https://doi.org/10.37815/rte.v37n1.1294

Original articles

Social Justice for a Democratic and Equitable
International Order

Justicia Social
para una orden internacional democrática y equitativa

Alfred de Zayas[1] https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9891-4386

1Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations (GSD), Geneva, Switzerland

[email-masked]

Sent:       2025/03/18

Accepted:       2025/05/14

Published:       2025/06/30

Abstract

Summary: Introduction, Methodology:
A note on approach, Results, Conclusions and Recommendations: WSSD2 must change
the paradigm.

How to cite: de Zayas, A.(2025).
Social Justice for a Democratic and Equitable International Order. Revista
Tecnológica - Espol, 37(1), 68-88. https://rte.espol.edu.ec/index.php/tecnologica/article/view/1294

This
article reviews key substantive issues addressed by main
ongoing global policy processes with a particular focus on the Second World
Summit for Social Development (WSSD2) and the Global Coalition
on Social Justice. These issues include the Right to Development as a core
principle underlying social development and the realization of
social justice and development in terms of international law
standards. The article identifies and assesses relevant international
law, policy formulations, expertise, and political processes to
demonstrate their bearing on the WSSD2 and global
discussion of social justice. This
approach is intended to bridge academic exercise with briefing guidance for
Social Justice and development actors. Core building blocks are identified:
human rights codification and social responsibility; transforming the Rule
of Law into the Rule of Justice; and imperatives for enforcement of United
Nations Treaties, judgments and resolutions. Also, UN texts on the
Right to Development and the Right to International Solidarity; the Summit of
the Future and the BRICS Summit 2024; and norms and expectations of
international cooperation are analysed herein.
Conclusions posit that the Right to Development must be seen as juridical, justiciable
and enforceable. Finally, the article recommends that the content and outcome of
the WSSD2 and other global processes need to redress the
paradigm by reaffirming international legal obligations and casting social
justice development in terms of international law, the existing human rights
treaty system, formal UN Declarations, disarmament for development.

Keywords: Social
Development, Right to Development, International Solidarity, Rule of Law, Rule
of Justice, International cooperation.

Resumen

Este artículo examina aspectos
sustantivos abordados por los principales procesos de políticas globales en
curso, con atención a la Segunda Cumbre Mundial sobre Desarrollo Social (CMDS2)
y la Coalición Mundial sobre Justicia Social. Estos temas incluyen el derecho
al desarrollo como fundamento para el desarrollo, y la concepción de la
justicia social en términos de los estándares del derecho internacional. Se
identifica y evalúa el derecho internacional, las formulaciones de políticas,
la experiencia y los procesos políticos para demostrar su incidencia en la
CMDS2 y el debate mundial sobre justicia social. Este enfoque tiene como fin
conectar la práctica académica y la orientación para la justicia social y los
actores de desarrollo. Se identifica como pilares la codificación de los
derechos humanos y la responsabilidad social, la transformación del Estado de
Derecho al Estado de Justicia, y los imperativos para la aplicación de los
tratados, declaraciones y resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. Además, se analiza
textos sobre el derecho al desarrollo y el derecho a la solidaridad
internacional, la Cumbre del Futuro, la Cumbre BRICS 2024, y las normas y
expectativas de la cooperación internacional. Como conclusión, se reafirma que
el derecho al desarrollo debe ser jurídico, justiciero y exigible. Se
recomienda que los resultados de la CMDS2 y otros procesos globales deben
reafirmar las obligaciones jurídicas internacionales fundamentando el
desarrollo y la justicia social en términos del derecho internacional, el
sistema de tratados de derechos humanos existente, las declaraciones de las
Naciones Unidas, y el desarmamiento para el desarrollo.

Palabras
clave: Desarrollo social, Derecho al desarrollo,
Solidaridad internacional, Estado de derecho, Estado de justicia, Cooperación
internacional.

Pursuant to General
Assembly Resolution 78/261 of 26 February 2024, a "Second World Summit for
Social Development" (WSSD2) is to
be held in Doha, Qatar on 4 to 6 November 2025[2].

Introduction

The Right
to Development must be seen as juridical, justiciable and enforceable. The
Second World Summit for Social Development (WSSD2, 2025) provides a unique opportunity to
reaffirm the Right to Development as a core principle underlying social
development. In tandem, WSSD2 has the responsibility to reaffirm the fundamental relevance of binding international legal commitments to advancing development, and to cast the realization of social justice and development in terms of international legal
standards. WSSD2 should link social development inter alia to: the
existing Human Rights Treaty system, the UN Declaration on
the Right to Development (1986), and pertinent international labour standards/ILO Conventions. Preparatory discussion for the
Summit and drafting of the outcome should build on the work of the United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, the UN Reports on the Sustainable Development
Goals, the Reports of the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Development[3],
as well as the Reports of other independent experts whose mandates similarly
give impulse to standard-setting and thus advance the cause of social
development. UN expert
work and reports of particular relevance include those of
the Rapporteurs on the Right to Food, the Right to Health, the Right to Clean
Water and Sanitation, the Right to Housing, the Right to International
Solidarity, and the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order[4].

