The planetary climate crisis as an opportunity to establish a legitimate world state by 2050

Table of contents

Abstract

List of figures

List of tables

List of abbreviations

1. introduction

2. The climate crisis and the importance of actors
2.1 Considerations for saving biodiversity.
2.2 Proposed solutions for the preservation of humanity
2.3 National actors as supporters to mitigate the global climate crisis

3. The role of civil society in transformation
3.1 Influence of civil society in the international structure
3.2 The leading role of civil society in the policy-making process

4. The future of the UN
4.1 Projects for the reform of the UN.
4.2 The sustainability goals and their implementation problems
4.3 The IMF in its function as a potential guardian of a global currency.
4.4 World domestic policy as a framework for global action
4.5 The transformation to a global society
4.5 Democracy and the difficulties of further development
4.6 Visions for a World Parliament and a World State

5. A new solidarity community
5.1 Global ethics as a common framework for the global community
5.2 The role of world religions with regard to transformation
5.3 Considerations for the design of a new policy

6. Global governance in focus
6.1 Aspirations of appropriate governance
6.2 Leadership of a global society in the 21st century
6.3 Global governance as a solution to world politics

7. Four strategic scenarios for the future of a world state by 2050
7.1 Scenario 1: The retreat into individual statehood
7.2 Scenario 2: An alternative to the world state
7.3 Scenario 3: Between the worlds
7.4 Scenario 4: The future has begun

8. Conclusion and outlook until 2050

Bibliography

Abstract

An international institution that successfully curbs the life-threatening effects of climate change does not yet exist. To make this possible, the international community must be persuaded to undertake comprehensive reforms of the United Nations.

The aim of this research is to find out, from the perspective of futurology, under which conditions it is possible to reposition the UN as a representative of global society and sovereign states. Civil society and its organizations play an essential role in this, but the understanding of cultures among themselves is also a factor in the formation of a comprehensive identity that should not be neglected. To this end, the following research question is posed: Does the UN need to be changed in its current constitution and do individual states need to give up parts of their power in order to form an effective and assertive UN so that it becomes possible to establish a legitimate world state by 2050? To answer the research question, a literature review was conducted and the scenario technique was applied.

On this basis, it is advisable to expand multilateralism and a global identity in addition to global efforts to prevent harmful climate impacts, and to seek an open- ended discussion on whether the UN is capable of reform and what changes can be implemented in the coming years.

List of figures

Figure 1: NASA forecast of global warming by 2050

Figure 2: The four-sector model

Figure 3: The flag of the peoples

List of tables

Table 1: Proposal for the construction of a future world state in

List of abbreviations

DWB Democracy without Borders

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council

GPF Global Policy Forum

HLPF High-Level Political Forum

INGO International Non-Government Organization

IMF International Monetary Fund

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NGO Non-Government Organization

ScMI Scenario Management International

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SEF Foundation Development and Peace

SWP Foundation for Science and Politics

UN United Nations

UNRIC United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe

WHO World Health Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

VENRO Association for Development Policy and Humanitarian Aid of German Non-Governmental Organizations

1. introduction

The future of biodiversity and humanity is uncertain. On the one hand, humans need the world to live, on the other hand, they attack it until soon there will be nothing left to ensure their survival. The human species has become its own danger. Although it is aware that without a joint global effort it will no longer be able to control the problems of the climate crisis and the pollution of public goods such as water and air in the coming years, governments continue to persist in their own hermetically sealed spheres. For centuries, there have been discussions about whether it would not be better to act as a world community with a world state at its head in order to unite societies with their many differences.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), an english mathematician and philosopher, took the archaic state of man as the basis for discussion for achieving a permanent absence of war. This state must be managed in an interstate model to contain the negative aspects of human behavior. Hobbes conceived of a state of nature in which man's animal nature, based on competitive behavior, distrust, selfishness, and the absence of a general force through law, must be restrained (cf. Leinen/Bummel 2017: 15).

