Jeffrey Sachs 超越霸權 聯合國憲章下的新國際秩序

超越霸權——聯合國憲章下的新國際秩序

https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizo??ns/horizo??ns-summer-2024--issue-no-27/beyond-hegemony

Jeffrey D. Sachs | 2024 年夏季 | Horizo??ns

由於三個相互關聯的趨勢的匯合，我們正處於人類曆史的新階段。首先，也是最關鍵的，西方主導的世界體係已經結束，在這個體係中，北大西洋地區的國家在軍事、經濟和金融上主宰世界。其次，以人類引起的氣候變化、生物多樣性的破壞和環境的大規模汙染為標誌的全球生態危機將導致世界經濟和治理的根本變化。第三，人工智能、計算、生物技術、地球工程等多個領域的技術快速發展將深刻擾亂世界經濟和政治。

這些相互關聯的發展——地緣政治、環境和技術——正在引發巨大的不確定性、社會混亂、政治危機和公開戰爭。為了應對這些關鍵的發展，聯合國秘書長安東尼奧·古特雷斯呼籲召開未來峰會（SOTF）（2024 年 9 月 22 日至 23 日在紐約聯合國總部舉行），以改革我們的國際機構，使其適應我們這個快速變化的世界。由於全球和平比以往任何時候都更加依賴聯合國和國際法的效力，未來峰會應該成為全球治理的分水嶺，即使它隻是為未來幾年進一步的談判和審議指明了方向。

我們現有的國家和國際機構顯然無法勝任我們這個快速變化的世界的治理任務。已故的偉大進化生物學家愛德華·威爾遜經常這樣描述我們的困境：“我們帶著石器時代的情感、中世紀的製度和近乎神一般的技術跌跌撞撞地進入了二十一世紀。”他的意思是，我們今天所麵臨的挑戰，是憑借人類進化數萬年所形成的基本認知和情感人性、幾百年前形成的政治製度（美國憲法起草於 1787 年）以及閃電般的技術進步（ChatGPT 就是最新的奇跡）。

也許，深刻的社會變革最基本的事實就是不確定性，而對不確定性最基本的反應就是恐懼。事實上，如果正確使用技術進步，可以解決經濟發展、社會公正（例如，通過數字連接改善醫療保健和教育機會）和環境可持續性（例如，快速過渡到零碳能源）方麵的無數問題。然而，今天的情緒一點也不樂觀，尤其是在西方。美國和俄羅斯在烏克蘭爆發了公開戰爭，美國支持的以色列和巴勒斯坦之間也爆發了戰爭。華盛頓廣泛、公開甚至隨意地討論了美國和中國之間爆發戰爭的可能性，盡管這樣的戰爭可能意味著文明本身的終結。這些衝突的根源是恐懼，這種恐懼建立在我們石器時代的情感之上。

最大的恐懼是許多美國和歐洲政治領導人擔心西方在幾個世紀後正在失去霸權，而且霸權的喪失將帶來災難性的後果。英國前首相鮑裏斯·約翰遜在 2024 年 4 月為英國《每日郵報》撰寫的一篇專欄文章中明確表達了西方的這種恐懼，他說，如果西方在烏克蘭戰爭中失敗，“那將是西方霸權的終結”。

這就是烏克蘭戰爭以及許多其他全球衝突的本質。美國及其盟友希望將北約擴展到烏克蘭。俄羅斯堅決表示不。華盛頓和倫敦都準備與俄羅斯就北約擴張展開戰爭，以保護西方霸權（具體來說，是向俄羅斯決定安全安排的權利），而俄羅斯則準備展開戰爭以阻止北約加入。事實上，俄羅斯在戰場上戰勝了烏克蘭軍隊和北約軍備。這並不奇怪。令人驚訝的可能是西方完全低估了俄羅斯的能力。

從廣義上講，隨著全球秩序的變化，包括中國和東亞其他國家的崛起、俄羅斯的軍事和技術實力、印度的快速發展以及非洲的日益團結，西方主導的世界已經走向終結，這不是因為西方的動蕩崩潰，而是因為世界其他國家不斷增長的經濟、技術和軍事實力。原則上，西方沒有理由害怕其他國家的崛起，因為美國和歐洲仍然保持著壓倒性的威懾力，包括核威懾，以抵禦來自外部的任何軍事威脅。西方正在哀歎其相對地位的喪失——即指揮他人的能力——而不是任何真正的軍事力量