Furthering development world-wide is one of
the three pillars of the United
Nations 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 several
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 may be called
an open rebellion against international law and morals. Provocations,
aggressions, escalations, wars culminating in crimes against humanity and
genocide as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (1948) 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.

This
article provides an overview of what’s at stake during the 2nd
World Summit on Social Development and identifies key concerns and approaches
to shape the outcome. A primary purpose of the exercise encapsulated in this
journal article is to promote dialogue and mutual enrichment between the worlds
of operational practitioners, academia, and political actors addressing
inter-related fields of social development and social justice.

Methodology: A
note on approach

This article draws together key elements of
international law, policy, expertise, and political processes to demonstrate
their bearing on the 2nd World Summit on Social Development as well
as on advancing the social justice agenda. It articulates a summary review of
key factors and issues at stake in social development and social justice. It is intended to serve as a practical briefing guide accessible to
member representatives at the Global Coalition on Social Justice and delegates
to preparatory meetings and the 2nd World Summit on Social
Development. In doing so, it may benefit a wider audience concerned by these
issues and events.

The article derives from knowledge and
experience accumulated by the author over a half century of practical
operational dedication as well as research and academic teaching on issues of
international law, global justice and human rights. Its methodological approach
is to elaborate on an annotated inventory identifying the key thematic and
political topics that should be core elements on the agendas of the main global
law and policy processes in 2025. The study comprised a process of identifying,
compiling, analyzing, and cross-referencing documentation on relevant
international law, United Nations declarations and policy articulations, and
expert observations and writings. The presentation builds the case with a
critique of the failures in realizing the first World Summit on Social
Development vision and program, a summary of prospects for the 2nd
WSSD, a discussion of fundamental understandings of human rights in law, an
identification of international legal and declarative principles especially
pertinent for the WSSD process and result, and discusses several key
constraints to advancing social development and social justice prospects at
WSSD2 in the current world context.

The
author draws on his extensive written work in published articles, reports and
books –several of which cited herein-- reflecting five decades of international
experience including as senior legal advisor at the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and two terms as the first UN
Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable
International Order. This article’s approach naturally presumes ongoing academic
exploration of each of the topical concerns identified in this inventory.

Results

Realization of the first WSSD outcome thwarted by militarization

The hopes and expectations associated with the
Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action (1995) 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. For a brief moment, the world 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 from the scourge of war.

It would have been entirely feasible to
gradually convert military-first economies into human security economies and to
redirect the resources hitherto devoted to the production of weapons of mass
destruction, conventional armaments, maintaining military bases and conducting
wars worldwide (Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a
democratic and equitable international order, 2014). Disarmament for
development would have helped to eradicate extreme poverty worldwide, eliminate
famine, prevent pandemics, advance social justice, and create jobs worldwide. However, to the contrary, the increasingly militaristic trend in policy and action of
Western countries in the 1990s was impregnated by the fantasies of Francis
Fukuyama (1992) The End of History, Zbigniew Brezinski (2016) The
Grand Chessboard  and the
illusion that “winner takes all”.

Instead of 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 /ver oil (de Zayas, 2021; de Zayas, 2023). 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 (ibid). Halliday was followed in the job by Assistant Secretary-General Hans
von Sponeck, who similarly resigned in protest and wrote a book “ different
kind of war”, deploring the destruction of UN values by the UN itself
(d'Aymery, 2007).

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 (Naidu, 2000). 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 and capitalism 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 (de Zayas, 2023b). This augured badly for the achievement of social justice that is essential for advancing 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
impose 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 entailed the dissolution of NATO.  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” (Kennan, 1997; Switzer, 2024). 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

WSSD2 must build on what already exists, and
there is an enormous body of international law and jurisprudence that must be
reaffirmed and built upon.

The motto of the International Labour
Organization “si vis pacem, cole justitiam” should guide the
deliberations of the Second World Summit for Social Development, 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.

In direct contradiction to advancing social
justice for all, 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.  The contemporary systems of financial governance, taxation,
odious foreign debt, World Bank projects, IMF loan conditionalities, and the
capitalist approach in general are manifestly not advancing social
justice nor pursuing social justice. The World
Economic Forum in Davos will not reverse this trend, on the contrary.

It is for the United Nations and the World
Social Forum 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. (Ziegler, 2024, p. 9.)

There has been considerable progress in
comprehensive standard setting and the establishment of monitoring mechanisms.
Enforcement, however, has been a disappointment. 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 is substantiated in detail in the book
The Human Rights Industry (de Zayas, 2023c).

What is progress? The abolition of capital punishment and the gradual
improvement of the condition of women are highlights over the previous several decades. However, even these are under attack and facing push-back in challenges
to international law, in global policy processes, and n national law and
practice in many countries.

