Category: Commentary

Urban development remains one of the most pressing issues faced by both the Global North and South. According to UN Habitat, 96,000 new affordable housing units must be constructed per day to provide adequate housing for up to 3 billion people by 2030, currently without it. This target may seem daunting; however, it is one that must be accomplished to fulfil the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Yet the future of urban development cannot be solved without the application of systems thinking. Systems thinking involves a holistic approach to problem solving, by analysing all the components of a given structure that may influence the problem and deriving root causes, thus offering durable, long-term solutions.  The importance of systems thinking in developing solutions for the future of urban development was the topic of the Global Academy for Future Governance’s latest event, which involved a number of notable expert problem solvers including: former Chair of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat; Intl Rector of the President University Dr. Ing. John Scott Younger; Co-Founder and Vice-President of the World Creativity Organisation, Edna dos Santos-Duisenberg and the former UNCTAD Creative Industries head and its originator; Professor of architecture, Dr. Ian Banerjee as well as co-founders of Mission Future, Dr. Hubertus and Yvonne Hoffman, with the current Secretary General of the Organisation of American States, Albert Ramdin being invited too.

The Multifaceted Nature of Urban areas

Cities are considered some of the primary drivers behind economic, social and political development. Throughout history – stretching from the great centers of antiquity such as Babylon, Athens and Rome to modern-day metropolises like New York City, Tokyo and London – urban areas have served as locations attracting innovators, thinkers and entrepreneurs. Therefore, it is not surprising that historically urbanisation has been associated with increased economic prosperity. Indeed, with the onset of the industrial revolution what can be described as a second urban revolution occurred, with a fundamental shift toward urban living across the world.

In 2025, the World Bank reported that approximately 4 billion people lived in urban areas, the highest number ever recorded. These numbers can be considered a reflection of high intensity growth, specifically across the Global South. A discussion on the importance of cities as engines of growth was introduced by Moussa Faki Mahamat, and offered substantial insight into the role of urbanisation in pan-African development.

Despite bringing a multitude of benefits, urban development holds risks. The experience of urbanisation across the world has demonstrated that without proper management cities can become centers for disease and pollution. Furthermore, the stratification of cities can contribute to a rise in criminal activity and political violence. Unchecked, this can lead to a legacy of violence stunting local development. Finally, a lack of opportunities for self-expression and education can lead to an epidemic of substance abuse.

Perhaps the most pressing question in contemporary urban development, however, is a lack of affordable housing. Concerns about affordable housing have emerged in part to avoid historical errors. Initial urban growth in Europe, for example, was driven by free market dynamics accommodating for increased internal migration, with little oversight from municipal administrations. This led to the rise of irregular, low-quality housing, which was built without regard for social or ecological impact. Unfortunately, this tendency has been replicated across the Global South, making the provision of regular, affordable housing vital to avoid the further growth of irregular housing.

Areas in the Global North have remedied the lack of affordable housing through social housing initiatives. However, they have been unable to accommodate increased demand from a growing population, leaving younger generations with greater difficulty when acquiring housing. Meanwhile, building new housing has become difficult due to administrative barriers and local concerns. Therefore, urban planners across the world are faced with the need for innovative solutions for the provision of affordable housing.

Systems Thinking and Urban Development

By applying systems thinking to urban development, decision makers recognise the complex nature of urban areas as political and social constructs (eg. Selection of particular neighborhood that cumulatively impacts broader economic and political developments). The following logic even applies to what are often considered politically neutral decisions- such as the architectural style applied to new housing units- as the style applied can have significant impacts on the self-perception of citizens, as well as the cities culture.

