Suuure, just realize that armies are Dispute Resolution Organizations specializing in resource managment.
And i'll tell you another thing. Any Dispute Resolution Organization will need to be an army when dealing with resources like energy water and food on a global scale.
The fact alone that you propose multiple of these organizations is in itself problematic because who or what will resolve the diputes between them?

The point can be made pretty hard.
Ethics is based on impulses from our genes. This is by now a medical fact. In the basis these impulses are selfish in a very direct way. They re there to protect the individual. But humans evolved as social animals and so parts of these genes had to start coding for impulses that lead to behaviour that is beneficial to the local society.
Social progress has allowed us to see these impulses from a bigger viewpoint so we can apply them to ever bigger structures.
So now you no longer just fight for the rights of yourself or your family, you fight for the rights of all woman, for the rights of all humans and even for the rights of animals.
That much has more or less been achieved on a social level on basis of these vague impulses from our genes.
What science allows us to do is to find rationale in our projections outward into the bigger system.
We have found enough rationale to be sure that many animals are capable of experiencing pain in a similar way as humans do. So then it becomes science that allows us to extend our ethics to other systems in a meaningfull way.
So the more we know about the universe the more we can extend our notions of what is a good balance of cooperation.
But they are human notions neverteless so your mileage may vary.

Anyway, i don't believe in mumbo jumbo like universally preferrable behaviour.
Anything truely universal will not touch our human condition. We, together with our ethics, are amazingly specific. If we had no sufficently developed brains there would be no ethics to think about. You would be worried about how to get food and about not being eaten. Which is the de facto situation for most of life on earth.
For any ethics to be defined you first would need to set a goal. For us, it's survival of the species and anything we want to extend that to. Calling any of it universal would be the paramount of human arrogance. But what could you expect from a book written by a radio show host, right?