But there are 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, justice, and development 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 and the Summit of the Future of 2024.  It should not just end with a vague list of
desiderata, but formulate concrete proposals how to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals and craft mechanisms to enforce relevant United
Nations resolutions.

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) (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 26), 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.

Human Rights codification and social
responsibility

All human rights necessarily derive from human
dignity. Codification of human rights is never definitive and never exhaustive,
but constitutes an evolutionary mode d’emploi for the exercise of civil,
cultural, economic, political and social rights. However, the interpretation
and application of human rights is hindered by positivism, wrong priorities and
inflexible legalisms. In this author’s observation, many rights advocates show little or no interest in the social
responsibilities that accompany thesis exercise of rights,
and fail to see the necessary symbiosis of rights and obligations,
notwithstanding the letter and spirit of Article 29 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which stipulates: “Everyone has duties to
the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality
is possible.” The time has come to change the human rights paradigm
away from narrow positivism towards a broader understanding of human rights
norms in the context of an emerging customary international law of human
rights.

Law is neither physics nor mathematics, but a
dynamic human institution that day by day addresses the needs and aspirations
of society, adjusting here, filling lacunae there. Every human rights lawyer
knows that the spirit of the law (Montesquieu) transcends the limitations of
the letter of the law, and hence codified norms should always be interpreted in
the light of those general principles of law that inform all legal systems,
such as good faith, proportionality and ex injuria non oritur jus.

The obsolete and artificial division of human
rights into those of the falsely called first generation (civil and political),
second (economic, social and cultural) and third generation (environment,
peace, development) rights—with its obvious predisposition to favour civil and
political rights—should be discarded. This generational divide is part of a
mental structure that perpetuates a world order that much too often appears to
allow injustice. It should be replaced by a functional paradigm that would consider
rights in the light of their function within a coherent system—not of competing
rights and aspirations, but of interrelated, mutually reinforcing rights which
should be applied in their interdependence and understood in the context of a
coordinated strategy to serve the ultimate goal of achieving human dignity in
all of its manifestations.

Four categories would replace the skewed
narrative of three generations of rights:

1.      Enabling rights: the rights to food,
water, shelter, development homeland and the right to peace, since one cannot
enjoy human rights unless there is an environment conducive to the exercise of
those rights. Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
postulates the right of every human being “to a social and international order
in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully
realized.” This entails the basic necessities of life and the right to access
the tools for individual and collective development.

2.      Inherent or immanent rights: the
rights to life, integrity, liberty and security of person, in the light of
which other rights must be interpreted and applied. Every such right must
necessarily contain within itself the element of equality, the self-evident
requirement that it be applied equally and equitably, that there be uniformity
and predictability. There are also inherent limitations to the exercise of
rights. The general principle of law prohibiting abuse of rights, sic utere
tuo ut alienum non laedas—the use of a right without harming others, a
principle advocated by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht[5] as an overarching norm prohibiting the egoistic exercise of rights to
achieve anti-social results or unjust enrichment. This principle means that
every right, including all human rights, must be exercised in the context of
other rights and not instrumentalized to destroy other rights or to harm
others. There is no right to intransigence in law—as we know from the sad
character of Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. The letter of
the law must never be used to subvert the spirit of the law.

3.      Instrumental or procedural rights:
the rights to due process, access to information, the right to truth, freedom
of expression and peaceful assembly, association, work, education, social
security, leisure—rights that we need to achieve our potential, to complete our
personalities, to engage in the pursuit of happiness.

4.      Outcome rights: the concrete
exercise of human dignity, that condition of life that allows each human being
to be himself or herself. This ultimate right is the right to our individual
identity, to our privacy, the right to be ourselves, to think for ourselves and
express our humanity without indoctrination, without intimidation, without
pressures of political correctness, without having to sell ourselves, without
having to engage in self-censorship. The absence of this outcome right to
identity and self-respect is reflected in much of the strife we see in the
world today. It is through the consciousness and exercise of the right to our
identity and the respect of the identity of others that we will enjoy the
individual and collective right to peace.

The Rule of Law must evolve into the Rule of
Justice[6]

WSSD2 has the opportunity to review the
implications of the “Rule of Law” and discuss what must be done to make laws
serve justice – and not just reflect power equations.

Many politicians, academics, media pundits are
wont of invoking the “Rule of Law”, a “rules-based international order”,
“values diplomacy” etc., but what do all these benevolent-sounding slogans
actually mean in practice? Who makes the rules, who interprets them, who
enforces them? What level of transparency and accountability accompanies
these noble pledges?

In a very real sense, we already have a “rules
based international order” in the form of the UN Charter and its “supremacy
clause”, Article 103 of which grants it priority over all other treaties and
agreements. The norms established in the Charter are rational, but effective
enforcement mechanisms are yet to be created.

