The Globalist Manifesto

A Declaration of Democratic Global Governance for an Interdependent World

Preamble

Power has outgrown control.

Corporations operate across every border on Earth. Financial flows circle the globe in milliseconds. Crises—climate, pandemic, technological—do not carry passports. A pandemic that begins in one continent reaches every other within weeks. Carbon emitted in one country raises sea levels on distant shores.

Our institutions of governance remain frozen at the national level. Decisions that affect billions are made by institutions that represent millions—or by no one at all.

This is not an accident. It is a design choice, maintained by those who benefit from the absence of global accountability.

The proposals in this manifesto require institutions with genuine authority: the power to make binding rules, to enforce them through graduated sanctions, to adjudicate disputes in courts, to levy taxes, to hold the powerful to account. These are governmental powers. We will not pretend otherwise.

Building global governance at the scale of our problems is, in the end, a project of global democratic government. Not a world state that abolishes nations, but a global order in which the public interest at the planetary scale is governed democratically rather than left to unaccountable power.

We are not the corporate “globalism” that serves shareholders at the expense of communities. We are the people’s globalism—the conviction that humanity’s shared problems require humanity’s shared institutions, governed by humanity’s shared will.

The question is no longer whether the world needs global governance. The question is whether that governance will serve the many or the few.

We choose the many.

The Diagnosis

Power Has Outscaled Democracy

The nation-state was designed for a world of discrete economies, contained crises, and local consequences. That world no longer exists.

  • Multinational dominance. The world’s roughly 100,000 multinational enterprises, through their 900,000 affiliates, generate roughly two-thirds of global exports and dominate global economic activity1. These entities operate across borders but remain accountable primarily to shareholders, not to the communities they exploit.

  • Concentrated wealth. The top 1% of global adults own roughly 48% of global wealth, while the bottom 55% own just 1.3%2. Between 2020 and 2023, the richest 1% captured nearly twice as much new wealth as the rest of the world combined3. The top 1% grabbed 63% of all new wealth created—$26 trillion—while the bottom 90% got what was left4.

  • Offshore finance. An estimated $7—10 trillion in assets sit in offshore tax havens, beyond the reach of any democratic government5. This costs governments an estimated $480 billion per year in lost tax revenue6.

  • No comprehensive global AI governance. The most transformative technology of our era operates in a regulatory vacuum. The Council of Europe adopted a Framework Convention on AI in May 2024, but it has limited signatories and no enforcement mechanism7.

These are not market failures. They are governance failures. The market is doing exactly what it was designed to do: maximizing returns. No democratic institution exists at the scale necessary to set boundaries. For those who profit from this arrangement, that is not a problem. It is the plan.

The Oligarchic Capture

The democratic deficit is not merely an absence of institutions. Powerful interests actively maintain it.

  • Tax arbitrage. Corporations shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, starving public institutions of revenue. Average statutory corporate tax rates have fallen from 47.5% in 1981 to 23.4% in 2023 among OECD countries8. This is a race to the bottom, and the bottom is winning.

  • Regulatory fragmentation. Lobbying against international coordination lets capital exploit differences between national rules. What is banned in Brussels is permitted in Delaware; what is regulated in Tokyo is uncontrolled in Lagos. This is not a market efficiency. It is a governance failure that kills people.

  • Narrative capture. Billionaires fund nationalist movements that frame global cooperation as a threat to sovereignty—while the same interests operate globally themselves. The oligarch who funds a “sovereignty” movement owns factories in twelve countries and pays taxes in none of them.

Capital is global, crises are global, and labor is global—but governance remains national. For those who profit from this asymmetry, it is not a bug. It is the entire point.

The False Dichotomy

We reject the framing that dominates contemporary politics: the choice between nationalism and corporate globalization.

Nationalism tells you your enemy is the immigrant, the foreigner, the international institution. Corporate globalization tells you your salvation is economic growth, that markets will solve everything. Both are lies designed to prevent you from seeing the real question: Who governs, and for whose benefit?