西方的不安全感。

未來幾年，沒有什麽能夠恢複西方的霸權——無論是軍事勝利、技術進步還是經濟影響力。先進的軍事、技術、經濟和金融能力向亞洲及其他地區的崛起是不可阻擋的（當然也不應該被阻止，因為它意味著一個比以前西方主導的世界更加公平和繁榮的世界）。然而，西方霸權的終結並不意味著新的中國、印度或亞洲霸權。權力中心實在太多了——美國、歐盟、中國、俄羅斯、印度、非洲聯盟等——而且能力和多樣性太多了，任何其他霸權都無法取代西方主導的世界秩序。在西方統治了幾個世紀之後，我們已經進入了一個超越霸權的世界。

這個超越霸權的新世界應該成為未來峰會的起點。美國、英國和歐盟不應該像鮑裏斯·約翰遜幻想的那樣，徒勞地試圖維持其霸權，或者同樣地，為了保護美國自稱的“基於規則的秩序”——這是一個空洞的表達，設想規則僅由美國決定。他們應該作為新多極世界的一部分，尋求解決生態、技術、經濟和其他重大挑戰的解決方案。新秩序應以經過適當改革的聯合國憲章下的多邊主義和國際法為基礎。

作為聯合國可持續發展解決方案網絡（SDSN）主席，我有機會與世界各地的大學領導、科學家、技術專家、政策製定者和政治家討論人類的未來，共同設想一個繁榮、公平、可持續、和平的未來，讓全世界都過上和平的生活，而不是讓西方特權階層或世界上任何其他小部分國家過上和平的生活。SDSN 是一個由 2000 多所大學和智庫組成的全球網絡，致力於可持續發展，特別是聯合國的可持續發展目標。基於這些廣泛的討論，SDSN 發表了關於未來峰會的聲明，回應了峰會決策的五個主要“章節”：（1）實現可持續發展；（2）確保全球和平；（3）管理尖端技術；（4）為我們的新世界教育年輕人；（5）改革聯合國機構，使其適應 21 世紀後霸權平衡。

以下是可持續發展目標網絡核心建議的摘要。

實現可持續發展

1.1 可持續發展目標議程應繼續成為 2050 年全球合作的核心。

可持續發展目標最初設定為 2016 年至 2030 年的十五年，緊隨千年發展目標 (MDG) 的十五年期限。顯然，可持續發展目標不會在原定的時間範圍內實現。我們強烈敦促 SOTF 認識到可持續發展目標在協調國家、地區和全球政策方麵的關鍵作用，並致力於可持續發展目標框架直至 2050 年，以加強已在進行的努力，並認識到將世界經濟重新定位為可持續發展所需的時間範圍。2050 年的新視野並不意味著努力的鬆懈。相反，這意味著要改進長期規劃，以實現雄心勃勃的 2050 年目標和 2050 年裏程碑。

1.2 可持續發展議程應得到適當資助。

學術界、布雷頓森林體係和聯合國機構提供的所有證據表明，較貧窮國家實現可持續發展目標所需的投資速度仍然存在巨大缺口。為了調動人力和基礎設施資本所需的投資流，必須改革全球金融架構，使其適合可持續發展。主要目標是確保較貧窮的國家有足夠的資金，無論是來自國內還是外部來源，並且在資本成本和貸款期限方麵具有足夠的質量，以擴大實現可持續發展目標所需的投資。

1.3 各國和各地區應製定中期可持續發展戰略

可持續發展總體上和可持續發展目標具體上需要長期的公共投資計劃、轉型路徑和使命導向，以提供實現可持續發展目標所需的公共產品和服務。為此，所有國家和地區都需要製定實現可持續發展目標的中期戰略。這些戰略應著眼於 2050 年，在某些情況下甚至更遠，為實現可持續發展目標的地方、國家和地區投資以及實現綠色、數字化和包容性社會所需的技術轉型提供一個綜合框架。