We also have humanistic “values” that should guide diplomacy and
peace-making – including the principle “pacta sunt servanda” (treaties
must be implemented). Nonetheless, both in domestic and international law there is a high level of bad
faith and the tendency to apply double-standards. Major powers make agreements
and then break them with impunity. Major powers undermine diplomacy by brazenly
lying, by making promises and not keeping then. This subverts the credibility
of the entire system of norms and mechanisms.

Politicians often forget that keeping one’s
word is not only a matter of personal honour – it is an indispensable element
of trust in the conduct of public affairs. Among other crucial values that we
should promote are compassion, empathy, forgiveness, and solidarity common to religious faiths and teachings around the world.

It is axiomatic that the Rule of Law functions
as a pillar of stability, predictability and the democratic ethos in modern
society. Its object and purpose are to serve the human person and progressively
achieve human dignity in the larger context of freedom.

Because law reflects power imbalances, we must
ensure that the ideal of the Rule of Law is not instrumentalized simply to
enforce the status quo, maintain privilege, and the exploitation of one group
over another. The Rule of Law must be a rule that allows flexibility and
welcomes continuous democratic dialogue to devise and implement those reforms
required by an evolving society. It must be a rule of conscience, of listening.

Throughout history law has all too frequently
been manipulated by political power, becoming a kind of dictatorship through
law, where people are robbed of their individual and collective rights, while
the law itself becomes the main instrument of their disenfranchisement.
Experience has taught us that law is not coterminous with justice and that laws
can be adopted and enforced to perpetuate abuse and cement injustice.
Accordingly, any appeal to the Rule of Law should be contextualized within a
human-rights-based framework.

Already in Sophocles’ drama Antigone we
saw the clash between the arbitrary law of King Creon and the unwritten law of
humanity. Enforcing Creon’s unjust law brought misery to all. In Roman times
the maxim dura lex sed lex (the law is hard, but it is the
law) was mellowed by Cicero’s wise reminder that summum jus summa
injuria (extreme law is extreme injustice, de Officiis 1,
10, 33), i.e. the blind application of the law may cause great injustice.

The contention that, irrespective of what it
stipulates, “the law must be obeyed” has been challenged by human rights heroes
for thousands of years. Spartacus fought against the Roman slave laws and paid
with his life. Slavery remained constitutional and legal in the Western
hemisphere until the mid-nineteenth century; colonialism was deemed
constitutional and legal by the colonizers until the decolonization processes
of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s; Nazi Germany’s racist Nuremberg laws of 1935
were constitutional and legal, as were those of South Africa’s Apartheid,
as those of Israel in Palestine; Stalin’s laws, the Holodomor in the
Ukraine and the purges of the 1930’s were all based on Soviet laws and decrees;
segregation in the US was constitutional and legal[7] until overturned in 1954.

Civil disobedience by Henry, David Thoreau,
Zaghioul Pasha, Michael Collins, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Ken Saro Wiwa, Mohamed Bouazizi was legitimate and
necessary to give example and initiate reforms – but they all suffered the
consequences of having opposed the fetishism of the “Rule of Law”.

Democracy in the twenty-first century requires
that the Rule of Law cease being the rule of power, of might makes right,
geopolitics and economics. The Rule of Law must incorporate human dignity into
the equation and enable people power, self-determination and referenda. The
Rule of Law must evolve into the rule of social justice and peace. The WSSD2 offers a great opportunity to explicitly promote the evolution
of the Rule of Law into the Rule of Justice, all the more so with deliberate
attention to advancing realization of the declarations and principles discussed
in the following sections.

Enforcement of UN treaties, judgments and resolutions

The authority and credibility of
international law depends on its implementation. This applies also to decisions
and recommendations of WSSD2.

The UN Charter, adopted on 24
October 1945, has not lost its relevance.
In fact, the United Nations is needed more than ever. The General Assembly remains the most representative
international body, the best forum for active diplomacy among nations and
peoples, the logical venue to craft compromises, a peaceful modus vivendi
that will advance social justice, facilitate development and prosperity for
everyone on the planet. Civil society must play a stronger role in
decision-making and strengthening a democratic and equitable international
order.

Eighty years after the adoption of
the UN Charter, new realities have emerged that are not properly reflected in
the membership of the UN Security Council. Already in 2005 UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan proposed in his report “In larger Freedom” an expansion of
the SC from 15 to 24 members:

“If the UN is to be a vehicle through
which states can meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, it needs major
reforms to strengthen its relevance, effectiveness, and accountability…No
reform of the UN would be complete, however, without Security Council reform.
The council's present makeup reflects the world of 1945, not that of the
twenty-first century. It must be reformed to include states that contribute
most to the organization, financially, militarily, and diplomatically, and to
represent broadly the current membership of the UN. Two models for expanding
the council from 15 to 24 members are now on the table: one creates six new
permanent seats and three new non-permanent ones; the other creates nine new
non- permanent seats. Neither model expands the veto power currently enjoyed by
the five permanent members. I believe the time has come to tackle this issue
head on.” UN Secretary-General (2005).

