Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 78/261 of 26 February 2024, a “Second World Summit for Social Development” (WSSD2) was launched, to be held in Doha, Qatar on 4 to 6 November 2025[1].
H.E. Mr. Philippe Kridelka, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations, and H.E. Mr. Omar Hilale, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Morocco to the United Nations, were appointed as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental preparatory process leading up to the Summit. This new world platform follows up on the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen[2], and will similarly aim at advancing social inclusion worldwide, eradicating poverty and giving momentum to job creation and decent labour legislation. It is barely five years to 2030, by which time the world should have achieved the Sustainable Development Goals announced in 2015.
The roadmap invites delegations to contribute inputs for a preliminary paper by 7 February 2025. These inputs ought to focus on the structure and content of the political declaration. The draft is to be shared to provide the framework for deliberations. Informal consultations on the paper will follow in March 2025 to allow stakeholders to refine the ideas presented. A zero draft of the Political Declaration should become available by end of March. Mid-April to early July discussions will aim to finalize the declaration through consensus.
So far so good. Yet, let’s be realistic. The hopes and expectations associated with the 1995 Copenhagen Declaration and Plan of Action[3] adopted at the first World Summit for Social Development were not realized. There are multiple reasons for this failure, notably the increasing militarization of the world and the decreased level of multilateralism that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Biden Administration in the United States is known for giving lip service to social development, but is also known for an astronomical increase in military expenditures at the expense of social development. The incoming Trump Administration is not likely to reverse the trend.
For a few years, a brief window of opportunity lasting from 1989 to 1991, the world actually stood before the possibility of advancing sustainable peace and development for all. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 should have been followed by the dissolution of NATO and a recommitment to the pledge of “we the peoples of the United Nations” to save succeeding generations of the scourge of war. The United Nations, which serves as a kind of world constitution, would have provided the necessary structure to enable peace and enhance international cooperation in all fields.
It would have been entirely feasible to gradually convert military-first economies into human security economies[4] and to redirect the resources hitherto devoted to the production of weapons of mass destruction, conventional armaments, maintaining military bases[5] and conducting wars worldwide. Disarmament for development would have helped to eradicate extreme poverty, eliminate famine, prevent pandemics, advance social justice, and create meaningful employment worldwide.
To change the paradigm, the mindset must be changed
Alas, the political mood in Western countries during the decade of the 1990s was impregnated by the fantasies of Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History[6], Zbigniew Brezinski’s The Grand Chessboard[7] and the illusion that “winner takes all”.
Already in 1991, rather than resolving the Kuwait crisis by peaceful means, with patience and perseverance, the United States persuaded the United Nations to approve the use of devastating force against the people of Iraq in what became known as “Operation Desert Storm”, which resulted in enormous losses among the hapless civilian population of Iraq in a needless war that was primarily a war over oil[8]. A mantle of legality was thrown over the massacre of civilians and the subsequent murderous UN sanctions that devastated the economy of Iraq and killed over one million Iraqis, causing Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, to tender his resignation in protest and calling the UN sanctions regime a form of genocide[9]. Halliday was followed in the job by Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck, who similarly resigned in protest and wrote a book “A different kind of war”, deploring the destruction of UN values by the UN itself.[10]
Through an enormous level of public relations and propaganda, it became possible to confuse the peace-keeping functions of the United Nations with the geopolitics of NATO, which essentially usurped the mandate of the Security Council[11]. Instead of working for peace and development, the United Nations morphed into a force to advance United States hegemony over the entire world. NATO itself morphed from a legitimate alliance for defence into a war coalition to impose US interests, capitalism and privatization of social services on the rest of the world. Objectively seen, NATO had ceased to be a legitimate regional organization under article 52 of the UN Charter, and did not consider itself subordinate to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter, nor bound to act in a manner that would serve the object and purpose of the United Nations Organization[12]. This augured badly for social justice or social development.
Cognitive dissonance played a role in this epistemological confusion. While politicians and neo-liberal think tanks continued giving lip service to peace and development, the US and the “coalition of the willing” rushed into every possible war and pretended to imposed peace – and capitalism – by force.