實現國際和平與安全

2.1 應加強和擴大不幹涉的核心原則。

對全球和平的最大威脅是一個國家幹涉其內政

任何幹涉別國事務的行為都違反了《聯合國憲章》的文字和精神。這種幹涉，無論是戰爭、軍事脅迫、秘密政權更迭行動、網絡戰、信息戰、政治操縱和融資，還是單方麵脅迫措施（金融、經濟、貿易和技術），都違反了《聯合國憲章》，並引發了難以言喻的國際緊張局勢、暴力、衝突和戰爭。

為此，聯合國會員國應決心終止任何國家（或國家集團）對另一個國家或國家集團內政的非法幹涉措施。《聯合國憲章》、聯合國大會決議和國際法所載的不幹涉原則應在以下方麵得到加強。

首先，任何國家都不應通過資助或其他方式支持政黨、運動或候選人幹涉任何其他國家的政治。

其次，任何國家或國家集團都不應采取單方麵脅迫措施，聯合國大會對此已多次予以承認。

第三，在《聯合國憲章》下運作的世界，各國沒有必要永久駐紮外國軍隊，除非根據聯合國安理會的決定。現有的海外軍事基地數量應大幅減少，目標是在未來 20 年內逐步取消和消除海外軍事基地。

2.2 應加強聯合國安理會和其他聯合國機構，以維護和平並維護聯合國成員國的安全。

應改革、擴大聯合國安理會，並賦予其權力，以根據《聯合國憲章》維護和平。聯合國安理會結構的改革將在下文第 5 節中描述。??在這裏，我們強調聯合國安理會的權力和工具的增強，包括安理會內部的絕對多數投票以克服一個成員的否決權；禁止國際武器流入衝突地區的權力；加強調解和仲裁服務；以及增加對建設和平行動的資助，特別是在低收入環境中。

除安理會外，還應加強其他全球維和、人權和國際法的重要工具。這些包括國際法院和國際刑事法院的權威和獨立性、聯合國人道主義援助（特別是在戰區）的功能和支持，以及聯合國人權理事會在捍衛和促進《世界人權宣言》方麵的作用。

2.3 核大國應重返核裁軍進程。

全球生存的最大危險仍然是熱核戰爭。在這方麵，擁有核武器的十個國家有緊迫的責任遵守《不擴散核武器條約》第六條的規定，“以誠意進行談判，以盡早停止核軍備競賽和核裁軍的有效措施，以及在嚴格有效的國際監督下達成全麵徹底裁軍條約”。所有國家，特別是核大國，都應批準並遵守2017年《禁止核武器條約》。

管理尖端技術

3.1 加強技術風險的多邊治理。

世界正在經曆一係列科學、技術和應用領域先進技術的力量、複雜性和風險的空前進步。這些包括生物技術，包括增強病原體和創造新生命形式的能力；人工智能，包括普遍監視、間諜活動、成癮、自主武器、深度偽造和網絡戰的可能性；核武器，特別是更強大、更具破壞性的武器的出現及其在國際控製之外的部署；以及地球工程，例如改變大氣和海洋化學成分或偏轉太陽輻射以應對人為氣候變化的提議。

我們呼籲聯合國大會建立緊急程序，對每一類尖端技術進行全球監督，包括授權相關聯合國機構每年向聯合國大會報告這些技術發展情況，包括其潛在威脅和監管監督要求。

3.2 普遍獲得重要技術。

本著第 3.1 節的精神，我們還呼籲聯合國大會建立和支持全球和區域卓越、培訓和生產中心，以確保世界各地都有權參與真正支持可持續發展（而不是過度軍事化）的先進技術的研發、生產和監管監督。世界所有地區的大學

世界應培養和培育推動可持續發展所需的下一代優秀工程師和科學家，他們在能源、工業、農業和建築環境的結構轉型方麵擁有專業知識。特別是應支持非洲在未來幾年建設世界一流的大學。

3.3 普遍享有研發能力和平台。

我們比以往任何時候都更需要為貧窮國家和地區的科學家提供開放科學，包括普遍免費獲取科學和技術出版物，以確保公平和包容地獲取將塑造二十一世紀全球經濟和全球社會的先進技術知識和專業知識。

