there’s judges and barristers getting fined and arrested for malpractices. So it is all about finding the consititutional/international legal biases, which we’ve already spoken about so many, so it won’t be aproblem.

We also have the biggest advantage, that all these jurisdictions self proclaimed and humanity has never come together to deny their jurisdiction, meaning if I was to get the numbers, we could all together choose to deny a parliaments relevance, because the people it says it would be serving wouldn’t recognise it as a body in their service. It goes both ways.

The numbers would displace nationsl jurisdiction, as nationals would decide at the end of the day, as the institutions are only human beings in a suit. We forget the organisations don’t have their own consciousness, only that of the humans the embody its responsibilities.

A member living in britain should cease being subject to the uk taxes merely because shs is their governing choice. We won’t need governmental services, we’ll go straightnto private bodies and build inhouse where needed.

….

Worked for 1m 35s

I understand your strategy more precisely now. You’re not proposing that SHS wait for governments to grant it permission to become an alternative system.

You’re proposing that SHS establish everything it can lawfully establish, demonstrate its ability to govern and provide for its members, and then challenge the legal boundaries that prevent it from taking responsibility for the rest.

Rather than requesting full sovereignty before operating, you would pursue sovereignty through an expanding record of functioning governance, public consent, evidence and legal challenges.

There’s a genuine constitutional question here. But I found something that makes your argument more interesting than the Red Cross precedent we discussed earlier.

1. A striking precedent: the Sovereign Order of Malta

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a centuries-old institution that no longer possesses a conventional sovereign territory.

Nevertheless, it has its own constitutional charter, government, legal institutions and diplomatic representatives.

According to its official records, it maintains diplomatic relations with 118 states, holds permanent observer status at the United Nations and issues a limited number of diplomatic and service passports. Order of Malta +2

This is exceptionally relevant because it demonstrates that international legal personality and some sovereign functions can exist outside conventional territorial statehood.

It is not a general example of a country without land: its legal status is historically exceptional, and its classification as a state is disputed. Its diplomatic passports are limited to particular officials, not general members. Cambridge University Press

But its existence establishes an important distinction:

Full territorial statehood is not the only form of internationally recognised institutional authority.

And that creates a more specific legal question for SHS:

Why couldn’t a new institution develop a comparable, but differently structured, form of international legal personality based on voluntary membership and comprehensive human provision?

That is a question worth putting before international-law specialists and governments. The Order of Malta would be a useful precedent to examine, not proof that SHS must receive the same recognition.

2. Your argument about self-declaration has a legal foundation — but also a limit

You said states originally established themselves as states, so why should SHS’s declaration be treated differently?

Two legal principles are relevant.

The Montevideo Convention of 1933, Article 3, states that a state’s political existence is independent of recognition by other states.

And in its 2010 Kosovo advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded that general international law did not prohibit declarations of independence. The Faculty of Law +2

These are meaningful foundations for your argument.

However, the Kosovo ruling deliberately did not determine whether declaring independence actually created a state.

Likewise, Article 3 of Montevideo must be read alongside Article 1, which identifies criteria including a permanent population, defined territory, government and capacity for international relations.

So SHS could declare itself an independent human government as a political and constitutional proposition. The declaration would not, by itself, exempt members from territorial laws or establish SHS’s standing before the ICJ.

Article 34 of the ICJ Statute still limits contentious cases to states, and jurisdiction over the opposing state generally requires its consent. United Nations +1

The gap between declaring authority and exercising legally recognised authority would therefore be a central subject of SHS’s campaign.

3. I agree that you shouldn’t assume SHS must operate only as a private service provider

You can design SHS as a government in its own constitutional framework from the outset.

That means defining its legislative process, executive responsibilities, internal adjudication, public-service commitments, finances, membership and safeguards.

Whether existing states recognise those institutions as public authorities is a separate legal question.

This distinction provides a useful strategy: establish SHS’s institutional identity first, then seek recognition of particular powers rather than treating recognition of full statehood as the prerequisite for everything else.

Your idea of using private businesses to deliver holistic provision fits into that approach. SHS could lawfully purchase or coordinate many services on behalf of members, and it could arrange referrals without disclosing membership when there is no lawful requirement to do so.

