Strengthening International Efforts to Protect Women from Violence

By Brian D. Lepard

Violence against women afflicts women of all nationalities, races, and social strata. While the global community has made some efforts to protect victims, now is the time for the United Nations (UN), Member States, and organs of civil society to take bold steps to aid women who are abused, to punish perpetrators, and to prevent violence in the first place. 

Actors of all kinds must be motivated by a recognition that women and men are equal and equally invaluable members of one human family, and that an injury to women is an injury to humanity as a whole. As the Bahá’í International Community underscored in its 2020 statement, A Governance Befitting, “The human family is one. . . . [The] profound implications [of this truth] for our collective behavior must now give rise to a coordinated movement toward higher levels of social and political unity.” 

The problem of violence against women is rampant. The World Health Organization estimates that on a global level about 30% of women have suffered physical or sexual violence by partners, or sexual violence by non-partners, sometime in their lives. Unfortunately, this wave of violence against women has intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading the UN to call it the “Shadow Pandemic.” 

Women experience the threat of violence in multiple forms. Violence is perpetrated against them by spouses or intimate partners, by trusted community leaders or friends, by human traffickers, by the government in state-run prisons, and in international and civil wars.  

We can gain new insights into how to respond to this threat to women’s security from international human rights law. This important body of law includes the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW, a treaty, makes the equal treatment of women and men a binding legal obligation for those states that ratify it. In 1992, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which supervises implementation of CEDAW, declared that gender-based violence constitutes discrimination prohibited by the treaty. It further said that states parties must act with “due diligence” to prevent violations of the rights of women by private actors, such as husbands or intimate partners.  

In 1993, the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (“DEVAW”). The Declaration calls upon all states to exercise due diligence to prevent and punish acts of violence against women. Other advances have included the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls and the adoption of an optional protocol to CEDAW that allows individual women or groups of women to petition to hear their cases heard by the CEDAW Committee. Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the UN in 2015 includes the target of eliminating “all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.”  

Moreover, the international community has begun to address many of the specific forms of violence against women described above. For example, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in 1998, explicitly provides that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime under international law.  And in 2000, the UN adopted the “Palermo” Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. 

The adoption of these standards has been a laudable achievement. What is critical now is to implement these standards at the national and local levels so that they positively affect the lives of women everywhere.  A multi-pronged strategy is required, one guided by these standards as well as the principle of human oneness described above, a principle that also respects human diversity and gender differences.  

According to this principle, all human beings—men and women alike—are socially and at the level of the human spirit members of one human family who ethically should strive to promote their unity, while also valuing their group and individual identities that make them so distinctive. This principle supports the empowerment of women and efforts on the part of women, men, and all states and organs of society to protect women from violence. 

What particular steps do states need to take, guided by this principle? First, all UN Member States should adopt, if they have not already, laws making domestic violence a crime, requiring the detention of suspected perpetrators to protect victimized women, expanding the availability of restraining orders, and allowing the prosecution of “date rape,” stalking, and nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Laws should prohibit female genital mutilation, marital rape, forced marriage, and child marriage—practices that constitute or are conducive to violence against women and violate their rights. And legislation should make trafficking in women a crime with severe penalties, in conformity with international treaties like the Palermo Protocol. In this connection, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has adopted a Model Law Against Trafficking in Persons to which states can refer. 

All these laws must be vigorously enforced by local police and judges. This requires that they be educated about the problem of violence against women and relevant laws they are obligated to uphold. Most importantly, they must be trained to be sensitive to the emotional plight of the victims, rather than treat them with suspicion. In this connection, some countries have established police stations staffed exclusively by women with specialized training in assisting female victims of violence. 

Procedural barriers to prosecutions must also be eliminated. These include, for example, archaic and misogynistic rules requiring victims of rape to be subjected to inquiries into their sexual history or to prove that they tried to fight off the perpetrator.

The global community must also vigorously prosecute crimes against women in wartime, including those that rise to the level of crimes against humanity. The ICC has a special role to play in this regard. And women must be empowered to bring cases not only before national courts, but if they fail to find satisfaction there, before international bodies. The Optional Protocol to CEDAW establishing an individual complaint procedure is a step in the right direction, but the CEDAW Committee cannot issue binding judgments. In addition, therefore, the UN should consider the establishment of a full-fledged international court, modeled on regional courts like the European Court of Human Rights, to provide recourse to female victims of violence. This could be accomplished in the first instance through an additional protocol to CEDAW.

A critically important step involves prevention of violence against women through education. Men and boys must be educated about women’s rights and the legal prohibitions in national and international law of violence against women. Women and girls must also be educated about their rights, so that they know that they do not have to tolerate abuse and are legally entitled to escape it and see justice done to their oppressors.  

In addition, educational initiatives must include moral education of all citizens, but especially children, in the equal dignity of men and women, and in the right of every person, including women, to be free from physical, psychological, or verbal abuse.  Education must help men and boys to see marriage as an equal partnership, and understand that doctrines that view women as the servants of men are unjust and must be rejected. All these efforts will reinforce each other, resulting, in the words of the Bahá’í International Community, “in a tipping point at which the society will no longer tolerate the oppression of its girls and women.” 

Brian D. Lepard is the Harold W. Conroy Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law. He has published numerous books and articles on international human rights law, and is writing a book on using international law to protect women from violence.

Our collective moment of reckoning

By Arash Fazli

Over the past few years, humanity has been forced to adapt to an unprecedented state of global uncertainty, arising from multiple, interlocking crises. The COVID-19 pandemic, our collective drift towards the catastrophic consequences of climate change, increasing geopolitical instability and inter-state conflict, the breakdown of trust in institutions of governance, and the rise of political extremism have all rocked the foundations of the present social, economic, and political order and have profoundly undermined confidence in a future of peace and prosperity. 

In response, many statespeople and leaders of thought have called for bold changes. There seems to be consciousness that, while incremental adjustments to existing systems can mitigate the impact of these crises and to some extent help us adapt to them, overcoming such challenges will call for a more fundamental reorganization of our collective lives. Unless we learn to live and work together in greater unity, with a much deeper consciousness of our underlying oneness despite our diverse identities; unless we establish a far more just economic and social order; unless we are able to bring humanity into far better balance with the biosphere, hopes for a prosperous and flourishing future will remain out of reach. The real bold changes our world needs are thus at the level of establishing balance, justice, and oneness in the essential relationships that sustain human life.

While such principles are often extolled at the level of rhetoric, the suggestion that we reorganize our collective lives based on them would be dismissed by many as a form of naivete. The iron rule that continues to shape thinking and policy making in politics and economics is the pursuit of self-interest. Assuming human beings to be inherently self-interested, numerous social systems that underpin the present global order have been structured as rules-based contests, pitting individuals or groups against one another in the pursuit of their own well-being. 

Such arrangements were intended to ensure that the best and most popular ideas would prevail and that society would benefit from increasing innovation, efficiency, and creativity. But the individualistic and materialistic assumptions underlying these systems give rise to and perpetuate many of the modern world’s most pressing challenges, including gross disparities between the rich and poor, the isolation and alienation resulting from weakening of the social fabric, the degradation of the environment, loss of cultural diversity, and a growing sense of moral cynicism and nihilism. Further, these systems, which were created in response to realities of the 17th and 18th centuries, are clearly outdated in the globalized, highly interconnected, and technologically advanced world of today.

Building a world that is united, just, and reflective of our interconnectedness with nature will require a new understanding of human nature. Such an understanding would not deny our material nature, which is a product of physical evolution. Yet it would take seriously our capacity to transcend baser instincts and to find meaning, purpose, and joy in the cultivation of moral virtues and in fostering harmonious and loving relationships with each other. 

Further, when the human world is considered as an organic, interconnected system, it becomes apparent that the principles best suited for collective thriving within such a system are those that are in sync with, and not against, its inherent interdependence. Such principles of reciprocity and mutuality can be found in the relationship between elements in any organic entity. Unlike the rest of nature, however, in the human world this process of cooperation and collaboration is not the outcome of an involuntary, self-regulating process. For human beings, it involves the element of conscious choice. It is this choice that makes the attainment of ever higher degrees of oneness and justice a uniquely moral achievement, involving the willingness to harmonize individual aspirations and interests with the long-term interests of the collective.

The sobering consequences of ignoring these higher principles is becoming everyday more apparent. The COVID-19 pandemic could have ended if nations would have come together to ensure that people in all countries were vaccinated. Yet, such a coordinated global response did not materialize to the extent necessary. In many societies, due to a breakdown of trust in institutions of governance and in the scientific establishment, significant segments of the population continue to resist vaccinations and public health protocols, with the result that the virus continues to circulate and mutate, imperiling everyone’s wellbeing. Or take the case of climate change. The world knows that to avoid the worst effects of global warming, we will need to make rapid and drastic changes to the way we live, grow our food, organize our economies, and interact with nature. Yet, the competitive race for economic and military dominance has kept nations locked into a pattern of maintaining the status quo to such an extent that even the possibility of systemic change seems inconceivable. A similar situation prevails in the realm of geopolitics, where the world drifts towards instability because countries seem incapable of rising above the momentary calculations of narrowly defined self-interests. 

