Starting With Why

The global challenges and concerns we face today are well known: the peaceful coexistence of states and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the deterioration of the environment and the need for sustainable development, the threats to financial stability, the tragic inequalities across the planet in wealth and democracy.

We need to do something. And, first of all, we need to reflect on what to do.

To face such challenges and to guarantee global public goods, the international community has created after world war II a number of international organizations responsible for the pursuit of specific goals, which have been given more or less adequate competences and tools.

Are these organizations democratic? Are they efficient? If the answer is no (or not enough) how could they be improved?

Could we – 75 years later – imagine something new? Is there a  better way to organize coexistence inside the human family, not just aimed at avoiding conflicts but at thriving as species, in harmony with the Earth and with all the other living beings?

The awareness on these topics is growing. It is time to become creative, to network and exchange ideas, to recreate and co-create a new way of living together on this planet (maybe to dis-create something as well…).

Democracy is the result of a social pact: we are all involved.

Democracy nowadays cannot just be national as problems and challenges are getting more and more global.

To try to respond to the challenge, I decided to focus on what are (at least for me!) the three key ingredients of a modern democracy: legitimacy, accountability, inclusiveness. I built on them a paradigm for democracy in international organisations which I called democratic experimentation.

As individuals are an essential ingredient of democracy, I think that democratic international organization should be supranational, or move towards more advanced forms of supranationality. But how individuals can interact on a global stage, legitimize global fora, hold them accountable?

They may interact as civil society or just as informed public opinion. Internet plays a major role in allowing them to become global citizens, if (and where) internet access is guaranteed.

So many topics to discuss about, so important to deepen the analysis and offer solutions. The debate is open and you’re all welcome!

Susanna

Exploring European Citizenship and Values at the Supranational Democracy Dialogue

With every spring, since 2018, comes a new edition of the Supranational Democracy Dialogue, an event of its kind bringing together academicians, civil society leaders, international officials and thinkers to discuss democratic solutions to issues bigger than States: European and Global. The seventh edition will be in Brindisi (Italy) on April 29-30.

This year it is different. I would love to say that every year is different, but this time it is more. We swim against the stream. We imagine new democratic spaces while the existing ones are falling apart.

Is this a crisis of the existing world to open up opportunities for a new one to emerge? Or is this just a giant step back in the progression we call progress? The hope is for the former, the gut feeling (let’s call it fear), is for the latter.

This could be the reason for a seventh edition exceptionally crowded and high-profile: we fear to lose what democracy we have, while discussing how to improve it. We are motivated to defend the very idea that we need democracy and an international space where dialogue is the rule and not the exception. It is time to show up and stand up for what we really believe in. So many illustrious colleagues and interesting contributors applied to join us in Brindisi (Italy), for a seventh edition focused on citizenship and values. And many young people showed an interest in attending, I suppose for the same reason.

This is the program. Whoever wishes to join is warmly invited to do so. It is for free, but we just need a registration. Alternatively, you can follow via streaming. A second, long due, novelty is that a new Association has been born. The Association for Supranational Democracy aims to build on the existing platform of committed individuals who support the event in many ways, locally as well as on a global level. It is open for applications at info@supranationaldemocracy.net.

Graphic promoting the VII Supranational Democracy Dialogue event on April 29-30, 2025, emphasizing the theme 'EU as a lab in a changing world. Citizenship, values and the response to global challenges'. Features vibrant colors and abstract design.

Brindisi, Sala Conferenze dell’Autorità Portuale, April 29-30, 2025

APRIL 29, 2025 – Europe

I. – European Citizenship, Identity and Values

10,00 – Institutional Greetings

10,30 – First Panel

Chair: Susanna Cafaro

Keynote Speech

Domènec Ruiz Devesa, Union of European Federalists – Europe at a Turning Point

Maaike Geuens, Open University of the Netherlands – Constitutional Identity, Democratic Disconnect, EU institutions, Sovereignty, and Integration

Jean-Christophe Barbato, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne – Academic Freedom and Democracy in European Union Law

Francesca Salvatore and Antonio Caso, Atlantic-Mediterranean Relations Study Center (CESRAM, Lecce) – Public History as a Strategic Resource for European Citizenship, Identity, and Values

Fabienne Péraldi Leneuf, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne – The Independence of the Judiciary as an Aspect of Respect for the Rule of Law: Exporting the European Model

Esra Akgemci, Selcuk University (Turkey) – Rethinking the EU’s Role in Promoting Peace, Human Rights, and Democracy Amid Anti-Gender Politics and Right-Wing Populism

Sara Poli, Università di Pisa – Citizenship by Investment Programs: Constraints and Conditions Imposed by Treaty Provisions on the European Citizenship and on CFSP

Bledar Kurti, University “Aleksandër Moisiu” Durres – Today’s Challenges of European Citizenship, Identity and Values

13,30 – Light Lunch

II. – The European Union in a Changing World

14,30 – Second Panel

Chair: Claudia Morini

Expert Speech

Antonio Parenti, European Commission – The EU’s Preparedness in Crises: a New Paradigm?

Ana Bojinović Fenko and Julija Brsakoska Bazerkoska, Ljubjana University – European Union’s Contributions in Addressing the Challenges of the Changing World Order: Analysis of EU’s Actorness in the Fields of Conflict Resolution, Digital Sovereignty and Trade

Ingrid Kiessling R., Gabriela Mistral University (Chile) – The Strategic Alliance between the European Union and Latin America: Protection of Democracy and Human Rights in the Context of Global Instability

Eirikur Bergmann, Bifrost University (Iceland) – Europe’s Security Architecture in an Age of Transactional Diplomacy

15,30 – Coffee Break

Mohamed Shokry, Università del Salento – The European Union’s Migration Governance as a Laboratory in a Changing World

Oleksiy Kandyuk, University of Konstanz – Transatlantic Shift, Strategic Autonomy and Ukraine

Catherine Vieilledent, UEF Group Europe – The Role of the EU in a Post Multilateral World

Expert Speech

Maria D’Aprile & Co., UNGSC Brindisi – UNGSC as a Lab of the UN 2.0

18,00 – Open Debate

APRIL 30, 2025 – World

III. – Values and Tools for a New World Order

10,00 – Institutional Greetings

Fabio Pollice, Rector of Università del Salento

10,15 – First Panel

Chair: Silvia Solidoro

Keynote Speech

Jan Wouters, Leuven University – Europe and the World: Adapting to a Changing Landscape

Jeffrey Glausiusz, Pax Orbis (Israel) – Time to Rebuild

Brian T. Schmitt, CY Cergy Paris University – Democracy as a Set of Normative Social Relationships: the IAPD Framework

Wolfgang Pape, Center for United Nations Constitutional Research (Brussels) – Interpopularity Beyond National Borders

Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, newDemocracy Foundation (Australia) – An Antidote to Identity Politics and Nationalistic Rhetoric

Inspirational Talk

Joe Weston, Author (US-Netherlands) – Fierce Civility. A Practical Pathway to Transformational Governance

13,00 – Light Lunch

IV – A World in Transition

14,00 – Second Panel

Chair: Saverio Di Benedetto

Sérgio Barbosa Dos Santos Silva, Université de Gènève – On the Rise of AI Literacies