The nationalist and the corporate globalist are not opponents. They are collaborators. The nationalist provides the distraction; the corporate globalist provides the policy. Both benefit from your confusion.

We offer a third path: democratic globalism—genuinely democratic governance at the global scale, accountable to the global public, serving the global interest. Eat the rich. Tax the powerful. Democratize everything.

The Principles

Our work rests on five principles. Every policy proposal in this manifesto is designed to fulfill them.

Democracy does not stop at the national border. People have a right to a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect their lives—at every level of governance, from the municipal to the global.

This does not mean erasing nations or creating a single world parliament. It means building democratic institutions at the appropriate scale for each problem. Climate change requires global coordination. Water management requires regional cooperation. Land use requires local control. Those affected by decisions must have a voice in making them.

The principle is simple: sovereignty belongs to the people, not to the state. When a problem exceeds the capacity of any single state to solve, the people have a right to pool their sovereignty into institutions at the appropriate scale.

Local Control Where Possible

Governance should happen at the most local level that can effectively address the problem. Global institutions handle problems that nations cannot solve alone—they do not replace national or local governance.

A Global Tax Authority does not dictate your city’s zoning laws. An international AI safety framework does not regulate your country’s school curriculum. Global governance extends democracy rather than concentrating it.

Pluralism

There is no single model of the good life. Global governance must respect the diversity of political traditions, economic systems, and cultural values. The goal is not uniformity but coordination—finding the minimum necessary agreement to address shared problems while preserving maximum space for local variation.

This means drawing on the full range of human ethical traditions: Ubuntu’s emphasis on communal solidarity, Confucian concepts of relational ethics, Indigenous traditions of intergenerational stewardship, Islamic principles of social justice, the Enlightenment’s commitment to individual rights. No single tradition holds all the answers.

Transparency as Default

Power that operates in darkness cannot be democratic. Every institution of global governance must operate on the principle of radical transparency: decisions, deliberations, funding sources, and performance metrics must be publicly accessible by default.

This applies to international organizations, multinational corporations, and the algorithmic systems that increasingly mediate our lives. Secrecy is justified only for genuine security concerns—and the burden of justification always falls on those who seek to operate in the dark. No more anonymous shell companies. No more hidden beneficiaries. No more secret negotiations.

Corrective Justice

The current global order was not built on a level playing field. Centuries of colonialism, extraction, and structural inequality created the asymmetries that persist today. Global governance must include mechanisms for corrective justice—not as charity, but as the minimum condition for a legitimate global order.

Concretely: climate reparations for nations that bear the costs of emissions they did not produce; technology transfer to close the digital divide; debt relief for countries trapped in structural adjustment cycles; and meaningful representation for the Global South in every institution that claims to govern globally. The nations that built their wealth on extraction owe a debt. It is time to pay it.

The Program

We propose action on four fronts. Each is designed to be achievable in stages, building from what is politically possible today toward what is structurally necessary tomorrow.

I. Dismantle Oligarchic Power

Expose the Offshore System

The offshore financial system is the backbone of global inequality. Trillions of dollars in assets are hidden from democratic oversight, depriving governments of hundreds of billions in annual revenue. This is theft at civilizational scale.

Immediate actions:

  • Establish a Global Asset Registry—a public, searchable database of beneficial ownership for all legal entities, trusts, and foundations operating across borders.
  • Mandate country-by-country reporting for all multinational enterprises with revenue exceeding $750 million.
  • Create a public registry of enablers—the lawyers, accountants, and bankers who facilitate tax evasion and money laundering. Name them. Shame them.

Break the Tax Haven Model

Tax havens are not accidents of geography. They are deliberate policy choices by jurisdictions that fund their governments by helping others evade theirs. They are parasites on the global economy.

Medium-term actions:

  • Implement a minimum effective corporate tax rate of 20% globally, building on the OECD’s Pillar Two framework—a set of rules that ensures large multinationals pay at least a minimum level of tax regardless of where profits are booked9.
  • Establish automatic, real-time exchange of tax information between all participating jurisdictions.
  • Create a Tax Haven Accountability Index with binding consequences: jurisdictions identified as systematic facilitators of tax evasion face graduated sanctions, including exclusion from international financial messaging systems.