Therefore, by treating cities as living organisms which are defined by their various component parts, as well as influenced by national and global trends, specific problems can be addressed comprehensively, rather than superficially. This idea was specifically brought up by Chancellor Dr. Scott Younger, who accentuated the importance of a holistic approach in modern urban development. Particularly, the building of new social housing initiatives without accompanying expansions in green areas, as well as improved access to healthcare, wouldn’t be a durable solution as the quality of new housing would likely be insufficient to break generational poverty cycles. Therefore, improvements in urban living conditions aren’t merely a process guided by technocratic reforms, but ones that require constant communication between citizens and local administrations. As cities grow larger, with an increasing number of “mega-cities” with upward of 10 million residents, creating spaces for such interactions becomes increasingly different.

One potential interlocutor between citizens and urban administrations can be the creative industry. The creative industry, as pointed out by Director Edna dos Santos-Duissenberg occupies a unique niche within urban spaces by providing an avenue for self-expression. Thus, through participation in the creative industry, residents can express their opinions on community issues in a peaceful and subtle way. However, the importance of the creative industry stretches beyond its role in enhancing political participation. It is further an important element in ensuring citizens health, by serving to relieve stress, build community ties and develop alternatives to non-socially beneficial activities such as substance abuse. Initiatives, such as World Creative Day, and companies like the World Creativity Organization, are an important node in giving visibility and organising creative industry workers especially across the global south, making their work vital toward the future of urban development.

Creativity, in general, is a skill that is vital for the proper applications of systems-thinking as illustrated by Dr. Ian Banerjee. His research has particularly focused on how urban planners can re-design spaces to create a better living environment. Architects in Tirana, for example, re-designed a pyramidal structure previously associated with the authoritarian regime into an educational space and meeting place for start-ups. In this way, a building previously used unproductively and heavily associated with historical trauma was re-conceptualised as a symbol of Tirana’s broader urban renewal. Therefore, buildings aren’t merely living spaces, but often carry deeper symbolism that helps frame the reputation of a city, and the ways in which residents conceive themselves.

Two other concrete case studies in the application of systems thinking toward issues associated with urban development were brought up by Dr. Hubertus Hoffman and Yvonne Hoffman: Vienna and Singapore. Both Singapore and Vienna implemented wide-ranging social housing initiatives, however their approach differed significantly. Vienna, being governed by a socialist municipal government, undertook a state-driven approach to urban development which aimed to limit the role of private operators. This approach proved successful in Vienna due to a broad political alignment between the municipal administration and the citizens. As a result, Vienna is a global leader in the amount of housing owned by the municipal administration, with at least 200,000 housing units being provided as a form of public housing. Singapore followed a different approach. The government created a separate institution for the construction of housing, known as the Housing and Development Board (HDB), which engaged in the construction of new affordable housing. However, unlike social housing initiatives in Vienna, the HDB continued to act within the framework of the market.  

Toward systems thinking

As useful as systems thinking is when approaching problems in contemporary urban development, its utilisation can support both private and public leaders across business sectors. The event organised by the Global Academy for Future Governance focused on urban development as an illustration of a practical use-case of systems thinking in problem solving for a contemporary issue.

Yet, despite the widely accepted general benefits of a systems thinking approach, many organisations find it difficult to implement. For one, a proper application of systems thinking often requires problem solvers to utilize inter-disciplinary approaches to synthesise a methodology rooted in engineering with problems typically explored by social scientists. Additionally, it can be difficult to zoom out from a person’s own perspective, shaped by ideological beliefs, background and personal desires, to provide an unbiased analysis of structural faults. Most importantly, when faced with urgent problems providing a holistic overview can be time consuming and exhausting.  

As a truly global advisory, the Global Academy for Future Governance can offer significant support to leaders looking to apply systems thinking to find solutions. The Global Academy has a track record as a reliable and neutral partner, which has remained independent of global political developments. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the Global Academy can rely on a network of its global partners who provide fast-paced deployment, tailored to organisational needs. T

he ability of the GAFG to support in the integration of a systems thinking approach the public and corporate sector partners is attested to by the active discussions held by the speakers. Whether leaders choose to move independently, or with the help of external support, applying systems thinking may prove to be one of the greatest factors behind durable success in the current geo-economic climate. As issues lose their localised character, and become increasingly complex, finding solutions must be based on tackling systems holistically. The Global Academy for Future Governance looks forward to exploring this topic further in our next event on Litigation and International Arbitration in the age of AI, held on 26 March.