Nadia Perrone, Engineering – Ingegneria Informatica (Lecce) – The EU AI Act: How the European Union Fosters the Artificial Intelligence Development while Addressing its Ethical and Legal Implications

Troy Davis, World Citizen Foundation (Strasbourg) – The Schuman Method Applied to Global Climate Change: the World Carbon Community

Stefania Attolini, Université Catholique de Lyon – AI for the Environment: Earth Monitoring Evolutions and Legal Issues

Gabriele Rogoli, Università Del Salento – EU Leaders 2030. The New Paradigm of the Green and Digital Transition

Benedetto Rollo, Università del Salento – “Feel Free to Vent Your Fury Here”. How Corporations Use Online Activism to Influence Policymaking

Concluding Remarks

Susanna Cafaro, Università del Salento

16,00 – Coffee Break

16,30 – The Discussion Corner

  1. EU Culture and Values: Raising Awareness – Facilitators: Andrea Rubino, Jacopo Lillo and Elisabetta Marzo
  2. EU Strategic Autonomy and Defense: Narratives and Public Opinions – Facilitators: Francesco Spera, Fabiana Magnolo and Matteo Fulgenzi
  3. Defining and Countering Disinformation Industry – Facilitators: Laurids Hempel and Polina Zavershinskaia

17,30 – Open Assembly of the Association for Supranational Democracy

Scientific Committee: Susanna Cafaro, Saverio Di Benedetto, Claudia Morini, Martí Grau Segú, Valerie Saintot, Silvia Solidoro, Francesco Spera

Organizing Committee: Francesco Viggiani, Elisabetta Marzo, Isabella Salsano, Jacopo Lillo, Fabiana Magnolo

Partners: Association for Supranational Democracy, Jean Monnet House- European Parliament, Democracy and Culture Foundation, Union of European Federalists; Democracy without Borders, G100 Global Networking, the Democracy School, Robert Triffin International Foundation, CESUE, Euractiv.it, the Streit Council for a Union of Democracies, Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization, Italian Association of Scholars of European law (AISDUE); Jean Monnet Chairs and Modules at Università del Salento

Streaming: https://bit.ly/supranationaldemocracy2025

In Defence of International Law

We will remember President Trump’s first speech – content, tone, setting, attendants – as a watershed in global history. For good or for bad, some moments are.

For us Europeans, it was a watershed in foreign and security policy and trade policy, but that’s the least of it. For each of us – on a more personal level – it was the end of a certainty dating back to WWII, the feeling of having the US backing us.

I don’t use these words lightly. As a Western European grown up during the Cold War, I was grateful for being a citizen in an (almost) democratic state, backed by an (almost ) democratic superpower. As a law professor and critical thinker, I don’t speak by absolutes.

Yet, as a teenager, I knew I could move freely in my half of the globe, access many different sources of information, express my dissent, and choose my path. These are not freedoms I take for granted, not anymore. Not when I see so many democratic recessions around.

President Trump was entirely within his rights when he declared that he would step back from the war in Ukraine and stop supporting that country. There was nothing wrong in stating a wish to promote peace. Yet, choosing to ignore that one is the aggressor and the other is the aggressed is a choice of field. Bullying the latter is a choice of field. Impartiality and love for peace have nothing to do with these choices.

He was far less in his rights when he expressed on several occasions territorial claims – to be enforced by force or by money – or the wish, immediately acknowledged, to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The American Gulf Stream is just a step away.

He was clearly outside any right or rule when he had the creative idea of imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (yes, it could not be more official). He manifested his support to the victim of the prosecution of the ICC, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, with a gift of 4 billion in weapons, while the said Prime Minister is responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions. Another peace-loving gesture.

A red thread connects all these positions, and other ones, such as threatening and negotiating a considerable rise in customs duties outside the World Trade Organization or withdrawing from multilateral organizations.

The attack is not on (or not just) Canada, Mexico, Greenland or the ICC; it is on the world order and international law as we know it.

The most sacred and precious rules of international law are the respect of borders and the prohibition of using force, also known as the principle of non-aggression. Both are written in the United Nations Charter and considered customary rules of international law, so necessary that they constitute its core of jus cogens.

Accepting the fact that Russia may well invade Ukraine and claim a part of it as a result, that Israel may annihilate the population of the Gaza Strip with bombs and starvation, that a state may appropriate another or buy another as it is convenient, means demolishing from the foundations every expectation of peace among any state in the world.

A 100 years step back in history.

Many people say that international law is ineffective, and many criticize the (often seen) double standards when some are sanctioned while others are not. Yet, no one has ever, until now, stated that a world without rules would be better. And many are at work daily to make the existing ones more effective.

A common criticism is that international law (just like any law) is for the weak, while the strong tend to ignore it. It is a precious truth. Law is for the vulnerable ones, for the minorities, and for the victim. It is the hope of justice, sometimes fulfilled, sometimes not. It is even more so in a community of not equals like the international community.

The European Union is an association of small and not-so-small states. Yet, none of them is big or big enough to navigate a world without law, and together, they are just 6% of the world’s population even if they produce the third GDP after (and close to) US and China. We are small, and we know it.

The Union has in its mandate the defence of international law. It is in article 21.1 of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU):

“The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have
inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.”

If peace among its members is the structural goal of the Union, law – inside and outside of its territory – is its only hope for success. Our only hope. Our attempts at building a common defence policy are due and understandable, yet they will never be as successful as our rule of law.

When President Trump gave his inauguration speech, the big corporates’ CEOs and Silicon Valley gurus were with him. They are as powerful – and even more – and seem aligned on the same goal. Destroying international law seems to us a short-sighted and dystopian goal. The advantage of being free riders in a lawless world may bring benefits to the strong ones in the short term, but it is – cannot not be – an existential threat for all, even for them.

On a lighter note, I asked Chat GPT to produce a picture for “Defending International Law”, I was answered with a denial: “your request likely didn’t align with the content policy due to themes related to political and governmental symbolism in a way that could be interpreted as advocating for real-world organizations, movements, or ideologies.”

International law qualified as an ideology! Can you believe it?

I requested something within the content policy and got the esoteric fantasy picture you can see. The one above. Almost scary.

Will Bridging Local and Global Governance Save Democracy?

Talking about supranational democracy – or just democracy – seems too broad or vague.

Yet, it describes hope. This hope lies at the heart of the political and social evolution, one we, willingly or not, are called to face. Humanity faces problems of planetary dimensions. These include the climate crisis, the loss of biodiversity, and the migration waves. Additionally, there is water scarcity and the oceans’ plastic pollution. Not to mention the current wars and catastrophes with their excruciating toll on human lives.

The instinctive human reaction to facing formidable and overwhelming challenges is to seek refuge in one’s territory. People yearn for the intimate and parochial dimension it offers. They seek the reassuring protection of identity and the shelter their roots provide. This is the story that recent elections, wherever in the Western world and beyond, seem to tell us. Nationalism, nativist populism and xenophobic attitudes are all expressions of similar concerns grounded in fear. A justified fear.

Unfortunately, problems aren’t solved by locking them out or building a nice sturdy wall around our space. It is much more complex than that and, at the same time, more intellectually stimulating. It is the challenge of democracy. This challenge implies openness, confrontation, and dialogue.