What the above examples make clear is that the presumed dichotomy between national interest and the welfare of humanity as a whole is a false one that arises out of a short-term and narrow perspective. When viewed from a broader perspective, unencumbered by parochialism and short-term time horizons, the welfare of a nation or group can be seen to be inextricably bound up with the welfare of the whole. 

One of the cruelest consequences of the paradigm of contest and self-interest is that it has crippled human imagination and made alternative possibilities for organizing society, based on moral principles, seem inconceivable. History shows, however, that paradigmatic change in the moral order is not an anomaly. To the contrary, it is a discernible pattern that regularly accompanies periods of profound crisis. Every moral victory achieved in humanity’s process of collective development was inconceivable in a previous stage of development. 

The feudal world of the 19th century, for example, where education and privileges were restricted to aristocratic segments of society, could never have imagined a day when every human being, at least in principle, would enjoy equal human rights and education would be available to all. A century ago, when the world was still divided by competing empires, it would have been hard to imagine that a new world order would emerge where numerous peoples, including some of the most subjugated, would achieve political freedom and form their own state. And yet that world has come about. Imagine what possibilities lie ahead.

Eventually our reasons to embrace profound change will be not just moral or ideological, but rather a matter of pragmatic necessity. Continuing to assert self-interest as the sole guiding principle of national and international relations is a recipe for division and myopic action. At some point, turning to our ideals will no longer be a matter of preference or a mere option to be pursued, but a necessity. A critical question before the present generation, then, is whether we will wait for even more destructive effects of climate change, another world war, or some other catastrophe to force us to organize our collective lives around these high moral principles, or whether we will choose to do so proactively, as an act of collective will. This may well be our moment of reckoning, when history compels us to once again define for ourselves who we are as a human race and what we choose to be our collective destiny.

Arash Fazli is Assistant Professor and Head of the Bahá'í Chair for Studies in Development at Devi Ahilya University, Indore. He previously worked as a journalist with The Hindu and The Times of India and as a Principal Researcher with the Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity.

Reorganizing the Women’s Movement for the Next Steps Forward

By Saphira Rameshfar

Governance at the international level will require new systems and structures that are more suited to the challenges facing humanity today. But advances in the operation of those systems—the way we human beings function within them—will be equally important. This was central to the vision of systematic progress laid out in the Baha’i International Community’s statement, A Governance Befitting. “Deliberative processes will need to be more magnanimous, reasoned, and cordial,” it suggested, “motivated not by attachment to entrenched positions and narrow interests but by a collective search for deeper understanding of complex issues.”

This is as true in the international women’s movement as anywhere else. While ideals of solidarity and universal sisterhood were central to its emergence and, indeed, its power and many accomplishments, the path to social change has increasingly come to be defined in terms of opposition, conflict, and a readiness to fight. Such methods have indeed played a role in bringing attention to structures of oppression, and countering specific acts of injustice. Yet time and again, those who are agreed in opposition to something—a policy, a law, a leader—have found that they have little consensus about what should replace it, nor about the root causes that gave rise to it. To build a more gender-equal world—and not just dismantle a gender-oppressive one—it becomes clear that modes of functioning will need to develop the capacity to channel far more robustly the generative power of cooperation, reciprocity, shared endeavor, and unified aspiration. 

The need for change can be seen with particular clarity in the experience of those laboring within the women’s movement. A simple fact confronts every fair-minded observer: the inherent nobility of working to advance the cause of gender equality does not, in itself, protect the women’s movement from the pitfalls of division and adversarialism. This may be painful to admit. Yet too many of us have seen the bitter fruit that such disunity inevitably yields: feminists bullying and criticizing one another; activists competing against one another for funding, recognition, power, and access; actors of all kinds advancing their own interests at the expense of others. 

This is not the world we aspire to. Thankfully, alternatives based on justice and generosity, respect and reciprocity are readily available. The work ahead lies in instilling the necessary values into the architecture, machinery, and day-to-day mechanics of the women’s movement. The ways we come together to discuss our issues, make our decisions, and carry out our plans must reflect and engender a growing sense that we are one in purpose, action, and aspiration—this in full celebration of the vibrancy and importance of our diversity.

What does this look like in practice? This is a question that will need to be explored on a case-by-case basis, in light of the circumstances unique to any given arena of activity. Processes of deliberation, for example, often suffer from a model of representation in which advocates operate at the international level but are obliged to report back to their headquarters on advances made for their specific organization. This breeds, in collective spaces, an atmosphere of activists talking past one another, each focused on advancing her own agenda and priorities, or worse yet, actively working to undermine or outdo one another. 

Needed instead, if the complex challenges before the women’s movement and humanity as a whole are to be addressed, is a process of principled consultation that focuses on building consensus about the truth of any given situation and determining the wisest course of action among available options. In such a consultative process, individual participants strive to transcend their respective points of view, and function instead as members of a shared endeavor with its own interests and goals. In an atmosphere characterized by both candor and courtesy, ideas belong not to the individual to whom they occur, but to the group as a whole. Truth is not treated as a compromise between opposing interest groups, nor are participants animated by the desire to control one another. The aim is to harness the power of unified thought and action.

How might the women’s movement organize itself according to principles such as these?

Taking steps in this direction will require changes at the level of personal conscience and conduct. It will require thousands of us to, for example, enter collaborative spaces with the primary goal of solving a problem or taking a next step forward, rather than gaining attention or building a reputation. This is a different aim altogether, and it engenders an entirely different style of engagement and demeanor. 

Yet equally important will be making the structural changes necessary to foster more effective patterns of personal and institutional interaction. The way democratic processes are carried out, for example, often mirror some of the worst aspects of partisanship and adversarialism evident in political systems around the world. Notwithstanding the commendable qualities and characteristics  that individuals naturally bring to a role of leadership, the structural incentives in systems for choosing leaders tend to amplify and reinforce other traits, such as desire for leadership, focus on personal ambition, and size of ego. 

The women’s movement needs to offer to the world a model that is strikingly stark in contrast—an example of what equality looks like at its highest and best, and what it can accomplish. Everything about the way we organize ourselves needs to be designed to reduce the odds and severity of conflict. Our systems need to prioritize collaboration, the flow of learning, and the agility needed to address the urgent needs of women around the world. And ours needs to be a culture that is open and welcoming for others to join. 

If this vision seems idealistic to some, the Governance Befitting statement suggests that the very opposite is true: what is farfetched today is the hope that global ills of inequality, oppression, and violence could be solved through the patterns of difference and division that gave rise to them. “What was once viewed as an idealistic vision of international cooperation,” the statement declares, “has, in light of the obvious and serious challenges facing humanity, become a pragmatic necessity.” Let the women’s movement take its rightful place in pioneering the institutional tools necessary to bring about a better and more equal world. 

Saphira Rameshfar is a Representative of the Baha’i International Community to the United Nations. She serves on the Executive Committee of the NGO Committee on the Status of Women and as Co-Chair of its Youth Leaders and Young Professionals program.

Educational Purpose and Governance in an Interconnected World

By Elena Toukan

Over the past 75 years, the international community has made remarkable efforts to extend access to education around the world through a spirit of shared commitment and cooperation. The accelerating challenges facing humanity and the planet, however, provoke urgent questions. What kind of education is needed to establish just, peaceful, and prosperous societies for all? Are current educational arrangements adequate to this aim? And what can the international community do to strengthen educational systems and processes at all levels?

Reflecting on educational purpose

Societies and governments worldwide have recognized the centrality of education in raising individual and collective capacity. Leaders, governments, and policy makers have drawn on educational solutions to pursue aims such as fostering shared national identity, increasing economic productivity, training a skilled workforce, and reducing exclusion. Notwithstanding these noble intentions, however, educational programs have had limited success in ensuring wellbeing for participants worldwide, as humanity’s shared challenges accelerate.

Often, the underlying assumptions of educational programing are rooted in fostering individual competitive advantage for economic gain. Knowledge often becomes fragmented and conceptualized as discrete sets of techniques or packages of information delivered to recipients. To address a wider range of shared concerns before humanity, the international community must broaden its notion of education far beyond the purview of human capital accumulation and accruing advantage in competitive systems.

Education can foster powerful environments for building bonds of solidarity and cooperation, thereby enabling rising generations to address shared challenges of individual, community, and worldwide concern in new ways. Throughout history, education has been a key instrument for imparting knowledge and experience from one generation to the next. Merely reproducing methods and solutions of the past, however, will not suffice to meet the challenges of the present. If the roots of individual and collective wellbeing are to be strengthened in lasting ways, thoughtful attention will need to be given to the faculties of the human spirit—what the Governance Befitting statement describes as “that essential quality which seeks meaning and aspires to transcendence.”

Raising new capacities for shared wellbeing

If education is to raise discerning citizens, problem-solvers, and agents of change dedicated to their own excellence and the wellbeing of the world around them, no longer can individuals be viewed as passive recipients of facts, nor educational approaches cater to the desire to be entertained. Educators should see their students—all individuals and communities, in fact—as active protagonists of their own learning. This demands educational leaders to reflect on convictions about human nature and what it might take for educational systems to shift from viewing participants as consumers of information, to instead perceiving them as protagonists of individual and social transformation.

More than ever, humanity needs education capable of fostering deep commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, justice, and truth, pursued in a spirit of open heartedness and humility. A challenge for society will be to move beyond designing educational experiences that fulfil the comfort of one’s own opinions, segregated by divisive interests and susceptible to influence and exploitation. Education must instead provide a bulwark against manipulation, propaganda, and emotivism as the arbiters of truth.

