Planetary Governance

The Case for Redefining National Sovereignty

In the expanded 'now' of any conscious analysis of the human condition - forever evolving into higher orders of complexity - we must place seminal ideas, as well as actions that can make a difference, into a framework accommodating both the contextual dynamics and civilizational ethos of our age. These two 'forces' are embodied within a shared set of beliefs. Our worldview.

Within that worldview, are nested fundamentals crucial to human wellbeing, such as philosophy, culture, education, health, technology, social structures, economics, justice, spirituality and the relationships we have with our surroundings. All of these elements interact in a variety of ways to help shape our societies. Together, they influence identities, opportunities, relationships, and the overall quality of life, highlighting the interconnectedness of the human experience and narrating our evolutionary story. And they manifest experientially in our lives as a practical living world-system.

In terms of the world-system that we construct on a daily basis, however, the most elementary and practical elements, yet paradoxically the most taken for granted - and therefore least examined - are the links between (i) social anthropology - how we develop and behave; (ii) demographics - who we are and where we live; (iii) commerce and trade - economic production and distribution; and (iv) governance - how we collectively choose to manage our affairs.

The very nature of these four categories logically suggests that:

• variances in values and beliefs are ingrained facets of our humanity, although consistencies in our DNA means that we're one species and all related to one another

• local requirements are bound to differ, sometimes quite considerably, from the needs of an abstracted 'majority' in any territory

• patterns of commerce and consumption will inevitably reflect economic affluence and access to goods

• how we collectively make and enact decisions defines the degree of satisfaction, coherence and stability within the society.

It stands to reason, then, that difference is ingrained. We run into problems the instant we use abstract generalizations to decide almost anything at all. And yet we do this all the time as it is more efficient to do so. Furthermore we base life-critical decisions on those conceptual models.

Governance is a case in point. Setting aside the related aggravations of politics and ideology for one moment, governance is possibly the most pertinent issue we must resolve (and coevolve) if we're all to thrive and survive as an advanced, or civilized species. Whether this is even possible is a moot point. Unless we can eliminate the more toxic elements from our innate 'tribal' nature, along with traits like the urge to control others, from the sets of design criteria we use to govern, then I can't envisage a future worth having.   

One of the numerous problems facing humanity is the way we have adapted to increasing social complexity by centralizing governance and bringing bureaucratic protocols into its administration. This harks back to the Westphalian model, established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 when the world population was around 500 million. Today we're more than 8 billion inhabiting Earth. Can you spot the challenge? Let me explain...

This foundational principle of modern international relations emphasizes state sovereignty and territorial integrity. It asserts that each nation-state has the exclusive authority to govern its territory without undue external interference. This model established the norm of recognizing borders, respecting the autonomy of states, and promoting non-interference in domestic affairs, thereby laying the groundwork for the contemporary system of nation-states.

Today, the flaws inherent within the Westphalian model, due mostly to the challenges posed by globalization, burgeoning populations, outdated laws and transnational issues, have become an impediment to peaceful coexistence. As interconnectedness increases, state sovereignty becomes less effective in addressing problems like the climate crisis, the capture of society by industrial-economic monopolies, the cycle of insatiable desire and rabid consumption, corporate and state propaganda, religious fundamentalism and war, which all require collective international action. The rise of non-state actors, including plutocrats, multinational corporations, and NGOs, further complicates the state-centric view, as these entities can and do wield considerable power beyond the control of individual governments.

Additionally, the Westphalian model can perpetuate human rights abuses by prioritizing state sovereignty over individual freedoms, often allowing oppressive regimes to operate without international scrutiny. The current situation in the Middle East, where Israel can get away with its bloody genocide in Gaza with almost the entire world watching, is a case in point. The model can also reinforce global inequalities, as powerful states may manipulate sovereignty norms for their own interests.

As citizens increasingly view their governments as unresponsive to global challenges in addition to domestic priorities, the legitimacy of the Westphalian system may erode, highlighting the need for more flexible governance frameworks that can address contemporary complexities while respecting aspects of sovereignty 'redefined' by contemporary circumstances.

Imagine then a unified world council that effectively balances global governance with a newly-defined 'sovereignty' of nation-states, all the while embracing grassroots egalitarian ideals. Imagine this collaborative federation respecting local autonomy and empowering citizens at the community level, thus creating a dynamic interplay between global initiatives and local needs.

At the heart of this system would be a bicameral assembly, featuring a Planetary Council and a network of regional citizen juries. The Planetary Council, composed of representatives on limited tenure from each nation, would navigate critical issues germane to peaceful coevolution, such as global heating, human rights, and planetary security, from the perspective of sustaining ecority (i.e. ecology+security) and the sacredness of all life on Earth.

The Planetary Council would also be custodian of the world-system, managing, safeguarding and protecting the official high-level narrative. Decisions by the Planetary Council would be legally binding though subject to continuous monitoring and review by an ecological integrity (i.e. quality assurance) team. Citizen juries meanwhile would focus attention on the specific concerns of geographical areas, promoting cooperation and tackling local contexts.