Authors:

Annelie Marchsteiner is an EU Junior Ambassador and active EYP Austria member dedicated to strengthening international relations and democratic dialogue, focusing her advocacy on the intersection of European cooperation and structural social reform.

Dmitriy Genchev is an Information Officer at the Global Academy for Future Governance (GAFG) and an active contributor to a number of policy think tanks. His research focuses on the political economy of the Balkan region, geo-politics in the Greater Horn of Africa and EU energy policy.

Efficiency, Legitimacy and the Future of Adjudication

Artificial intelligence is no longer an auxiliary technological resource. It has become a
structural component of contemporary legal practice. In international arbitration in particular,
AI is reshaping not only procedural efficiency but the epistemological architecture of
decision-making itself.

In my recent book, The Practice of Law and International Arbitration in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence, I argue that AI must be understood not as a substitute for human judgment, but
as a cognitive extension of it. From document analysis and predictive modelling to natural
language processing and blockchain-assisted contracting, AI tools are redefining the
operational reality of arbitral proceedings. Yet efficiency alone cannot justify their
integration. The legitimacy of arbitration depends on fairness, transparency, and the
preservation of procedural guarantees.

These themes are further developed in my article, Artificial Intelligence and International
Arbitration: Ethical, Procedural and Regulatory Challenges under the New CIArb
Guidelines, published in the Journal of Internet Law (Wolters Kluwer; February 2026).
There, I examine the 2025 CIArb Guidelines as a pivotal normative moment in the
governance of AI within arbitration. The Guidelines recognise the inevitability of
technological integration while insisting upon principles of human oversight, accountability,
data protection and procedural transparency.

The central tension is therefore clear: how can arbitral institutions and practitioners harness
AI’s capacity to optimise evidence review, procedural management and decision support,
without undermining party autonomy, equality of arms and the right to be heard?
AI-assisted arbitration introduces a fourth structural actor into proceedings: the algorithm.
When algorithms assist in identifying relevant documents, modelling reasoning pathways or
supporting drafting functions, they influence outcomes — even if indirectly. This raises
questions that go beyond technical compliance. Can an award remain fully legitimate if
essential analytical steps are shaped by systems whose internal logic may not be entirely
transparent? Who bears responsibility when algorithmic tools materially affect legal
reasoning?

Beyond efficiency, AI is also transforming the cognitive environment in which arbitration
operates. Predictive systems can identify patterns in awards, litigation outcomes, and judicial
behaviour, potentially influencing strategic choices long before a hearing begins. While this
enhances analytical precision, it may also generate new asymmetries between technologically
equipped parties and those with limited digital resources. In this sense, AI not only
accelerates arbitration but subtly reshapes its balance of power.

Moreover, the regulatory landscape is evolving unevenly across jurisdictions. While the
European Union advances a risk-based regulatory framework for AI and institutions such as
CIArb provide soft-law guidance, other regions remain at the policy or strategy stage. This
regulatory asymmetry creates additional complexity for international disputes involving
multiple legal cultures and technological standards. Cross-border enforceability of awards
may, in future, intersect with questions of algorithmic integrity and procedural transparency.
The debate, therefore, is not whether AI should be used in international arbitration — it
already is. The true question is how to structure its use in a manner that enhances procedural
integrity rather than dilutes it.

At the forthcoming conference Litigation and International Arbitration in the Age of AI (26
March 2026), hosted by the Global Academy for Future Governance – globally operating
consultancy organization with over 850 experts and 360 partners from 100 countries around
the world, and its event’s supporters, these issues will be addressed from a multidisciplinary
perspective, examining legality, authenticity, morality, trust and compliance in the digital era.
The GAFG half-day conference will particularly emphasize professional responsibility,
confidentiality and data protecting whilst dwelling on judicial attitudes towards AI assisted
lawyering. It will contextualize how predictive analysis and generative technologies can find
their space in the courtroom, in a manner that is both ethical yet futuristic.