為可持續發展而教育青年

4.1 我們呼籲未來峰會優先考慮讓地球上的每個兒童都能獲得人力資本的核心投資，並創造新的全球長期融資模式，以確保不遲於 2030 年實現每個兒童獲得優質小學和中學教育、營養和醫療保健的人權。

4.2 普及可持續發展和全球公民教育（Paideia）。

在通過可持續發展目標時，聯合國成員國明智地認識到有必要教育世界兒童應對可持續發展的挑戰。他們通過了可持續發展目標 4.7 來做到這一點：

“4.7 到 2030 年，確保所有學習者獲得促進可持續發展所需的知識和技能，包括通過可持續發展和可持續生活方式教育、人權、性別平等、促進和平和非暴力文化、全球公民意識以及欣賞文化多樣性和文化對可持續發展的貢獻等”

目標 4.7 實際上是對 21 世紀 paideia 的呼籲，paideia 是古希臘關於城邦所有公民應獲得的核心知識、美德和技能的概念。今天，我們擁有一個全球城邦——一個全球公民——必須具備在全世界培養和促進可持續發展價值觀和尊重人權的能力。我們呼籲未來峰會加強目標 4.7，並在世界各地的可持續發展教育中將其付諸實踐。這不僅包括各級教育課程的更新和升級，還包括在生命周期的各個階段培訓綠色、數字化和可持續經濟所需的技術和道德技能，這些技能是互聯世界中的綠色、數字化和可持續經濟所必需的。

4.3 青年和未來世代理事會

通過培訓、教育、指導和參與公共審議賦予青年權力，可以培養致力於可持續發展、和平和全球合作的新一代。新的聯合國青年和未來世代理事會可以加強聯合國在培訓和賦予青年權力方麵的活動，並為當今複雜的挑戰提供重要的全球青年聲音。

根據《聯合國憲章》改變全球治理

5.1 應該建立聯合國議會。

世界各地的民間社會、學者和公民呼籲通過在聯合國建立“我們人民”的代表來加強全球機構。我們建議首先根據《聯合國憲章》第二十二條（“大會得設立其認為履行職務所必需之附屬機關”），設立“聯合國議會大會”，作為聯合國大會的附屬機構。新的聯合國議會大會將由各國議會代表組成，並按照聯合國大會確定的代表原則組成。

5.2 應設立其他聯合國附屬機構。

聯合國大會應根據第二十二條賦予的權力，根據需要設立新的附屬機構，以支持可持續發展進程和聯合國機構的代表性。新的附屬機構可能包括：

地區理事會，使東盟、歐盟、非洲聯盟、歐亞經濟聯盟等區域機構具有代表性；

城市理事會，使城市和其他次國家管轄區的代表性得以體現；

土著人民理事會，代表全世界約 4 億土著人民；

文化、宗教和文明理事會旨在促進和平和非暴力文化、全球公民意識以及對文化多樣性、宗教和文明的欣賞；

青年和未來世代理事會旨在代表當今青年和後代的需求和願望（見上文第 4.3 節）；

人類世理事會旨在支持和加強聯合國機構在實現多邊環境協定（包括《巴黎氣候協定》和

昆明-蒙特利爾全球生物多樣性框架）和可持續發展目標的環境目標。

5.3 應改革聯合國安理會的成員和權力

我們呼籲聯合國安理會和聯合國大會對安理會結構和程序進行迫切需要的改革。這些改革應包括：（1）增加印度作為常任理事國，考慮到印度占人類人口的 18% 以上，是按購買力平價計算的世界第三大經濟體，以及其他表明印度在經濟、技術和地緣政治事務方麵具有全球影響力的屬性；（2）采用程序以絕對多數（可能占四分之三的選票）推翻否決權；（3）擴大和重新平衡總席位，以確保世界所有地區相對於其人口比例都有更好的代表性；（4）采用新的工具來應對和平威脅，如第 2.2 節所述。

反思與再思考

我們新世界體係的最基本原則必須是各國之間的相互尊重。世界麵臨著深刻而前所未有的挑戰——環境破壞、廣泛的政治不穩定、尖端技術的武器化以及財富和權力不平等的急劇擴大——這些挑戰隻有通過各國之間的和平合作才能解決。然而，盡管合作迫在眉睫，但我們正走向更廣泛的戰爭。