The legal philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) pointed out that it would be better to leave the state of nature behind and create an order of public justice. He thus placed all his hopes in a valid legal peace and declared this to be the highest political good for all peoples. At the same time, the state of nature is for him a state of makeshift and unsecured law in which peace has no validity. Thus, his vision of the human state included the utopian dimension of secure membership in a world republic. But he was aware of national sovereignty and combined the concept of a world republic with the idea of federalism, since, in his view, no state has the right to enter into a world state with other states and to establish coercive world laws. Eternal peace is to be achieved through a world-public state of law in order to restrain man in his semi-archaic activity (cf. Werkner/Ebeling 2017: 485-490).

The french economist and politician Constantin Pecqueur (1801-1887) goes further. In his view, the state of nature is transferred from the individual to society, and what divides cannot contribute to peace. For according to Pecqueur, the existence of nation states is a barbaric remnant of man's state of nature, which must inevitably lead to warlike conflicts (cf. Leinen/Bummel 2017: 29).

The fact that humans are prone to warlike conflicts due to their semi-archaic nature has thus been discussed for a long time. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, as advancing technology ensured that two world wars shook the fabric of the global community within about 30 years, shortly after the end of World War II, the decision was made by 51 states to constitute an intergovernmental institution to guarantee peace and security for the world's population. This vision was realized with the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and the enactment of the UN Charter on October 24, 1945. Thus, for the first time in human history, the basis was laid for the coalescence of a world community.

In 1975 - thirty years after the founding of the UN - the former german Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher formulated in a speech to the UN General Assembly that problems no longer stop at state borders. The interdependence of states, he said, was the hallmark of a common world society. The future consists of either surviving together and thus promoting global prosperity or perishing together (cf. Leinen/Bummel 2017: 180 f. ).

However, because the UN's organizational structure and the influence of its permanent members make it difficult for it to adapt, it can be assumed that the institution has been preoccupied with itself for decades. In 1995, 50 years after the founding of the UN, Jürgen Habermas, a philosopher and sociologist, proposed "the establishment of a world parliament, the expansion of world justice, and the reorganization of the Security Council," "for in a world parliament the peoples would be represented not through their government but through elected representatives as the totality of the world's population" (Habermas 1995: 308).

The following questions arise: What global measures must be taken to save biodiversity and humanity? Can and must civil society exert more pressure on the responsible actors to bring about change as quickly as possible? Is it possible to restructure the UN to form an impactful international institution, or must it be abandoned? Do people need global ethical norms and values to create a global society? And can we succeed in realizing global governance as a set of rules for political actors?

Therefore, chapter 2 looks at the accelerating climate crisis and asks whether it is too late to save it. It also proposes a solution and examines whether nation-state actors would be better suited to stop the climate crisis. Chapter 3 explains the international influence of civil society as well as asks what role civil society should be granted in order to accompany the global transformation. The future of the UN and its possibilities for fundamental reform are outlined in Chapter 4 on the basis of the Sustainable Development Goals, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a sub-organization of the UN, and the theory of a world domestic policy as an extension of nation-state foreign policy. In addition, questions are raised about how the transformation to a world community can succeed, whether democracy is reaching its limits in shaping a global society, and what visions exist for a world parliament and a world state. The exploration of a common value framework for peaceful coexistence of the world's population is further considered in Chapter 5. To this end, the role of world religions as well as politics is described. Chapter 6 addresses how global governance can be pursued to achieve a new kind of world state. Chapter 7 looks at a practical example from futurology to present different scenarios for establishing a world state by 2050.

2. The climate crisis and the importance of actors

In the coming years, it will be crucial to contain the effects of global crises. In addition to the climate crisis, these include the global development of financial markets and the emergence of wars with their devastating sociopolitical consequences for the world's population (cf. Treutner 2017: 139). The remainder of the chapter also examines the state of biodiversity and whether political actors have the potential to address the crises.