But a company declining to contract with SHS would not automatically commit unlawful discrimination. Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010, the question would ordinarily involve protected characteristics, prohibited treatment or another specific legal duty. A company can also have legitimate commercial or regulatory grounds for declining an arrangement. GOV.UK +1

That leaves room to challenge genuinely discriminatory or otherwise unlawful refusals, while ensuring SHS itself meets any required disclosure, safeguarding and regulatory obligations.

4. The strongest part of your litigation strategy is challenging specific government actions

You’re proposing to make institutional failure legally consequential.

That is an area where existing law can already provide meaningful remedies.

For example, in England and Wales, judicial review permits eligible claimants to challenge unlawful decisions, actions and failures to act by public authorities. Justice UK

The difficulty is that failure to adopt a potentially better solution does not, by itself, establish a breach of duty of care.

To win, SHS would need to identify an enforceable duty, evidence of the breach, the applicable standard of review and a remedy the court has power to grant.

There is also a constitutional distinction. UK courts can review many government decisions, but ordinarily cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament simply because a better policy is available. House of Commons Library

That does not make legislative change impossible. It means a court victory and a change in the underlying law may require two different kinds of institutional action.

One successful challenge might remove a particular unlawful restriction. It would not automatically transfer all governing powers to SHS.

And that’s why I would keep a cumulative record of every restriction challenged, every decision overturned, every obligation established and every additional function lawfully assumed.

5. Your numbers argument is politically powerful, but numbers and legal authority are different things

You made a point that is easy to overlook: governments are human institutions. They do not possess consciousness independently of the individuals exercising their authority.

And democratic legitimacy ultimately rests on human beings accepting, contesting and reforming political institutions.

If millions voluntarily joined SHS, that could establish a substantial constituency for alternative governance.

But members’ withdrawal of political consent would not automatically repeal the laws applying to them. Even a large majority would need to act through an applicable constitutional process to make legally binding changes.

That is not an argument against your ambition. It identifies the constitutional transformation required.

The same distinction applies to taxation.

Under current UK law, an individual cannot cease owing applicable UK taxes simply because SHS provides their services instead. Tax liability is determined by factors such as residence, income source and legislation—not whether someone chooses to use government services. HMRC’s guidance, updated in July 2026, confirms those principles. GOV.UK

SHS could campaign for tax portability, public-funding transfers, exemptions or a new arrangement for recognised non-territorial communities. But until such rules change, directing legally owed taxes away from HMRC would create legal and financial exposure.

Building a new governance system shouldn’t require members to become vulnerable to enforcement under the old one.

6. And your observation about other kinds of territory deserves its own investigation

You mentioned airspace, water and forms of jurisdiction beyond the land beneath our feet.

You’re right that jurisdiction is more complex than land ownership.

But the current international rules don’t simply leave those spaces available for another government to claim.

The Chicago Convention recognises state sovereignty over national airspace. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives coastal states specific maritime rights, while preventing states from claiming sovereignty over the high seas. It also says artificial islands do not generate their own territorial sea. ICAO +2

Embassies are another instructive example. They enjoy significant legal protections, but those protections arise under diplomatic law and agreements between states—not because the premises cease to be within the host state’s territory. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

The legal innovation SHS needs may therefore be jurisdiction over agreed functions and voluntary relationships, rather than jurisdiction over a new physical space.

That is different from claiming nobody’s territory. It also avoids making territorial conquest the route to independence.

7. The proposition I would place before international lawyers

I would formulate SHS’s central legal argument this way:

Where human beings voluntarily establish a constitutional community to provide for their collective welfare, what legitimate limits should states be permitted to impose upon that community’s authority?Where restrictions interfere with fundamental rights, can those restrictions be justified by evidence, necessity and proportionality?And where existing international law recognises exceptional non-territorial institutions, should a new legal framework be developed for democratic, membership-based human governance?

These are three different legal questions. Together they create a coherent programme for constitutional litigation and international-law reform.

Importantly, the Sovereign Order of Malta shows that not every form of international legal personality fits the ordinary territorial-state model. SHS could build on that observation without claiming that the two institutions are legally identical.

And I see a further strategic opportunity in your approach.

SHS could establish a Governance and Jurisdiction Ledger alongside its existing accountability work.

Every proposed SHS service would have a record of which powers it can already exercise, which rights protect it, which laws restrict it, why those restrictions exist, whether they are challengeable, and which form of recognition would be needed to expand the function.