聯合國在很大程度上是一個未完成的工作。它創造了一個非常不同的世界，一個在二戰後中期由美國主導的世界。聯合國已有 79 年曆史，在善治和國際治國之道這一古老挑戰中仍處於起步階段。在一個充斥著越來越強大的武器，尤其是核武器的世界裏，解決和平合作的挑戰是最重要的挑戰。

因此，在人類麵臨前所未有的挑戰之際，未來峰會是反思和重新考慮如何治理我們新的多極世界的關鍵時刻。世界麵臨的挑戰當然不會在九月的會議上得到解決，但未來峰會仍然可以成為新全球治理的重要起點，世界所有地區都將通過合作為全球共同利益作出貢獻。

Beyond Hegemony - A New International Order Under the UN Charter

https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2024--issue-no-27/beyond-hegemony
Jeffrey D. Sachs   |   Summer 2024   |   Horizons

We are at a new phase of human history because of the confluence of three interrelated trends. First, and most pivotal, the Western-led world system, in which countries of the North Atlantic region dominate the world militarily, economically, and financially, has ended. Second, the global ecological crisis marked by human-induced climate change, the destruction of biodiversity, and the massive pollution of the environment, will lead to fundamental changes of the world economy and governance. Third, the rapid advance of technologies across several domains—artificial intelligence, computing, biotechnology, geoengineering—will profoundly disrupt the world economy and politics.

These interconnecting developments—geopolitical, environmental, and technological—are stoking huge uncertainties, societal dislocations, political crises, and open wars. To address these pivotal developments, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called for a Summit of the Future (SOTF) (September 22-23rd, 2024 at the UN headquarters in New York) to reform our international institutions so that they are fit for purpose in our fast-changing world. Since global peace depends more than ever on the efficacy of the UN and international law, the SOTF should be a watershed in global governance, even if it does no more than point the way to further negotiation and deliberation in the years immediately ahead.

Our existing institutions, both national and international, are certainly not up to the task of governance in our fast-changing world. The late, great evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, often described our predicament as follows: “We have stumbled into the twenty-first century with stone-age emotions, medieval institutions, and near godlike technologies.” By this he meant that we face our challenges today with the basic cognitive and emotional human nature that was formed by human evolution tens of thousands of years ago, with political institutions forged centuries ago (the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787), and with the lightning speed of technological advance (think of ChatGPT as just the latest wonder).

Perhaps the most basic fact of deep societal change is uncertainty, and the most basic reaction to uncertainty is fear. In fact, the technological advances—if used correctly—could solve innumerable problems in economic development, social justice (e.g., improved access to healthcare and education through digital connectivity), and environmental sustainability (e.g., a rapid transition to zero-carbon energy sources). Yet the mood today is anything but optimistic, especially in the West. Open wars rage between the United States and Russia in Ukraine, and between U.S.-backed Israel and Palestine. The possibility of war between the United States and China is widely, openly, and even casually discussed in Washington, though such a war could mean the end of civilization itself. At the root of these conflicts is fear, built on our stone-age emotions.

The biggest fear of all is that of many American and European political leaders that the West is losing its hegemony after centuries, and that somehow the loss of hegemony will have catastrophic consequences. Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson made this Western fear explicit in an April 2024 column for the UK’s Daily Mail, when he stated that if the West loses the war in Ukraine, “it will be the end of Western hegemony.”

Herein lies the essence of the Ukraine war, and many other global conflicts as well. The United States and its allies want to expand NATO to Ukraine. Russia has firmly said no. Both Washington and London were ready to fight a war with Russia over NATO enlargement to protect Western hegemony (specifically, the right to dictate security arrangements to Russia), while Russia was ready to fight a war in order to keep NATO away. In fact, Russia is prevailing on the battlefield over Ukraine’s army and NATO’s armaments. This is not surprising. What is perhaps surprising is how the West completely underestimated Russia’s capabilities.