2.1 Considerations for saving biodiversity

Global public goods are characterized by the fact that no one can be excluded from their use and they cannot be divided up or protected by nation-state action. These universal goods include the ozone layer, biodiversity, and the global climate. The problem with protecting the international environment is often that nation-states do not act rationally, but instead act out of selfish interest to exploit their advantages. Thus, desertification is advancing, biodiversity continues to decline, and man-made climate change is altering planet earth (cf. Gareis/Varwick 2014: 280-282).

The threat to biodiversity is exacerbated by the expanding and uncontrollable global economy, whose political power, according to some experts, already resides above nation-states. Erhard Treutner, a sociologist and environmentalist, sums up this unequal relationship:

For business and multinational corporations, which can exert a great deal of influence on the negotiating nation states, environmental protection is a cost factor that they try to avoid as far as possible for reasons of profitability and competition. (...) In addition, there is no world executive even for international environmental standards with sanctions or other binding implementation mechanisms: There is no world state and no world police (Treutner 2017: 70).

However, this imbalance of individual interests can be eliminated. Thus, it is proposed to develop a world state consciousness of the populations and to bring it into harmony with the natural bases of life. The economy depends on consumers. They have the power to consume only products that can be fully transparently tracked and are produced in the spirit of sustainable value creation. Top international economist Augusto Lopez-Claros describes the way to get there:

To address the challenges of climate change, for instance, we need to think and act like world citizens, not the traditional ways that put the national interest above everything else and which, it must be said, have been largely responsible for our failure to take meaningful actions to mitigate its impacts (Lopez-Claros et al. 2020: 97).

As mentioned above, a self-confident world population combined with an assertive international institution is needed to preserve the natural foundations of life. Relying on significantly increasing industrialization to rely exclusively on emissions-neutral technologies is risky. Treutner adds to this insight:

Since it can be assumed that with increasing industrialization and inclusion of more and more regions in the world economy [the] environmental protection problems will expand and intensify globally, there will have to be more binding international environmental standards and their more effective implementation - promoted by sanctions, possibly also by market mechanisms or financial aid - in the future. There will therefore probably also be a more effective 'world environmental order' (Treutner 2017: 72).

The UN's many summit events repeatedly give rise to hope that the insight to take comprehensive measures for a world environmental order and against the advancing climate crisis is present within world politics, as announced in the General Assembly's political declaration Gearing up for a Decade of Action and Delivery for Sustainable Development in September 2019. However, Jens Martens, economist and executive director of the Global Policy Forum (GPF), has also been critical: "None of these summits produced binding decisions. This was not to be expected in view of the global political climate. Instead, governments, UN agencies, companies and non-governmental organizations announced a multitude of voluntary initiatives and self-commitments to achieve the SDGs" (Martens 2019: 1; cf. United Nations 2019, pp. 1-4).

The recent study Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis shows a devastating picture for the next decades. The survival of mankind, caused by the excessive consumption of resources and the ever increasing world population, is doubtful. Thus, the overexploitation of forests has reached enormous proportions. Forests store carbon, serve to produce oxygen, help conserve soil and regulate water cycles, and provide a home for many species of life. Yet between 2000 and 2012 alone, 2.3 million square kilometers of forests were cut down. Even the most optimistic scenarios indicate that there is less than a 10 percent chance of saving humans on planet Earth. Attempting to develop a multiplanetary species independent of the limited resources of a single planet is visionary, but it would require developing better technologies than those currently available (cf. Bologna/Aquino 2020: 1-8).

In addition, projections for planetary climate warming by 2050 are not overly optimistic. Figure 1 shows that a temperature increase of 2 to over 3 degrees is expected in much of the northern hemisphere, but also in areas of the equatorial region and the southern hemisphere.

Figure 1: NASA forecast of global warming by 2050

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: climate.nasa.gov

These are not optimistic prospects for the future. However, the optimists among the experts are trying to find a way out of this seemingly irreversible development.

2.2 Proposed solutions for the preservation of humanity

In order to guarantee the viability and future of humanity, short-term interests must be set aside at the nation-state level to persuade the electorate, and new procedures must be developed to bring significant future issues to the fore. These processes can be brought in through new institutional frameworks to engage populations. At the same time, it should be ensured that weak interests are also taken into account by the proposed measures (cf. Treutner 2017: 403).