Claw Back Ill-Gotten Gains

Trillions of dollars in assets were accumulated through corruption, tax evasion, and the exploitation of weak governance. These assets belong to the public.

  • Establish an International Asset Recovery Mechanism with the authority to investigate, freeze, and repatriate stolen assets. Current recovery rates—less than 1% of stolen assets—are a scandal10.
  • Create a Global Stolen Assets Fund to channel recovered resources into health, education, and climate adaptation in the countries from which they were taken.

II. Reform International Institutions

Democratize the United Nations

The UN Security Council, with its five permanent members and veto power, is a relic of 1945. It is an insult to the majority of humanity.

  • Abolish the veto for cases involving mass atrocity, climate emergencies, and pandemic response.
  • Expand the Security Council to include permanent representation for Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and the Middle East.
  • Create a UN Parliamentary Assembly—an advisory body of directly elected representatives that gives global civil society a formal voice in international deliberations.

Build a Global Tax Authority

The OECD’s work on international tax coordination is valuable but insufficient. The OECD represents 38 countries; the global tax system affects all 193. The rest of the world did not vote for the rules that govern their taxes.

  • Phase 1 (2026—2030): Expand the OECD Inclusive Framework to give developing countries genuine decision-making power. Establish a UN Tax Convention with binding dispute resolution.
  • Phase 2 (2030—2035): Create a Global Tax Coordination Body under UN auspices with authority to set minimum tax standards and mediate disputes.
  • Phase 3 (2035+): Establish a full Global Tax Authority with enforcement capacity—the ability to impose sanctions on jurisdictions and entities that violate agreed standards.

Corporate profit shifting costs governments an estimated $100—240 billion per year11. A functioning Global Tax Authority could recover a significant fraction—funds that could finance climate adaptation, pandemic preparedness, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Every dollar shifted to a tax haven is a dollar stolen from a school, a hospital, or a climate adaptation project.

Reform the International Financial Architecture

The IMF and World Bank were designed for a world of American hegemony and fixed exchange rates. They are instruments of a global order that serves the powerful.

  • End the gentleman’s agreement that gives the United States and Europe permanent control of the IMF and World Bank presidencies.
  • Transform the IMF from a creditor’s enforcer into a global financial stability institution. Structural adjustment programs that force austerity on developing countries while protecting creditor interests must end. The IMF’s track record in the Global South is a history of devastation12.
  • Create a Global Reserve Currency based on a basket of currencies and managed by a democratic institution. The current dollar-based system gives the United States an “exorbitant privilege” that distorts the global economy13.

III. Govern Technology for Humanity

AI as Digital Commons

Artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our era. Its development is concentrated among a handful of corporations accountable to no one but their shareholders. This is not acceptable.

Near-term governance:

  • Mandatory registration for all foundation models above defined capability thresholds.
  • Independent safety evaluation by accredited third-party auditors. Self-regulation by AI companies is not regulation—it is public relations.
  • Incident reporting requirements for serious harms. When an AI system causes damage—discriminatory lending, wrongful arrest, medical misdiagnosis—the public has a right to know.

Medium-term coordination:

  • Establish an International AI Safety Authority with the power to set binding safety standards and coordinate incident response across jurisdictions.
  • Negotiate a Digital Commons Treaty: AI systems trained on humanity’s collective knowledge owe a debt to humanity’s collective welfare. This means mandatory contributions to public AI research, open datasets, and digital infrastructure in the Global South.

Pluralize the AI Ecosystem

The current concentration of AI development in a few corporations in a few countries is a threat to global equity. Silicon Valley does not get to decide the future for eight billion people.

  • Fund public AI research institutions in every region of the world, with particular investment in the Global South.
  • Support open-source AI development as a public good.
  • Ensure linguistic and cultural diversity in AI training data and deployment. An AI ecosystem that speaks primarily English and reflects primarily Western values is a tool of cultural hegemony, not a global technology.