In broad terms, with the changing global order, including the rise of China and the rest of East Asia, the military and technological strength of Russia, the rapid development of India, and the growing unity of Africa, the Western-dominated world has been brought to an end, not by a tumultuous collapse of the West, but by the growing economic, technological, and therefore military, power of the rest of the world. In principle, the West has no reason to fear the rise of the rest, as the United States and Europe still maintain an overwhelming deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, against any military threat from the outside. The West is bemoaning its loss of relative status—the ability to dictate to others—not any real military insecurity.

Nothing is going to restore Western hegemony in the coming years—no military victory, technological advance, or economic leverage. The rise of advanced military, technological, economic, and financial capacities to Asia and beyond, is unstoppable (and of course should not be stopped, since it signifies a world that is fairer and more prosperous than the preceding Western-dominated world). Yet, the end of Western hegemony does not mean a new Chinese, Indian, or Asian hegemony. There are simply too many power centers—the United States, the EU, China, Russia, India, the African Union, etc.—and too much capacity and diversity to enable any other hegemon to replace the Western-led world order. We have arrived, after centuries of Western dominance, to a world beyond hegemony.

This new world, beyond hegemony, should be the starting point for the Summit of the Future. The United States, UK, and the EU should come to the Summit not in a vain attempt to sustain their hegemony (as Boris Johnson fantasizes), or equivalently, to protect America’s self-declared “rules-based order”—a vacuous expression that envisions the rules as determined by the United States alone. They should come as part of a new multipolar world looking to find solutions to profound ecological, technological, economic, and other challenges. The new order should be based on multilateralism and international law under a suitably reformed UN Charter.
 

As President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)—a worldwide network of more than 2,000 universities and think tanks dedicated to sustainable development generally and to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically—I have the opportunity to discuss humanity’s future with university leaders, scientists, technologists, policymakers, and politicians around the world, with the goal of envisioning a future that is prosperous, fair, sustainable, and peaceful for all of the world, not for a privileged West or any other small part of the world. Based on these extensive discussions, the SDSN issued a Statement on the Summit of the Future, responding to the five main “Chapters” for decisionmaking at the Summit: (1) achieving sustainable development; (2) ensuring global peace; (3) governing the cutting-edge technologies; (4) educating young people for our new world; and (5) reforming the UN institutions to make them fit for the post-hegemonic balance of the twenty-first century. 

Here is a summary of the core recommendations of the SDSN.

Achieving Sustainable Development

1.1  The SDG Agenda should remain the core of global cooperation to 2050.

The SDGs were initially set for the fifteen-year period between 2016 and 2030, following the fifteen-year period of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is clear that the SDGs will not be achieved in the original time frame. We strongly urge that the SOTF recognize the pivotal role of the SDGs in aligning national, regional and global policies, and commit to the SDG framework until 2050, so as to reinforce the efforts already underway and recognize the time horizon needed to reorient the world economy to sustainable development. The new horizon of 2050 does not mean a slackening of effort. Rather, it means improved long-term planning to achieve highly ambitious 2050 goals and milestones on the way to 2050. 

1.2  The Sustainable Development agenda should be properly financed.

All evidence developed by academia, the Bretton Woods system, and UN institutions is that there remains a massive shortfall in the pace of investments needed for the poorer nations to achieve the SDGs. In order to mobilize the needed investment flows for human and infrastructure capital, the global financial architecture must be reformed and made fit for sustainable development. The major objective is to ensure that the poorer countries have adequate financing, both from domestic and external sources, and at sufficient quality in terms of the cost of capital and the maturity of loans, to scale up the investments required to achieve the SDGs.

1.3  Countries and regions should produce medium-term sustainable development strategies

Sustainable Development in general and the SDGs specifically, require long-term public investment plans, transformation pathways, and a mission orientation to provide the public goods and services required to achieve the SDGs. For this purpose, all nations and regions need medium-term strategies to achieve the SDGs. These strategies, with a horizon to the year 2050, and in some cases beyond, should provide an integrated framework for local, national, and regional investments to achieve the SDGs, and for the technological transformations needed to achieve green, digital, and inclusive societies. 
 