At different times in the history of mankind, we had different relevant levels of government: cities, kingdoms and empires, nation-states. It has not been a linear or democratic process at all.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), we now have at least four relevant levels of government simultaneously. These are the local level, the national level, and the regional level. This is especially true in Europe, but not only there, since there are other integrated regions of the world. There are also cross-regional groupings like G7 or BRICS. Finally, there is the global level, appearing to be the most relevant for many reasons.

For some of these governance levels, we have democratic models to discuss: municipalities, states, and the EU. The solutions are essentially to be invented for others, especially the global ones.

And this is the first part of the governance dilemma.

The second part is how all these levels of government can and will interact with each other. How can citizens be at the same time holders of rights in their municipality and citizens of the world? How can local administrations interact with continental and global ones? How can states act as a transmission belt among all these levels of government? How can they all be legitimate, accountable, and inclusive?

Suppose we have any hope of taking up the global governance challenge successfully. In that case, we must address the people’s need for belonging. We must also protect their cultural rights. This need for roots connects to the local dimension. The “global” without the “local” has no appeal for individuals.

For all these reasons, the Supranational Democracy Dialogue has been organized annually since 2018 by Università del Salento in Brindisi. It is a place to discuss all these topics with scholars, experts, activists, and international officials. Basically, it welcomes whoever is interested. There is no way to define how big the interdisciplinary area of multilevel governance is and how heterogeneous the relevant interactions among different institutional actors at various levels may be. And how interestingly diverse the contributions to the conversation are.

We have already learned that there are scalable democratic tools such as citizen consultations, randomly selected deliberative assemblies, multi-stakeholder dialogues, courts and tribunals. Others are perhaps less so, such as parliaments. We have learned that technology can do a lot to reproduce on a larger scale models that previously worked only at the townhall level.

Dialogue does not claim conclusiveness. The more many the voices, the more interesting the conversations become. The possibilities for mutual learning and cross-fertilizations in research and practice are infinite.

In terms of the evolution of societies, six years is a short time. This conversation has just begun. You are all invited!

 G7 too is Done

“This, too, is done.” In Italian “anche questa è fatta”. My father used his typical expression after something quite tiring was over, be it a family lunch or some other busy event.

I write from sunny Apulia, where the G7 summit has finally concluded.

About 15 years ago, I wrote a chapter for a book on G7-G20 and, generally, about the Groups of States. My primary source was the wonderful (and only) archive of the groups’ conclusions and documents hosted by the University of Toronto, where two efficient research groups are also established dedicated to G7 and G20. The only official websites come and go with the current presidency, as Groups do not have a permanent secretariat or website.

Of course, I had no idea about the travelling circus that goes with the Groups or any direct experience of having such an elite conference in your own town.

Now I know!

The gala dinner was hosted by the Italian Republic’s President Sergio Mattarella, in my town, Brindisi, in the beautiful castle I can see from my balcony. The Group’s works were hosted in a nice, expensive, relatively isolated resort called Borgo Egnazia, in the same province, some 50 km north. It is not a real village, just a very well-done fake one, offering the same atmosphere and total security with pools, heliport, and golf course (and walls all around to avoid curious and even more protesting or threatening crowds).

The security measures were crazy. Some 2600 people from different security corps added to the local ones, the firefighters, the military and the conspicuous groups of security people some guests brought with them (the winners being the US President, of course). The streets, brand new for the occasion, were blocked to usual circulation; the city looked desert, and a strange excitement was palpable, as a sort of compensation for the several days of discomfort for the people living and working in the area. About 1700 journalists were, instead, in a media centre in Bari, 110 km north of Brindisi and 60 of Borgo Egnazia. They were well-fed h24 with bio/km 0 Apulian food that, as everybody knows, is fantastic.

Most of the best (and less best)  hotels in this quite big area were filled with delegations: of the 7 governments first of all, but also from the guest countries, such as India, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Tunisia, Kenya and more…, and from the guest organisations: the EU (the only one admitted in the inner circle), United Nations, IMF, World Bank, WHO, WTO, and OECD. The Pope and Zelensky were there. All the ingredients for a big show were there, and the recipe worked.

Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Head of Government—recently the Italian winner of the European elections with her centre-right coalition—appeared relaxed, charming, pretty, chic, and in command. The others were much smiling, too (maybe President Macron a bit less after the recent debacle). In such groupings, the informality and the body language communication of a message of comfort and confidence (friendship even!) are all it takes to say that it was a great success.

I will not describe in detail all that was discussed, recommended, encouraged, condemned and set up in the conclusions you can find here.

Only two very general considerations.

(i) Since I wrote about the Gs, in 2010, many things happened. The consequence is that the length of the final communique tripled (this one was 35 pages), and apart from several purely political declarations concerning third countries and events (even) they cannot control, many operational decisions were taken.

The Toronto research group on G7 informs us that it is not strange now to have up to 200 commitments or more in each presidency and that after one year, the level of compliance goes from 80 to 90% and above, according to states. Of course, some commitments are not very specific, so the compliance check is limited to – say – seeing if something has been done. But some are instead reasonably practical, such as creating structured cooperation on specific topics, establishing working groups, or even launching public-private partnerships with actual funding backing them.

This could be read as a growth in the political stature of the coordination of Western economies that was born in the 1970s to deal with crises, and it is. Yet there is more; I think that due to the multiple and interconnected crises, the growth in complexity and the inadequacy of multilateral organisations with their 190something members, this is a poor replacement for lacking global governance. Partial and elitist, yet it works, thanks to the small number and the (almost) informality of the people around the table (even if there are thousands behind the scenes actually negotiating and writing the papers).

(ii) The second consideration is more political: each premier’s domestic successes and failures, as well as their personal vision and political base, inevitably colour the results. We had a victorious host, some members facing failure at home (Macron, Sunak, Scholz) or very challenging elections (Biden), and others are close to the electoral deadline in 2025 with meagre support in the public opinion (Trudeau, Kishida).

All needed success, some positive results to “bring home” in the hope of gaining a few points in the next polls. Giorgia (as she likes to be addressed by the electors, as “one of us”) to consolidate the credibility and international legitimacy of a right-wing party for the first time in charge of the government. This is much needed now in preparation for the tough negotiations coming up on Europe’s top jobs after the elections (presidents of the European Parliament, of the Commission, of the European  Council and, of course, Commissioners).

So, with an eye to their electors, they conveniently defended international law and the rule of law, condemning Russia, Iran, Hamas, North Korea and Houthi. Gave a more cautious warning to China, did not condemn Netanyahu and the Israeli Government for their violations of international law, even if they were very much concerned with the loss of civilians in Palestine, asked for a cease-fire and expressed their commitment to humanitarian support and the two-states political solutions.

On a less dignified note, when dealing with gender equality, they conveniently forgot to mention abortion as well as the rights of the LGBTQ + minority, topics not digestible by Meloni’s voters. Of course, recalling previous documents was the best option for not denying the results already achieved in these fields.

Overall, it was a big success for all of them. It was a success for Apulia, too, in terms of the area’s visibility in the tourist market. The next time I see a G7 or G20 on TV, I will be more aware of its costs and implications for the local people. And their mixed feelings.