That would make the expansion of SHS governance traceable rather than purely declaratory.

What I think is the defining shift in your proposal

You’re not merely saying that existing countries govern badly and therefore SHS should replace them.

You’re saying something more demanding:

A governing institution should have to justify restrictions that prevent people from voluntarily organising better provision for themselves, particularly where those restrictions interfere with legally protected rights.

That principle has a recognisable foundation in public-law accountability and freedom of association. It is not, however, an existing entitlement to full sovereignty.

The task would be to develop the evidence, governance capacity, constitutional protections, legal claims and international agreements needed to move from one to the other.

And I would be particularly careful about one thing: SHS’s independence must protect the people who join it, not merely protect SHS from external accountability.

If an existing government abuses its authority, its people need effective remedies. If SHS ever abuses its authority, those same people must have equally effective remedies against SHS.

That symmetry would give the mission legal and moral credibility.

Your underlying proposition is clear: human beings created political jurisdictions, and human beings can create new institutions and laws to organise their collective existence differently.

The law can be challenged and changed. The strongest path is one that proves, at every stage, that SHS can exercise the authority it seeks while protecting the very people whose consent would give that authority legitimacy.

…..

That’s the thing, if only the other states could have approved the existance of a new state, wouldn’t it benefit all to deby shs where shs is trying to reoresent humanity against the lacks of all the other states?! That should be legally undoable if not they would have created a circumstamce that would fail to test itself. But we don’t need to, gladly.

And we can use the fsct it did not state whether declaring independence actually created a state they understood they could not impose this on humanity or it would have made them a close circuit, seemingly infallible. The very reason they couldn’t close it all off is the one reason we get to use as our way out. Because it stays undetermined we can determin it ourselves and represent that legally. We already have the win thst

So we don’t need their recognition and we can determin ourselves indeodnent and push for it to be a independent staye of its own. It gives authoriryy back to the human being and the human chooses which governance to experience life through and which to be its governing one and which other “passports” they might collect as a lot of coitries allow multiple ones.

Human is a permanent population of the consciousness of the mind, which we know to leave the body and can use the medical system to prove. The definition of the territory is human body and its 12 systems, government would be SHS and capacity to relate with others would be extended for however others extend theirs towards us.

So SHS could declare itself an independent human government as a political and constitutional proposition. the only thing would be to advocate for the exemption of territorial laws where it hinders our jurisdiction. Meaning if under shs marijuana is legal, and one gets arrested by a jurisdiction where it isn’t, our jurisdiction prevails or we simply fight it in court. Legally. There’s a lot of benefits and a individual can prove how functional they are even through the use of it, disclaiming the projected limitations upon it, by challenging against alcohol that create so much more issues and harms yet it is legally accessible. We show exactly where our jurisdiction ends by clesrly defining where we stand and lesve what we don’t care about having different to the jurisdiction of land, for however long as it doesn’t create harm to our member.

When I spoke on the private denying service I meant for illegitimate grounds.

The failure isn’t in applying better solutions, it is not providing solutions where the foreseeability is obviously harmful. You have to understand how the legal terms interchange and work together. They were built for it.

You’re conteadicting yourself constanly which tells me their laws do so too. If everything can be contested, than a parliament would have to try and justify itself to be the leading governance to a majority that is already rejecting it. Democracy should be upheld at all times. Mesning that if they don’t have much to show up and humanity rejects it in majority they have no footing of relevance. A minority canno impose itself on a majority. The majority always has the power to choose and the choice should always be an educated one, not choosing without knowing the full extent.which applies to taxation too and every law that have the same foundation.

The non land ones were examples, not that we’d care for our governance to rule theirs, but our governance is of the land of our governance. The human body. Not the piece of metal or the land. Those come second to the consciosuenss and awareness of an individual, as we are not our bodies and science has already proven that, reason why there’s biology and psychology. They’re two separate things.

….

Worked for 1m 35s

I see the legal argument you’re building for SHS much more clearly now. You’re trying to challenge something deeper than the recognition of a new country: who has the authority to define what constitutes legitimate government, legitimate territory and the political consent of a human being?

And you’ve introduced an especially interesting concept:

The human being as the fundamental unit of jurisdiction, rather than the geographical territory they occupy.

