"The ultimate global crisis is the most dramatic proof of the fact that we need new economic laws and new political patterns to follow. In this context, we should promote scientific investigation in these fields in the level of an international organization, which will give us the best options to choose: these new laws and patterns"
Economists know what the problem is, and economists have an answer to this already. But .. erm... it seems to me that you seek a huge international institution to regulate the whole world on economics, right?
You know it's because you had a huge national governmental institution deciding too much and regulating too much that was the cause of this problem? More specifically the American one. You can track the problem of today all the way back to the 50s or something, and all along the way it's been governmental interventions making it worse and worse. The institutionalistic way of ruling the world is part of the problem. Doing it even more and heavier won't fix anything. If this huge international institution you're seeking for decides for everyone you'll have EVERYONE in major crisis if it fails epicly only once. I cannot see one single good reason for why you should regulate more.
If banks weren't backed up by the state and if banks lived in a danger of going bankrupt, then people again wouldn't get crazy loans without security. People would spend within their means and have security to back up loans. If the feds didn't control the printing of money and couldn't artificially tweak the market, you wouldn't get these insane bubbles and you wouldn't have anyone inflating the market.
Why and how can the people who caused this problem and who are making the problem longer lasting and worse all over the world fix this problem if they all go together and make even more rules and intervene even more? That's like saying the cure for cancer is to smoke more and stronger cigarettes! That's the first and most important scientific logic you need to adopt here.
I'm quite certain the answer is sound money (a gold standard for instance), no printing of money to fund excessive governmental spending, less regulation and less intervention in the markets by using free market ideals. Seriously, in a free market capitalistic system you wouldn't have today's problem, I can guarantee you. The world should adopt free market values, but you can't have an international institution telling to do so. That institution would have a supergovernmental power I wouldn't wanna give anyone. It's too easy for stupid politicians to missuse such powers...
You also talk about politicians and scientists all over the world going together to find out which political system that is supposed to work best. Why should these people find the one and only answer? What if they are wrong --- then everyone are screwed! Why is it supposed to be one-size-fits-them-all? Monopoly of ideas and methods have always been a problem. Competing ideas and methods in a free market system has always been the catalyst for improvement in everything - science, politics, economics, technology. It's the withdrawal from this fact that fucks up everything, and it's whenever you see an increase of freedom that you get an increase of improvement and quality. The examples are so many. Just look at the history of Hong Kong or China today! Fantastic examples of how an increase of economic freedom makes all the difference. Milton Friedman has been right all along, you know. Read up on him!
Edit:
Also,
take a look at this - it's part 1 of 4