Protect Democratic Information Spaces

  • Require algorithmic transparency for all platforms above defined user thresholds.
  • Establish platform interoperability requirements so that users are not locked into walled gardens.
  • Create public digital infrastructure—social media protocols, identity systems, communication standards—that serves the public interest rather than the advertising model.

IV. Secure the Climate

Climate Justice as Governance

Climate change is the ultimate test of global governance. It is a problem created primarily by the industrialized world, suffered disproportionately by the developing world, and solvable only through unprecedented international cooperation.

The United States is responsible for approximately 24.7% of cumulative historical CO₂ emissions; the European Union for approximately 18.2%14. These nations built their industrial wealth on fossil fuels. The costs of that wealth—rising seas, extreme weather, displacement—are borne by nations that contributed almost nothing to the problem. This is not a natural disaster. It is a debt.

The legal foundations are established. The UNFCCC’s principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) acknowledges that historical emitters bear greater obligations15. The Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) established that no state has the right to use its territory in ways that cause harm to others16.

What is missing is enforcement and finance.

Binding commitments:

  • Transform the Paris Agreement’s voluntary nationally determined contributions (NDCs) into legally binding emission reduction commitments with independent monitoring and graduated sanctions for non-compliance. The Paris Agreement’s voluntary structure is theater17. It allows nations to set their own targets, miss them, and face no consequences. This is not how you save a civilization.
  • Establish an International Climate Court with jurisdiction over interstate disputes related to climate obligations.

Climate finance at scale:

  • Scale the Loss and Damage Fund from the current $700 million in pledges18 to $300—600 billion annually—the estimated actual cost of climate impacts on vulnerable nations19.

$700 million against $300—600 billion is not a contribution. It is an insult.

  • Fund this through an International Climate Damages Tax on fossil fuel production in developed countries: $10 per tonne of CO₂, escalating 5% annually.
  • Establish a Responsibility Index that assigns binding contribution obligations based on historical emissions, current GDP, and capacity to pay.

Energy Transition as Global Project

  • Create a Global Renewable Energy Fund of $500 billion over 10 years to finance clean energy infrastructure in developing countries.
  • Establish technology transfer mechanisms that ensure clean energy technologies are freely available to all countries. Intellectual property cannot be a barrier to survival.
  • Coordinate a just transition for fossil fuel—dependent communities and nations worldwide.

The Method

We are realists. The forces that benefit from the current disorder are powerful, well-funded, and deeply entrenched.

But history is not static. Institutions that seem permanent can crumble in a decade. The abolition of slavery, the end of colonialism, the creation of universal suffrage—all were dismissed as utopian until they became obvious.

Our method is building from what is possible toward what is necessary:

  • Coalition building. We unite fragmented movements: climate activists, tax justice advocates, digital rights organizations, labor unions, Global South solidarity networks, and democratic reformers.

  • Institutional design. We develop detailed, technically sound proposals for every institution described in this manifesto. When the political window opens, our designs will be ready.

  • Narrative contest. We challenge the stories that sustain the current order: that nations cannot cooperate, that global governance means tyranny, that the market will solve everything. These are not descriptions of reality. They are tools of power.

  • Prefigurative practice. We build the institutions we want to see: open-source governance tools, transparent decision-making processes, democratic networks that operate across borders.

Institutional Architecture

The proposals in this manifesto point toward institutions that look, in essential respects, like government at the global scale. We will be explicit about what that means and why it is legitimate.

Separation of Powers

A legitimate global order requires separation of powers across three functions:

  • Legislative: A body with authority to make binding global rules, accountable to global democratic constituencies.
  • Executive: An administrative apparatus with authority to implement, enforce, and adjudicate those rules.
  • Judicial: Independent courts with jurisdiction over disputes, including disputes between states and between states and global institutions.