Instead of this scenario, a totally different situation could have emerged after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. This would have necessitated the dissolution of NATO itself. Instead, President Bill Clinton decided in 1997 to expand NATO eastwards, a decision which George F. Kennan decried in a New York Times opinion article as “A fateful error”[13]. The focus on military force accompanied by fear-mongering and the propagandistic selling of NATO as a legitimate defence alliance upended the priorities of the United Nations, effectively sidelining its social and development mandate and marginalizing the treaty commitments under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
Prospects of the Second World Summit for Social Development
The motto of the International Labour Organization “si vis pacem, cole justitiam” should guide the deliberations of the Second World Summit for Social Development[14], in which the countries of the Global South, BRICS members and others will doubtless play a more important role than during the 1995 Copenhagen summit.
Indeed, if the world wants peace, every State must cultivate justice, domestically and internationally, in particular promote social justice, ensure a better distribution of wealth, a reduction of the gulf between the super-rich and the abject poor. It is a disgrace that in the year 2024 the wealth of the billionaires grew three times as fast as in 2023, while at the same time extreme poverty and famine plagued the world. Something is wrong in financial governance, taxation, odious foreign debt, World Bank projects[15], IMF loan conditionalities[16] — and the capitalist economy in general[17]. The World Economic Forum[18] in Davos will not reverse this trend, on the contrary.
It is for the United Nations and the World Social Forum[19] to make the necessary decisions and for the countries of the Global South to press for their implementation. We should turn away from what Professor Jean Ziegler of the University of Geneva calls the cannibalistic world order.[20] In my book Building a Just World Order, I formulate 25 Principles of International Order[21] that build on the UN Charter, GA Resolutions, judgments and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice. My fourteen reports on international order emphasized that social development is an indispensable component of international peace and security, which is the paramount function of the United Nations.
Personally, I do believe in progress and remain optimistic that we can build a better world.[22] I recognize that science and technology have enabled us to overcome many of the problems that plagued prior generations, especially in the fields of food security, global health and better labour legislation. However, I would be blind not to see that all over the planet human beings are deprived of the most fundamental things such as proper nourishment, drinking water, sanitation, education, gainful employment.
There has been considerable progress in comprehensive standard setting and the establishment of monitoring mechanisms. Enforcement, however, has been a disappointment. And over the past 50 years most monitoring mechanisms and judicial and quasi-judicial organs have been hijacked to serve the interests of Washington and Brussels. This may sound shocking to many, but it is the sad reality, which I substantiate in detail in my book The Human Rights Industry[23].
What is progress? The Abolition of capital punishment and the gradual improvement of the condition of women, a new consciousness about the rights of disabled persons are highlights. But there are too many other major problems. Of course, what some persons consider “progressive”, other persons may consider a threat to well-established religious beliefs, customs and traditions that also deserve protection. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to remove those systemic obstacles that make the realization of the human rights to peace, life, food, water, family ever more difficult.
In order to have added value, the Second World Summit for Social Development must go beyond other United Nations summits, such as the World Summit of 2005[24] and the Summit of the Future of 2024[25]. It should not just end with a vague list of desiderata, but formulate concrete proposals how to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals[26] and craft mechanisms to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions.
Thus, WSSD2 should reaffirm that the United Nations Charter constitutes our only “norms based international order”, akin to a world constitution. All peoples should observe this world constitution and all States must enforce it. Civilization means the rule of law, due process, transparency, accountability, justice, reparation, reconciliation, inclusion, international solidarity. The survival of mankind depends on good faith implementation of treaties and agreements (pacta sunt servanda[27]), on pro-active cooperation, based on a conviction that we all share the same human dignity, the same needs and aspirations, that we must somehow coexist on this one planet Earth. With good will conflicts can be prevented and grievances can be addressed in a timely fashion and resolved.
Furthering development world-wide is one of the three pillars of the Charter, together with promoting peace and human rights. The United Nations Organization, however, finds itself in a grave crisis of identity, authority and credibility, largely because the permanent members of the Security Council want to instrumentalize the Organization to advance their own geopolitical agendas and not the interests of humanity at large. Worse than that, the permanent members of the Security Council still enjoy institutionalized impunity. Draft Decisions and Resolutions of the Security Council are systematically frustrated by the abuse of the obsolete veto power contained in article 27(3) of the Charter. Judgments and Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice are being flouted with impunity. We are facing not only an implementation gap, but a serious loss of trust in the institutions created to uphold our rights.