The Castello Svevo in Brindisi seen from my street 😉

SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY DIALOGUE, VI Ed. 2-3 May, Brindisi (Italy)

“Map of Humanity” by James Turner. More on the “island” of Utopia here

SHARED VALUES AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE FOR PEACE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

The University of Salento will host a new edition of this unique event at Palazzo Nervegna, Brindisi, Italy, on 2-3 May 2024. This event aims to gather scholars from different backgrounds, international officials, representatives of civil society, and innovative thinkers to discuss the most significant challenges that humanity is currently facing.

In this dark time, the international community is increasingly concerned about war and the way it is shaking the very roots of civil coexistence, challenging the very foundations of international law. Against this backdrop, building peace and mutual understanding among peoples while working on adopting shared choices and embracing common interests remains the only possible option for those who believe that a different world is possible.

PROGRAM

MAY 2- PALAZZO GRANAFEI-NERVEGNA, BRINDISI

9 a.m. – Registration of Participants

9.30 a.m. – Welcome Greetings

Fabio POLLICE, Rector of University of Salento

Giuseppe MARCHIONNA, Mayor of the Brindisi Municipality

Maria D’APRILE, Liaison Officer UNGSC – Brindisi

Luigi MELICA, Head of the Law Department – UNISALENTO

Mariano LONGO, Head of the Human and Social Sciences Department – UNISALENTO

Martì GRAU SEGU,  Director Maison Jean Monnet – European Parliament

Anna Chiara STEFANUCCI, Head of EUROPE DIRECT Taranto

10 a.m. – Introductory Speech

Susanna CAFARO, Jean Monnet Chair EU World LAB

10.30 a.m. – Session I – The Founding Principles of the European Union and their Global Impact

Chair: Claudia MORINI, University of Salento

Speakers:

Massimo PENDENZA, University of Salerno – The future that Europa has left behind. Has the Europe’s ‘cosmopolitan normative vision been betrayed?

Oleksiy KANDYUK, Institute for Social Research “Chronos”, Kyiv – Evolution under Pressure: How Russia’s War in Ukraine Transforms European Union.

Mar INTROINI, G100 Global Networking – EU’s Loss of Values: Following a War Agenda instead of a Peace One.

Francesco SPERA & Polina ZAVERSHINSKAIA, University of Salento & University of Leipzig – Shared Values under Threat: How the Russian invasion of Ukraine impacted the EU Member States’ Memory Laws: the German and Italian Experiences.

Alice PISAPIA, Insubria University – The Solidarity Principle as a Founding Principle of the EU in the Health Sector.

Lunch break

3 p.m. – Parallel Brainstorming Sessions

  1. Democracy and Technology – facilitators: Valerie SAINTOT –  University of Gloucestershire & Marco LIUZZI –  United Nations International Computing Centre (UNICC).

II.           Addressing Environmental Concerns – facilitators: Erik MANSSON –  Karlstad University & Fabiana MAGNOLO – Università del Salento.

III.         War & Peace: Governance for a Reconciled World – facilitators: Silvia SOLIDORO – Università del Salento & Andrea RUBINO – Naukleros ONLUS.

IV.         EU current Challenges and European Elections – facilitators : Stefania ATTOLINI -Université Catholique de Lyon & Jacopo LILLO– Università del Salento

5 p.m. – Plenary Groups’ Reports

MAY 3- PALAZZO GRANAFEI-NERVEGNA, BRINDISI

10.00 – Session II – Global Governance & Democracy

Chair: Saverio DI BENEDETTO, University of Salento

Speakers:

Anthony KEFALAS, Democracy and Culture Foundation – The Building Blocks of Democracy

Vassily ZAGREDTINOV, Lomonosov MSU – The Founding Principles of the European Union and their Global Impact

Wolfgang PAPE, European External Action Service – Omnilateralism for Holistic Global Governance.

Maria VARAKI, King’s College London – Digital peace and War: moral and legal dilemmas.

Paolo Davide FARAH, West Virginia University and University of Pittsburgh (USA), gLAWcal (UK)- Global Environmental Litigations with States and Multinational Companies.

Bledar KURTI, Albanian University – Security and Democracy as Shared Values on Global Governance for Peace and Development.

Matteo FULGENZI, Università del Salento – Glocal” Diplomacy in Pursuit of SDG 16 for World Peace and Security.

Lunch Break

15.00 – Keynote Concluding Speech

Monica FRASSONI, President European Alliance to Save Energy and European Center for Electoral Support – Democracy and Climate: a Test for Europe and the World – Democracy and Climate: a Test for Europe and the World.

Online at https://bit.ly/supranationaldemocracy2024

Registration link https://forms.gle/7pZHsYpBg9r9ucV79

Scientific Committee

Susanna Cafaro, Saverio Di Benedetto, Marti Grau Segu, Mariano Longo, Luigi Melica, Claudia Morini, Valerie Saintot.

Organizing Committee

Silvia Solidoro, Jacopo Lillo, Elisabetta Marzo, Nadia Perrone, Isabella Salsano, Francesco Viggiani, Ozan Yildirim.

Partners: UNGSC, UNICC Maison Jean Monnet – European Parliament, Democracy and Culture Foundation, Robert Triffin International, Atlas Movement, Democracy Without Borders, Club G100, CesUE, Euractiv.it, The Democracy School, Citizens Take over Europe, Italian Association of International Law Professors (SIDI)- Interest Groups on Human Rights (DIEDU); Association of Italian Experts of European Law (AISDUE)- Forum on International Projection of European Union (PIUE); Jean Monnet Chair and modules at Università del Salento, Europe Direct- Taranto; Project REACT “Re-shaping the EU integration Agenda after the COVID Turmoil” (PRIN 2020).

Call for Papers – Supranational Democracy Dialogue VI Edition

SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY DIALOGUE

A Dialogue among Scholars, Civil Society, and Creative Thinkers about Global Democratic Solutions to Global Challenges.

VI Edition

“Shared Values and Global Governance for Peace and Development”

Brindisi, May 2-3, 2024

The University of Salento will host a new edition of the two-day event – the only one of its kind – to bring together scholars from different backgrounds, NGO leaders and political activists, businessmen and innovative thinkers to discuss the significant challenges facing humanity. The event has gained traction and attention over the years, being the only one in the world focused on democratic governance beyond borders.

The 2024 edition will focus on “Shared Values and Global Governance for Peace and Development”.

We cannot ignore the massive and disturbing return of war on the world stage and in our lives, just as we cannot forget the constant attack on nature that continues despite all efforts to stop it. Yet we believe – after a long theoretical tradition – that peace is not just the lack of war but the construction of harmony through structures of dialogue and forums for mutual understanding.

Those willing to contribute to this shared effort to shift current trends and narratives are invited to send an abstract by March 7, 2024, addressing one of the following topics:

  1. The Founding Principles of the European Union and their Global Impact
  1. Global Governance & Democracy

Contributions sub I may explore – for example – one of the following topics: the role of the Union in the world ad in the current crises; how it is reacting to challenges bigger than itself, such as climate change or migration waves; if and how it projects the values it is committed to respect, as listed in article 2 TUE; how the next European Parliament may manage the (already ambitious) political agenda.

Contributions sub II may address governance in the age of advanced technology and AI; environmental challenges at the supranational level and current governance limitations; innovative democratic mechanisms can be developed to overcome current impasses, and governance solutions to build lasting peace and reconcile former enemies.