No single body should hold all three functions. The concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial power in the UN Security Council’s five permanent members is precisely the abuse that separation of powers is designed to prevent.

Democratic Accountability Mechanisms

Authority without accountability is tyranny. Every global institution must be subject to democratic control:

  • Direct election of representatives to global legislative bodies, with proportional representation reflecting global population.
  • Recall mechanisms that allow global constituencies to remove representatives who fail to represent them.
  • Participatory mechanisms that give civil society, not just states, a voice in global governance—the UN Parliamentary Assembly model, expanded.
  • Transparency obligations that make all deliberations, decisions, and funding publicly accessible by default.

Checks on Executive Power

Global executive authority—whether in a Global Tax Authority, an International AI Safety Authority, or an International Climate Court—must be subject to meaningful checks:

  • Judicial review by independent courts.
  • Legislative override by democratically elected bodies.
  • Sunset clauses that require periodic renewal of executive authority rather than permanent grants of power.
  • Whistleblower protections for insiders who expose executive overreach.

These are not radical innovations. They are the standard mechanisms of constitutional governance, applied at the global scale.

Precedent: The European Union

The closest real-world model to the institutions we propose is the European Union. We learn from both its achievements and its failures.

The EU’s achievements are real: it transformed a continent that had been the site of repeated catastrophic wars into a zone of peace; it created a single market that lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty; it established binding environmental standards that cleaned rivers and reduced emissions; it created a court system—the European Court of Justice—with genuine authority over member states.

The EU’s failures are equally instructive. Its democratic deficit is real: the European Parliament has more power than its predecessors but still lacks the authority of a fully sovereign legislature. Its executive—the European Commission—is accountable primarily to member state governments, not directly to European citizens. Its enforcement of fiscal rules was asymmetric: strict on deficits in Greece, lenient on tax avoidance by the wealthy across the continent. Its decision-making remains dominated by its largest and wealthiest members, marginalizing the voices of smaller and poorer states.

We argue that these failures are not arguments against global governance. They are arguments for better-designed global governance. The EU’s institutions were designed in a moment of crisis by a small group of technocrats, not built democratically from the ground up. A global order built from the start with democratic accountability, separation of powers, and genuine representation of the Global South would learn from the EU’s mistakes.

The EU proves that pooling sovereignty across borders is possible. It also proves that doing it badly is easy. We intend to do it right.

Addressing Common Concerns

We take seriously the objections that thoughtful people raise against global governance. Here are the most important, and how we respond.

”This threatens national sovereignty.”

Sovereignty is not a zero-sum game. Pooled sovereignty is not lost sovereignty—it is exercised sovereignty at the appropriate scale.

Your city council has authority over local zoning. Your state or province has authority over education. Your national government has authority over currency and defense. None of these layers of governance erases the others—they are stacked, each exercising authority at the scale appropriate to the problem.

Global governance is the same principle applied at the planetary scale. Nations retain their full authority over domestic affairs. Global institutions handle problems that no single nation can solve alone: climate change, financial stability, AI safety, pandemic response. This is not a diminishment of national sovereignty. It is its logical extension—the recognition that some problems are too big for any single state, and that democratic people have a right to govern those problems collectively.

The current system is not sovereignty. It is anarchy dressed in the language of sovereignty, where the powerful operate globally while the governed remain trapped nationally. We are not asking nations to give up sovereignty. We are asking them to stop pretending that sovereignty alone is sufficient.

”Global institutions will be undemocratic.”

Many currently are. The IMF’s voting structure gives disproportionate weight to wealthy nations20. The UN Security Council’s veto power prevents action on critical issues. This is precisely why we call for democratic reform of these institutions, not their abolition. Global governance must be more democratic than what exists today, not less. The institutional architecture we propose—separation of powers, direct election, recall mechanisms, sunset clauses—is designed explicitly to prevent the capture and democratic deficit that plague existing global institutions.

”This creates bureaucracy and slows progress.”