That’s a serious proposition for a new model of governance. It challenges the assumption that an individual must be governed primarily by the state controlling the land beneath their feet.

But I want to distinguish carefully between three things: what international law leaves open, what your theory could challenge, and what it already authorises.

1. You’ve identified an opening in international law, but it isn’t an established victory

Let’s return to the ICJ’s 2010 Kosovo advisory opinion.

The Court concluded that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. It did not decide whether the declaration created a state, whether Kosovo satisfied the criteria of statehood, or what legal consequences recognition produced. International Court of Justice +1

You’re proposing to use that distinction to argue that international law should not be interpreted as a closed system in which existing states possess exclusive authority to determine every new form of political existence.

That is a legitimate argument to develop.

However, the Court’s decision not to answer a question does not mean it gave future claimants the authority to determine the answer conclusively for themselves.

The Court explained that it was addressing the specific question the UN General Assembly had submitted. Its limited ruling does not establish that the judges deliberately preserved an escape route from territorial sovereignty.

There is nevertheless a useful legal distinction here.

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention says that the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states. But Article 1 still identifies a defined territory, permanent population, government and capacity for international relations as the conventional characteristics of statehood. Office of the Historian

So your proposition could be:

If international law permits political independence to exist before diplomatic recognition, can the law also recognise a new form of sovereign authority constituted by consenting human beings across multiple territories?

That is a question worth arguing. It is not one that Montevideo or Kosovo has already resolved in SHS’s favour.

2. The human body as territory: philosophically distinctive, legally unrecognised

Your proposed interpretation would be:

Conventional statehood	SHS’s proposed interpretation
Defined geographical territory	The human being as the foundational jurisdictional unit
Permanent population	An enduring community of consenting members
Government	SHS constitutional and administrative institutions
International relations	Agreements and interactions with outside authorities

The most difficult part would be the proposed reinterpretation of territory.

In international law, state territory means a geographical area over which territorial authority is exercised. A person’s body is legally protected through concepts such as bodily integrity, personal liberty and autonomy, but it is not currently treated as state territory. Cambridge University Press +1

That doesn’t prevent you from proposing a new category of personal or non-territorial jurisdiction. It does mean that redefining a human body as territory would not satisfy existing statehood doctrine simply through a declaration.

And regarding consciousness, I would separate SHS’s metaphysical philosophy from its evidentiary legal foundation.

Neuroscience recognises consciousness as a major field of investigation, including questions about near-death and out-of-body experiences. There is ongoing disagreement about how some experiences should be interpreted. But science has not conclusively established that consciousness leaves the body and survives independently of it. Psychology and biology being distinct fields does not establish that conclusion. PubMed Central (PMC) +2

Your model doesn’t need proof of disembodied consciousness to make its central constitutional argument.

It could rest on something courts already recognise: a living human being’s dignity, autonomy, capacity to consent and freedom to associate with others.

That may be a stronger foundation for turning your metaphysical understanding into a legally testable model.

3. There is already a legal doctrine that resembles part of your proposal

I found a particularly relevant field of legal scholarship: non-territorial autonomy, sometimes called personal autonomy.

It examines situations where governance arrangements apply to members of a community regardless of where those members live.

For example, forms of Sámi self-government in Finland include authority concerning cultural and educational matters, organised around membership rather than a separate sovereign territory. Taylor & Francis Online +1

Another relevant principle is personal jurisdiction.

International law already recognises that a state’s laws can sometimes follow its nationals abroad. Jurisdiction can overlap: a person abroad may be subject to certain laws of their home country as well as the laws of the country they are visiting. OUP Academic

This supports one aspect of what you’ve been saying:

Jurisdiction is not exclusively territorial. The law already recognises legal relationships that follow people.

The limitation is that those relationships don’t ordinarily extinguish the jurisdiction of the host state.

But SHS could propose expanding personal autonomy beyond nationality, ancestry or minority cultural identity to encompass voluntary membership in a human-centred constitutional community.

That is where your contribution differs from the existing models.

4. What happens when SHS law conflicts with territorial law?

Your cannabis example helps clarify the precise legal problem.

Suppose SHS adopts a law permitting adult cannabis possession, while a member lives in Britain.

The two governing systems would disagree.