The future of arbitration will not be decided by technology alone. It will depend on whether
we succeed in aligning innovation with the foundational values of justice. Artificial
intelligence can accelerate proceedings, expand access to justice and improve analytical
rigour — but only if governed by coherent ethical and regulatory frameworks grounded in
human responsibility.

The age of AI is not the end of human adjudication. It is a test of its resilience.

---

About the Author

Dr Fernando Messias is a lawyer, arbitrator and mediator, specializing in international arbitration, international trade law, corporate strategy and competition law, with extensive experience in complex cross-border disputes and commercial negotiations. He is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb).

Dr Messias is the author of The Practice of Law and International Arbitration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Springer, 2025), where he explores the intersection between AI, law and adjudication, with particular emphasis on ethical governance and procedural
integrity.

(Lessons from Iceland, Bhutan, and New Zealand)

“It is not the walls that make the prison, but the prisoners themselves.”
— Mak Dizdar

Caught by two Guernicas, which we frivolously call conflicts – one Semitic and the other inter-Slavic – of uncertain ends and its beginnings, and trapped in a cycle of confrontational multispatial despair, the European continent finds itself demoralized and disoriented, deindustrialised and disenfranchised. Hot rhetoric does not warm up a steep, cold recession. As it witnesses loss of its geopolitical centrality, the unravelling of global cooperation – to say; slowbalisation, internal depopulation, collapsing social cohesion and fracturing cross-generational contract, Europe desperately searches not just for stability, but for its moral triumph.

What could mark such a turning point? Is the strategic decoupling and geo-economic binarization a way out? Is there, on the horizon of an attainable future, a model of renewal—one grounded not in abstract geopolitical ambition, but in the tangible, lived well-being of its people? In seeking an answer, Europe might look not to its (selectively interpreted) past or (deceiving) power, but to its priorities.

Iceland, Bhutan, New Zealand: Three Roads to Rethinking Prosperity

In a world often driven by economic growth metrics such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), some nations have dared to redefine what it means to thrive. Rather than chasing purely financial gains, countries like Iceland, Bhutan, and New Zealand have taken bold steps to prioritize the holistic well-being of their citizens. Iceland’s recent shift to a nationwide four-day workweek, Bhutan’s long-standing focus on Gross National Happiness (GNH), and New Zealand’s reimagined budgeting framework centered on well-being illustrate three distinct, yet deeply aligned, approaches to redefining progress in the 21st century.

Iceland: A Work-Life Revolution

Since 2019, Iceland has been at the forefront of an innovative experiment in workplace reform. Through a series of trials led by Reykjavík City Council and the national government, the country tested reduced working hours for thousands of workers without a drop in pay (Haraldsson & Kellam, 2021). The results were overwhelmingly positive: improved work-life balance, lower stress levels, and in many cases, even higher productivity.

The Icelandic model challenges the assumption that more hours equal more output. It also generated ripple effects in gender equality. Men and women reported greater sharing of domestic duties and child-rearing responsibilities, making the shorter workweek not only a labor reform but also a cultural shift.

Unlike most current narratives that link the introduction of new technologies (such as AI) with massive joblessness, Icelandic case is a strikingly bright. This transformation reflects a broader national commitment to well-being, mental health, and equity. Iceland’s success reveals that redefining the workweek can improve both quality of life and economic performance. Simply, the new technologies can bring the self-realisation for many, not just a profit for the few.

Bhutan: Happiness Over GDP, Development over Growth

Bhutan stands as a global benchmark in its official rejection of GDP as the sole measure of progress. Since the 1970s, the country has embraced Gross National Happiness (GNH), a development philosophy structured around nine domains, including psychological well-being, health, education, good governance, and ecological diversity (Ura et al., 2012). This multidimensional model is designed to ensure that material growth does not come at the expense of spiritual and environmental integrity.