There are solutions for a social-ecological transformation. One of them is a just global Green New Deal with detailed thought-out elements. Part of the solution approach are:

- an 'eco-social tax reform' with a focus on wealth and land ownership and on taxing resource consumption,
- the 'reallocation of government spending' with a comprehensive sustainability check on the use of funds,
- a 'basic social security for all' to reduce poverty and strengthen the purchasing power of populations,
- the 'curbing of tax avoidance and illicit financial flows' to prevent tax havens and shadow financial centers,
- Providing 'additional climate finance' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of global warming,
- preventing a 'new debt spiral' so that uniform standards in global lending are created or the model of fair and transparent arbitration for debt conversion is developed by the UN,
- A 'human rights check' to verify economic policies are in line with human rights obligations,
- a 'transfer of public goods and services back to the municipal sector' in order to make cost savings, implement quality improvements and increase population participation,
- 'effective rules for the global shadow banking sector' to avoid the risk of another global economic crisis (cf. Martens 2020: 3-6).

All of these measures can be enforced and controlled by an assertive global state. However, the climate crisis is felt globally and does not wait for proposals to be implemented through multi-year political processes. The question is whether the bottom-up principle is a better solution from a global policy perspective to contain or halt progressive worsening.

2.3 National actors as supporters to mitigate the global climate crisis

At the national level, it is a major challenge to take into account the interrelated environmental, social and economic requirements to address the climate crisis. Sustainable issues are given little to no attention, while economic interests are given more importance. The implementation of such interests on a global level with its different levels of development (industrialized countries, emerging economies, developing countries) is even more difficult. Effective international environmental and social standards can only be further developed and put on the international agenda through national efforts (see Treutner 2017: 324). However, it should be noted that environmental pollution, climate change and global financial flows do not stop at domestic borders and it is therefore of little help if lengthy agreements of an international nature continue to be drawn up at the level of nation states (cf. Niederberger 2011: 269).

National actors acting with foresight therefore have only limited possibilities to get the climate crisis under control on their own. This is because only global and joint efforts can help ensure that all states adhere to binding agreements. These activities would have to be monitored by a supranational body. But first, we will ask what part civil society has to play in the transformation to a globally sustainable society.

3. The role of civil society in transformation

Civil society, which basically means all actors from municipal associations to globally active non-governmental organizations, has an ongoing impact on the public. Without them, the 2030 Agenda, which sets concrete sustainable goals in a specific time, would not have been adopted in this form. It can be assumed that global problems - be they environmental, social or economic - would be much worse without the intervention of civil society actors. The UN is the venue and negotiation venue for the increasingly difficult to remedy consequences of human actions on planet Earth.

Civil society is given opportunities to participate within the UN. According to Article 71 of the UN Charter, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is given the right to maintain consultative relations with non-governmental organizations. In addition, extensive opportunities for participation by national and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) in ECOSOC and in UN conferences are made possible (cf. UNRIC 1973: 13).

Deriving from these rights, it can be assumed that civil society in the form of nongovernmental organizations can exert a great, but mostly indirect, influence on the courses of the UN and its sub-organizations. It has been understood that global problems are too complex to be handled by intergovernmental organizations alone. Civil society is needed in the transformation to a global society because, as Treutner says:

NGOs gain their great influence, for example, due to their concrete knowledge of problems and, above all, due to their technical competence and expertise and, therefore, their facilitated participation in the actions of international organizations, partly in formally regulated participation procedures as observers, through hearings and consultations, and possibly even cooperation. (...) In the meantime, they are often recognized as experts to be taken seriously and are part of the debate on global governance (Treutner 2017: 344).

Although transformation processes are evident all over the world, they still adhere to the old procedures of Western modernity. In this context, civil society can make a significant contribution to the transformation because, in addition to developing new materials and tapping natural resources, it generates extensive knowledge about interrelationships, consequential problems and alternative development options (Freyer et al. 2017: 440).