The UN Charter and civilization itself are under mortal attack by what I would call an open rebellionagainst international law and morals. Provocations, aggressions, escalations, wars culminating in crimes against humanity and genocide as defined in the 1948 Genocide Convention[28] are destroying the fabric of the domestic and international legal order that humanity has woven and interwoven over the centuries. WSSD2 cannot afford to ignore these facts. It must address them and see how good faith – that fundamental general principle of law – is vindicated.
Summit of the Future
In Septembe 2024 Secretary General Antonio Guterres hosted the “Summit of the Future”, which adopted a “Pact for the Future”. More important than that would have been to hold a “Summit of the Present” to solve the enormous challenges pressing on us today. The Pact formulates 12 “Actions” to achieve sustainable development and sustainable financing. Here they are:
“Action 1 . We will take bold, ambitious, accelerated, just and trans formative actions to implement the 2030 Agenda, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and leave no one behind .
Action 2 . We will place the eradication of poverty at the centre of our efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda
Action 3 . We will end hunger and eliminate food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition
Action 4. We will close the Sustain able Development Goal financing gap in developing countries.
Action 5 . We will ensure that the multilateral trading system continues to be an engine for sustainable development
Action 6 . We will invest in people to end poverty and strengthen trust and social cohesion
Action 7 . We will strengthen our efforts to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels and uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms
Action 8 . We will achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls as a crucial contribution to progress across all the Sustainable Development Goals and targets
Action 9 . We will strengthen our actions to address climate change
Action 10 . We will accelerate our efforts to restore, protect, conserve and sustainably use the environment
Action 11 . We will protect and promote culture and sport as integral components of sustainable development
Action 12 . We will plan for the future and strengthen our collective efforts to turbocharge the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030 and beyond.”
Undoubtedly, the above actions are laudable. But will the international community take any concrete action to implement them?
2024 Sixteenth BRICS Summit and Kazan Declaration
WSSD2 would do well to study the proceedings of the 16th BRICS Summit and the Kazan Declaration of 23 October 2024[29]. It would seem that the BRICS countries have more political will to do something about sustainable development than either the United States or the European Union.
The 16th BRICS Summit[30] was hosted by Russia in the city of Kazan on the Volga river from 22 to 24 October and attended by 36 countries[31]. There was hope in the air, a certain optimism that humanity can gradually change the paradigm, marshal the world disorder, move away from bloc-mentality, abandon confrontational politics, phase out dependence on the US-dollar, and craft a coherent policy to enhance trade, social and cultural exchange in tandem with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter and in the spirit of the UNESCO Constitution[32].
The Kazan Declaration gives impulses for multilateralism and international cooperation with a view to achieve social development. Paragraph 6 of the declaration stipulates, inter alia, “We note the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order. Multipolarity can expand opportunities for [developing countries] to unlock their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation. Bearing in mind the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities, we reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and upholding international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as its indispensable cornerstone, and the central role of the UN in the international system, in which sovereign states cooperate to maintain international peace and security, advance sustainable development, ensure the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all as well as cooperation based on solidarity, mutual respect, justice and equality.”
Paragraph 7 notes “… As a positive step in this direction, we acknowledge the G20 Call to Action on Global Governance Reform launched by Brazil during its G20 presidency. We also acknowledge dialogues and partnerships which strengthen cooperation with the African continent like Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, India-Africa Forum Summit, Russia-Africa Summit and Ministerial Conference.”
Paragraph 8 recognizes the 2023 Johannesburg II Declaration and reaffirms “…support for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council, with a view to making it more democratic, representative, effective and efficient, and to increase the representation of developing countries in the Council’s memberships so that it can adequately respond to prevailing global challenges….”
1986 Declaration on the Right to Development[33]
The Declaration on the Right to Development was adopted on 4 December 1986 pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 41/128. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 33/13 of 29 September 2016, established the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to development, who has produced many useful reports. WSSD2 should integrate the recommendations of these reports into its deliberations and conclusions.
Article 1 of the Declaration stipulates: “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.
The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.”
Article 2 stipulates: “The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development.