Bhutan’s policies reflect this philosophy. The country is not only carbon-negative—absorbing more carbon than it emits—but also constitutionally mandated to preserve at least 60% forest cover (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2008). Tourism is limited to minimize cultural and ecological disruption, and all national planning must pass through a GNH policy screening tool. Personal happiness in Bhutan is a constitutionally guaranteed category.

The Club of Rome warned in its landmark 1972 report Limits to Growth that unchecked economic and population growth would inevitably collide with the planet’s finite resources (Meadows et al., 1972). Bhutan’s development philosophy can be seen as a rare real-world embodiment of this insight: a country designing its policies around planetary boundaries before surpassing them. Bhutan is not against economic growth but it prioritises social development, following the 3M matrix: maximum good for the maximum species over the maximum time.

New Zealand: The Wellbeing Budget

In 2019, New Zealand launched the world’s first “Wellbeing Budget,” a fiscal framework prioritizing citizen well-being over short-term economic growth. Spearheaded by then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and its Finance Minister Grant Robertson, the initiative aimed to address systemic issues like mental health, child poverty, and indigenous inequality (New Zealand Treasury, 2019).

Instead of merely focusing on GDP or deficit targets, policies were evaluated based on how they improved life satisfaction, social cohesion, and long-term health outcomes. For example, major investments were funnelled into mental health services and the support of marginalized communities, such as the Māori and Pasifika populations.

As economist Thomas Piketty notes in Capital and Ideology, “Every human society must justify its inequalities: unless reasons for them are found, the whole political and social edifice stands to collapse” (Piketty, 2020, p. 6). Iceland, Bhutan, and New Zealand (as well as sporadically the Latin American examples, such as those of Uruguay, Argentina, Peru, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico) implicitly answer this challenge by reducing structural inequities and embedding well-being into their policy frameworks.

A Global Movement Toward Well-Being

While the specifics differ, Iceland, Bhutan, and New Zealand all embody a significant shift in national priorities. They challenge the dominant global narrative that defines success in purely economic terms. Their experiences show that it is possible to elevate health, equality, sustainability, and happiness without sacrificing prosperity.

This trend is timely. The world today faces an epidemic of burnout, climate emergencies, collapsing social cohesions, rising inequality and over-militarisation instead of good neighbourly collective security. The traditional growth-at-all-costs model is no longer adequate. Neither more products lead to prosperity, nor do increased security expenditures translate into greater stability and safety. The Limits to Growth report predicted systemic collapse unless societies transitioned away from the pursuit of endless material expansion (Meadows et al., 1972). That warning, echoed decades later by doctors, sociologists, and economists alike, is more urgent than ever.

As Piketty (2014) writes, “The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social, and political systems interact” (p. 20). These three countries, along with the numerous earlier examples, offer a model of interaction that fosters dignity, justice, inclusion and cohesion over mere expansion.

The Right to an Analog Life and Mental Balance in the Age of Overdigitalised, Contactless Society

In parallel with structural economic reforms, any meaningful shift toward well-being in Europe must also acknowledge the psychological and social toll of constant digital exposure. The latest acceleration of digital platforms into nearly all aspects of life—work, education, governance, and even leisure—has created what many now call an always-on culture. This has not only blurred the boundaries between public and private life, real or simulated, but also contributed to rising levels of anxiety, burnout, and digital fatigue, especially among younger – increasingly contactless – generations.

A recovery plan rooted in well-being must defend what could be termed basic liberty -the right to an analogue life—the right to meaningful offline time, unmediated by screens, algorithms, or notifications. Public institutions, workplaces, and schools should actively promote “analogue weekends,” nature immersion programs, and screen-free zones to restore attention, mental balance, and human connection.