Civil society takes the approach of involving the public in the political process and enabling directional decisions to be made through argumentative debates around values. The focus here is on exchanges between social actors and representatives of society, business and politics. In these negotiation processes, it becomes clear how well organized civil society and the state can communicate so that shared convictions and political trust emerge in cooperation (cf. Schröer et al. 2020: 13 f. ).

On the basis of the explanations described, the following shows the extent of civil society's influence on the world stage and whether it can be improved in terms of global governance.

3.1 Influence of civil society in the international structure

There is a frequently encountered fear that, despite the diverse efforts of civil society groups in the various national and international entities, no substantial changes in the sense of a humane and sustainable world are taking place. The biggest problem is that the UN is not infrequently used to push through individual interests of the participating nation states or to block opposing efforts. One example is the nonexistent ability to regulate a globally acting economy. Thus, civil society often has no choice but to make economic grievances public. Treutner writes in this regard:

Since the regulation of the actions of transnational corporations by the international community of states has largely failed to materialize, many NGOs today attempt to influence [the] emergence and [the] implementation of international sustainable standards or even directly on the transnationally operating companies by mobilizing public opinion (Treutner 2017: 343).

But there are also recurring difficulties that civil society faces. The problems at the nation-state level are severe. Civil society faces a disparate policy landscape, with major opposition in restrictive policy areas. Thus, it is left to nation-states to decide what influence non-governmental actors may exert and how they may operate within the international framework. Philosopher Andreas Niederberger explains these restrictions as follows: "A contribution to the democratization of international governance is made by the participation of civil society groups to the degree to which institutions meet the criteria of general accessibility, transparency, responsiveness, and equal inclusion" (Niederberger 2011: 288).

This does not mean, however, that the internationally networked civil society allows itself to be forbidden from its actionism. There are always publications of serious human rights and environmental violations that would not be made public, or only with a time delay, without the courage of civil society. Climate policy in particular is an area of conflict. Political scientist Achim Brunnengräber says:

It is civil society in which a balance of compromises emerges as a result of social disputes: a hegemonic consensus that is essential for shaping politics and dealing with collective problems. (...) Characteristic of hegemony is an unequal constellation of forces within which there is conflictual debate about different political strategies and discourses (Brunnengräber 2011: 62).

Despite this constant struggle for participation, positive changes can be noticed. The strict exclusion of international civil society no longer takes place in large parts. The global community, as represented by civil society actors, has steadily claimed its right to participate in political and societal participation. The more the global crises affect every living being on planet Earth, the more clearly this participation is formulated. Non-state actors are therefore increasingly integrated into political decision-making processes (cf. Brunnengräber 2011: 64).

Nevertheless, it is evident that there are hardly any future-proof agreements between civil society and the internationally operating nation states or that there is no intention to expand the opportunities for participation. The helplessly arranged debates of sometimes less than five minutes for the largest internationally active non-governmental organizations at UN conferences or meetings at ECOSOC should not be a standard for future cooperation. The attempt to combine the forces of civil society and give it a greater voice in the High-level Political Forum (HLPF), a specially established institution for the regular review of the Sustainable Development Goals, has also not been implemented to date (Obenland 2019: 39). Treutner provides the following summary:

In the international sphere, the opportunities for the participation of those affected, civil society and NGOs in politics and regulation are initially very limited: Here, the rules of participation established in the politics and administration of modern Western societies do not apply or apply much less; all opportunities for participation have to be fought for again and again (Treutner 2017: 342).

While the role of international and national nongovernmental organizations is often perceived in relation to civil society, this view falls short, as civil society actors build up a high level of expertise and assertiveness over time, becoming an important tool for the state, the market and civil society at the micro level. They observe, advise, criticize and publicize information in the processes. In doing so, they are admittedly not protected from being criticized themselves, as there are sometimes doubts as to whether they are actually non-governmental organizations in their function as negotiating partners and advisors to state actors and international organizations. However, the fact that they are now valued as part of international negotiation processes is a significant marker on the road to a deliberative world state (cf. Franz/Martens 2006: 16-18).