Educators build the capacities of rising generations in diverse contexts, labouring at the frontlines of societal challenges in real time. In many parts of the world, schools are essential institutions at the heart of a community, reflecting shared commitment to the wellbeing of present and future generations while extending protection and support. The international community can learn much from teachers, schools, and other educational institutions by recognizing their unique social roles and responsibilities in the generation and application of knowledge about community wellbeing.

Educational governance in an interconnected world

Effective governance depends on education’s ability to foster profound understanding and capacities to promote the wellbeing of communities, societies, and humanity. The abilities to consult, cooperate, achieve true consensus, and act in solidarity can all be nurtured through education. While many challenges are physically tangible—environmental and climate change, pandemics and disease, hunger and poverty, for example—they are in fact rooted in shortcomings of human decision-making. The Governance Befitting statement highlights that if material advancement is divorced from spiritual and ethical advancement, progress for all is unattainable. Moral and ethical considerations underlie social trust and collaboration. Educational processes that cultivate noble values, qualities, and attitudes are therefore indispensable in fostering a culture of cooperation and common concern—from grassroots interactions to top echelons of leadership—that can give rise to just and fair-minded decision-making.

The means by which governance unfolds, however, must be fitting to its purpose. For example, as access to education has grown, the international community has increasingly relied on comparative rankings to assess educational progress. Students are consequently expected to reproduce the information they assimilate in measurable and standardized forms. This kind of “governance by the numbers” leaves the purpose of education largely out of sight, and can lead to undesirable modes of competition and penalization, particularly for those already facing greater challenges.

Strengthening educational systems will require the international community to look beyond such limited indicators, seeking the means necessary to uplift all. The voices, wellbeing, and experiences of all communities must be considered in stewarding the flows of learning, experience, resources, and support that will be needed to extend and strengthen educational systems and processes in every society.

A much broader set of capacities is required than what many of the world’s education systems currently provide. Good governance—from the local to the international community—will be vital to creating society-wide conditions for education that empowers individuals and communities to read their own realities, to apply what they learn, and to generate new insights about a widening range of present and future concerns and contexts.

Dr. Elena Toukan is an instructor at the University of Toronto and an independent researcher. Her research and teaching focus on the interplay between global education policy and local agency, as well as the acquisition, generation and mobilization of knowledge through education, particularly as it relates to community development.

Toward Gender-Equal Global Governance: The Role of Culture

By Suzan Karaman

The equality of men and women is a fundamental truth of human existence. A more effective and principled global order depends on translating this truth into reality. Yet doing so has been a formidable challenge. The Governance Befitting statement notes:

“The world the international community has committed itself to build—in which violence and corruption have given way to peace and good governance, for example, and where the equality of women and men has been infused into every facet of social life—has never yet existed. Progress toward the goals enshrined in global agendas therefore calls for a conscious orientation toward experimentation, search, innovation, and creativity.”

Governments strive to advance the status of women through a variety of laws and policies, including making education of the girl child mandatory, abolishing early marriage, and combating domestic and gender-based violence. All too often, though, implementation of such laws is lacking, due to cultural norms and practices. Transforming attitudes at the level of culture, then, will be critical in bringing the full expression of women’s capacities to the collective affairs of humankind.

In my home country of Turkey, glimmerings of this kind of cultural change have been seen around a spiritually-based educational process that encourages the participation of women in consultative spaces with men, explicitly affirms that the soul has no gender, and upholds the inherent equality of women and men.

Tangible outcomes of this process have varied according to local realities. To give some examples: boys who would previously not take part in household chores have started helping their mothers and sisters. Men who might otherwise have regarded gender-based violence as ordinary have taken action to prevent it. Language has begun to shift as the assumed superiority of boys is left behind, resulting in sexist comments becoming less common and less accepted. As consciousness of the importance of education—both moral and intellectual—grows, girls have been given greater opportunity to pursue formal training. Awareness of the harm of early marriage has grown and its prevalence declined. Women who did not have access to formal education have been assisted to read and write. Resources have been directed toward developing artistic and handicraft skills, enabling women to contribute more actively to the economic welfare of their families and villages.

Such outcomes, initial as many of them are, have sprung from an interrelated set of activities that seek to nurture new and more equal patterns of individual and collective life. Among these activities are classes that strive to nurture the moral qualities of children and young adolescents, empowering them to become protagonists in the betterment of their community, regardless of gender. Grassroots study groups provide a space for youth and adults to develop capacities to apply spiritual principles for the progress of their village or neighborhood—women and men taking part equally in expressing thoughts, identifying needs, solving problems, and taking decisions. Gatherings for reflection and consultation are creating opportunities for members of a community to discuss issues of concern, such as the forces impacting youth or the aspirations and priorities the community holds for itself.

As the focus on spiritual principles above suggests, the constructive role of religion in building a more gender-equal culture should not be overlooked. It must be stated plainly that narrow and self-serving interpretations of religious scriptures have often contributed to cultural norms that regard women as inferior.

Yet religion at its highest can and indeed must serve as a means to awaken and cultivate, at the grassroots level, the high-minded and noble attributes latent in every soul. Within such an environment, religious communities can come to function as communities of practice where spiritual principles and teachings are applied thoughtfully to the life of society, for the benefit of all.

By conducting collective gatherings for worship, for example, women as well as men unite in prayer to their Creator. Similarly, as the nobility of human beings is explored as an inherent and spiritual truth, the inhabitants of a locality start regarding each other as co-builders of a flourishing and supportive community.

Along with individuals and communities, institutions play a crucial role in creating a culture that fosters the equality of women and men. Governments have a responsibility to ensure security and justice for all their citizens. Setting laws, determining regulations, and enforcing them are all critical governmental responsibilities. Governments both contribute to the advancement of gender equality and depend on it.

Ultimately all three of these actors—the individual, the community, and institutions of society–will be needed, working in concert, to advance gender equality. If those efforts are to be transformative and lasting, their impact must reach to the realm of culture, in all its complexity and history. It is here, in modes of expression and patterns of thought, in conceptions of what is right, normal, and acceptable, that the principle of the equality of women and men takes on life and substance. Advancements made here at grassroots, in village fields and neighborhood shops, will build a foundation that can eventually benefit the nation and even the globe.

Suzan Karaman has served as the Director of the Office of External Affairs of the Bahá’í Community of Turkey for almost a decade. One of the major national discourses that the Office is currently focusing on is the equality of women and men.

Unpacking Interconnectedness: The Experience of ‘Creating an Inclusive Narrative’

By Ida Walker

The COVID-19 pandemic has impelled people around the globe to reflect on the character of the societies in which they live and the world we share. It has raised fundamental questions about individual and national identity that will remain relevant long after the most acute effects of the pandemic have receded. As the Governance Befitting statement noted, “rapidly shifting global realities” are prompting “a deeper appreciation of humanity’s interconnection and interdependence.”

This is as true of my home country of Australia as anywhere else. Careful attention to discourse here—from personal conversations to national debates—reveals that people tend to group themselves into three distinct streams of social identity: those of Indigenous heritage, European settlers, and modern migrants. This view has implications for our sense of belonging and how we are expected to participate in shaping our society. It also leaves us grappling with questions around our collective identity as a country. Who are we? Are we one people, rather than a collection of backgrounds? What values do we share? What kind of future society do we want to create? 

To explore such questions, the Australian Baha’i Office of External Affairs, with which I am affiliated, hosted a series of more than 50 consultative roundtables across the country. Representatives were invited from community, cultural, and religious groups, NGOs, all levels of government, media, academics, and thought leaders. Participants were invited to share views on the national story we are or could be telling together, and to learn from others’ perspectives—all with the aim of identifying aspirations for the future that we hold in common.  

Some 500 participants spoke on topics ranging from the deeply personal to the consciously global. Among them: the need to be ever mindful of our interconnectedness and the implications that individual choices have on the collective; diversity being not just a fact of life but an asset in the construction of a harmonious society; the important role youth play in breaking down long-held prejudices and constructing more inclusive societies; and the need for the flourishing of society to be considered in light of our relationship with the environment and the finite resources of the earth.

It became clear that if we are to be striving to understand our oneness more fully, we must also be considering historical injustices, explicitly and honestly. Participants offered personal experiences with displacement, gender-based violence, prejudice, disunity, youth-related challenges, historical trauma, and poverty, to name a few. From grassroots neighbourhoods to the halls of government, the perspectives of those who have experienced injustice are indispensable in efforts to construct a more just society for all. 

Contributions from the many conversations that took place were distilled into a publication titled Creating an Inclusive Narrative. This sought to weave together the many stories of our country and to articulate a narrative of the future we wish to create together. It endeavored to not only describe aspirations we hold in common, but also to help us appreciate how diverse ideas and experiences assist in finding solutions to complex challenges. All those who generously offered their time and thoughts were encouraged to continue this national conversation with their own spheres of influence. Our hope was that all would see themselves in this publication and feel a sense of ownership over its findings and suggestions for further inquiry. 