All human beings have a responsibility for development, individually and collectively, taking into account the need for full respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as their duties to the community, which alone can ensure the free and complete fulfilment of the human being, and they should therefore promote and protect an appropriate political, social and economic order for development.
States have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom.”
WSSD2 should propose that the Declaration be further elaborated into a treaty that would be legally binding.
2017 Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity
WSSD2 should endorse the revised Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity of 2018, the Annex of report A/HRC/35/35 of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, Virginia Dandan. WSSD2 should pro-actively urge the General Assembly to adopt the revised version in the very near future and order its elaboration into a treaty. The Draft Declaration highlights in its preambular paragraphs the importance of sustainable development, in particular the promotion of social justice and social development:
“Inspired by the principle of international solidarity to enable the full realization of human rights through a democratic and equitable international order characterized by cooperation to overcome global challenges and promote sustainable development…”
Operative article 3 stipulates in part:
“The general objectives of international solidarity are to create an enabling environment for: 1. Promoting the realization and enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; 2. Engendering trust and mutual respect to foster peace and security, promote early response and prevention of conflict, provide humanitarian assistance and engage in peacebuilding; 3. Preventing and reducing asymmetries and inequities between and within States in realizing sustainable development, with particular attention paid to structural obstacles, such as systemic discrimination, that generate and perpetuate poverty and inequality worldwide and the concerns of the least developed countries and small island developing States…”
International cooperation
WSSD2 should formulate concrete strategies to enhance the importance of international cooperation in order to achieve international peace and social development.
The 1993 the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action reaffirms in its preamble “the commitment contained in article 56 of the Charter of the United Nations to take joint and separate action, placing proper emphasis on developing effective international cooperation.”[34] Operative paragraph 4 further states: “The promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms must be considered as a priority objective of the United Nations in accordance with its purposes and principles, in particular the purpose of international cooperation.
In the framework of these purposes and principles, the promotion and protection of all human rights is an erga omnes obligation of the international community. The organs and specialized agencies related to human rights should therefore further enhance the coordination of their activities based on the consistent and objective application of international human rights instruments.” Operative paragraph 10 reaffirms the right to development and stipulates “States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development. The international community should promote an effective international cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to development.”
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Outcome Document of the World Summit of 2005, Res. 60/1, emphasizes the importance of multilateralism and international cooperation.
“ 5. We are determined to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect their territorial integrity and political independence, to refrain in our international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, to uphold resolution of disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and the fulfilment in good faith of the obligations assumed in accordance with the Charter.
6. We reaffirm the vital importance of an effective multilateral system, in accordance with international law, in order to better address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges and threats confronting our world…”
Paragraph 48 highlights the importance of the right to development. “We reaffirm our commitment to achieve the goal of sustainable development, including through the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. To this end, we commit ourselves to undertaking concrete actions and measures at all levels and to enhancing international cooperation, taking into account the Rio principles.”[35]
Not to be forgotten in the context of international cooperation is the mutual respect that states owe to each other, and the commitment to recognize various approaches to achieve human dignity and democracy. Paragraph 135 of Resolution 60/1 stipulates:
“We reaffirm that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. We also reaffirm that while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy, that it does not belong to any country or region, and reaffirm the necessity of due respect for sovereignty and the right of self-determination. We stress that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.”[36]
Obstacles to international cooperation
Among the many obstacles to peace and international cooperation is the on-going information war, the very high level of fake news, fake history and fake law disseminated by a complicit media that acts as an echo chamber for governments[37]. The growing “weaponization of human rights” means that human rights are being instrumentalized as weapons to attack and destabilize other countries. This corruption of a noble humanistic principle is tantamount to blasphemy and sacrilege. The prospect for social development are low for as long as States see human rights as weapons and not as entitlements flowing from our common human dignity.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Second World Summit for Social Development should
1.) Adopt an outcome document by virtue of which United Nations members recommit to the United Nations Charter as the only valid rules based international order. The United Nations should proactively invoke article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, and reaffirm the principle that the obligations under the UN Charter take precedence over all other international agreements, including agreements by regional bodies including the OAS, EU, AU, NATO, ASEAN. World Bank, IMF, BRICS. The priority of the UN Charter must be understood by all senior officials of the Organization and reaffirmed by the Secretary General and the General Assembly. Violations of the UN Charter must have consequences.