From this prominent position of NGOs, the classic three-sector model can be expanded and supplemented to form a new four-sector model, since nongovernmental organizations play an essential role and have far more limited functions within civil society. It is not uncommon for them to be entrusted with government tasks in order to implement their own goals, and this leads to a confrontation with political challenges. But the market is also increasingly recognizing the advantages in working with nongovernmental actors, since they represent a not insignificant portion of their customers. And last but not least, they represent an indispensable source of information and trustworthy representation of interests at the national and international level for the civil society sector. Although they tend to be assigned to the public sector because of their normative objectives and participation in international networks, and have a critical relationship with the economic sector, they generally see themselves rather in a mediating role between the three sectors and therefore take on a corrective role for the deficits of a nonexistent international system and international politics (cf. Curbach 2003: 132-134). The optimal negotiating position of non-governmental organizations is illustrated in the four-sector model between state, market and civil society in figure 2.

Figure 2: The four-sector model

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: own representation

The world's governments have a clear expectation of civil society: They are either constructive partners vis-a-vis national and intergovernmental authorities, giving them extensive opportunities for participation, or they are largely ignored. Government-critical 'watchdogs' as well as contentious opponents are not welcome. This is also reflected in the 2030 Agenda, as the term non-governmental organization is no longer found in it. The document negotiated by governments only speaks of 'stakeholders'. In the preamble, the direction in the relationship between the UN and civil society is clear. What this means for the future of civil society and the UN remains to be seen. However, there are new alliance efforts of civil society, ranging from the municipal to the global level, to further expand their influence on the implementation process of the 2030 Agenda (cf. Martens 2018: 4 f.; cf. United Nations 2015: 1).

From the above discussion, it can be expected that without an active civil society, it will not be possible to establish an internationally recognized world state with a parliament (world legislature) and a government (world executive). It must be questioned whether the representatives of civil society must assume a leading role independent of instructions. In this way, transparent and open discussions would take place on essential and far-reaching decisions for the interested world population. This question is therefore explored in the next chapter.

3.2 The leading role of civil society in the policy-making process

According to the classical view, there are two ways in which sociopolitical movements offer solutions. One is to reject the existing social structures. There is also the possibility of taking on the lengthy path through the institutions and initiating an inner transformation. However, there is also the claim that both paths are only characterized by the illusion that there are real links between the institutions and civil society. In this regard, there is an opportunity to combine both options, to continue to deal with the conflicts with the institutions and at the same time aim to build new structures (cf. Hardt/Negri 2018: 291 f. ).

The nation states are less and less able to fulfill their actual functions adequately due to the increasing international network of relations. They are therefore dependent on cooperation with other actors. International decisions are often made without democratic parliamentary control, so that the pressure for legitimacy increases. Civil society actors are taking a place in this legitimacy deficit and consistently calling for a new form of global governance that is equitable, inclusive and more participatory. States and international organizations readily accept the support, as long as it is constructively oriented toward addressing problems and shaping policy. The problem is that international nongovernmental organizations are pressured to compromise and lose their social connection in the process. They therefore often have no choice but to shift their protests to the public sphere and in this way maintain pressure on the states. Nonetheless, international nongovernmental organizations make an essential contribution to shaping and legitimizing global governance. In addition to the power-political and economic interests of the states, they ensure that the social components are not ignored by making consistent use of public relations and lobbying as well as the strategic use of the media by exposing undesirable developments or governance and market failures. In addition, they are increasingly being asked to actively participate in the regulation of issues at the international level in order to increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of states. They are increasingly fulfilling their role as mediators in international negotiations because, as third parties, they make the interests of the respective negotiating partners transparent, uncover overlapping interests and propose compromise solutions. In this way, they gain a certain degree of control over political decisions and can ensure the participation of citizens through information and education. Any blockades or breaches of rules are quickly brought to public attention and can inhibit or prevent misconduct at the international political level. Nevertheless, essential negotiation processes still take place with the exclusion of non-state actors, for example in negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) or in the context of climate negotiations. As a result, nongovernmental organizations cannot fulfill their function as effective monitors of political processes and decision-makers. Sanction mechanisms against international political decisions exist only to a limited extent. However, this would be a prerequisite for effectively countering rule-making. However, international nongovernmental organizations have been involved for decades in enforcing human rights, protecting the environment and implementing internationally recognized rules and standards in the area of development policy. Nation states are facing a growing cross-border loss of their ability to govern and are therefore delegating more and more tasks to non-state actors. These contribute significantly to global governance. However, there is criticism that more resources and competencies need to be transferred in order to fully exploit the potential of international nongovernmental organizations as organs of sovereign populations. This could be enabled, among other things, through full access to global policy processes (cf. Albert et al. 2018: 243-271).