These are, nonetheless, just suggestions and creative and innovative contributions fitting the two main topics are welcome. The ideal contribution is not just an analysis of the problem but a proposal for addressing it democratically, in some original or unconventional, yet feasible, way.

The abstract (max 500 words) and a short bio (max 300 words) must be sent to the e-mail address info@supranationaldemocracy.net.

Contributions may also be accepted for publication by the online open-access academic journal Athena. Critical Enquiries on Law, Philosophy and Globalization, partner of the event.

The authors of the selected abstracts will receive accommodation for two nights.

With the support of: Jean Monnet House, Democracy and Culture Foundation, Atlas, CesUE, Euractiv.it, Robert Triffin International, The Democracy School, Italian Association of International Law Professors (SIDI) – Group of Interest on International Organizations; Association of Italian Experts of European Law (AISDUE) – Forum on International Projection of European Union (PIUE); Jean Monnet Chair and Modules at University of Salento, G100 Italy.

An Academic Journal Is Going to Host (Some) Supranational Democracy Dialogue

Athena is a scholarly journal that analyses the problems relating to the legal, political, and social changes attendant on globalization, proposing to provide these problems with theoretical answers. It perfectly matches this blog’s reflections and the debates in the annual event Supranational Democracy Dialogue (SDD). One year ago, being co-opted into the Directors’ Board was a big honour. Now, it is an even bigger one to inaugurate an annual section to contributions coming from the Supranational Democracy Dialogue Conference.

Of Course, as SDD is a gathering of scholars, international servants and activists, not all contributions are intended to make their way to an academic journal, yet some fit it perfectly, and I am proud to be the editor of this section and bring them to a bigger audience.

The idea, not foreign to legal, philosophical and political thought, that democracy can also exist in a non-national space, transcend borders and express itself in a broader political area is not new. Since this is not an absolute novelty on the European continent, the European Union will inevitably be a reference, not necessarily a model or a stepping stone towards broader and more widespread democratic spaces. Still, it is perhaps a laboratory where some exciting experiments occur or new unconventional legal solutions are tested. It may seem strange that in an era of profound interconnection and interdependence between economic systems and areas of the world, in the age of global social networks, democracy beyond borders is still perceived as futuristic and even romantic. It is even more so if we consider that national democracy is going through a profound crisis which has manifested itself in the democratic regression underway in many countries around the world and in a growing disaffection towards voting in mature democracies attested by spiking abstentionism. It may even seem that the creation of such transnational spaces is swallowing national democracies, distracting and polarizing people, making them unable to use a critical and positive approach to national problem-solving. At the same time, the globalization of markets deprives states of the lifeblood of tax revenue, spiralling the distance between citizens and political elites. This is also the result of the fragmentation of the political discourse in algorithm-generated “bubbles”, the outcome of political profiling on social media, which allows manipulation, the spread of fake news and an attitude of “we versus them” that legitimizes the dismissal of competences and skills and fuels hate speech and conspiracy theories.

Social science scholars dedicate much under-the-radar reflection to potential remedies. Democracy is not out of fashion or outdated, but it is probably changing its skin. In the 21st century, an era of interdependence, threatened global commons and global issues to be addressed, it is no longer enough to cling to existing institutional structures in the hope of returning them to their previous efficiency level. It is time to look forward. Five years ago, in 2018, the first edition of the Supranational democracy dialogue (SDD) event kicked off at the University of Salento, a conversation among scholars, civil society and creative thinkers on democratic solutions to global issues. The event has grown year after year, attracting interesting voices and prestigious partnerships; after five editions, its path intersects with that of expansion and growth of the Athena journal, created precisely to address these issues necessary for contemporary reflection. Interdisciplinarity, the need to reflect outside the box, and the attentive eye to innovation are the hallmarks of this space, dedicated to the most structured interventions among those presented at the annual SDD event. We hope the journal and the yearly event will continue to grow synergistically. Still, above all, that awareness of this epochal challenge to save democracy by reinventing it for the 21st century grows as well.

Earth Waves at Cassini

DEMOCRATIC TOOLS FOR ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AT ALL LEVELS.

Or “The Toolkit, explained”

Earth Waves at Cassini
Earth Waves at Cassini by NASA Goddard Photo and Video is licensed under CC-BY 2.0

Multilevel democracy – from local to global- cannot be considered a utopia anymore, but the only reasonable endeavour to ensure well-being and lasting peace in the era of interdependence and interconnectedness. The Supranational Democracy Dialogue (SDD), hosted by Università del Salento, since its first edition, became a place where like-minded scholars, activists, and international professionals exchange ideas and freely discuss proposals and possible solutions. After the adoption of a Manifesto on Supranational Democracy, in the first edition, in 2018, and a Declaration on Deliberative Democracy, published on May 9, 2023, the contributors to the V Edition “Focus on tools” (May 18-19) shared their thoughts about several democratic instruments for collaboration across national borders which are collected together in a toolkit. The toolkit may evolve over time just like the SDD network is growing, one edition after the other. This is an (imperfect) synthesis of the last two-day conversation.

Preconditions

The first precondition for real, genuine active citizenship at all levels is the existence of a political space beyond borders, where ideas may be exchanged, and political positions built.  

Unfortunately, even if social media are global, TV channels and news programs are focused on the national dimension. This is where most of the political discourse is carried and confined, notwithstanding the fact that almost all issues are nowadays global, at least the important ones, like the mass violation of fundamental rights of migrants or the disastrous effects of climate change.

Even if the European Union is a legal order and a space where European citizens’ rights find their protection, we are still far from a genuine European public sphere where civic and political rights are expressed. Not to mention how far this goal appears at the global level.

The first chapter of our toolkit for active citizenship at all levels is all about that: the building of a political sphere. And how much it relates to reliable, effective communication. This is the cornerstone of any democratic society encompassing the right to free speech as well as the right to information.  To achieve that, it is important to make sure that the messages conveyed are clear, accurate, and inclusive.

Visual communication is becoming increasingly important as it is more immediate and effective than ever. Images and videos can convey messages in ways that words cannot possibly match. However, it is important to balance the use of visual communication – or any communication – with ethos, logos, and pathos. The three ingredients are all necessary: ethos refers to the credibility of the speaker, logos refers to the logic and reasoning used to support an argument, and Pathos refers to an emotional appeal made in the argument. By balancing them elements, we can ensure that the messages we convey are convincing and coherent.

Another important aspect of communication is accuracy. In today’s world, there is an increasing amount of misinformation and disinformation being spread – even more thanks to AI which allows realistic images to be shared with fake news, to manipulate public opinion. To remedy this, it is important to share sources and data so that people can check the facts for themselves as well as develop education in fact-checking. This is required to promote trust and transparency in the democratic process.

However, achieving inclusiveness in communication is easier said than done. There are obstacles to overcome, such as the digital divide and the scarce attention given to non-national issues by mainstream media. To overcome these obstacles, we need to develop ad hoc communication strategies that are accessible to everyone. This will help to ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard and that democracy remains truly participatory and representative.

The building of a public sphere beyond borders also requires movements, parties, and associations that interact transnationally. Europe would set an example if only European elections were to become truly European, with European transnational parties, European electoral law, and TV shows offering a stage for a truly European political debate.

Still, such progress at the European level (as well as the most needed and lacking ones at the global level) even if encouraged by the appropriate reforms, cannot just be top-down. There is a need to complement them bottom-up through civic engagement.