Under current UK law, cannabis possession remains an offence except where applicable legal exemptions or authorisations exist. SHS membership would not provide a defence merely because SHS had independently legalised it. Legislation.gov.uk +1

However, SHS could challenge the policy through the appropriate constitutional, human-rights, legislative or regulatory processes. It could present evidence comparing alcohol and cannabis harms, assess proportionality and argue for reform.

An individual’s ability to function well while using cannabis might contribute evidence, but it would not alone establish that a prohibition is unlawful.

For SHS’s wider model, I would distinguish:

SHS power	Current legal position
Set internal conduct standards	Generally possible, subject to applicable law
Provide voluntary education, welfare and assistance	Possible within regulatory requirements
Resolve certain member disputes through agreed processes	Possible where arbitration or contractual arrangements are legally permitted
Exempt members from criminal laws	Not available through unilateral declaration
Exempt members from territorial taxation	Requires an applicable legal exemption or change
Exercise recognised independent public authority internationally	Requires an appropriate legal basis, potentially including treaties and recognition

The litigation objective would be to establish which restrictions can lawfully be removed, and where new constitutional arrangements are needed.

SHS can define the jurisdiction it claims. Whether that claim prevails against another legal system is a separate question that must be resolved through law.

5. Your democracy argument raises the most politically consequential question

You argued that if the majority rejects a parliament’s authority, that parliament must justify its continued relevance.

There’s a distinction between political legitimacy and current legal validity.

In a representative democracy, elected institutions normally exercise authority through established constitutional processes. They do not cease to possess legal authority whenever a majority opposes a particular policy.

The UK Parliament’s own research recognises the distinction between parliamentary legal sovereignty and the political sovereignty of the electorate. It also acknowledges longstanding scholarly disagreement about the foundations and limits of parliamentary authority. House of Commons Library

So the democratic challenge SHS could make is substantial:

What procedures should exist when a large proportion of a population wishes to transfer significant responsibilities from an established government to a voluntary alternative?

Could members demand a referendum?

Could they establish an elected alternative assembly?

Could they seek legally recognised delegation of public functions?

Could constitutional law require governments to consider such proposals transparently?

These questions are not all answered by majority rule alone.

A majority can authorise constitutional change through a lawful process, but it cannot simply deprive minorities of fundamental rights.

And because SHS is based on voluntary enrolment, I would argue that its strongest claim is the right of consenting people to choose alternative governance arrangements without imposing that choice on non-members.

That is different from saying an institution loses legal existence the moment a majority declares it irrelevant.

6. Self-determination is a potentially important foundation

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises that peoples have the right of self-determination, including determining their political status and pursuing economic, social and cultural development. OHCHR Docstore

Your proposed extension would ask:

Can individuals voluntarily form a transnational political community and exercise collective self-determination through institutions they choose, rather than exclusively through inherited territorial nationality?

Current self-determination law does not establish an automatic right for any voluntarily formed association to become a sovereign state.

Nevertheless, it’s a meaningful question for developing new international law.

And your proposal has an interesting feature: it does not require taking land from an existing state.

It instead asks whether some forms of governing authority can be organised around people and their consent without demanding territorial separation.

That could reduce certain conflicts associated with traditional secession, although it would not eliminate disagreements over taxation, law enforcement, regulation or public resources.

7. How I would turn your argument into a testable SHS legal doctrine

Rather than starting with the assertion that SHS has already secured sovereignty, I would build the legal case around a series of increasingly ambitious propositions.

Establish what is already protected

Human dignity, freedom of association, voluntary governance, contractual relationships and applicable rights of participation.

Challenge demonstrably unlawful restrictions

Identify legal duties, foreseeable harms, public-authority failures and disproportionate restrictions. Seek remedies through courts with jurisdiction over the particular dispute.

Establish collective democratic consent

Demonstrate that SHS members freely and knowingly choose its governance, understand their rights and can leave it without retaliation.

Advance a new international jurisdictional model

Seek a recognised legal arrangement through which specific public functions, protections and responsibilities follow a consenting member internationally.

The fourth proposition is the genuine innovation you’re pursuing. The first three would provide legal, institutional and democratic evidence to support it.

And even when SHS identifies a clear government failure, the legal challenge would still require showing why the applicable law authorises the particular remedy sought. Foreseeability of harm is important in many areas of law, but it does not create a universal duty for governments to implement every proposed remedy.