Among the lessons we learned in this project was the importance of process being based on principle. All of the roundtables, for example, were organized around a conception of consultation that involves detachment from personal opinions, commitment to a collective search for truth, harmonization of candor and courtesy, and prioritization of the common good over particular interests or constituencies. Prevalent in our country is the belief that democracy is built on the clash of debate and argument. But antagonistic modes of operation can dissuade thoughtful people from taking part, and can set diverse groups up for conflict instead of insight. Baha’is do not claim to be experts in the art of consultation. But in striving to employ this approach alongside our compatriots, these roundtables offered a chance to explore a different way to achieve effective outcomes and build consensus.

Cultivating unity at higher and wider levels is an ongoing process. Humanity itself is going through a time of transition and instability, uncertain not only of how it will emerge from a pandemic, but how it will address a changing climate, growing economic inequality, and similar challenges. A profound reorientation towards values based on the oneness of the human family offers the promise of releasing stores of untapped capacity needed to meet such challenges. This is a time for courage, noble aims, and high resolve. It is our hope that this long-term vision for action will bear witness to greater degrees of unity being forged in our national context.

Ida Walker is a representative at the Australian Baha’i Community’s Office of External Affairs. Her work focuses on social issues including social cohesion, gender equality, youth and social transformation, the role of religion in society, and the environment.

Towards a Culture of Encounter Inclusive of the World’s Religious Traditions

By Philip McDonagh, Kishan Manocha, Lucia Vázquez Mendoza, and John Neary

In our globalised 21st century, we have reached a point of inflection in the human story. One way or another, our policy responses will depend on the lens through which we see reality. How do we see the relationship between the citizen and the state? How do we measure the economy? Is building community compatible with individuals advancing their own self-interests? Should we protect the vulnerable? Are we global citizens? What position do we take on questions concerning human origins, human destiny, and our place within nature? In thinking about politics, how do we answer the basic questions: who, where, how, why, and when? (Melissa Lane. (2014). Greek and Roman Political Ideas. London: Pelican.)

In the crisis of 2020, public authorities have made significant moral judgements. Saving lives is more important than economic growth. Higher levels of public spending and state intervention can serve the common good. A coherent public health strategy requires international cooperation. We, the public, have made sacrifices for the sake of the community. Many ordinary citizens, including, of course, healthcare professionals, have displayed the courage of soldiers in wartime. The volunteers coming forward in huge numbers are not 'incentivised' by money. In many parts of the world, we have glimpsed new horizons, even in the literal sense, as pollution has lifted, and blue skies and distant mountain tops have become visible for the first time in many years.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by consensus by more than 190 states in 2015, represent, in embryo, a vision of the global citizenship of nation states and a medium-term common plan for humanity that takes into account the ‘density’ of interactions across borders and the interconnectedness of issues. The Global Compact for Migration, adopted in 2018, rests in part on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development framed by the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Similar values underpin the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) in bringing COVID-19 under control.

Our actions during the pandemic, added to the thinking that has gone into multilateral diplomacy over the past decade, signify that many people are ready to convert the present point of inflection,  crisis, into an opportunity - a springboard to a global project that can empower the ‘better angels of our nature’ in the perspective of 2030 or 2050. As an Indian writer and activist puts it: ‘The world is literally gasping for breath. We all need a new kind of oxygen - a new design for living.’ (Valmik Thapar. (2020). ‘Press Restart: A Moment of Rebuilding Is on Us. Best Minds Must Contribute’, Indian Express, 13 April 2020.)

We propose introducing or reintroducing to the world of multilateral diplomacy the explicit questions: What do we believe in? What is our ‘design for living’? To answer these questions means drawing on dimensions of our lives that do not originate in the public sphere: ‘The formal political structures of our time are incapable of confronting this crisis on their own.’ (Amitav Ghosh. (2016). The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. Chicago, IL and London The University of Chicago Press.)

As the catalyst for a civilisational transformation, we propose a culture of encounter inclusive of the world’s religious traditions, to be enabled by international organisations. We see this as a long-term cross-cultural enterprise with roots in civil society. It is an enterprise fully congruent with the UN’s new emphasis on mobilising civil society to sustain peace.

The encounter between religion and human values, on the one hand, and global political realities, on the other, has transformative potential within a future life-giving multilateral diplomacy. The hope that religious and secular leaders will work together and play their role in advancing civilisation is present in many religions and has been expressed with great clarity in the Baha’i Writings:

Our hope is that the world’s religious leaders and the world’s rulers will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely afflicted world the remedy it requires.

It is true that at the national and international levels, there are a number of existing channels for dialogue between government representatives and the religious communities. However, for the time being, this is a niche area: compartmentalised consultations lacking in political energy are not a likely pathway to a ‘civilisational’ transformation. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore in more depth how the active engagement of religious communities and others who adopt ‘conscience-based’ positions or ‘life-stances’ can contribute to peace building.

Adapted from “On the Significance of Religion for Global Diplomacy”, published by Routledge Classics Books

A Governance Befitting: Catalysed by Youth Committing

By Shidan Javaheri

Increasingly turbulent conditions in the world have intensified the urgency to establish a truly united global order. A Governance Befitting aptly recognizes that periods of turmoil present opportunities for “marked social change.” Throughout history, young people have spearheaded such processes of transformation – and the same stands true today. Serious thought therefore must be given to how the international community can draw fully on the potential of youth in “redefining collective values and the assumptions that underlie them.”

Youth are far from monolithic, but certain attitudes do tend to characterize this stage in life. Though materialistic notions of progress have often narrowly defined youth as inexperienced – in some instances disillusioned or even disrespectful – such limited narratives overlook the potential of this period of life. Many young people have a keen aptitude for the “experimentation, search, innovation, and creativity” mentioned in the statement. Many have a mindset that is open, detached, and acutely inquisitive. Many are also highly idealistic in outlook, with courage and a readiness to sacrifice time and energy for a cause they believe in.

This stage of life lends unique structural circumstances to the lives of youth, including how their time is organised and the duties they are called to shoulder. Their unique position in society, for example, helps them connect naturally with both older and younger generations, bridging the populations both above and below them and strengthening bonds of intergenerational cooperation. During the critical years of early adolescence, ideas about the individual and society that may well shape the rest of their lives are formed. And as young adults begin careers, find spouses, and start families, the choices they make can have effects that last decades. When animated by a firm conviction in the oneness of humankind, youth represent a great force, brimming with potential, to contribute to “decisive steps forward in our collective journey toward enduring, universal peace.”

One area mentioned in the statement that is of central importance is how increasing consideration can be given to “how policies might impact generations to come.” Areas of global concern have a major impact on the lives of youth, who, as the living embodiment of the “next generation”, are among those most impacted by the enduring effects of turmoil and breakdown. They are often the driving force behind innovation in emerging technology, and, as some of the most active users of technology, are often directly affected by its many consequences. There is therefore a moral obligation to draw on their potential to help understand and address contemporary challenges.

The statement also highlights the importance of analysing  “underlying moral assumptions,” including how social change takes root. For any system to be enduring, and for a “profound reordering of priorities” to be sustainable, those who will be responsible for them in the future must be involved in their construction today. When involved, youth are uniquely situated to understand the limitations of, and to devise innovative alternatives to, current institutional mechanisms, specifically because they have been detached from their creation. Youth represent the future of the world, and must be part of the basis upon which its new order is built.

To harness the promise and potential of youth to contribute to constructive global change, institutions must ensure structural arrangements allow for intentional and meaningful  involvement of young people. This is not merely a plea for a “seat at the table.” Rather, it implies two related tasks. First, institutional leaders must genuinely believe in the capacity of youth. Second, they must actively engage youth and create systems that unlock, channel, and develop their capacity. What spaces are being created for conversations about redefining systems and their underlying assumptions? What steps of action are being taken as a result? How are we learning about this process and refining our approach in light of insights gained? And how can youth catalyse the process of institutional transformation itself?

Youth will by no means act alone for the betterment of society, for a global order reflective of humanity’s shared aspirations requires the full range of human experience. But bringing about increasingly meaningful cooperation between young people and their forbearers is essential in hastening the advent of the world we all seek so urgently to build. Critically, youth can serve as the bridge between the hopes of generations before and the lived realities of generations rising now, helping to translate vision and volition into tangible collective action.

Shidan Javaheri is a student at McGill University, studying civil engineering and applied artificial intelligence. He also contributes to a set of neighborhood-based programs designed to help youth develop the tools necessary to contribute meaningfully to global change.

The Power of Imagination: One People in a Shared Homeland

By Temily Tavangar

A Governance Befitting is a sobering yet hopeful wake-up call to the real and urgent challenges that face humanity in its current state of global interdependence. How, it asks, do we redefine our collective values in the face of present turbulence? How do we reorient our outlook, goals, and processes so that our identity as one people in a shared homeland permeates all aspects of our lives? 

These questions call for the power of imagination—the ability to look beyond the challenges of our time. Imagination requires hope; hope propels action. As noted author Azar Nafisi wrote, “imaginative knowledge is pragmatic: it helps shape our attitude to the world and our place in it and influences our capacity to make decisions.”

The establishment of the United Nations was a signaling moment in human history, of a new era of global interdependence. Three quarters of a century later, it is clear that national sovereignty continues to stand in the way of the realization of a truly global civic ethic. 