As Erich Fromm foresightedly observed, modern individuals risk becoming “having” rather than “being”, caught in a mode of existence dominated by possession and consumption rather than authentic experience and presence (Fromm, 1976, p. 41). Protecting analogue space and slowness is not a nostalgic act but a strategic investment in mental resilience and civic cohesion in an overstimulated age, especially for the younger cohorts of our societies. (Analogue retreat modalities, as e.g. these offered by the Global Academy for Future Governance, are valuable models for reflection, reloading, and adjustment.)

A Recovery Plan for the Union and its Candidate Countries

In contrast, much of the European Union—and particularly its candidate countries—grapples with structural stagnation. Regional inequalities, youth unemployment, demographic decline, and democratic erosion (voters’ apathy) reflect a broader crisis of legitimacy and purpose. While the EU’s brief recovery (through quantitative easing) offered a short-term lift, deeper structural problems remain unresolved.

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis argues that Europe’s economic framework is often driven by technocratic logic that isolates fiscal policy from democratic control (Varoufakis, 2017). In his works, he advocates for radical democratization of economic life, public investment in green technology, and replacing extractive capitalism with participatory models (Varoufakis, 2020) – similar to the Yugoslav socially (not, a state owned) self-management models, the so-called self-managing interest communities of labour (so-called SIZ and OUR). These ideas, previously implemented in Yugoslavia, Spain (Mondragon), Parecon (Albert-Hahnel initiative), Worker-Owned Cooperatives (e.g., USA, Argentina, Italy), and Israeli Kibbutzim, align strongly with the well-being-centred governance models recently implemented in Iceland, Bhutan, and New Zealand.[i]

A European recovery plan inspired by these examples would involve six strategic actions:

1. Institutionalizing Well-Being, Inequality reductions, Equitable socity: The EU should formally integrate well-being metrics—such as the OECD Better Life Index—into funding and evaluation frameworks, particularly within cohesion and pre-accession policy. It should be coupled with the quality education and healthcare, progressive taxation and social safety nets, supporting vulnerable populations, affordable housing, combating generational discrimination, and fostering similar socio-economic and demographic opportunities for the population at large; self-realisation and self-enhancement;
2. Reforming Labour Structures: As Iceland has done, Europe should pilot shorter workweeks, flexible work hours, and universal care programs. These changes would directly target burnout and improve work-life balance across generations. In short, technology should work for people, not against them – coupling human development and the overall advancement of working age populations with growth, driven by innovative technologies;
3. Generational Transition and Youth Employment: Europe must address the growing crisis of long-term youth unemployment and underemployment. Lasting cross-generational contract as well as the generational renewal requires major investment in training, green and digital skills, apprenticeships, and pathways into meaningful work. A “New Deal for Youth” could prevent the economic disillusionment and migration that threaten demographic balance in many parts of Europe;
4. Demographic Renewal, Orderly migrations: Low birth rates and an aging population, especially in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, pose structural risks to social compact and sustainability. Policies that combine work-life balance (such as childcare access and parental leave), housing affordability, maternity assistance, and youth retention strategies are crucial. Without generational renewal, Europe’s welfare systems and democratic institutions risk stagnation. Europe must address root causes of forced migrations, and support repatriation of economic migrants’ and welfare nomads by linking it to economic development of the migrants’ regions of origin;
5. Oversecuritisation and Environmental Limits, Green Investment: Echoing the Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), Europe must refrain from warmongering and declarative overmilitarisation, while urgently redefining its neighbourhood policies (Arctic policy, Eastern policy, EURO-Med Barcelona Process reinvigoration, trans-Atlantic policy balanced for inclusion of Central and Latina America). Green (demilitarised) investments primarily should secure clean and reliable sources of energy but also modes of transportation across continental Europe – such as high-speed rail networks. Over-excessive computing power build up goes in the same, unnecessary consumption of resources, direction.[ii] Simply, the digital world pollutes the analogue — and it must be restrained. Such a transition – towards sustainable infrastructure, local resilience, and ecological regeneration – should not be viewed as a cost but as a generational obligation. Not a burden but an opportunity;
6. Democratizing Policy-Making: Inspired by Varoufakis’ calls for economic democratization and the previous Yugoslav self-management model including SDK (the fee-less monetary/finance infrastructure system),[iii] the EU should expand participatory governance through citizen assemblies, regional councils, social and cross-generational dialogue. These mechanisms would help reverse trust and democracy deficits and ensure that younger generations feel heard in decision-making processes.