This author endorsed Annan’s proposal in his
2013 report to the General Assembly in his capacity as Independent Expert on
International Order, formulated reform options, and laid out a plan of action
how to gradually phase out the veto power in the Security Council, by amending
Article 27 of the Charter. (Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion
of a democratic and equitable international order, 2013; see also Schwartzberg,
2013).

There have been five amendments to the UN
Charter, starting with the amendment adopted on 31 August of 1965 to increase
the membership of the Security Council from 11 to 15 pursuant to Article 108 of
the Charter.  An expansion of the
Security Council membership is urgent in order to make it genuinely
representative and strengthen its authority and credibility.  We no longer live in the world of 1945,
although three members of the Security Council are still major powers: China,
Russia and the US, but there is no justification to perpetuate the permanent
seats of the United Kingdom and France, whose political and economic power has
declined.  A better reflection of today’s
world would be achieved through the permanent presence in the Security Council
of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa and Turkey.[8]

If and when the UN Charter is amended, the
States should also agree on the establishment of enforcement mechanisms beyond
those foreseen in Chapter VII of the Charter, providing for the possibility of
delegating or outsourcing certain functions to specialized agencies like the
ILO, UNESCO, UNICEF and WHO with hands-on experience on the ground. Among the
amendments that should be considered is the addition of a clause requiring
countries to adopt enabling legislation granting domestic legal status to
international judgments and decisions, so that local judges can actually order
the implementation of international commitments.

In other words, international law and
international jurisprudence should become part of the domestic legal order. For
instance, citizens should be able to directly invoke the provisions of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
the Convention against Torture (CAT), the International Convention on the
Prohibition and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid[9], the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide[10], etc.  Moreover, citizens should
have standing in local courts to demand from their governments that they abide
at least by the fundamental commitments undertaken in the United Nations
Charter, e.g. not to deliver lethal weapons to countries committing war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide. In a few States like the Netherlands,
every citizen can invoke the ICCPR directly and start a case against the
government for the delivery of weapons to a country committing war crimes and
crimes against humanity[11].

Law without enforcement loses its authority and
credibility. Enforcement, however, presupposes a mental disposition to accept
and implement judgments and advisory opinions of the ICJ (Sarraf,
2023) and other competent tribunals, whether
or not the State agrees with the rulings or with their rationale. That is the
essence of civilization:  to accept that
in every judicial dispute there are valid arguments on all sides and that the
competent judicial instance has been given authority to decide. This entails an
obligation to respect the decision in good faith. Selective enforcement of ICJ
judgments and Orders, selective implementation of Resolutions of the General
Assembly and Security Council, selective compliance with recommendations of UN
bodies undermine the international order. On the other hand, enforcement does
not mean only “sanctions” under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and should not
be primarily perceived as a form of punishment.
Rather, it should be understood as a self-evident component of the social
contract, of the Rule of Law, of civilization. Enforcement should be
accompanied by incentives, advisory services and technical assistance in
international solidarity[12]. Enforcement also requires the cooperation of non-state actors
including transnational corporations, which have become subjects of
international law.[13]

Indeed, civilization does not simply require
society to have a set of laws, public education and incentives to
abide by them, and powerful regulatory and policing agencies to enforce them. Civilization means
ensuring the real welfare of people, creating the conditions necessary for
their pursuit of happiness. The true indicators of civilization are not an
expanding Gross Domestic Product, ever-growing consumption, and aggressive
exploitation of natural resources – but rather respect for human and animal life,
sustainable management of the environment, local, regional and international
solidarity, social justice and a culture of peace.

Unfortunately, contemporary civilization does not measure up
with its noble ideals.
governments continue to sabotage the Rule of
Law by instrumentalizing norms to destroy justice, e.g. by weaponizing
extradition law to persecute whistle-blowers like Julian Assange and keep them
bottled up for decades.  Similarly, the extradition of Alex Saab from Cape
Verde in 2021 to a kangaroo trial in the United States is a travesty of
justice, as was the prosecution and imprisonment of the “Cuban 5”, victims of
gross political injustice by a Miami tribunal. We have witnessed the increased
use of “lawfare” to destroy political adversaries, e.g. the frame-up of Dilma
Rousseff in Brazil, making the way free for “regime change”. Similarly,
the subversion of election monitoring by the Organization of American States
resulting in the coup d’état against Evo Morales of Bolivia in
2019. We have witnessed lawfare in Ecuador against former President Rafael
Correa and former Vice-President Jorge Glas.