Regulation has real costs. We acknowledge this. But the alternative—ungoverned power at the global scale—has costs too. Financial crises, climate disasters, and technological harms are not hypothetical. The 2008 financial crisis cost the global economy an estimated $10 trillion21. Climate change is projected to cost $23 trillion per year by 205022. The question is not whether to govern, but how to govern well.

”Who enforces global rules?”

This is the hardest question, and we do not pretend to have a complete answer. Enforcement at the global level is fundamentally different from enforcement within nations—there is no world police. Our approach relies on: graduated sanctions (financial, diplomatic, trade), transparency and reputational pressure, institutional incentives, and the legitimacy that comes from democratic participation. History shows that international cooperation works when the institutions are well-designed and the incentives are aligned: the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion23 achieved universal ratification and is healing the ozone layer. The WHO’s smallpox eradication campaign24 eliminated a disease that had killed millions. Proof of concept exists.

”This is utopian.”

Every institution described in this manifesto has precedent. The Global Tax Authority builds on the OECD’s existing Inclusive Framework. The UN Parliamentary Assembly follows the model of the European Parliament, which began as an advisory body. The International Climate Court extends existing principles of transboundary harm established in the Trail Smelter Arbitration of 1941. These are extensions of what exists, not inventions from nothing.

A Note on Sources

This manifesto draws on verifiable data from established institutions. Every factual claim in this document is footnoted with a direct link to its primary source. We challenge anyone to find a claim we cannot back up.

Key sources include:

  • UNCTAD World Investment Reports on multinational enterprise activity 25
  • OECD Tax Database and Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project data 26
  • Tax Justice Network annual “State of Tax Justice” reports 27
  • UBS/Credit Suisse Global Wealth Reports 28
  • Oxfam inequality analyses 29
  • UNFCCC documentation on the Paris Agreement and Loss and Damage Fund 30
  • UNEP Adaptation Gap Reports 31
  • Carbon Brief historical emissions analysis 32
  • Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI 33
  • Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) on transboundary harm 34

Where data is contested—as in the precise magnitude of corporate profit shifting—we present the range of credible estimates and cite their methodological basis. We do not cherry-pick. We do not inflate. We let the data speak.

Conclusion: The World We Choose

We choose a world where:

  • Democracy does not stop at the border. Every institution that exercises power over people’s lives is accountable to those people.

  • The rules apply to everyone. No corporation, no billionaire, no nation is above the law.

  • The future is governed, not left to chance. Artificial intelligence, climate change, and pandemic risk are too consequential to be decided by the market alone.

  • Justice is structural, not charitable. The wealth of nations was built on extraction—of resources, of labor, of atmospheric capacity. Corrective justice is the minimum condition for legitimacy.

  • Humanity acts as one when the problem demands it, and preserves its diversity when the problem allows it.

This is not utopia. It is the logical extension of the democratic principles that most of humanity already claims to accept. If self-government is good at the national level, it is good at the global level. If accountability is a virtue in domestic politics, it is a virtue in international relations.

The alternative—continuing to govern a global civilization with national institutions designed for a bygone era—is not realism. It is the most dangerous fantasy of all.

The world is already one. Our governance must catch up.

#v(1.5em)

Join the movement at #underline[#link(“https://globintern.org”)[globintern.org]].

#v(2em) #align(center)[ #line(length: 40%, stroke: 1pt + gray) #v(1em) #text(10pt, fill: gray)[ The Globalist Manifesto is a living document.
It will be revised as the world changes and as we learn.

Published by Globalist International
globintern.org
June 2026

Licensed under CC BY 4.0 ] ]

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. UNCTAD World Investment Report 2024. . MNEs and their affiliates account for an estimated 70% of global trade in goods and services. unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024 (https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024) ↩

  2. UBS Global Wealth Report 2023. ubs.com/global-wealth-report-2023 (https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023.html) ↩

  3. Oxfam, “Survival of the Richest,” January 2023. oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest (https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest) ↩

  4. Oxfam, “Survival of the Richest,” 2023. oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest (https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest) ↩