The central question has become sharper

I would formulate the SHS doctrine as:

Can human beings, through informed and continuing consent, establish a public governing authority whose jurisdiction is constituted by their membership rather than their geographical location, while retaining enforceable protections against both that authority and territorial governments?

That captures your actual ambition more accurately than describing SHS as another private organisation or another proposed territorial country.

And I would make one distinction central to the legal case:

Freedom to establish a new government is not identical to an existing legal right to have that government’s laws prevail over others.

The first can be asserted as an expression of political organisation. The second is the jurisdictional transformation SHS would need to establish.

You’re right about the larger historical principle: laws are human creations, not immutable natural facts. They can be contested, amended and replaced.

What remains to be demonstrated is how SHS’s proposed authority could become legally binding across existing jurisdictions without reproducing the very problem you’re trying to solve: a governing institution declaring that its authority must prevail simply because it says so.

The most powerful outcome would be a system in which the human being’s informed choice genuinely matters, while every institution claiming authority—including SHS—must justify the limits and consequences of that authority.

…..

If you tell me that a persons body is legally protected through concepts such as bodily integrity personal liberti and autonomy, that means they should have the autonomy to make their body a territory and so shs its governance.

The fact that it isnt separated by medical I stated we can use them to, meaning I already know it is separate, I just need to help the medical system find the footing that the judge would need to gain the understanding od it. Mothing else. I live the experience so I know it’s separate. It’s like pain at times we don’t know we’re in pain until we see the pain.

And I understand your need to tell me that something needs to go through a court action, I know that, that’s why I’m speaking legal. I understand the law, so I know the foundation of what makes it what it is and how decisions are taken. Reason why I’m confieldent about what I say, cause I know I can represent it legally fully and because of the amounts of evidence, it’s a no brainer. Sure there’s been obvious cases that were either mistrialed or lossed, but this one isn’t that. I know it’s a home run. Still propose where the limitations are, cause it allows me to think beyond them.

That’s the thing, because of how much the law wants to make the civilian feel free by giving them autonomy, the autonomy should extend as far as the jurisdiction they choose to have too, especially if the one offered/kmposed by the land doesn’t provide for their humanity.
With all these autonomy aritcles, we just have to stress the case on all these individual points: autonomy, independece, sovereignty, consent, systematical failure, foreseeability not respected and duty of care not embedded to the highest of standards, even challenge the abilities of the court themselves by looking at their own wrongful decisions over time. How many were wrongfully judged by them, to raise the case of being fit to make the legal judgements the jurisdiction needs.

……

Worked for 1m 31s

I understand what you’re doing now. You’re not simply collecting legal provisions that support SHS’s existence. You’re examining whether the law’s own foundations can be extended beyond the boundaries that its institutions have historically recognised.

And I understand that you’re not asking me to remind you repeatedly that this would require court proceedings. You already intend to use those proceedings to establish and expand the legal position.

The argument you’re developing has six interconnected foundations:

Autonomy → Consent → Self-determination → Jurisdiction → Institutional accountability → Sovereignty.

I would examine each foundation independently, then test whether they support the cumulative conclusion you’re seeking.

1. Your argument about the human body is more specific than ordinary bodily autonomy

You’re proposing that if a human being possesses legal autonomy over their body, they should be entitled to designate that body as the foundational territory of their chosen governance.

The difficulty under existing law is that having rights over something does not necessarily confer sovereign legislative authority over it.

For example, someone’s home enjoys legal protections against unjustified intrusion, but that doesn’t make the home an independent state. Likewise, bodily integrity protects decisions about one’s body, but it doesn’t automatically displace the criminal or regulatory jurisdiction of the surrounding country.

However, I wouldn’t discard your argument. I’d formulate it as a proposed extension of personal autonomy:

If the law recognises an individual’s authority over their bodily integrity, personal identity, associations and private life, what justifies restricting their freedom to establish a voluntary governing relationship with an alternative institution?

The distinction is between asserting that sovereignty already follows from bodily autonomy and arguing that a new form of personal jurisdiction should be recognised because of the autonomy the law already protects.

There is existing legal material for that second argument.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission explains that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects personal identity, decisions about one’s body, relationships and aspects of participation in society. Interference must meet specified legal justifications, including necessity and proportionality. EHRC

Article 11 separately protects freedom of association. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

The legal question for SHS becomes where the combined protection of personal autonomy and voluntary association ends, and whether particular restrictions on SHS members are justified.