Achieving International Peace and Security

2.1  The core principles of non-intervention should be reinforced and extended. 

The greatest threat to global peace is the interference by one nation in the internal affairs of another nation against the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. Such interference, in the form of wars, military coercion, covert regime-change operations, cyberwarfare, information warfare, political manipulation and financing, and unilateral coercive measures (financial, economic, trade, and technological), all violate the UN Charter and generate untold international tensions, violence, conflict, and war.

For this reason, the UN member states should resolve to end illegal measures of intervention by any nation (or group of nations) in the internal affairs of another nation or group of nations. The principles of non-intervention, enshrined in the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolutions, and international law, should be reinforced along the following lines. 

First, no nation should interfere in the politics of any other country through the funding or other support of political parties, movements, or candidates. 

Second, no nation or group of nations should deploy unilateral coercive measures, as recognized repeatedly by the UN General Assembly.

Third, in a world operating under the UN Charter, there is no need for nations to permanently station military forces in foreign countries other than according to UN Security Council decisions. Existing overseas military bases should be reduced dramatically in number with the aim of phasing out and eliminating overseas military bases over the course of the next 20 years. 

2.2  The UN Security Council and other UN agencies should be strengthened to keep the peace and sustain the security of UN member states.

The UN Security Council should be reformed, expanded, and empowered to keep the peace under the UN Charter. Reform of the structure of the UN Security Council is described in Section 5 below. Here we emphasize the enhanced power and tools of the UN Security Council, including super-majority voting within the Security Council to overcome the veto by one member; the power to ban the international flow of weapons to conflict zones; strengthened mediation and arbitration services; and enhanced funding of peacebuilding operations, especially in low-income settings. 

In addition to the Security Council, other key instrumentalities of global peacekeeping, human rights, and international law should be strengthened. These include the authority and independence of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, the functionality and support for UN-based humanitarian assistance especially in war zones, and the role of the UN Human Rights Council in defending and promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

2.3  The nuclear powers should return to the process of nuclear disarmament.

The greatest danger to global survival remains thermonuclear war. In this regard, the 10 nations with nuclear weapons have an urgent responsibility to abide by the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) mandate under Article VI “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” All nations, and especially the nuclear powers, should ratify and comply with the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 

Governing Cutting-Edge Technologies 

3.1  Enhancing the multilateral governance of technological risks.

The world is experiencing unprecedented advances in the power, sophistication, and risks of advanced technologies across a range of sciences, technologies, and applications. These include biotechnology, including the ability to enhance pathogens and create new forms of life; artificial intelligence, including the potential for pervasive surveillance, spying, addiction, autonomous weapons, deep fakes, and cyberwarfare; nuclear weapons, notably the emergence of yet more powerful and destructive weapons and their deployment outside of international controls; and geoengineering, for example proposals to alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans, or to deflect solar radiation, in response to anthropogenic climate change.

We call on the UN General Assembly to establish urgent processes of global oversight of each class of cutting-edge technologies, including mandates to relevant UN agencies to report annually to the UN General Assembly on these technological developments, including their potential threats and requirements of regulatory oversight. 

3.2  Universal access to vital technologies.

In the spirit of Section 3.1, we also call upon the UN General Assembly to establish and support global and regional centers of excellence, training, and production to ensure that all parts of the world are empowered to participate in the research and development, production, and regulatory oversight of advanced technologies that actually support sustainable development (rather than hyper-militarization). Universities in all regions of the world should train and nurture the next generation of outstanding engineers and scientists needed to drive sustainable development, with expertise in structural transformations in energy, industry, agriculture, and the built environment. Africa in particular should be supported to build world-class universities in the coming years. 

3.3  Universal access to R&D capacities and platforms. 

More than ever, we need open science for scientists in poorer countries and regions, including universal free access to scientific and technical publications, to ensure the fair and inclusive access to the advanced technological knowledge and expertise that will shape global economy and global society in the twenty-first century. 
 

Educating Youth for Sustainable Development 

4.1  We call on the Summit of the Future to prioritize the access of every child on the planet to the core investments in their human capital, and to create new modalities of global long-term financing to ensure that the human right of every child to quality primary and secondary education, nutrition, and healthcare is fulfilled no later than 2030. 