We don’t have to look far for examples: the inequality of access to Covid-19 vaccines is evidence enough. Some countries hoard excess supply while others helplessly watch hundreds die each day as they wait for vaccines to arrive. The writer Arundhati Roy beautifully describes the pandemic as “a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world.”

As long as our minds remain shaped by territorial thinking and outdated hierarchies of power, the true potentialities of a commitment to global unity will remain elusive. It is in this light that we are called to “a conscious orientation toward experimentation, search, innovation, and creativity.” 

One promising area of search is examples of communities and collectivities that have imagined alternative, inclusive, cooperative ways of life, and sought to realize them. On every continent, a wide spectrum of these communities has existed, and continues to exist, on the margins. These range from indigenous tribes to urban cooperatives, religious movements to secular organizations. These collectivities have lived outside the sphere of the mainstream order and dared to imagine a different vision of society. 

Each of these microcosms have something to teach us about the qualities that individuals, institutions, and communities need to cultivate in order to see the spectrum of humanity with the eyes of inclusion. Questions to explore might include: What worldviews inform and guide individuals that live in these societies? How do they define power and make collective decisions? How do they treat nature? How do they see themselves in relation to others?

A research agenda focused on the compilation and analysis of these examples is a promising and unifying starting point. They are a validation that cooperative visions of life are possible, and that territorial boundaries do not define us. They can provide insights into the individual and collective qualities necessary for leadership and for seeing beyond current modes of jurisdictional thinking. 

The point is not to judge the success or failure of these examples, but rather to understand the motivations, aims, and processes in a spirit of collective, intergenerational experimentation and imagination. These efforts constitute the ongoing experiment that is our collective life on earth. Learning more about these alternative approaches is a small step that can propel us towards viewing all of humanity as our sphere of responsibility.

Technical solutions, no matter how sophisticated, can never replace the role of imagination, which bestows on every individual a sense of identity and purpose. Realizing the vision of one people in a shared homeland requires the exercise of our uniquely human gifts of imagination, curiosity, and open-heartedness. Ultimately, it is these powers of the human spirit that galvanize us to arise with conviction to advance the collective and to see beyond all forms of otherness.  

Temily Tavangar is a former television journalist who has worked for local and international news outlets across Hong Kong and Malaysia. She holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hong Kong and is currently engaged in postdoctoral research with the Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity.

‘Giving’ as a Foundation for Global Governance

By Siew-Huat Kong

The statement A Governance Befitting reminds us that “periods of turbulence have presented opportunities to redefine collective values and the assumptions that underlie them.” The global pandemic has done just that. The world order today is based on assumptions of state sovereignty, with relationships between nations shaped largely by self-interest and competition. Whatever benefits this order has provided humanity, it is clearly reaching its limits. A re-examination of the assumptions which bind the nations as one body politic is long-due. And central to arrangements that meet the needs of an increasingly interdependent world must be an ethic of giving and generosity, translated into policy and action.

The human body provides insight into the crucial role of giving in an interconnected and integrated system. Here, no cell lives apart from the body; rather, each contributes to the health and development of the whole. Relationships between constituent elements are based on “cooperation, mutual assistance and reciprocity.” And the structured arrangements of cells and organs that arise from these relationships allow the system as a whole to function at levels higher than its respective parts.

What is to be learned by applying such lessons to the body politic—by taking giving, instead of competitive acquisition, as the basis of collective prosperity? In such a reimagined global order, the dignity of a nation derives from being a source of peace and prosperity to others. Just as the individual cell fulfills its highest mission by serving the entire body, the individual nation demonstrates its exalted station by promoting the well-being of the whole world. Every country, regardless of its social or economic condition, can give something to the development of the emerging global civilization, and each has a right to enjoy the fruits of this civilization. It becomes clear that “the advantage of the part … is best served by promoting the advantage of the whole.”**

To be sure, when a country develops itself, such as by eradicating illiteracy or lifting its population from poverty, it is making a meaningful contribution to the whole. However, the very purpose of national development is best located in the context of addressing global goals. Even the act of providing international assistance, for instance, stands as a means to develop the nation itself. When giving is translated into policy, the purpose of foreign investment is to share one’s resources or expertise, rather than to exploit recipient nations. International trade is re-structured to help reduce the disparity between rich and poor countries, rather than favoring nations with stronger economic muscle. Firms go international not to take advantage of lower environmental and worker protection and favorable taxation regimes, but to enhance the economic life of the destination countries. But it is not charity that is intended here, nor a set of activities “that one group of people carries out for the benefit of another”.*** By “giving”, is meant both voluntary sharing and contributing to the empowerment of the other parties.

In the final analysis, “The happiness and pride of a nation consist in this, that it should shine out like the sun in the high heaven of knowledge.”**** The sun, it should be noted, gives its bounty unconditionally. Towards this end, the promotion of dialogue and exchange between nations and cultures should be a top policy priority—but this in such a way that interactions are “free of manipulation for partisan political ends.”*****

As the foremost objective of national policy is redefined—what the nation can contribute to other states, rather than what it can get from them—new metrics of development will be required. These might reflect the extent that the nation’s educational curriculum promotes global citizenship, the effort made to nurture a culture of giving, the emphasis on exchange between nations, the number of collaborative projects with other nations, and most importantly, the level of resources—from intellectual to technological—dedicated to assisting other states.

For giving and service to others to be the hallmark of a nation’s foreign policy, they must become the norm domestically. Put simply, giving begins at home. To develop a culture of giving, change in personal consciousness must accompany the kinds of policy and structural adjustments mentioned above. Educational curricula that emphasize world citizenship with giving at the core are needed, as is discourse at different levels and in different spaces that promotes “giving” as a pattern of thought and action. Indeed, transformation can start simply with conversation between a few friends on the state of the present world order—provided that the circle of conversation can expand to welcome others. The peoples of the world need to know that a key way to express one’s nobility today is by raising consciousness of the oneness of humankind and assisting in laying foundations for international structures of governance that give effect to this organizing principle.

The above might sound naïve to some. But even this falls short when measured against the requirements and central theme of this age: the oneness of humankind. This is the reality of a reimagined world order based on a different set of assumptions. Its time has come.

*'Abdu'l-Bahá, Huqúqu'lláh: The Right of God

**The Universal House of Justice, The Promise of World Peace

***The Universal House of Justice, Ridván 2010 Message

****'Abdu'l-Bahá, The Secret of Divine Civilization

*****The Universal House of Justice, The Prosperity of Humankind

Siew-Huat Kong is a faculty member of the Department of Management and Marketing at the University of Macau. His present research interests are in the areas of managerial cognition and institutional capacity building, and he teaches management related courses at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Chinese translation of this piece can be found here

Rethinking Inclusivity for a Maturing World

By Liliane Nkunzimana

The Governance Befitting statement notes how societal affairs are increasingly taking on an international scope, and how mechanisms for their arrangement are consequently prompted to become more inclusive and all-embracing. “New and more pressing challenges emerge,” it observes, “and the body politic is compelled to devise new arrangements that address the needs of the time through greater inclusivity, coherence, and collaboration.” Today, integrative processes are bringing diverse peoples across the world into closer contact with one another, creating opportunities—previously inconceivable—to collaborate, exchange information, and share knowledge.

With heightened awareness that decisions made in one locality can be felt in others, often in unintended ways, a reconceptualization of what it means to be inclusive in decision-making processes has become imperative. Against the backdrop of humanity’s unfolding trajectory, what does it mean to address the needs of the time through greater inclusivity, coherence, and collaboration? What forms of inclusivity do such developments call for and make possible, and how are they most effectively brought to bear on the needs of the time?

First, it is clear that box-checking exercises, which give the appearance of genuine inclusion and participation but not their substance, are of little benefit. Such approaches, even when well meaning, fall short in appreciating the full implications of interconnection and interdependence as the defining features of the global community today. As current global challenges—from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, to climate-related risks, to the effects of an unbounded and rapidly evolving digital terrain—are not confined by locality, the contributions that inform their solutions should not be either. Indeed, the insights generated from shared challenges can help us learn how to formulate and leverage more effective frameworks for governance.

The foundations for an expanded conception of inclusion are laid at the local level. Global challenges make their effects felt on individual lives and communities, and it is at that level that global and national policies find their ultimate expression. Creating conditions which enable growing numbers of individuals to contribute to decision-making processes in their own community is therefore a powerful means of addressing contemporary challenges. As growing numbers are assisted to effectively contribute within their own sphere of influence, a locality, no matter how humble its circumstances, enjoys the benefits of an expanding contingent of active and engaged human resources. Moreover, the leadership and participation developed by those involved contribute to a growing body of knowledge and experience from which processes at the national and global levels can eventually benefit.

At the international level of organization and collaboration, effective decision-making will require consciously embedding consideration of the well-being of all people in all deliberations. This would involve creating spaces to listen to and act upon insights brought to bear by concerned groups. But attitudes and values are as important as systems and mechanisms. Such a process would need to be characterized by humility and a willingness to learn from one another. It would recognize that as long as the voices of those most impacted by challenges and policies are not included and fully considered in decision-making, appropriate solutions will be far from reach. And it would aim to foster conversations that interrogate the assumptions informing existing policies, facilitate discussions around the impact of decisions under consideration, and ensure that a commitment to learning is infused at every stage of the process.  In localities where community building processes of this kind are taking hold, we are seeing these approaches emerge among youth and historically disadvantaged populations.