To ensure grassroots engagement, smartphone apps would allow all citizens over the age of 14 to have a direct voice in all matters of concern to them. This information would be conveyed to the regional jury network, ensuring that local perspectives shape regional and global policies. In this manner citizen participation could foster a culture of active engagement and responsibility.

An executive body, elected from the Planetary Council, aided by a small team of professionals equipped with proprietary artificial intelligence, would help implement decisions and manage global initiatives while respecting regional and local policies. An international court system, either based upon a fusion of today's International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court (or leaving those organizations intact) would arbitrate disputes between nations based on appreciative inquiry and negotiation, rather than via arrest warrants or sanctions, ensuring compliance with international laws while honoring local legal traditions and customs.

Core principles would emphasize respect for national sovereignty (as redefined) and local laws. Each nation would maintain control over its legal system, with global governance intervening only when issues transcend borders. Power would be decentralized, enabling communities to address their unique challenges while contributing to broader global goals. Consensus-based decision-making would ensure that all nations and communities feel represented and invested in initiatives.

Operationally, SWAT teams could be established to involve military coalitions from all nations, to address specific crises and natural disasters cooperatively. These teams could also include local experts and grassroots volunteers, facilitating expert knowledge sharing while respecting local practices. Additionally, a system for equitable resource sharing would empower poorer nations and communities, enabling them to participate fully in global efforts.

Funding for this world government could come from a modest global levy on international transactions, such as trade and carbon emissions, designed to support global initiatives while ensuring fairness. Incentives would be offered to nations and communities that actively engage in global efforts, providing access to technology and financial support for ecological development.

In terms of conflict resolution, mediation services could help facilitate dialogue and compromise in disputes between nations and communities. A voluntary international peacekeeping force, composed of personnel from participating nations, could be deployed to maintain peace in conflict zones with the consent of those involved.

This envisioned world government, grounded in grassroots democracy, would create a synergistic framework that empowers individuals and communities while addressing interconnected global challenges. It would foster a sense of global community, ensuring that local voices are heard and valued, paving the way for a more collaborative and harmonious world.

However there are a few potential snags. I confess that there could well be defects in my logic as I approach the problem of universal governance from a deeply cynical perspective. It is perhaps too idealistic and naive to think incumbent world 'leaders' are ready to consider an untried idea of this novelty and magnitude. Perhaps we're all too weighed down by history. Besides, the UN will claim this all falls under their remit and are already doing it, if poorly and without legally binding authority, as exemplified by the recent judgements on Israel by the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the UN, and the lack of any arrests.

In order to ensure the viability of design and practical effectiveness of any 'world governance' structure, and to deflect any opposition that the apparent 'weakening' of nation-state sovereignty will inevitably attract, it would be vital to adopt a methodology that addresses the complexities, cultural differences, and diversity inherent in human society.

Obviously grounding a proposal in empirical research by introducing successful case studies can illuminate pathways to cooperative governance and citizen engagement. Encouraging learning from proven models is always positive. But when such case studies do not exist, are rare, or when even labels are likely to attract a mix of deep suspicion and irrational fear, then it's best to steer clear. What I'm actually proposing here transcends socialism, communism, egalitarianism, or any other kind of governance 'ism. So what can be done?

Embracing an incremental implementation heuristic will help, enabling us to adapt and refine our systems based on real-world feedback and fostering resilience in the face of evolving challenges. Cultural sensitivity must also be kept front of mind, ensuring that governance frameworks respect and reflect local values and contexts, thereby cultivating a sense of ownership among diverse communities.

Robust mechanisms for enforcing human rights are crucial, establishing international oversight that collaborates with local authorities to address violations transparently and effectively a must. Equitable resource-sharing models will be vital in overcoming the historical inequalities caused by colonialism and slavery. This is a chance for wealthier nations to contribute meaningfully to global initiatives, while empowering poorer nations through technology transfer and capacity-building.

Furthermore, dedicated conflict resolution bodies should emphasize dialogue and mediation, integrating local voices into peacekeeping efforts and respecting cultural practices that promote understanding. Accessibility to technology is paramount; investment in infrastructure will ensure that every citizen, especially marginalized communities, can participate in shaping decisions that affect their lives.

Finally, acknowledging the complexities of human conflict necessitates strategies that prioritize education, intercultural and interfaith dialogue, and understanding as foundational elements of long-term peace building. By integrating these strategies into our vision of a unified world, we can foster a governance model that not only embraces our interconnectedness but also empowers individuals and communities to navigate the intricacies of our shared global future.

A Cautionary Note: This proposal is not the best solution. It might be too Western from a design point of view. I’m sure it has its defects, and certainly reflects my own biases. A better solution will most likely come from smarter people working together on a more inclusive design. But this essay is only intended as a kick-starter to more innovative thinking about planetary governance and what might be possible. It's a beginning, and flows on from yesterday's Hames Report entitled "Alternatives to the United Nations".