4.2  Universal education for sustainable development and global citizenship (Paideia). 

In adopting the SDGs, the UN member states wisely recognized the need to educate the world’s children in the challenges of sustainable development. They did this in adopting Target 4.7 of the SDGs:

“4.7 By 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development”

Target 4.7 is, in effect, the call for a twenty-first-century paideia, the ancient Greek concept of the core knowledge, virtues, and skills that should be attained by all citizens of the Polis. Today, we have a global polis—a global citizenry—that must be equipped to foster and promote the values of sustainable development and the respect of human rights throughout the world. We call on the Summit of the Future to reinforce Target 4.7 and bring it to life in education for sustainable development around the world. This includes not only an updated and upgraded curriculum at all levels of education, but training at all stages of the life-cycle in the technical and ethical skills needed for a green, digital, and sustainable economy in an interconnected world. 

4.3  Council of Youth and Future Generations 

The empowerment of youth, by training, education, mentorship, and participation in public deliberations, can foster a new generation that is committed to sustainable development, peace, and global cooperation. A new UN Council of Youth and Future Generations can strengthen the UN’s activities in training and empowering young people and can provide a vital global voice of youth to today’s complex challenges. 
 

Transforming Global Governance Under the UN Charter

5.1  There should be the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

Around the world, civil society, scholars, and citizens have called for strengthening global institutions by establishing representation of “We the Peoples” in the UN. We propose as a first instance to establish a “UN Parliamentary Assembly” as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly according to Article XXII of the UN Charter (“The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.”). The new UN Parliamentary Assembly would be constituted by representative members of national parliaments, upon principles of representation established by the UN General Assembly. 

5.2  Other UN subsidiary bodies should be established.

Invoking the powers under Article XXII, the UN General Assembly should establish new subsidiary chambers as needed to support the processes of sustainable development, and the representativeness of UN institutions. The new chambers might include, inter alia:

• A Council of the Regions to enable representation of regional bodies such as ASEAN, the EU, African Union, Eurasian Economic Union, and others;

• A Council of Cities to enable representation of cities and other sub-national jurisdictions;

• A Council of Indigenous Peoples to represent the estimated 400 million indigenous peoples of the world;

• A Council of Culture, Religion, and Civilization’ to promote a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation for cultural diversity, religion, and civilizations;

• A Council of Youth and Future Generations to represent the needs and aspirations of today’s youth and of generations to come (see Section 4.3 above);

• A Council on the Anthropocene to support and enhance the work of the UN agencies in fulfilling the aims of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (including the Paris Climate Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework) and the environmental objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals.

5.3  The UN Security Council Should Be Reformed in Membership and Powers 

We call on the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly to adopt urgently needed reforms of the Security Council structure and processes. These should include: (1) the addition of India as a permanent member, considering that India represents no less than 18 percent of humanity, the third largest economy in the world at purchasing-power parity, and other attributes signifying India’s global reach in economy, technology, and geopolitical affairs; (2) the adoption of procedures to override a veto by a super-majority (perhaps of three-quarters of the votes); (3) an expansion and rebalancing of total seats to ensure that all regions of the world are better represented relative to their population shares; and (4) the adoption of new tools for addressing threats to the peace, as outlined in Section 2.2.
 

Reflection & Reconsideration

The most fundamental principle for our new world system must be mutual respect among nations. The world faces profound and unprecedented challenges—environmental destruction, widespread political instability, the weaponization of cutting-edge technologies, and the dramatic widening of inequalities of wealth and power—that can only be addressed through peaceful cooperation among nations. Yet, despite the urgency of cooperation, we are drifting towards wider war.

The UN is very much a work in progress. It is the creation of a very different world, one that was dominated by the United States in the intermediate aftermath of World War II. At 79 years old, the UN is still an infant in the age-old challenge of good governance and international statecraft. In a world filled to the brim with ever more powerful weaponry, especially nuclear weaponry, solving the challenge of peaceful cooperation is the most vital challenge of all.

The Summit of the Future is therefore a key moment for reflection and reconsideration on how to govern our new multipolar world, at a time of unprecedented challenges facing humanity. The world’s challenges will certainly not be solved at the September conference, but the Summit of the Future can nevertheless mark a vital starting point for a new global governance in which all regions of the world contribute cooperatively to the global common good.