The world public sphere is still poorly developed, but there are tendencies for its impact to unfold. Further development is therefore only a matter of time, and the expansion of the digital infrastructure is further promoting the development for influence vis-a-vis political actors. The fact that politics, despite its great influence, is mostly only oriented toward maintaining power and re-election makes it difficult to advance sustainable issues. Nevertheless, an expanded participation of civil society could ensure that the discourse and argumentative debate about the sustainability goals increase the pressure vis-a-vis politics and thus promote their enforcement (cf. Treutner 2017: 405 f. ).

In international climate policy in particular, however, active civil society is not an association of like-minded actors seeking to influence state action. The approach to the complex policy processes is different, but cannot be used to understand the social forces. The real reason is to be found elsewhere: The level of competition among civil society actors regarding the causes of climate change, forecasts, or actions deemed necessary-and their sometimes conflicting views-is high (cf. Brunnengräber 2011: 80). There is a way out for this, however, because disputes on the sociopolitical stage need not be at the expense of compromise. According to some experts, the prospect of choosing between unproductive horizontality and hardly desirable leadership is not purposeful. Literary theorist Michael Hardt and political scientist Antonio Negri therefore suggest the following path:

Instead, strategy and tactics need to be reversed: While strategy now expresses the increasing autonomy of social forces, tactics serve the (antagonistic) confrontation with existing institutions and enable leadership structures that are limited to specific occasions (Hardt/Negri 2019: 283 f. ).

In summary, civil society should take a leading role in political processes if the appropriate conditions are created. But time will tell whether civil society will be able to assert itself in the coming years. Currently, at the UN level, it is seen as playing only an observing role. But this needs to change in order to unite all actors around a common goal: saving biodiversity and humanity on planet Earth. For this, a supranational and effective institution is needed. At this point, the question must be asked about the future of the UN and its sub-organizations and what chances they are given for fundamental reform.

4. The future of the UN

The UN's ability to act is increasingly under threat. The financially strong member states are increasingly trying to break away from this institution. In this context, the UN plays a key role in multilateral cooperation. New participatory mechanisms must be created to strengthen the UN's legitimacy. However, there are increasing doubts about the UN's ability to maintain the liberal world order at all. The following reasons speak for this weakening: The increasingly complex interests of a multipolar world of states can hardly be organized. The number of international organizations is now so high that, for certain problems, states choose those that best represent their interests or that they can play off against other institutions. The institutional independence of some organizations, such as the International Court of Justice, is limited or strongly influenced by the ever-cited right of national sovereignty. Rising global populism reinforces the termination of multilateral cooperation, and finally, the complexity of transnational cooperation is further increased by the co-creation of non-state and sub-state actors. For global cooperation to endure under multilateralism in the 21st century, there must be a fundamental discourse on which principles endure or need to be reconsidered. In addition, procedures must be created so that civil society actors and states can agree on common principles. One of these principles is the agreement on the responsibility of rule-setting actors towards those affected, as has been demonstrated in the discussion on decent work in global supply chains (cf. Hirschmann/Ulbert 2019: 1-3).

[...]