By Sylvia Mesesi
The Summit of the Future, held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 22-23, 2024, brought together representatives and delegates from across the globe. The Summit aimed to address pressing global challenges and resulted in several key outcome documents. These include the Pact for the Future, the most comprehensive and detailed of the agreements, the Global Digital Compact, which focuses on technology and digital governance, and the Declaration for Future Generations, which emphasizes the protection and well-being of future generations.
The Pact for the Future
Notably, there was a surprising lack of significant media coverage on this document prior to its adoption, despite its critical role in outlining the ambitions for the future. This raises legitimate concerns about transparency. Decisions and documents of such magnitude, which directly impact the global population, should be openly discussed and accessible to the public. People have the right to be informed and to scrutinize documents that concern their future.
- Legal Implications
In international law, treaties and agreements form the foundation for cooperation and mutual benefit among nations. These binding documents may be called treaties, agreements, accords, or pacts, but their legal purpose remains the same. If a document is binding under international law, its designation, whether pact or otherwise, does not alter its binding nature.
Regarding the Pact for the Future, there is debate over whether it is legally binding. Ideally, this document is meant to serve as a guiding framework for the United Nations in conducting its affairs to achieve its objectives. However, if governments sign the document, it becomes legally binding, transforming it into "hard law" under the principles of the Vienna Convention. Thus, regardless of whether a pact is considered legally binding, once governments sign, it carries the force of law.
Another legal aspect of this document is the claim that it was adopted by consensus. Adoption by consensus occurs when a treaty, agreement, or pact is accepted without a formal vote. This is often based on the understanding that no member state objects strongly enough to block the decision. In this case, however, the process did not fully align with this definition. Several nations, including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, proposed amendments. These amendments emphasized on national sovereignty and the limiting of influence of civil society and private sector interests. Despite these objections, the Pact was still adopted, with the argument that no reservation was strong enough to halt its adoption.
This raises the question of how the "strength" of objections is determined. What criteria were used to decide that some objections were not strong enough? It is likely that the UN did not tolerate any objections and pushed to pass the documents via consensus since these types of documents can eventually evolve into customary international law. Customary international law is considered binding, which therefore strengthens the Pact. That is why many countries probably abstained from voting at the Summit for the Future.
- Global Governance
What is also remarkable about this Pact is how prevalent the themes of multilateralism and international cooperation are. While these themes themselves are not inherently negative, they are only beneficial as long as they respect national sovereignty. The United Nations however positions itself as the sole entity capable of addressing global crises. The document advocates for increased multilateralism to confront global challenges, emphasizing a centralized approach to global governance. It states, "We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the center, must be strengthened to keep pace with a changing world."
However, concerns have been raised regarding the expanding authority of the UN Secretary-General. Phrases such as "We urge the Secretary-General to" or "We request the Secretary-General to" appear frequently in the text, highlighting the potential for significant power concentration. This could diminish national sovereignty, consolidating decision-making power at the UN level. While UN organs are meant to operate independently, the Pact appears to grant the Secretary-General influence over other UN bodies, potentially violating the UN Charter. This raises an important question: how is this not a shift of power from sovereign states to a centralized global authority?
Another contentious issue is the push for global taxation, which can be viewed as an open move towards global governance. The UN has circulated policy briefs in support of the Pact, reinforcing the global governance narrative. This has prompted calls for increased vigilance and resistance from national leaders.
The concept of "global complex shocks" also raises concern. This shock is a certain event that has huge impact on the world whereby the Secretary-General can make decisions. The definition is however so broad that nearly any event could be classified as such. This would grant the Secretary-General significant control and authority over resources in response to these shocks. Such concentrated power in the hands of one individual raises concerns about accountability and balance.
- Excluded Foundations
The document noticeably omits any mention of the promotion of the traditional family, despite its focus on future generations. Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) highlights the importance of the family and the state's mandate to protect it. Although the Pact for the Future repeatedly claims to reaffirm the UDHR, it makes no reference to safeguarding the family, which is universally recognized as the fundamental unit of society. Given the document’s wide-ranging focus, including issues like space exploration and artificial intelligence, the absence of any mention of the family can be viewed as a remarkable error.