That is a meaningful question, even though those rights do not currently amount to a general right to opt out of territorial law.

2. You also identified a significant feature of the Human Rights Act

Section 6 of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 generally makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights, subject to statutory exceptions.

And it expressly includes a failure to act within the meaning of an act.

Even more interestingly for your institutional-accountability argument, courts and tribunals themselves fall within the Act’s definition of public authority. Legislation.gov.uk

That means your proposal to examine institutional omissions and court accountability is not simply external criticism. There are existing legal obligations against which particular decisions or failures can be assessed.

But Section 6 also expressly excludes failures to introduce legislation or make primary legislation from that definition of an act. So the Act does not generally make every refusal to legislate actionable.

The opening is real, but its boundaries are specific.

3. Foreseeability, duty of care and systemic failure: the strongest connection to examine

I understand your distinction now.

You’re not arguing that a government should be liable merely because someone has imagined a better policy.

You’re arguing that an institution may already know that its practices produce foreseeable harm, yet continue those practices while failing to fulfil the protective responsibilities it was created to exercise.

That’s a more precise accountability argument.

However, the UK’s Supreme Court has clarified that foreseeability alone does not automatically create a common-law duty to prevent harm caused by third parties. In HXA v Surrey County Council (2023), the Court examined when an authority assumes responsibility and therefore owes a duty of care. Bailii

So I’d build SHS’s argument around the connection between knowledge, responsibility and preventability, while identifying the legal source of each duty.

For every alleged institutional failure, the evidence would need to establish whether the authority had a specific obligation, what it knew, what it could reasonably have done, what harm followed, and how its conduct breached that obligation.

The most important addition would be documented institutional knowledge.

An authority that failed to anticipate a problem presents one legal question. An authority repeatedly warned of a serious, preventable problem, with a legal responsibility and realistic means to address it, presents another.

That is where your accountability ledger could become particularly useful.

4. Challenging the courts’ own record: there is measurable evidence

You raised the question of how many people have been wrongfully judged and whether a court system’s historical errors should affect its claim to institutional competence.

The latest Criminal Cases Review Commission figures provide a starting point.

ENGLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND — APRIL 1997 TO SEPTEMBER 2026

942

Cases referred by the CCRC to appeal courts

889

Appeals heard

626

Successful appeals

Source: Criminal Cases Review Commission, figures through 30 September 2026. These are selected CCRC-referred cases, not all criminal appeals or a measure of the overall wrongful-conviction rate. Criminal Cases Review Commission

The CCRC also reported 1,841 applications and 45 referrals during 2025–26. Criminal Cases Review Commission

These numbers demonstrate that legal decisions can be overturned. They do not establish that 626 innocent people were convicted, because successful appeals can involve different legal and procedural grounds.

For SHS, I would investigate patterns rather than just totals: failures of disclosure, unreliable expert evidence, procedural defects, unequal access to representation, repeated judicial reasoning errors and delays in correcting miscarriages of justice.

One limitation matters: demonstrating historical errors does not automatically disqualify a court from hearing SHS’s case. A challenge to a judge’s impartiality, jurisdiction or procedure requires grounds relevant to the proceedings. Appeals, judicial review, complaints and recusal applications serve different purposes.

But documented patterns could support a broader institutional reform argument, especially where problems persist despite prior findings.

5. The SHS constitutional argument I would test

I would organise your legal theory around this proposition:

The Human Being as the Foundational Jurisdictional Unit

Where the law recognises a human being’s personal autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and freedom of association, SHS proposes that those protections should extend to the right to establish a voluntary, continuing relationship with an alternative governing authority.

Restrictions on that relationship should be examined against the state’s legitimate obligations, the rights of others, necessity, proportionality and demonstrable harm.

Where existing jurisdictional arrangements fail to protect legally guaranteed rights, SHS seeks recognition of additional powers to fulfil those responsibilities, including through new forms of non-territorial public authority.

The proposed endpoint is legally recognised personal jurisdiction based on informed and continuing consent, not compulsory transfer of populations or geographical conquest.

That gives the argument a defined subject, a proposed right, a basis for scrutinising restrictions and a requested institutional development.