Towards Europe’s renewal

Iceland, Bhutan, and New Zealand each represent a distinct but converging trend in governance: the prioritization of well-being over traditional economic performance. Whether through a shortened workweek, happiness-based development, or a well-being-oriented budget, these countries are forging paths toward a more humane and sustainable future.

Thomas Piketty’s work reinforces the need for such rethinking. As he argues, the persistence of inequality cannot be understood apart from the systems that produce and justify it. The Club of Rome warned decades ago that the planet itself cannot sustain the dominant economic models we inherited. Yanis Varoufakis adds that democracy must return to the heart of economic design, of already successfully tested Yugoslav model of social ownership, self-management.[iv]

For the EFTA, the EU and its candidate countries, this is not just a moment for economic repair—but one for generational renewal. With a bold shift toward well-being, inclusion, youth empowerment, and the urgent need to tackle overfinancialization, overdigitalisation, oversecuritasation and overconsumption along with the ecological limits, Europe can build a new foundation for prosperity—one that serves both its people, planetary raw-model for many generations to come.

Moral triumph attainable?

Finally, will Europe be able to triumph morally ever again? The main obstacles to such a mastery, especially considering the Continent’s loss of initiative on the international arena, can be outlined as follows:

• Internal fragmentation (disagreements and inconsistences);
• External dependences diluting Europe’s autonomy (on the US for security, Chine for trade, Russia for energy, and southern and eastern peripheries for demographic compensation);
• Moral inconsistences (dubious arms sales, selective observance of human rights, rule of law, democracy and humanitarian law within and beyond the Continent);
• Post-colonial lapses and Historical amnesia (imperial past burden, patronisation of Global south, subtle jingoism in education media and culture);
• Economic prioritisation over principles (profits driven deals over moral imperatives, historical obligations and legal commitments);
• Loss of soft powers and cultural leadership as the main power of Europe on the global stage (for a long while, Europe held monopoly of historical vertical, beacon of humanism and moral reservoir).  

In brief, the Continent’s main obstacle to moral triumph is not a lack of values, but a lack of coherent, principled, and decisive actionto defend and promote them in a fragmented, interest-driven global system. Without genuine leadership, unity, collective (not selective) security as stipulated by the Helsinki accords and the Charter, strategic independence and coherence, as well as the courage to accept economic and political costs for moral leadership, Europe risks further irrelevance on the world stage.

Bhutan or Nepal, simply choice.[v]

---

[i] It is worth noting the real attempts to respect labour autonomy and the self-realisation of society as a whole (that leaned on the Antonio Gramsci and, Herbert Marcuse’ as well as on the works of Erik Olin Wright, Murray Bookchin, Michael Polanyi and the Pareconese; Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel). Still, considering its global recognition and the contemporary context, the thinker closest to it is Hayek: And well, it is the Yugoslav Self-management system that is the most thorough and elaborate realisation of the basic Hayek’s (socio-)economic theory. Both –his theory as well as the Yugoslav practice– regar-ded the following as central to the very success of a society: (i) Decentralisation; (ii) Optimisation of the market mechanisms; (iii) Limits to the central planning; (iv) Freedom and Autonomy enhancement. Surely, while Hayek was primarily attuned to the pure economic needs, the Yugoslav system demonstrated great attention to overall societal well-being (eliminating many of the hidden costs).