The Pact consistently declares that its aim is to "leave no one behind." However, in practice, certain groups and perspectives seem marginalized. Religious beliefs, which are central to around 85% of the global population, appear to be largely excluded from this and many other UN documents. This is particularly ironic for an organization that emphasizes inclusion. Furthermore, conservative voices are often sidelined, despite the UN’s stated commitment to promoting diverse viewpoints.
Another contentious issue is the promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR). The document explicitly states its intention to ensure universal access to SRHR, which remains a controversial topic. SRHR has never been universally accepted in any binding UN document. Additionally, SRHR has previously been linked to the provision of abortion services, which raises ethical concerns. However, the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action acknowledges the role of parents in guiding and directing sexual and reproductive matters. Had the Pact acknowledged this role, the usage of the term would have been more balanced, especially on sexuality education.
- Information control
The United Nations has also faced criticism for labeling dissenting opinions as misinformation or disinformation, effectively suppressing alternative viewpoints that challenge the narrative supporting the Pact for the Future. Allegations have surfaced that platforms like Google and others manipulate search algorithms to obscure information that contradicts the UN’s position, thereby restricting public debate. This suppression raises concerns about the transparency and openness of the dialogue surrounding the Pact.
Increasingly, there are accusations that labeling information as misinformation or disinformation is being used to stifle dissent. This tactic prevents meaningful debate and silences voices that offer critical perspectives on key elements of the Pact for the Future.
- Turbocharging the SDGs
The Pact for the Future can also be seen as an accelerated push to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the SDGs themselves have been criticized for being overly complex and difficult to achieve. There is also concern about the lack of emphasis on the family unit and the promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR).
Additionally, the document’s focus on climate change has been criticized for being alarmist. While environmental crises are a genuine concern, portraying climate change as an imminent global catastrophe can overshadow other urgent priorities. Instead of fueling panic, efforts should be focused on pragmatic solutions to the broad range of challenges facing the world today.
- Recommendation and Opposition
It is luckily not too late to take action. Leaders and governors should publicly declare their opposition to certain elements of the Pact and refuse to move forward with its implementation. One course of action is to pause UN funding until greater transparency is ensured. In particular, there is a growing call to reject the Pandemic Treaty, which threatens the health autonomy of states by concentrating too much authority in centralized global institutions. National sovereignty must therefore be protected.
- Assessing its Necessity
While the Pact for the Future introduces a focus on artificial intelligence (AI) and digital governance through the Global Digital Compact, it largely overlaps with existing treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Many of its objectives are long-standing commitments, raising concerns about redundancy and whether revitalizing existing agreements could simply have been enough. Additionally, while the Pact seeks to address global shocks, it provides little explanation as to why previous mechanisms, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, are inadequate. This lack of clarity questions the necessity of the Pact beyond its focus on AI and emerging technologies.
Global Digital Compact
The Global Digital Compact, the second document, focuses on managing data, artificial intelligence (AI), the internet, and broader technological developments. It is groundbreaking in being the first international document to address AI at this level, yet it surprisingly received little media coverage. Public awareness of this initiative remains limited, raising concerns about transparency. These provisions maybe perceived as a potential move toward centralized control of technology and AI. It is however important to acknowledge the positive intent behind it. The vision to combat cybercrime and enhance global digital security is commendable.
Declaration on Future Generations
The Declaration on Future Generations, the third and last document, is intended to secure the wellbeing of generations yet to come. However, a fundamental question arises: how can we ensure future generations if the traditional family, the foundation of society, is not supported? The document’s lack of emphasis on the traditional family, which is key to the existence and nurturing of future generations, seems counterintuitive to its stated goals. The family unit is essential in fostering the continuity of societies, and its omission from this declaration may undermine efforts to secure a sustainable future for the generations that will follow.
Conclusion
The documents emerging from the Summit of the Future do present a bold vision for tackling global issues. However, their necessity and effectiveness will depend on how they are implemented. This ensures that diverse perspectives are genuinely included and that mechanisms for accountability remain robust. As the world navigates these complex challenges, a more balanced approach will be essential for the lasting success of these initiatives.
Sylvia Mesesi is CCI Policy Officer Africa