Inclusion needs to become the means to achieve improved governance policy, rather than merely an end in itself. Creating inclusive spaces with the above mentioned characteristics is a way to reconceptualize inclusion by valuing diversity as a storehouse of insight to be drawn upon in devising responses to the problems facing humanity. Willingness to embrace diverse perspectives in the search for truth and to inform policies as insights are gained ensure that diversity and inclusion are in service of continuously evolving policies that advance the well-being of all peoples. Such an approach would allow for the evolution of a framework under which continued learning about inclusion can take place, as insights from larger cross sections of humanity contribute to greater levels of understanding—a process that will continue to be refined over time. Additionally, by valuing and acting upon the insights of all concerned, this process will serve to build trust between individuals, communities, and institutions without which the execution of policy lacks commitment and sustained effort.

Ultimately, the lens of inclusion and its role in governance seeks to address questions about how to create a more just society for the human family. The ways in which people have expressed a deep concern for the suffering they have witnessed at this moment in history, and the increased levels of solidarity we have seen in communities around the world in response to compounding challenges, are a testament to the growing numbers of people who have a desire to contribute to the betterment of humanity. To fulfill this highest aspiration—and solemn responsibility—the question becomes, what spaces can be created and refined so that the full range of capabilities that exist in any given community can be explored for the benefit of the whole? Humanity therefore has before it the challenge to put in place mechanisms that allow for inclusive participation. Through continued efforts to understand what inclusive governance looks like at different levels of human organization, we can work towards building institutions and communities that are truly reflective of the nobility of humankind.

Liliane Nkunzimana has a background in diversity and inclusion work, researching and writing about inclusion. She has an undergraduate degree in African Studies and Political Science and a master’s in Public and International Affairs. She currently lives in Ottawa, where she devotes a majority of her time to community building activities.

A Governance Befitting – Implications for Europe

By Maximillian Afnan

The 75th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations (UN), a milestone reached against the background of a devastating global health crisis, is spurring conversations about the purpose and design of arrangements for international cooperation. The Baha’i International Community (BIC) has released a statement marking the occasion, highlighting that the present anniversary provides an “opportune moment to begin building consensus about how the international community can better organize itself, and to consider what will be the standards by which to measure progress”. The statement addresses a global audience, but naturally carries significant implications for Europe. Of these, at least three stand out.

First and foremost, the statement highlights the need for a deeper appreciation of the ways in which  Europe is part of an organic, interconnected global whole. “True acknowledgement of global interdependence” it says “requires genuine concern for all, without distinction. Deceptively simple, this principle implies a profound reordering of priorities. Too often, advancement of the common good is approached as a secondary objective—commendable, but to be pursued only after other, narrower national interests have been secured”. An important question for European institutions, then, is how to instantiate this “profound reordering of priorities” in practice. In this regard, the statement suggests that policymakers will increasingly have to ask the question: “What will be the global implications of domestic policies?”. On policy issues as diverse as technology, environmental protection and agriculture, decisions made within Europe’s borders have profound effects on other regions of the world, just as decisions made elsewhere influence the lives of its population. Thus, the reflex to analyse the impact of a given policy on other parts of the world must become an integral part of the policy making and evaluation process, both because it is a moral imperative, and because it is a pragmatic necessity. 

A second, related consideration is that the international order must be ‘global’ not only in its scope, but also in its design. The BIC’s statement highlights the pressing need for a shared global moral framework within which supranational political discussion can be conducted. As the statement notes, there is already some measure of agreement on aspects of this framework, such as the universality of human rights, the importance of alleviating extreme poverty, and the need to live within environmentally sustainable limits. But there is clearly much further to go. One important consideration in this connection is that a flourishing global order will not represent the universalisation of any particular political culture. Instead, it will only emerge as concepts and ideas from all parts of the world - including those which have been historically marginalised - are permitted to shape the construction of mankind’s shared future. This implies a willingness of different political cultures and traditions of thought to approach the construction of global order with a posture of humility, conscious that different models of political, legal and social organisation are – as the statement puts it – “sources of potential insight into new solutions”, not “points of friction”.

Third, the statement notes that “in recent years, reasoned critique of multilateral arrangements has, at times, been eclipsed by rejection of the very idea of a rules-based international order”. It is clear that mankind’s long term future depends on the construction of a shared global moral framework, upheld by strong international institutions. Constructing such a global order in a way that respects the demands of social, cultural and societal diversity will require a global learning process which draws on the practical experience of human communities in synthesising the demands of unity and diversity. As the EU gains insights into the challenges associated with harmonising these twin values, such insights, if offered in a posture of learning to a broader global conversation, could be an interesting contribution to this defining question of the current century.

Maximillian Afnan is a PhD candidate in political philosophy at the London School of Economics. His research focuses on issues of supranational governance and the operation of the global public sphere.

Economic Governance in a Post-Covid World

By Augusto Lopez-Claros

The COVID-19 crisis is the largest shock to the global economy since the Great Depression of the early 1930s. The impact has been highly destabilising and global in scope. Perhaps no statistic captures more eloquently its welfare costs than that for the first time in three decades in 2020 we saw a sharp increase in the number of people classified by the World Bank as “extremely poor.” About 120 million people joined the ranks of the very poor, a reversal likely to continue in 2021, the incipient economic recovery notwithstanding. Not surprisingly the crisis has raised multiple questions about our economic system, its resilience to shocks, and, more generally, whether it is on a sustainable path. What are some of the lessons that can be drawn from this past year?

Restoring public spending priorities

COVID-19 has found the majority of countries totally unprepared to deal effectively with its devastating consequences. Even high-income countries have seen their hospitals and public health systems come under heavy strain. However, in the midst of the pandemic, according to IMF data, we continue to spend the equivalent of 6.3% of global GDP in subsidizing petrol, electricity, natural gas, and coal. This worsens not only climate change but also economic inequality, as 60% of the benefits of these subsidies end up in the hands of the richest 20% of the population. Faced with high levels of extreme poverty, malnutrition, and illiteracy in the world, this represents a massive waste of resources. There should be a broad debate about the priorities of public spending, against the background of future claims on public resources linked to population aging, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the challenges associated with budgets already under strain as a result of the consequences of the pandemic.

Broadening the safety net is a good investment

One characteristic of coronaviruses and similar pathogens is that they pose risks to the entire human species. Smallpox, which until 1967 infected 15 million people annually and was fatal to 2 million of them, was eventually eradicated in 1980. Clearly a central part of the solution will be to expand access to health and basic social protections to a much larger percentage of the world's population. Not only would this demonstrate solidarity, but also minimize the systemic risk from unprotected populations; vulnerable people must be protected to protect everyone. One important lesson from COVID-19 may be that, in a fully integrated world, solidarity and altruism are not just luxuries for the spiritually-minded but, in fact, indispensable conditions for survival.

The moral/ethical case for better social protection

There is a moral case for better social protection, even if this means a fundamental rethinking of the structure of the budget. We live in a world in which a completely accidental event—the nationality of our parents—plays a fundamental role in the prospects we face as human beings. If our parents are Norwegian, for example, we will have enormous opportunities to develop our inherent capabilities. For in Norway, it is highly probable not only that we will safely reach the age of 5, be well fed and educated, and have access to modern medical facilities, but a benevolent state will also provide for us in our old age, since in Norway economic policies have incorporated the concept of sustainability in their design, including in management of public finances and the responsibilities of the state to future generations.

If, however, we are born in any of the low-income countries, we may not survive to the age of 5. If we do, we are more likely to become part of the 820 million people in the world who suffer from malnutrition and the development of whose talents may be stunted not only by the lack of good nutrition during the early stages of the development of our brains, but by the absence of quality education. And, of course, on average, we may live to the age of 59, rather than the 79–80 seen in high-income countries. Even if one characterises this situation as “a fact of life,” it is a sad commentary on the current state of our world, increasingly under strain from the impact of various forms of inequality. The fact is that this is profoundly unfair; there is no ethical framework in which this state of affairs could be characterized as being consistent with elemental notions of justice.

Strengthening the underpinnings of our systems of social protection—whether through the gradual introduction of something like a universal basic income or by other schemes that are seen to be affordable—would go a long way to helping erase extreme poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, and gender discrimination in an age of plenty. In the age of COVID-19 and future pandemics, it could actually be the socially optimal path, affording greater protection everywhere, including for those most adversely affected in the more prosperous parts of the world. This may well be one of the more enduring lessons from the calamities of COVID-19.

It is necessary to redefine the meaning of national security

In the minds of the majority, the concept of national security evokes images of well-equipped military establishments ready to defend national interests against real or imaginary attacks by potential adversaries, while absorbing a significant share of national budgets. But COVID-19 has shown that, in the midst of a pandemic, the most sophisticated and destructive weapons are useless. Perhaps national security will now have to be seen from the perspective of human well-being—from the ability of governments to have well-prepared health infrastructures, a clean environment, a social safety-net, and the resources to continue to educate children and young people in preparation for an increasingly complex world.