2.) Endorse the UN Draft Declaration on International Solidarity[38], the UN Draft Treaty of the Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and other enterprises, the Declarations on the Rights of Peasants[39].
3.) Demand that those regional organizations that work against the purposes of principles of the UN Charter be reformed or abolished. The Bretton Woods institutions – World Bank and IMF – have association agreements with the UN, but they are not subject to the General Assembly and Security Council. All too frequently, the policies of the WB and IMF[40] work against the purposes and principles of the UN.
4.) Promote disarmament for development. Indeed, all UN member states should commit a larger percentage of the GDP to the achievement of the SDG’s. It is preposterous that NATO General Secretary considers that NATO members should devote 5% of their respective GDPs to militarism. This must be soundly condemned by WSSD2, because weapons only lead to conflict. Bearing in mind that the world already has enough weapons to blow up the entire planet, it is a matter of survival of humanity, a matter of civilization.
5.) Demand the dismantlement of military alliances that endanger international peace and security. WSSD2 should confirm that NATO does not qualify as a legitimate regional organization under Article 52 of the UN Charter, because it ceased being an alliance for defence in 1991 and morphed into a war coalition to advance the geopolitical interests of the United States, and not those of the United Nations. In the light of a consistent pattern of threats of the use of force in contravention of article 2(4) of the Charter, in the light of its use of force without approval by the Security Council, and the documented gross violations of international humanitarian law by NATO forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc., it has become apparent that the organization works against the object and purpose of the UN and should therefore be abolished.
6.) Launch a Global Compact on Education for Social Development. Such a Global Compact should advance the concept of social justice as a necessary element of ensuring stability, international peace and security.
7.) Condemn unilateral coercive measures[41], which are not legal sanctions under the UN Charter, do not qualify as “retortion” or “countermeasures” under the ILC’s Draft Code on the Responsibility of States[42], and are contrary to fundamental principles of international law, including the principle of State sovereignty, the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of states, and the rights of self-determination of peoples. So-called unilateral “sanctions” are incompatible with social development. Worse still – they kill[43].
8.) Formulate clear rules for the implementation of the Global Compact for Migration[44], among them requiring all governments to take concrete measures to address the root causes of refugee and migration flows and solve those problems at the source and on a timely basis so as to prevent mass movements that upset the international order.
9.) Acknowledge that among the direct causes of refugee and migration flows are the adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures that invariably cause bankruptcies and unemployment, affecting the most vulnerable.
10.) Urge participating States to invoke article 96 of the UN Charter, whereby the General Assembly would request an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ concerning the obligations of States under the Charter to promote development and social justice.
11.) Recommend the abolition of Investor-State-Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms as contra bonos mores and contrary to international ordre public, because ISDS usurps the sovereign attributes of States and undermines their ontological obligation to legislate for the welfare of persons living under their jurisdiction[45]. ISDS constitutes a significant hindrance to social development.
12.) Recognize that the realization of the right of self-determination of peoples is a conflict-prevention strategy. Accordingly, WSSD2 should urge the United Nations to appoint a Special Advisor to the Secretary General on the Realization of the Right of Self-determination. The General Assembly should establish a special department within DESA with the task to organize, conduct and monitor self-determination referenda, where appropriate. Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Council should create the function of a Special Rapporteur on Self-determination.
13.) Support initiatives to reform the UN system, so as to make it more effective and eliminate overlaps. Among the necessary reforms is the democratization in the membership of the Security Council, an expansion of its membership from 15 to 25 members, the phasing out of the veto power as recommended by Professor Joseph Schwartzberg in his book Transforming the United Nations System[46].
14.) Propose that the HR Council’s thematic mandates be strengthened, that confrontational country mandate be phased out. All UN mandate holders must rigorously observe the code of conduct (Resolution 5/2). A code of conduct for ngo’s should be drafted and adopted by the General Assembly. Ngo’s that violate their code of conduct should be promptly stripped of consultative status, especially when they have engaged in ad hominem attacks or disseminated evidence-free allegations against States, rapporteurs or the Secretariat.