Considerable responsibility for the corruption
of the Rule of Law is borne by the corporate media that systematically
dis-informs the public about the facts and imposes a “managed narrative” that
essentially cripples any chance for an objective debate. Over the past decades
the corporate media has engaged in brazen propaganda to create a false
“perception” of the law, including international law, that is very distant from
any conception of justice. By suppressing information, dis-informing and
whitewashing, the corporate media has become complicit in the war crimes and
crimes against humanity perpetrated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen
etc. The media has even attempted to create an impression that the 2003
Invasion of Iraq was a “just war” (de Zayas, 2023a)
in keeping with the UN Charter. Yet, the then
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly called an “illegal war”
(BBC News, 2004).

Bottom line:  in order to help the Rule of
Law evolve into the Rule of Justice, we must demand our right to access to
information, we must adopt a Charter of Rights of Whistleblowers, demand
transparency and accountability from our governments, and ensure that
Parliaments revisit obsolete laws that perpetuate injustice. We must remain
vigilant to ensure that the Rule of Justice is built day by day and that our
courts and tribunals apply the existing legislation in good faith and not in
the service of corporations and special interests, who do not want rights – but
only privileges. WSSD should join the struggle to re-establish the “Rule of
Justice”.

Business and Human Rights

WSSD2 has an opportunity to discuss the UN
Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN – OHCHR, 2011) and recommend that
John Ruggie principles be made legally binding. A Treaty on the social
responsibility of transnational corporations and other enterprises is long
overdue. Social development will be difficult to achieve if transnational
corporations and other enterprises are legibus solutus and immune from
prosecution when they are responsible for serious human rights violations.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

It is opportune to focus on the mandate of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Following up on the recommendations of
the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, the General Assembly adopted on 20
December 1993 Resolution 48/141 creating the mandate of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights. In its preambular paragraphs, the Resolution recalls “that
one of the purposes of the United Nations enshrined in the Charter is to
achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights”. In operative paragraph 4, the resolution enumerates the
responsibilities of the High Commissioner, including “To enhance international
cooperation for the promotion and protection of all human rights”[14].

According to its terms of reference, the raison
d’être of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is to
advance human rights and the Right to Development by means of international
cooperation, advisory services and technical assistance.

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 (de Zayas, 2023c, chapter 7, pp.
183-221). 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.

It is crucial that the common effort to advance
the enjoyment of human rights not be limited to rhetoric and lip-service to
human dignity. The condemnation of abuses and crimes by governments cannot be the overarching object and purpose of the OHCHR and the Human Rights Council. “Naming and shaming” does not
work. In fact, it is frequently counter-productive. Condemnation is always ex
post facto. The emphasis must be on prevention of human rights violations
through a coherent approach to identify and resolve the root causes of
problems.

UN Declaration on the Right to Development and draft
declaration on Right to International Solidarity

The governments of the UN Member States adopted
a UN Declaration on the Right to Development and have mandated drafting of a
Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity. While the Declaration on
the Right to Development and the anticipated Declaration on the Right to
International Solidarity may not yet represent binding international legal
standards, they should become so. Nonetheless, Declarations adopted by the UN
General Assembly constitute in effect soft law with commensurately
authoritative guiding principles.  As
such, they are foundational points for the WSSD2 discussion and for the outcome
declaration and program of action. Core points in, respectively, the
Declaration and draft declaration are thus reiterated below.

Declaration on the Right to Development

The UN Declaration on the Right to Development
was adopted on 4 December 1986 pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 41/128
(UN, 1986). 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
fulfillment 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.

Declaration on the Right to International
Solidarity

WSSD2 should endorse the revised draft Declaration on the Right to
International Solidarity. The initial draft of the Declaration is contained in
the Annex of report A/HRC/35/35 of the Independent Expert on human rights and
international solidarity, Virginia Dandan (2017). The revised draft Declaration
on Human Rights and International Solidarity is contained in Annex I to the
report A/HRC/53/32 of the Independent Expert on Human Rights and International
Solidarity, Obiora Chinedu Okafor (2023).

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…”

Summit of the Future and 16th BRICS Summit

UN Summit of the Future

In September 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. They are reiterated here as especially
relevant to defining the content and outcome of the WSSD2:

“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.” (UN, 2024)

Undoubtedly, the above actions are laudable.
But will the international community take any concrete action to implement
them? The WSSD2 provides a unique and immediate
global opportunity to define and generate commitments to implementing these actions
that are foundational to advancing social justice and realizing social
development.

Sixteenth BRICS Summit and the Kazan
Declaration

WSSD2 should study the proceedings of the 16th
BRICS Summit and the Kazan Declaration of 23 October 2024. 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 was hosted by the Russian
Federation in the city of Kazan on the Volga River from 22 to 24 October and
attended by 36 countries. 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 (de Zayas, 2024).

The Kazan Declaration (BRICS Summit, 2024)
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 centers 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….”

International cooperation

The WSSD should formulate concrete strategies
to enhance the importance of international cooperation in order to achieve
international peace, social justice, and social development.

The 1993 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.”  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.”[15]

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.”[16].