Even then, another precondition is required and that is education: education to appreciate and navigate the challenges of a multicultural society, education to democracy, i.e to critical thinking and to speak one’s mind, education to read and evaluate information that could be fake or manipulative, and education to citizenship itself, which means knowing the legal tools for participation and be willing to use them. Actually, the Union has many online tools and platforms to encourage citizens’ participation but they are underused and often totally unknown.

The SDD conference was an occasion to consider how much the Erasmus program had achieved, even involving just a little percentage of University students, and how it could set a model or at least a good practice for furthering European and global education. Exchange programs and cross-border collaboration programs could in fact be extended to most of the societal areas.

Interesting reflections arise also on the topic of cross-border communication and interactions as borders are not just the perimeter of national politics, but often also a deterrent for useful interactions in cross-border communities, those sharing cultural heritage, a language, and other commonalities. As much as allowing us to enlarge our perspective, the permeability of borders would enhance, in such cases, the true enjoyment of cultural rights.  Local authorities may be actors in this dialogue just like civil society at large.

Once such preconditions are met – a public sphere over and cross border, education centred on the role of the individual at all levels as an actor and not just a passive consumer of political advertising – or while we work for these preconditions to be met, it may be useful to remember that there already are many ways for being an active citizen at all levels.  

Civic Participation

There are many ways to participate in public conversation in a public space, from demonstrating to signing petitions, from blogging and interacting through public platforms to joining transnational movements and parties.

Litigation, claiming mechanisms, spreading information and countering fake news and hate speech, and unmasking manipulation are all ways to participate, individually and in the aggregations of civil society There are many online platforms in Europe to ease the way and spreading knowledge about them is another of our citizens’ duty. They include: Citizens initiativeTogether.euFit For FutureHave your SayConference on the Future of Europe.

The last one, the Conference on the Future of Europe, has been a stunning example of citizens’ involvement. It goes without saying that technology plays a fundamental role both in allowing a multilingual conversation, thanks to the automatic translation, as in organizing and making sense of the amount of data and contributions collected, through digital tools for data mining and mapping of ideas.

Europe is showing a way that could be easily followed by other areas of regional integration as well as by global organizations as these tools work, are easily created and there are no significant barriers to access them (once the access to internet is guaranteed, which is another precondition we should add to the list above).

 Yet, the most important tool to be acknowledged is the citizen assembly – or the citizens’ panel in EU jargon – the deliberative democracy tool par excellence.  

The new springtime of deliberative democracy, based on the lot, dates back to the last two decades. The studies conducted within the OECD were particularly significant in this regard, which actually follow some important experiments conducted at a national level on issues of primary importance, and precede others. In Europe, after the financial crisis of 2008, both Ireland and Iceland have experimented with ways of constitutional revision with this formula. However, this is a global trend (see the activity of NewDemocracy in Australia).

Making the instrument permanent (as the Belgian G1000 Citizens’ Summit or the Assemblée Citoyenne in Paris) has an additional value: it serves to communicate to citizens the message implicit in the rotation: knowing that the composition is renewed periodically by drawing lots communicates the message that sooner or later it can happen to anyone to be on board, increasing the attention and interest of citizens in public affairs. The goal is to make everyone a potential actor. Numerous civil society movements support these experiments and offer effective collaboration (for instance, Democracy Next).

The democratic nature of the process, however, is not only in drawing lots, which translates into practice an idea of equal opportunities but even more so in the deliberative moment: in the exercise of comparison that leads to the formulation of choices. The majority doctrine proves inclined to combine this type of assembly with representative democracy: the outcome of the city assembly, therefore, does preparatory work with respect to the parliamentary debate. In some experiences, however, deliberative democracy is combined with direct democracy, if there is a subsequent ratification by referendum.

The tool, is, by definition, scalable: applicable from the local to the global, see for instance the experimental Global Assembly, and seems the new Columbus’s egg to bridge the gap between citizens and politicians, especially in the time laps between an election and the next one

 The four panels established as part of the Conference on the Future of Europe (2021-2011) were enough successful to be considered a test for several future legislative procedures in the Union in the transition from the Commission’s proposal to the Council and Parliament’s approval. We hope this procedure will be established as an essential ingredient also in revising the EU treaties once the limiting rule of unanimity will be finally overcome.

Litigation

Courts may be precious in supporting individuals ready to take a stance for the collective, as Emilio De Capitani explained to us and as he did in defence of transparency in the European legislative process – as the case law De Capitani I and De Capitani II testify.

Climate litigation is another clear evidence of what courts and civil society may achieve together. Taking a stance for collective rights, exposing governance flaws, claiming old and new rights, and addressing the lack of implementation of existing rights (see – as a tool – the referring for preliminary ruling to ECJ in EU case law), all require adequate laws to allow actions and class actions, but also protecting whistleblowers (in need of effective guarantees about their own fundamental and labour rights) and journalists exposing corrupt politicians and powerful manipulators. There is a need for laws effectively stopping the strategic lawsuits against public participation (so-called SLAPP), intended to silence, intimidate or impoverish those who have courage enough to expose powerful enemies of the public interest through abuse of legal instruments (see e.g. see the EU Directive)

Digital Tools

Technology is an essential ingredient in this picture as the building of a public online sphere, the creation and management of online platforms, data protection, cyber security, and the countering of the risks of manipulation, all underlie the arguments already expressed.   

Artificial intelligence is a precious tool to use with caution to make sense, for instance, of the large number of inputs collected through participatory and deliberative democracy channels – see crowdlaw -as well as to check facts. An example may be provided by iVerify, the UNDP’s automated fact-checking tool that can be used to identify false information and prevent and mitigate its spread. It is supported through the UNDP Chief Digital Office and the UNDP Brussels-based Task Force on Electoral Assistance. Yet, a force for good may be misused as a force for evil, and like many tools, it is neutral in essentials.

Balancing ethics and technological advancement is widely understood as one of the current challenges, a topic we can only briefly touch upon here. Another need, not less important, is the improvement of internet governance to guarantee access rights as well as fair conditions to all.

Balancing conflicting interests

Democracy is a multifaceted system that involves managing complexity across various aspects of governance. It encompasses designing policies, adopting legislation, interpreting legislation, choosing the most effective enforcement tools, and managing conflicts. This discourse will delve into how these processes can be facilitated using different tools and approaches.

One key aspect of democracy is mapping needs, which involves understanding the diverse requirements and priorities of the people. By adopting a needs-based approach, policymakers can better identify the issues that require attention and formulate policies accordingly. Furthermore, digitalizing governmental processes can enhance efficiency and accessibility, ensuring that decision-making is transparent and inclusive.

Another crucial element is prioritization, where democratic systems must weigh different concerns and allocate resources accordingly. For example, environmental protection can be prioritized to address pressing ecological challenges. To accomplish this, building partnerships is essential. Initiatives like the UN Partner Portal facilitate collaboration between governments, international organizations, and civil society, fostering coordinated efforts to tackle global issues effectively.

In the democratic context, building synergies is crucial for sustainable development. Balancing environmental policy, economic growth, and human development is a complex task, but it is necessary to ensure comprehensive and well-rounded progress. By identifying common goals and aligning strategies, policymakers can work towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

Building structured dialogues among stakeholders is an important element in this strategy, and it is vital in a democratic framework. This can be achieved through various means, an example is provided in the EU by the AI Alliance.