  5. Tax Justice Network, “The State of Tax Justice 2023.” . Estimates based on IMF, BIS, and national statistics. taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/ (https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/) ↩

  6. Tax Justice Network, “The State of Tax Justice 2023.” . Includes both corporate ($310B) and individual ($170B) tax losses. taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/ (https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/) ↩

  7. Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, 2024. . Ratification remains incomplete as of June 2026. coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/framework-convention (https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/framework-convention) ↩

  8. OECD Tax Database, Table II.1. . Worldwide average dropped from approximately 40% to 23—25%. oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/ (https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/) ↩

  9. OECD, “Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy — Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two).”. oecd.org/tax/beps/pillar-two (https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.htm) ↩

  10. UNODC, “Stolen Asset Recovery.”. unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/stAR.html (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/stAR.html) ↩

  11. OECD, “Corporate Tax Statistics,” 2023. . The range reflects different methodological approaches. oecd.org/tax/beps/corporate-tax-statistics.htm (https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/corporate-tax-statistics.htm) ↩

  12. Joseph Stiglitz, “Globalization and Its Discontents,” 2002. wwnorton.com/books/Globalization-and-Its-Discontents (https://wwnorton.com/books/Globalization-and-Its-Discontents/) ↩

  13. Barry Eichengreen, “Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System,” 2011. oup.com/academic/product/exorbitant-privilege (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/exorbitant-privilege-9780199931095) ↩

  14. Carbon Brief, “Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?” 2021. . Based on cumulative emissions 1850—2021 including land-use change. carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/ (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/) ↩

  15. UNFCCC, Article 3.1. unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf) ↩

  16. Trail Smelter Arbitration, United States v. Canada, 1941. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III, p. 1905. legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf (https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf) ↩

  17. Paris Agreement, 2015. . Article 4 establishes NDCs as nationally determined and non-binding. unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement) ↩

  18. UNFCCC, COP28 Loss and Damage Fund pledges, December 2023. unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/loss-and-damage-fund (https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/the-santiago-network/loss-and-damage-fund) ↩

  19. UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2023. . Estimates annual adaptation costs for developing countries at $215—387 billion by 2030, with total climate damages significantly higher. unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2023 (https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2023) ↩

  20. IMF, “IMF Members’ Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors.” . The US holds 16.5% of voting power, giving it an effective veto over major decisions. imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx (https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx) ↩

  21. IMF, “The Initial Impact of the Crisis on Emerging Market Countries,” 2009. imf.org/external/pubs/ft/dp/2009/0910.pdf (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/dp/2009/0910.pdf) ↩

  22. Swiss Re Institute, “The Economics of Climate Change,” 2021. swissre.com/institute/economics-of-climate-change (https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-expertise/economics-of-climate-change.html) ↩

  23. UNEP, “The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.”. ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol (https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol) ↩

  24. WHO, “Smallpox.”. who.int/health-topics/smallpox (https://www.who.int/health-topics/smallpox) ↩

  25. UNCTAD World Investment Report 2024. unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024 (https://unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024) ↩

  26. OECD Tax Database. oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/ (https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/) ↩

  27. Tax Justice Network, “The State of Tax Justice 2023.”. taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/ (https://taxjustice.net/reports/the-state-of-tax-justice-2023/) ↩

  28. UBS Global Wealth Report 2023. ubs.com/global-wealth-report-2023 (https://www.ubs.com/global/en/family-office-uhnw/reports/global-wealth-report-2023.html) ↩

  29. Oxfam, “Survival of the Richest,” 2023. oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest (https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest) ↩

  30. UNFCCC. unfccc.int (https://unfccc.int) ↩

  31. UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2023. unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2023 (https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2023) ↩

  32. Carbon Brief, “Analysis: Which countries are historically responsible for climate change?” 2021. carbonbrief.org (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/) ↩

  33. Council of Europe, 2024. coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/framework-convention (https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/framework-convention) ↩

  34. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III. legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf (https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf) ↩

Download PDF

Democratic global governance starts with you

Add your voice.

Join the movement