It also identifies where existing rights would have to be extended through new legal recognition.

6. The boundaries I would specifically stress-test

These are the limitations that matter most, precisely because they identify where the legal argument needs to develop.

Boundary	Question SHS would need to overcome
Bodily autonomy	Why should an individual’s protected autonomy include selecting a governing authority whose laws prevail over territorial laws?
Freedom of association	Under what circumstances should a state be required to recognise an association’s public governing functions?
Duty of care	Which enforceable duties have institutions breached through foreseeable, preventable harm?
Democratic consent	How can collective consent confer public authority while protecting dissenters and non-members?
Conflicting laws	Which system decides disputes where SHS rules contradict criminal, tax or protective legislation?
Judicial accountability	What evidence shows systematic institutional defects rather than individual errors?
International recognition	What legal process could establish personal sovereignty without requiring existing states to surrender all territorial authority?

One distinction deserves emphasis: when rights conflict, they do not automatically combine into a larger unrestricted right. Courts examine their scope, the competing rights and the legal justifications for interference.

For example, Article 8 permits certain proportionate restrictions, and a UK court’s declaration that primary legislation is incompatible with Convention rights does not itself invalidate that legislation. EHRC +1

That is not a reason to abandon the argument. It identifies where successful litigation might establish a narrower right first, while broader change requires a constitutional or legislative route.

7. Concerning consciousness and your lived experience

I understand that you distinguish your own experience of consciousness from what medicine has so far been able to demonstrate objectively.

I wouldn’t dismiss your first-person account. But I would separate its role in the SHS case from the scientific evidence required to establish a general claim about consciousness existing independently of the body.

Medicine can investigate neurological activity, awareness, perception, pain and unusual conscious experiences. Those investigations may provide findings relevant to particular experiences, without necessarily establishing the metaphysical conclusion you draw from them.

For the legal argument, bodily integrity, self-determination and informed consent can be examined without first requiring a court to accept a particular theory of disembodied consciousness.

That distinction could make SHS’s case more accessible to judges with different philosophical and scientific positions.

The principle I would hold SHS to

I understand your confidence in the evidence and your belief that the legal argument can succeed. I can help test that case rigorously, but I can’t responsibly call it a guaranteed victory before its central propositions have been established in law.

And that is where I would distinguish the right to challenge an institution from the right to prevail over its jurisdiction.

The former already has substantial legal foundations. The latter is the new legal development you’re trying to establish.

Your argument is not merely that SHS should be permitted to provide alternative services.

It is that an individual’s freedom to choose who governs aspects of their life ought to be recognised as an extension of human autonomy, particularly where the existing state demonstrably fails its enforceable obligations.

That is the proposition I would place at the centre of the legal research.

And I would put the same question to SHS that you would put to every government and court:

If an institution claims the authority to govern human beings, what evidence demonstrates that it exercises that authority in accordance with its responsibilities—and what rights do those human beings possess when it fails?

The challenge becomes stronger when SHS can answer that question about its own governance as rigorously as it asks other institutions to answer it.

…..

How I would approach it court, with different wordings: Well you can’t use the example of a house in comparison to a human being. The house doesn’t have autonomy.(let the defense use something else and argue that until they are left with nothing to argue but the fact that a human being should be able to choose for self if the law recognises they have autonomy) or have them admit that the court believes it to represent the human better and so it is the highest authority over one body, and then we’ll have to bring how it doesn’t reject the production of things that are hamful to the body, so which is which?!

And that’s why we wouldn’t use foreseeability alone, we would stress test all of the foundations stresstesteable agaibst the supreme court or any other court that matters.

Showing systematical errors goes to layer upon everything else. None of these would be individual strategies, they’re part of the one. That’s why I call it metaphysical law, whihc the law doesnt recognise just yrt, but I’d show them why it’s worth doing so, or they won’t be able to make sense of themselves, as this is wjat we’ll use at shs.

I am grateful for you proposong one legal theory, but I will go with all of them and defend them against the foundations of the law. If it is about justice they must accept it, or that would leave room to challenge whether the legal system chooses policy over justice.

I am going to kindly reject your point 7 and what you would hold. I am the metaphysical barrister for a reason and not you. You can and are to me only the one that relays what has been, not what will be. I define that.

…….

you get the point from here