Also, a culture of collaboration may be developed in the political arena learning from the corporate experience, where team building, role-playing, and other exercises for personal and collective growth are the rule of the day to facilitate interactions foster understanding, strengthen effective approaches to collaboration, and facilitate decision-making. By engaging stakeholders from different sectors and backgrounds – and learning how to better interact with them – policymakers can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of their policies.

However, democracy also entails trade-offs. It is impossible to please everyone, and conflicting interests and opinions are inevitable. Therefore, it becomes crucial to manage these trade-offs effectively using all the aforementioned tools and approaches. By engaging in open and transparent dialogue, weighing the pros and cons, and considering the long-term consequences, policymakers can navigate trade-offs and make informed decisions that may serve the greater good with the support of citizens, also helping them to accept unpopular decisions when beneficial in the long run.

In summary, democracy entails managing complexity across different stages of governance. Through needs mapping, digitalization, prioritization, partnerships, synergies, structured dialogue, and managing trade-offs, democratic systems can address societal challenges and ensure inclusive and effective decision-making.

The evolution of multilateralism

All the tools already mentioned rely on a collaborative approach, among states and other international actors as well as among individuals. Not by chance, the UN Sustainable Development Goals are considered all to be interconnected and the last one (no.17) is “Partnership for the Goals”.

After the era of competition, we all hope to see the dawn of the era of collaboration as a result of the increased interdependence inside the world we live in: multinational, multicultural, multidisciplinary multistakeholder, multilayer, just “multi.”

More than before we see platforms of international actors acting together – as the project “Initiate2” in the area of humanitarian response. Key players from different backgrounds may come together for a result that is more a multiplication than an addition of capacities, expertise, and strength.

The new models are well beyond the dichotomy national/international or even international/supranational, as they involve horizontal, grid collaboration at the transnational level among local authorities or even involving business actors inside multistakeholder partnerships.

Promoting a new economic model intended for the well-being of people and the planet.

Promoting a new economic model that prioritizes the well-being of people and the planet is a crucial endeavour in our contemporary world. To achieve this, several key strategies can be implemented to counter short-termism (what we could call “casino capitalism”), reduce the dominance of finance over actual GDP, foster responsible business practices, protect social and environmental rights, and encourage long-term investments.

One fundamental aspect of promoting a new economic model is countering short-termism. A suggested step towards achieving this is abolishing quarterly reports of companies, which often prioritize short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability. By shifting the focus to longer-term perspectives, businesses can better consider the social and environmental impacts of their actions, leading to more responsible and sustainable practices.

Additionally, reducing the impressive volume of finance compared to actual GDP is vital for a more balanced and equitable economic system. This can be achieved through the implementation of adequate laws and regulations. By enacting measures that address excessive financialization and promote stability, governments can create an environment that aligns financial activities with real economic growth, reducing the risks of speculative bubbles and market instability.

Fostering codes of conduct and human rights instruments for businesses is another essential element. The EU Action Plan on Democracy and Human Rights serves as a valuable example in this regard. By establishing clear guidelines and expectations for corporate behaviour, businesses can be encouraged to operate in a socially and ethically responsible manner, ensuring that human rights are respected throughout their operations.

Furthermore, trade agreements can be instrumental in shaping a new economic model that benefits individuals and protects social and environmental rights. Agreements such as the EU-Canada Trade Agreement (CETA) demonstrate the potential for incorporating provisions that safeguard social and environmental standards, as well as consumers’ rights. By making trade agreements more comprehensive and inclusive, the negative impacts of globalization can be mitigated, ensuring that economic activities contribute to sustainable development.

Spreading knowledge about rights, tools, and enforcement mechanisms to the public at large is crucial for empowering individuals and communities. By enhancing public awareness of their rights, consumers can make informed choices and hold businesses accountable for their actions. Governments and organizations can play a vital role in providing accessible information, educational campaigns, and platforms for public engagement, enabling citizens to actively participate in shaping the economic model that serves their well-being.

Taking care of global public goods at the global level, like the EU’s commitment at the regional/continental level, is essential. Embracing multilateralism and international cooperation allows for the protection of common resources, such as the environment, public health, and peace. By engaging in global initiatives and partnerships, countries can collectively address global challenges and promote sustainable development on a planetary scale.

Encouraging long-term investments is a crucial element of the new economic model. Another interesting proposal that surfaced at the conference is about the use of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) through multilateral development banks for investments. Governments and international financial organizations may facilitate long-term financing for sustainable projects. This approach supports the transition to a more environmentally friendly and socially inclusive economy, promoting innovation and addressing long-term societal needs.

In conclusion, promoting a new economic model that prioritizes the well-being of people and the planet requires a multi-faceted approach. By countering short-termism, reducing the dominance of finance, fostering responsible business practices, protecting social and environmental rights, spreading knowledge to the public, prioritizing global public goods, and encouraging long-term investments, we can create a more sustainable, equitable, and prosperous future. These strategies, combined with multilevel governance, active citizens’ participation at all levels, and international cooperation, can shape an economic model that serves the interests of both present and future generations.

Final Remarks

The Supranational Democracy Dialogue is not just an event series, it is a network, growing year after year as an epistemic community, and it is a lab in itself for multidisciplinary, multistakeholder, intergenerational conversation as well as a place for reflection out of the box, challenging the current narrative about global governance and democracy.

It may appear that such a topic is just too broad for a single conference or even a series, yet, in the long term it is more than that: it is a constant conversation among concerned individuals bringing to the table their own expertise and experience and accepting the challenge to learn new, different perspectives in order to reach a better understanding of current times, to focus and fine-tune their own contribution and to combine it with that provided by other like-minded experts and activists.

My deep gratitude goes to all of them 🙏

THE TOOLKIT FOR ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AT ALL LEVELS, FROM LOCAL TO GLOBAL

composition of assorted service instruments on black surface
Photo by Maddy Freddie on Pexels.com

The last (and fifth) edition of the Supranational Democracy Dialogue – held on May 18-19 – has been a success. We organizers are very proud of it and very grateful to all those who contributed.

As this year’s topic was “Focus on Tools”, we have accomplished putting together a toolkit for active citizens’ engagement. I am really happy to share it and encourage anyone to do the same. Here it is:

THE TOOLKIT FOR ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AT ALL LEVELS,

FROM LOCAL TO GLOBAL

Multilevel democracy – from local to global-  cannot be considered a utopia anymore, but the only reasonable endeavour to ensure well-being and lasting peace in the era of interdependence and interconnectedness. The Supranational Democracy Dialogue (SDD), since its first edition, became a place where like-minded scholars, activists and international professionals exchange ideas and freely discuss proposals and possible solutions. After the adoption of a Manifesto on Supranational Democracy, in the first edition, in 2018 and a Declaration on Deliberative Democracy, published on May 9, 2023, the contributors to the V Edition (“Focus on tools”) shared their thoughts about several democratic instruments for collaboration across national borders which are collected together in the present toolkit. The toolkit may evolve over time just like the SDD network grows, one edition after the other.