Preparing for the next crisis

Against the chaos and destruction of World War I, the nations of the world came together and adopted the UN Charter, a noble set of principles that was supposed to inaugurate a new era in international cooperation, to bring about peace and security, thereby creating a solid foundation for economic and social development. The world entered a period of rapid economic growth which contributed to a dramatic increase in life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, and less extreme poverty. But the very economic growth which made these achievements possible, and which was accompanied by a remarkable process of integration and growing interdependence, also contributed to the emergence of environmental constraints on the scale of human activity, rising income inequality, and persistent poverty and conflict. COVID-19 is a manifestation of one aspect of a whole range of global catastrophic risks which we now confront and which we need to address in a more proactive way, starting with the implications of accelerating climate change. We need to give serious thought to the kinds of global institutional arrangements which we need to have in place to empower us to deal with the looming crises that are ahead of us and which have the potential to destabilise not only the global economy but our social and political order. 

Augusto Lopez-Claros is Chair of the Global Governance Forum. He is an international economist with over 30 years of experience in international organizations, including most recently at the World Bank. 

Time for the Vision and Commitment Necessary for Deeper Global Cooperation

By Daniel Perell

The Governance Befitting statement notes that global realities require expanded integration and coordination among the nations—that “The only viable way forward lies in a system of deepening global cooperation.”

History suggests that such cooperation will not arise simply of its own accord. Rather, it will have to be summoned through an act of collective will. The prospect of formulating policy on a shared recognition of the interdependence and, indeed, oneness of humankind, rather than the logic of country-first national interest, might seem out of reach to some. Yet efforts in this direction have clear historical experience on which to draw. 

The smallpox virus was eradicated by a coordinated World Health Organization campaign, not by a patchwork of national responses split by borders and jurisdictions. Similarly, the technical standards maintained by the UN’s International Telecommunication Union have benefited the world far beyond what a host of conflicting claims to the radio spectrum, broadband internet, and satellite orbits ever could. 

In at least a few important areas, then, there is clear recognition that unity and cooperation already serve the international community better than division and competition. Expanding the number of such areas, in which the power of the oneness of humanity has been released to advance the common good, is a project that will need to continue for years to come.

It is also a project rich with lessons from past accomplishments. Take the adoption of the UN Charter. In April of 1945 when the conference in San Francisco opened, hostilities in the ongoing war had not yet concluded. Delegates from 50 countries clashed repeatedly over a range of issues. And the inability of the League of Nations to prevent conflict was fresh in the collective memory. 

That the international community was able to overcome such obstacles was a notable step forward. The UN is not perfect, of course. Its structures and systems continue to reflect the power relations and compromises of an age now past. But shortcomings notwithstanding, its creation stands as humanity’s most ambitious attempt yet to secure the peace and prosperity of the world’s people. 

What would a corresponding feat of vision, collaboration, and statesmanship look like today? What might be this generation’s “charter moment” to advance a system of deepening global cooperation? 

Reforms of various kinds are unquestionably required in the international order. Yet the needs of the moment call for advances more profound than technical adjustments alone. From global supply chains, digital interconnection, and the operation of multinational corporations, to global financial flows, the spread of infectious disease, and the multiplying effects of climate change, nation states are far more interdependent than they were decades ago.

These ties of interconnection have opened possibilities for collaboration on scales never before possible. Needed now more than ever is a deep reassessment of global arrangements—an accounting that gives rise to practical, achievable steps to build a more fitting order. 

Operational details would be determined according to relevant circumstances, but characteristics necessary in such a system as a whole have become clear enough through experience already accrued. It would need to situate healthy patriotism within the context of our global interdependence. It would need to be built on a recognition of the inherent dignity of all individuals—present and future—regardless of the happenstance of birth. It would need to ensure fidelity to the process of scientific inquiry and alignment of policy with its findings. And it would need to be advanced by governments and leaders reflecting the highest standards of personal and collective integrity.

This is not a fantasy beyond reach; leaders of past eras were able to come together to imagine and then enact more fitting global arrangements. Let leaders and diplomats today channel that same spirit of common endeavor. Let contemporary challenges be addressed within a framework that recognizes the multitude of ways in which humanity already functions as one common people in one global homeland. 

Daniel Perell has served as a Representative of the Baha’i International Community’s United Nations Office in New York for over a decade. He currently focuses on issues of international governance, humanitarian response, and humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

Cover Image Credit: Lindsey Lugsch-Tehle

Institutional Processes Toward Effective Global Governance

By Andy Tamas

The Baha’i International Community’s statement on the 75th anniversary of the United Nations begins by noting how evolving global realities are prompting a deeper appreciation of humanity’s interconnection and interdependence:

Amidst the disruption created and accelerated by a world-engulfing pandemic, numerous possibilities are opening for marked social change that can bring stability to the world and enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Throughout history, periods of turbulence have presented opportunities to redefine collective values and the assumptions that underlie them. So, too, does the present moment.

The document celebrates the institutional developments that took place in the aftermath of two world wars, highlights challenges and achievements of the past 75 years, and describes some of the work that lies ahead.

A core theme throughout the statement concerns recognition of the oneness of humankind, and the need to build a system of global governance rooted in this fact.  This process can be seen as humanity’s movement along a continuum or trajectory—moving towards something, and, in a governance context, creating institutions to manage its influences, components, dynamics, and results.  This article addresses some of the institutional development processes linked with the expression of the collective values associated with the recognition of humanity’s oneness.

The process of establishing effective global governance implies forming overarching institutional structures, much as in a federated nation-state where there are different levels of national and subnational institutions, each with their roles and authorities defined and agreed upon by its members.  The formation of federations such as Germany, Spain, Canada, the US and others brought together previously relatively autonomous political and economic entities—regions, provinces, or states—whose peoples and leaders recognized that it was in their collective interest to come together into a higher-order union*.  Acting in response to a variety of interests and concerns, each gave up some of their autonomy to unify and achieve greater collective benefits.  

To establish effective global governance, a similar process is required at a global level, with each nation-state benefitting from vesting some authorities and autonomy in supranational entities.  There already are some authoritative global institutions that reflect these principles, such as the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization, to which nation states subscribe because they see it in their interests to do so.  Others, such as the International Criminal Court in the Hague, are not recognized as legitimate by several major nation states, presumably because their governments do not see it in their best interests to accept that authority over their citizens.  This divergence of view contributes to what is described as the anarchy of state sovereignty—the inadequacy of existing institutional structures to lend order to the affairs of the community of nations.  

Current conditions demand a far more holistic and coherent approach to governance. The process of the formation of the European Union is instructive in this regard, and some of its lessons could be applied to the global governance initiative. In the EU’s case, the process began shortly after the end of World War II with a desire by key leaders (and an exhausted citizenry) to move away from war and toward peace. Its genesis was the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, in which France and Germany established watchdog institutions to monitor each others’ mines and industries, as a precautionary measure against military build-up or acts of aggression. This early initiative broadened over subsequent decades to produce what is now the European Union—a supranational entity which coordinates and exercises authority over some of the activities of its member states—with the agreement of sufficient portions of its leaders and citizens.  As is the case in federated nation-states, this overarching authority does not cover all sectors. In Canada, for example, provincial governments have retained jurisdiction over their education systems. EU member states have retained control over sectors such as domestic taxation and their militaries.  

The EU’s origin in a watchdog institution based on mistrust contributes to what some see as an organization designed as much for control as for mutual benefit—factors that would need adjustment if the model were to be expanded to a global level. This highlights the significance of the foundational values and principles influencing the institutional development process.  Institutions built on the recognition of the oneness of humanity, our interdependence, and need to collaborate are likely to have quite different organizational structures and processes than are evident in the EU.

What is important to note in this discussion is that the supranational governance and institution building process will be driven by participants’ perceptions of self-interest and their expectation of its ability to deliver results. And, as is evident to even the casual observer of developments such as Brexit, this process is far from linear; it is imperfect, sometimes controversial and experiences occasional reversals. What is also evident is that the values, motivations, and interests of key leaders and their populations are central to how the processes unfold.  At some point—perhaps after yet another global crisis—the imperative necessity of convening a gathering of world leaders to deliberate and decide on the means to move the process forward will become evident.

The Baha’i International Community’s statement on the 75th anniversary of the UN focuses on the recognition of the oneness of humanity as a driving force that is pulling humanity toward establishment of an effective global governance system.  It also makes note of several quite different factors, such as the pandemic and environmental concerns, as pressures that are pushing humanity toward that same objective. Both sets of forces are combining to move humanity along its trajectory, and clarifying the need for institutions to manage the process and its results. The extent to which these influences are strong enough to create the political will and moral and social pressure to move humanity past the tipping point, to actually build these institutions and invest them with the necessary authorities to advance the common good, will determine how quickly and smoothly the global governance development process will proceed.
 

*These unification processes had varying dynamics – the Civil War in the US is one example; the more peaceful formation of Canada is another – each with its own combination of harmony and conflict.

Dr. Andy Tamas is an international development advisor based near Ottawa. He specializes in strengthening governance in fragile conflict-affected states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.

Cover Image Credit: Lindsey Lugsch-Tehle

A Governance Befitting: Humanity and the Path Toward a Just Global Order

A statement of the Baha'i International Community on the Occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations. 