Conclusions and Recommendations: WSSD2 must change the paradigm

For the world to achieve peace and development, every State must cultivate justice,
domestically and internationally, in particular promote social justice (Sachs,
2011; Sachs, 2005; Rodrik, 2011), to ensure realization of human rights for all,
a better distribution
of wealth, universal
social protection and health care, a reduction of the gulf between the super-rich and the abject poor, basic income, decent work and
living wages for all, and other aspects.

What we
world needs most is a fundamental rethinking of the paradigm, both with respect
to international law and in particular with respect to human rights. WSSD2 owes
the world a new functional paradigm of human Rights (de Zayas, 2021, pp.
451-54). The WSSD needs
to 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.

WSSD2
should address fundamental questions such as the prevalent international law
paradigm, which while providing the framework for the rule of law, does not
necessarily provide for the rule of justice. WSSD2 must also resolve the
limitations of the human rights paradigm that focuses on individual rights and
largely ignores collective rights.

The second
World Summit on Social Development should formulate a program of action demanding that the governments of UN member states channel their energy into constructive
cooperation paradigms to achieve measurable results in social development.

On the basis of the above
considerations, it would be appropriate to propose to the Second World Summit
for Social Development to consider adopting an outcome document that is
concrete and result-oriented inclusive of the following elements:

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 and
other international 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, the UN Draft Treaty of
the Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and other enterprises,
the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants, and urge all WSSD2 participant countries to ratify relevant Treaties without delay.

3.
Promote
disarmament for development. The WSSD should call for all UN member states to
commit a larger percentage of the GDP to the achievement of the SDG’s and
reduce allocations to arms, military budgets and related expenditures. Bearing
in mind that the world already has enough weapons to blow up the entire planet,
it is a matter of survival of humanity as well as a matter of civilization.

4.
Demand
non-engagement in miliary actions as well as the dismantlement of military
alliances that endanger international peace and security. WSSD2 should
establish criteria to evaluate and, as appropriate, call for censuring military
actions and/or alliances that engage in
threats of the use of force in contravention of Article 2(4) of the
Charter, and/or use of force without approval by the Security Council, and/or
documented gross violations of international humanitarian law.

5.
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.

6.
Condemn
unilateral coercive measures, 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, 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 (Weisbrot and
Sachs, 2019).

7.
Urge
participating States to invoke Article 96 of the UN Charter, whereby the
General Assembly would request an Advisory Opinion from the International Court
of Justice - ICJ concerning the obligations of States under the Charter to
promote development and social justice.

8.
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 WSSD should call on the General Assembly to
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.

9.
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, and the phasing out of the veto power as recommended by Professor
Joseph Schwartzberg (2013) in his book Transforming the United Nations
System.

10.
Propose
that the Human Rights Council thematic mandates be strengthened, that
confrontational country mandates be phased out; and that the Universal Periodic Review procedures be revised in order to ensure constructive discussion and
avoid duplication.

Acknowledgements

The author
wishes to express appreciation for the encouragement and supportive suggestions
towards realizing this article provided by the journal special issue editor,
Patrick Taran, and by the blind peer reviewers.

References

BBC
News (2004). Iraq war illegal, says Annan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

BRICS Summit (2024). Kazan Declaration: Strengthening Multilateralism for
Just Global Development and Security. XVI BRICS Summit, Kazan, Russian
Federation, 23 October 2024. http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/RosOySvLzGaJtmx2wYFv0lN4NSPZploG.pdf

Brzezinski, Zbigniew (2016). The grand chessboard: American primacy and
its geostrategic imperatives. New York : Basic Books. https://archive.org/details/grandchessboarda0000brze

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948). Adopted 09 December 1948 by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

d'Aymery, Gilles (2007). International Ignominy, Hans von Sponeck's A
Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq:  book review, 21 May 2007. https://www.gicj.org/topics/countries/iraq/1937-book-review-hans-von-sponecks-different-kind-of-war-the-un-sanctions-regime-in-iraq

de Zayas, Alfred (2021). Building a Just World Order, Clarity Press,
Atlanta. https://www.claritypress.com/product/building-a-just-world-order/

de Zayas, Alfred (2023a). Is There Such a Thing as a “Just War”?
Counterpunch, 1 November 2023. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/01/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-just-war/

de Zayas, Alfred (2023b). NATO deserves the label 'criminal organization'
within meaning of the Nuremberg judgment. Global Times, July 15, 2023. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202307/1294420.shtml

de Zayas, Alfred (2023c). The Human Rights Industry. Clarity
Press. https://www.claritypress.com/product/human-rights-industry/

de
Zayas, Alfred (2024). The BRICS Summit in Kazan: A
Manifesto for a Rational World Order. Counterpunch, October 31, 2024. https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/10/31/the-brics-summit-in-kazan-a-manifesto-for-a-rational-world-order/

Fukuyama, Francis (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. The
Free Press, New York. https://ia803100.us.archive.org/33/items/THEENDOFHISTORYFUKUYAMA/THE%20END%20OF%20HISTORY%20-%20FUKUYAMA.pdf