15.) Formulate proposals to revise the Universal Periodic Review procedures in order to ensure constructive discussion and avoid duplication and the petulant and hypocritical practice of “naming and shaming”.
16.) Formulate proposals to revise the method of appointing Rapporteurs to ensure that the best candidates are selected and not the “politically correct” candidates, not only the US and Europe-centered candidates (regardless of nationality). It is crucial to democratise the HR Council’s “Special Procedures” by ensuring that there is not only gender-balance, but also a balance of legal approaches and philosophies.
17.) Propose the establishment of an “Observatory” to ensure that double-standards are not accepted, a kind of “double-standards watch”. A follow-up procedure should be set up to monitor whether any of the recommendations of Rapporteurs are actually being followed, or whether the rapporteurs are just an assembly of loud-mouthed “namers and shamers” or even worse – irrelevant Cassandras.
18.) Revisit the spirituality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recapture the enthusiasm and commitment of Eleanor Roosevelt, René Cassin, P. C. Chang and Charles Malik. Demand that WSSD2 governments channel their energy into constructive cooperation paradigms to achieve measurable results in social development.
Notes.
[1] https://social.desa.un.org/second-world-summit-for-social-development
[2] https://www.un.org/en/conferences/social-development/copenhagen1995
[3] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n95/116/51/pdf/n9511651.pdf
[4] See my 2014 report to the UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/27/51
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g14/087/30/pdf/g1408730.pdf
[5] https://www.todaysmilitary.com/ways-to-serve/bases-around-world
[6] https://ia803100.us.archive.org/33/items/THEENDOFHISTORYFUKUYAMA/THE%20END%20OF%20HISTORY%20-%20FUKUYAMA.pdf
[7] https://archive.org/details/grandchessboarda0000brze
[8] https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/03/05/blood-for-oil-2/
[9] https://www.gicj.org/topics/countries/iraq/1937-book-review-hans-von-sponecks-different-kind-of-war-the-un-sanctions-regime-in-iraq
[10] https://www.gicj.org/topics/countries/iraq/1937-book-review-hans-von-sponecks-different-kind-of-war-the-un-sanctions-regime-in-iraq
[11]https://www.jstor.org/stable/23607681
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/07/10/open-letter-to-the-president-of-switzerland-ms-viola-amherd/
https://scheerpost.com/2023/07/20/the-dynamics-of-war-insanity-natos-ukraine-roulette/
[12] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202307/1294420.shtml
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html
NATO’s Prophetic Critics. Expanding the alliance has led to a war many experts predicted
[14] https://social.desa.un.org/second-world-summit-for-social-development
[15] https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc3640-report-independent-expert-promotion-democratic-and-equitable
[16] https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a72187-report-independent-expert-promotion-democratic-and-equitable
[17] https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a72187-report-independent-expert-promotion-democratic-and-equitable
[18] https://www.weforum.org/
[19] https://www.foranewwsf.org/gb/about-us/
[20] Jean Ziegler, Où est l’Espoir, Seuil, 2024, p. 9.
[21] Chapter 2 of Building a Just World Order, Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2021.
[22] World Social Forum « A better world is possible.”
[23] Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2023.
[24] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/556636/?v=pdf
[25] https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future
[26] https://sdgs.un.org/goals
[27] Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
[28] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide
[29] https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/10/31/the-brics-summit-in-kazan-a-manifesto-for-a-rational-world-order/
[30] http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/RosOySvLzGaJtmx2wYFv0lN4NSPZploG.pdf
[31] https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/brics-summit-in-kazan-is-evidence-of-the-fast-emerging-multipolar-world/
[32] https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/constitution
[33] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development
[34] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/vienna-declaration-and-programme-action
[35] https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F2625(XXV)&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False
[36] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n05/487/60/pdf/n0548760.pdf
[37] A de Zayas, chapter 7 The Human Rights Industry, Clarity Press, 2023.
[38] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4011942?ln=en&v=pdf
[39] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1650694?v=pdf
[40] https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a72187-report-independent-expert-promotion-democratic-and-equitable
[41] https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-unilateral-coercive-measures
[42] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf
[43] https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04-1.pdf
[44] https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration
[45] 2015 report to the General Assembly https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/244/85/pdf/n1524485.pdf
[46] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/804278/