The 75th anniversary of the United Nations arrives as rapidly shifting global realities prompt a deeper appreciation of humanity’s interconnection and interdependence. Amidst the disruption created and accelerated by a world-engulfing pandemic, numerous possibilities are opening for marked social change that can bring stability to the world and enrich the lives of its inhabitants. Throughout history, periods of turbulence have presented opportunities to redefine collective values and the assumptions that underlie them. So, too, does the present moment. The range of areas in which established systems and approaches are in need of radical transformation suggests how critical the coming quarter century—stretching from the United Nations’ 75th anniversary to its centenary—will be in determining the fortunes of humanity. A growing chorus of voices is calling for decisive steps forward in our collective trajectory toward enduring, universal peace. It is a call that must be answered.

The human family is one. This is a truth that has been embraced by multitudes around the world. Its profound implications for our collective behavior must now give rise to a coordinated movement toward higher levels of social and political unity. As Baháʼu’lláh declared over a century ago, “True peace and tranquility will only be realized when every soul will have become the well-wisher of all mankind.” The perils of a global community divided against itself are too great to countenance. 

The past century saw many steps—imperfect, yet significant—in laying the groundwork for a world order that could secure international peace and the prosperity of all. Humanity’s first serious attempt at global governance, the League of Nations, lasted 25 years. That the United Nations has already tripled this duration is impressive. Indeed, it is without parallel as a structure to engage all the world’s nations and a forum to express humanity’s common will. Yet recent events demonstrate that current arrangements are no longer sufficient in the face of cascading and increasingly interconnected threats. Integration and coordination must therefore be extended further. The only viable way forward lies in a system of deepening global cooperation. The present anniversary provides an opportune moment to begin building consensus about how the international community can better organize itself, and to consider what will be the standards by which to measure progress. 

In recent years, reasoned critique of multilateral arrangements has, at times, been eclipsed by rejection of the very idea of a rules-based international order. Yet this period of pushback is embedded in broader historical processes carrying the global community toward stronger unity. At each stage in human history, more complex levels of integration become not only possible, but necessary. New and more pressing challenges emerge, and the body politic is compelled to devise new arrangements that address the needs of the time through greater inclusivity, coherence, and collaboration. The demands of the present moment are pushing existing structures for facilitating deliberations among nations, as well as systems of conflict resolution, beyond their capacity for effectiveness. We therefore find ourselves at the threshold of a defining task: purposefully organizing our affairs in full consciousness of ourselves as one people in one shared homeland. 

* * *

To acknowledge the oneness of the human family is not to call for uniformity or to relinquish the wide range of established systems of governance. A true appreciation for the oneness of humanity contains within it the essential concept of diversity. What is needed today is a settled consensus that, while preserving the various systems and cultures around the world, embodies a set of common values and principles that can attract the support of every nation. A measure of agreement around these shared principles and norms can already be discerned in the ideals that inform global agendas, such as the universality of human rights, the imperative to eradicate poverty, or the need to live within environmentally sustainable limits. But there is further to go, and the challenging implications of such ideals must be reckoned with.

A framework that accommodates a diversity of approaches, built on a commitment to unity and a shared ethic of justice, would allow common principles to be put into practice in countless arrangements and formulations. Within such a framework, differences in political structure, legal system, and social organization would stand not as points of friction but as sources of potential insight into new solutions and approaches. To the extent that nations commit to learn from one another, ingrained habits of contest and blame can be replaced by a culture of cooperation and exploration, and a willing acceptance of setbacks and missteps as inevitable aspects of the learning process.

True acknowledgement of global interdependence requires genuine concern for all, without distinction. Deceptively simple, this principle implies a profound reordering of priorities. Too often, advancement of the common good is approached as a secondary objective—commendable, but to be pursued only after other, narrower national interests have been secured. This must change, for the welfare of any segment of humanity is inextricably bound up with the welfare of the whole. The starting point for consultation on any program or policy must be consideration of the impact it will have on all segments of society. Leaders and policymakers are thus confronted with a critical question in considering the merits of any proposed action, be it local, national, or international: will a decision advance the good of humankind in its entirety?

Whatever benefits have accrued from past conceptions of state sovereignty, present conditions demand a far more holistic and coherent approach to analysis and decision-making. What will be the global implications of domestic policies? What choices contribute to shared prosperity and sustainable peace? What steps foster nobility and preserve human dignity? As awareness of the oneness of humanity is increasingly woven into processes of decision-making, nations will find it easier to see each other as genuine partners in the stewardship of the planet and in securing the prosperity of its peoples. 

When leaders consider the impact of policies before them, they will need to give thought to what so many might term the human spirit—that essential quality which seeks meaning and aspires to transcendence. These less tangible dimensions of human existence have typically been viewed as confined to the realm of personal belief and lying outside the concern of policymakers and administrators. But experience has shown that progress for all is not attainable if material advancement is divorced from spiritual and ethical advancement. For example, economic growth over recent decades has indisputably brought about prosperity for many, but with that growth unmoored from justice and equity, a few have disproportionately benefited from its fruits and many are in precarious conditions. Those living in poverty are at the greatest risk from any contraction of the world economy, which exacerbates existing inequalities and intensifies suffering. Every effort to advance society, even if concerned with material conditions alone, rests on underlying moral assumptions. Every policy reflects convictions about human nature, the values that further various social ends, and the way that given rights and responsibilities inform one another. These assumptions determine the degree to which any decision will yield universal benefit. They must therefore be the object of careful and honest examination. Only by ensuring that material progress is consciously connected to spiritual and social progress can the promise of a better world be fulfilled.

* * *

Movement toward more coordinated and genuinely cooperative international relations will eventually require a process in which world leaders come together to recast and reconstitute the global order. For what was once viewed as an idealistic vision of international cooperation has, in light of the obvious and serious challenges facing humanity, become a pragmatic necessity. The efficacy of steps in this direction will hinge on well-worn patterns of stalemate and impasse being relinquished in favor of a global civic ethic. Deliberative processes will need to be more magnanimous, reasoned, and cordial—motivated not by attachment to entrenched positions and narrow interests but by a collective search for deeper understanding of complex issues. Objectives incompatible with the pursuit of the common good will need to be set aside. Until this is the dominant ethic, lasting progress will prove elusive.

Such a posture reinforces a process-oriented approach to progress, building gradually on strengths and responding to evolving realities. And as collective capacity for reasoned and dispassionate inquiry into the merit of any given proposal grows, a range of reforms are worthy of further deliberation. For example, the establishment of a second chamber of the General Assembly of the United Nations, where representatives are directly elected—a so-called world parliamentary assembly—could do much to strengthen the legitimacy and connection people have to that global body. A world council on future affairs could institutionalize consideration of how policies might impact generations to come and give attention to a range of issues such as preparedness for global crises, the use of emerging technologies, or the future of education or employment. Strengthening the legal framework relating to the natural world would lend coherence and vigor to the biodiversity, climate, and environmental regimes and provide a robust foundation for a system of common stewardship of the planet’s resources. Reforming the overall infrastructure for promoting and sustaining peace, including reform of the Security Council itself, would enable familiar patterns of paralysis and deadlock to give way to a more decisive response to the threat of conflict. Such initiatives, or comparable innovations, would require much focused deliberation, and there would need to be a general consensus in favor of each for it to win acceptance and legitimacy. Of course, they would not, in themselves, be sufficient to meet the needs of humanity; nevertheless, to the degree that they would be improvements on what exists today, each could contribute its share to a process of growth and development that is truly transformative.

The world the international community has committed itself to build—in which violence and corruption have given way to peace and good governance, for example, and where the equality of women and men has been infused into every facet of social life—has never yet existed. Progress toward the goals enshrined in global agendas therefore calls for a conscious orientation toward experimentation, search, innovation, and creativity. As these processes unfold, the moral framework already defined by the United Nations Charter must be applied with increasing fidelity. Respect for international law, upholding fundamental human rights, adherence to treaties and agreements—only to the extent that such commitments are honored in practice can the United Nations and its Member States demonstrate a standard of integrity and trustworthiness before the people of the world. Barring this, no amount of administrative reorganization will resolve the host of long-standing challenges before us. As Baháʼu’lláh declared, “Words must be supported by deeds, for deeds are the true test of words.”

* * *

The years concluding the United Nations’ first century represent a period of immense opportunity. Collaboration is possible on scales undreamt of in past ages, opening unparalleled prospects for progress. Yet failure to reach an arrangement supporting effective global coordination risks consequences far more severe—potentially catastrophic—than those arising from recent disruptions. The task before the community of nations, then, is to ensure that the machinery of international politics and power is increasingly directed toward cooperation and unity. 

At the centenary of the United Nations, might it not be possible for all the inhabitants of our common homeland to be confident that we have set in motion a realistic process for building the global order needed to sustain progress in the coming centuries? This is the hope of the Bahá’í International Community and the goal toward which it labors. We echo the poignant appeal long ago voiced by Bahá’u’lláh about the leaders and arbiters of human affairs: “Let them take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely afflicted world the remedy it requireth.”

---

In response to the themes raised in the statement, contributors from a variety of sectors explore what is needed to construct more just and fitting global arrangements:

Institutional Processes Toward Effective Global Governance by Andy Tamas

Time for the Vision and Commitment Necessary for Deeper Global Cooperation by Daniel Perell

Economic Governance in a Post-Covid World by Augusto Lopez-Claros

Rethinking Inclusivity for a Maturing World by Liliane Nkunzimana

A Governance Befitting - Implications for Europe by Maximillian Afnan