[ii] Human brain has an effective computing power of about ten to 100 petaflops (quadrillions of operations per second). The most powerful computes that we have today in general use in the world are also rated at about ten to 100 petaflops. The only problem is that each such a device is the size of living room, cost some €200 million, untold heat and related primary and secondary pollutions, annually producing an electricity bill of some €3 million.    

[iii] It is absolutelyfascinating and insightful to compare theblockchainand Yugoslavia’s SDK (Social Bookkeeping Service/ Služba društvenog knjigovodstva). Hence, the author of this text is inviting researchers and practicioners to study SDK system for the futher betterments of the banking/finance systems. Though very different in terms of technology and historical context, the two do share conceptual similarities in how they manageaccountability, fees, decentralization, and transparency. Yugoslavia’s SDK was, in many ways, a proto-blockchain idea in a centralized socially owned form: (i) It functioned like a clearing house or state ledger, charging NO fees for its services. Hence, it was apublic service, not a profit-seeking institution; (ii) It embedded trust and compliance into the decentralised financial infrastructure; (iii) It offered transparency and control, by centralized social oversight and public recordkeeping; (iv) It pursued systemic accountability, much like blockchain aims to do today; (v) It enjoyed full support and trust from the entire community, as it was genuine and rooted in its own society.

[iv] One of the most influential figures in literature, politics and culture of the modern age, Jean-Paul Sartre famously claimed: “Yugoslavia is the realization of my philosophy.” In the same tone, Britain’s King Charles III (then Prince), speaking to the media in early 1970s — as Director Zbanic beautifully reminds us in her latest work, nominated for an 2026 Oscar — says, “The Yugoslav self-management model deserves a closer look, as it might be indispensable for the stability and prosperity of Europe.”

[v] It refers to the recent massive popular revolt against all three major political parties – both ruling and opposition – driven by unbearable social and economic disparities in Nepalese society. The discontent, that turned violent and resulted in the deaths, injuries and hasty flight abroad of government officials and their family members, was fuelled by chronic, unsolved issues such as youth unemployment, corruption, lack of access to quality education and healthcare, and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Author: Anis H. Bajrektarevic          

Author is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He authored ten books. His latest title: Justice and Home Affairs Diplomacy has been released earlier this year in the US. He can be reached at anis@corpsdiplomatique.cd 

---

References

Haraldsson, G. D., & Kellam, J. (2021). Going public: Lessons from Iceland’s journey to a shorter working week. Alda – Association for Sustainability and Democracy. https://autonomy.work/portfolio/icelandsww/

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Club of Rome. Universe Books.

New Zealand Treasury. (2019). The Wellbeing Budget 2019. Government of New Zealand. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/wellbeing-budget/wellbeing-budget-2019

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Royal Government of Bhutan. (2008). The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan. http://www.nationalcouncil.bt/assets/uploads/docs/acts/2014/The_Constitution_of_Bhutan_2008.pdf

Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T., & Wangdi, K. (2012). A short guide to Gross National Happiness Index. Centre for Bhutan Studies. https://ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bhutan-GNH-Index-short-guide.pdf

Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or To Be? Continuum.

Bajrektarevic, A. (2005). OSCE EF 13^th Ministerial, Closing Session ( EF.NGO/9/05 ) www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/7/14857.pdf 

Hayek, F. A. (1982). Law, legislation and liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy (Vols. 1–3). University of Chicago Press.

Baković, J. (1979). Služba društvenog knjigovodstva u sistemu socijalističkog samoupravljanja, Narodne Novine, Zagreb-Sarajevo

Sartre, J-P. (1985). Critique de la raison dialectique, Éditions Gallimard

Varoufakis, Y. (2017). Adults in the room: My battle with Europe’s deep establishment.

Bajrektarević, A. H. (2013). Geopolitics of Peter Pan, Europe of the West: Imperialism of Imagination. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 5(2), 136–150. Žbanić, J. (2024). Blum: Masters of Their Own Destiny, (Oscar Nominated documentary (2026)) – movie script.