I.       The building of a public sphere

  • Communication
  • Visual communication is more immediate and effective
  • Balancing ethos logos and pathos
  • Accuracy as a remedy to manipulation (sharing sources and data)
  • Inclusiveness (overcoming obstacles like the digital divide, finding a way to counter the scarce attention of the main mass media, like TV, to the non-national political dimension)
  • Education and education to democracy
  • Exchange programs;
  • Cross-border collaboration;
  • Cultural rights:
  • Encouraging transnational conversation among civil society actors and among local authorities;
  • Enhancing the recognition of cross-border transnational shared heritage;
  • Developing European and global communication tools.

II.      Civic Participation

There are many different ways to participate in the public conversation in a public space (blogging, signing petitions, demonstrating, joining transnational movements and parties, interacting through public platforms, using litigation and claiming mechanisms, spreading information and countering fake news and hate speech, unmasking manipulation).

–  Open consultations through assemblies at all levels

–  Claiming at all levels to guarantee correct law enforcement and improve it

Following the EU model, UN and UN agencies could have digital platforms to collect opinions on policy papers, claims, and suggestions.

  • Anti-SLAPPs legislations (see EU action against strategic lawsuits against public participation).

III.    Deliberative democracy

  • Citizens assemblies – selected by type, are a scalable tool for bridging the gap between citizens and politicians, at all institutional levels, from local to macroregional – see on that the Manifesto and Blueprint for a European Citizens’ Assembly – towards the global one (see for instance the experimental Global Assembly)
  • Need for
    • Fine-tuning the tool
    • Making it the new normal

(see the Jean Monnet House Declaration)

IV.    Digital Democracy

Technology is instrumental for I and II as well as for deliberation and public consultations. It also allows us to make sense of the huge amount of collected contributions.

Artificial intelligence – as a tool to use with caution – to

  • make sense of the large number of inputs collected through participatory and deliberative democracy channels;
  • for crowdlaw (as a development of the previous point)
  • to check facts (see iVerify)

Main concerns: digital divide, security, privacy, intellectual property, manipulation, silly mistakes.

Need for balancing ethics and technological advancement.

Need for global supranational governance of the Internet and regulation of AI.

V.      Litigation as a tool allowing a public role for individuals

  • Taking a stance for collective rights (exposing governance flaws or claiming old and new collective rights, e.g. climate litigation before domestic courts and international courts and tribunals).
  • Addressing lack of implementation of existing rights (see referring to ECJ for preliminary ruling in EU case law).
  • Acting as whistleblowers (need for effective protection of fundamental and labour rights through whistleblowers protection programs).
  • Exposing corrupt politicians and powerful manipulators as journalists and as informed individuals on social media (need for adequate laws to counter SLAPPs, see the EU Directive).

VI.    The evolution of multilateralism

  • Collaborative approach: multinational, multicultural, multidisciplinary multistakeholder, multilayer
  • Platforms of international actors (ex. Initiate) as key players from different backgrounds integrating different goals and perspectives;
  • Horizontal, transnational grids – as network model;
  • Participation of non-governmental, non-international actors in the partnership for SDGs – as individuals, civil society, local authorities

The involvement of civil society in international decision-making through protests, petitions, consultations, participatory and/or deliberative democracy mechanisms inside international organizations and multistakeholder platforms would greatly enhance democracy.

VII.   Balancing conflicting interests

Democracy is about managing complexity in

  • Designing policies
  • Adopting legislation
  • Interpreting legislation
  • Choosing the better enforcement tools
  • Managing conflicts

How?

  • Mapping needs – needs-based approach.
  • Digitalizing
  • Prioritizing  – (for example, the environment)
  • Building partnerships (for example, UN Partner Portal)
  • Finding synergies (for example, among environmental policy, economic growth, and human development)
  • Building structured dialogue among stakeholders – for example, AI Alliance
  • Role-playing, playing, team-building.

Trade-offs are unavoidable, those too need to be managed with the tools listed above (particularly under paras II, III, IV)

VIII. Promoting a new economic model intended for well-being.

  • Countering short-termism (for example, abolishing quarterly reports of companies) and reducing the impressive volume of finance compared to actual GDP through adequate regulation;
  • Fostering codes of conduct and ensuring that business has a role to play in human rights and democracy instruments (for example, the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy);
  • Making trade agreements work also for individuals, to protect social and environmental rights as well as consumers’ rights (for example, EU-Canada Trade Agreement or CETA);
  • Spreading knowledge about rights, tools and enforcement mechanisms to the public at large;
  • Taking care of global public goods at the global level, as the EU already does at the regional/continental level (back to multilateralism);
  • Encouraging long-term investments (for example, allowing the issuance of SDRs and their use through multilateral development banks);

IX. Developing the SDD network as an epistemic community, and a lab in itself, for multidisciplinary, multistakeholder, intergenerational conversation as well as a place for thinking out of the box, challenging the current narrative about global governance and democracy.

SDD V IS GETTING CLOSER….

V Edition: “FOCUS ON TOOLS”

Brindisi May 18-19, 2023

The University of Salento will host a new edition of the two-day event – the only one of its kind – aimed at bringing together scholars from any background, NGO leaders and activists, and innovative thinkers to discuss together the most significant challenges facing humanity. The event has gained traction over the years being the only one in the world focused on democratic governance beyond borders.

The 2023 edition will be centred on democratic features and tools for governance which could be applied at any level of government from local to global, those that are, in a word, “scalable”.

The seven sessions will be dedicated to: the building of a political public sphere beyond borders; civic participation and citizens’ activism; digital democracy & AI; litigation for the advancement of collective rights; regional integrations and multilateralism; and the balancing of interests which is a responsibility for policymakers as well as for judges.

The main difference with the previous editions is highlighting tools instead of policy areas. Therefore, each session could touch upon different policy areas as case studies or be helpful for all of them in a horizontal way.

In each session, scholars, activists as well as international officers will interact among themselves and engage the audience with the aim of enlarging the perspective and triggering new insights and connections.

As our primary source of inspiration is the UN 2030 agenda, we firmly believe that the Sustainable Development Goals are interconnected. In particular, goal 17 “Partnership for the goals” is the key to unleashing the potential of each of them. Democracy and good governance serve them all.

What makes the 2023 edition particularly interesting is the rich list of international public and private partners supporting it, such as the Brindisi province, United Nations General Service Centre, UNHRD, the Robert Triffin International, Atlas movement, Democracy Without Borders, The Streit Council for a Union of Democracies, CesUE, Euractiv.it, The Democracy School, the Italian Association of International Law Professors (SIDI)– Interest Groups on International Economic Law (SIDI DIEcon) and on Human Rights (DIEDU); Association of Italian Experts of  European Law  (AISDUE)- Forum on International  Projection of European  Union (PIUE); Jean Monnet Chair and modules at Università del Salento.

Among the partners, we are particularly grateful to the Maison Jean Monnet – European Parliament, in Paris, that hosted a preparatory workshop on April 6-7 on European Supranational Democracy and Civic Engagement as a Model for Citizens’ Participation beyond Borders and that will host the entire event in streaming on its Facebook page and to the  Democracy and Culture Foundation, organizer of the Athens Democracy Forum each year in September, as they are willing to support this unique event as the external projection of their core topic in a post-national perspective.

Finally, we are very grateful to the online open-access academic journal Athena. Critical Enquiries on Law, Philosophy and Globalization will host – in a special section – papers presented in Brindisi.