Kennan, George F. (1997). A Fateful Error. The New York Times. Feb. 5,
1997. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html

Naidu, M.V. (2000). The UN, NATO and Regional Conflicts: a Legal and
Political Analysis. Peace Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1-21. Published by
Canadian Mennonite University. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23607681

Report of the Independent  Expert
on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (2015).
A/70/285. 5 August 2015. Delivered to the UN General Assembly at its 70th
session. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/244/85/pdf/n1524485.pdf

Report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international
solidarity (2017). A/HRC/35/35,  25 April 2017. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/35/35

Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and
equitable international order (2013). A/68/284. 7 August 2013. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n13/421/23/pdf/n1342123.pdf

Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and
equitable international order (2014). A/HRC/27/51. 17 July 2014. Delivered to
the Human Rights Council at its 27th session. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/27/51

Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and
equitable international order (2017a). A/HRC/36/40. 20 July 2017. Delivered to
the Human Rights Council at its 36th session. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/36/40

Report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and
equitable international order. (2017b). A/72/187. 21 July 2017. Delivered to
the UN General Assembly at its 72th session. https://docs.un.org/en/A/72/187

Revised draft declaration on human rights and international solidarity:
Report of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity,
Obiora Chinedu Okafor. A/HRC/53/32,
2 May 2023. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4011942?ln=en&v=pdf

Rodrik, Dani (2011). The
Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. W. W.
Norton & Company, New York.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2005). The End of Poverty. Economic Possibilities for
Our Time, The  Penguin Press, New York. http://www.economia.unam.mx/cedrus/pdf/jeffrey_sachs_the_end_of_poverty_economic_possibilities_for_our_time__2006.pdf

Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2011). The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American
Virtue and Prosperity. Random House, New York..

Sarraf, Sanjay (2023). Enforcing International Law: An Analysis of
ICJ Decisions. International Journal of Creative Research
Thoughts (IJCRT), Vol. 11, Issue 4. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2304409.pdf.

Schwartzberg, Joseph (2013). Transforming the United Nations System.
United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Schwartzberg. Joseph E. (2013). Transforming the United Nations system:
designs for a workable world/Tokyo, Japan; New York: United Nations University
Press. 364 p.  https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/804278/

Switzer, Tom (2024). NATO’s Prophetic Critics. Expanding the alliance has
led to a war many experts predicted. The Centre for Independent Studies, June
10, 2024. https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/natos-prophetic-critics-expanding-the-alliance-has-led-to-a-war-many-experts-predicted/

The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action: World Summit for
Social Development (1995). UN, New York.    https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n95/116/51/pdf/n9511651.pdf

UN – OHCHR (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights:
Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework. UN -
OHCHR, New York and Geneva, 2011. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf

UN (2024). Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact and Declaration on
Future Generations. Summit of the Future Outcome Documents. September 2024. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-pact_for_the_future_adopted.pdf

UN GA (1986). Declaration on the Right to Development. Adopted by UN
General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development

UN Secretary-General (2005). In larger freedom: towards development,
security and human rights for all: report of the Secretary-General: addendum:
Human Rights Council: explanatory note/by the Secretary-General.
A/59/2005/Add.1. [New York]: UN, 23 May 2005 https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/550204?v=pdf

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). United Nations, Treaty
Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993).
Adopted 25 June 1993  by  the World Conference on Human Rights in
Vienna.  https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/vienna-declaration-and-programme-action

Weisbrot, Mark and Jeffrey Sachs (2019). Economic Sanctions as Collective
Punishment: The Case of Venezuela. Center for Economic and Policy Research,
Washington, DC, April 2019. https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04-1.pdf

Ziegler, Jean (2024). Où est l’Espoir. Seuil. 208 p.

[1] Professor,
Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations (GSD), Geneva,
Switzerland.

Former UN
Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international
order.

[2] https://social.desa.un.org/second-world-summit-for-social-development

[3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-development

[4] https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-international-order

[5] https://books.openedition.org/iheid/1551

[6] This section drawn from: de Zayas (2021),
pp. 50-51.

[7]  See,
for instance, the US Supreme Court judgment Plessy v. Ferguson:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/

[8]   See for example discussion of
expanded UN Security Council membership in:
Transforming the United Nations System by Joseph Schwartzberg
(2013), also Time to Bring the United Nations Security Council into the 21st
Century, by Nancy Soderberg in Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Vol. 16, No. 2 (2015).

[9] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf

[10] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide

[11]https://apnews.com/article/netherlands-court-f35-israel-b33608b054a33fbacc518395b53b74e8

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/arms-exports-israel-must-stop-immediately-un-experts

[12] See Revised draft
declaration on human rights and international solidarity (2023)

[13] https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0049.xml

[14]https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F48%2F141&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

[15]https://undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%2FRES%2F2625(XXV)&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False

[16] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n05/487/60/pdf/n0548760.pdf