By Wolfgang Pape

10/07/2026

 

Dr Wolfgang Pape is a lawyer, lecturer and former diplomat of the European Commission.  His research focuses on cultural diversity, democracy, stakeholder participation, European integration and interpopular approaches to global governance. He is the author of “Opening to Omnilateralism: Democratic Governance for All, from Local to Global with Stakeholders” (2021).

 

Global governance remains organised around nations, while real human interaction increasingly takes place directly among people who form the sovereign in our democracies. This article argues that the future of democracy and global governance lies in complementing international institutions with interpopular and omnilateral forms of participation that better reflect the realities of our interconnected world. European integration can serve as a laboratory of global governance.

 

From International to More Interpopular Governance with Omnilateralism

Forget 'international' relations, they too often lead to war. Let's just promote interpopular connections -- between people across borders -- so we can prosper in peace!

 

1. Introduction: “We the Peoples”, but Without the People

The Charter of the United Nations begins with the famous words: “We the peoples.”[1] Yet the institutional structure that follows is not based on people but on nation-states. Representation in the United Nations is granted not to citizens, communities, or civil society organisations but only to national governments recognised by UN members as sovereign “nations” of the international system. The UN is therefore not literally interpopular; it is international.

This distinction may appear semantic, but it has profound consequences. During the twentieth century, global governance was constructed on the assumption that sovereign nations were the exclusive actors capable of addressing common concerns of all peoples. Yet many of today's most pressing challenges -- climate change, migration, artificial intelligence, cyber-security, pandemics, and financial instability -- transcend territorial boundaries of nations and involve actors far beyond their governments.

At the same time, people-to-people interactions continue to grow strongly. Tourism, migration, trade, educational exchange, social media, digital platforms, scientific cooperation, and civil-society networks create dense webs of relationships across borders. These interactions are neither national nor international in the classical sense. They are interpopular.

This article argues that understanding the distinction between international and interpopular relations provides a solid foundation for rethinking global governance and democracy in the twenty-first century.

 

2. The Historical Construction of the Nation-State

The nation-state is often treated as a natural unit of political organisation. Historical research suggests otherwise.

Debora Mackenzie[2] has shown that the nation-state is a relatively recent development. Before the eighteenth century, political authority was generally organised through empires, kingdoms, city-states, religious communities, or overlapping jurisdictions rather than sovereign national territories. The modern nation-state emerged alongside industrialisation, nationalism, and the political revolutions of the late eighteenth century.

The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 is often considered the foundation of modern international relations. Yet the concept of sovereign territorial nations evolved only gradually thereafter. In Europe, state-building frequently preceded nation-building. France, Italy, and Germany did not emerge because pre-existing nations demanded states; rather, states actively created national identities through administration, education, and political mobilisation.

This historical contingency is important because the nation subsequently became universalised through colonial expansion. European colonial powers exported territorial borders and sovereignty doctrines across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, often disregarding pre-existing political and cultural realities. International law itself developed within this context.

Ironically, one of the foundational texts of international law, Hugo Grotius’ Mare Liberum (1609)[3], emerged from disputes among European colonial powers over access to trade routes and maritime spaces in Southeast Asia. What later became universal principles of international order thus originated in conflicts among European empires far from Europe itself.

 

3. Why Nations Fail Internationally

The title deliberately echoes Acemoglu and Robinson’s influential work Why Nations Fail.[4] Their analysis focused on domestic institutions and demonstrated how inclusive institutions under pluralism foster prosperity while extractive institutions dominated by narrow elites generate stagnation.

A similar question should be asked internationally: why do nations as such fail collectively?

Many global challenges persist despite decades of multilateral diplomacy. Climate negotiations repeatedly encounter national vetoes. Armed conflicts continue despite ongoing violations of international law. The regulation of artificial intelligence, cyberspace, and global finance remains fragmented and difficult to implement and adjudicate. International institutions often struggle to generate outcomes corresponding to the scale of the problems they seek to address.[5]

The underlying reason may lie in the structure of the system itself. The Westphalian order assumes that national governments remain the sole legitimate participants in global decision-making. Yet governments increasingly lack the capacity to regulate transnational processes acting beyond their borders. Meanwhile, major non-state actors -- from digital platforms and multinational corporations to NGOs and scientific networks -- possess expertise, resources, and influence that often exceed those of many nation-states.

The result is a growing mismatch between the political authority of nation-states and the social reality of the people, thereby also undermining democracy.

Rana Dasgupta’s recent work After Nations[6] reflects a broader intellectual trend questioning whether the nation-state remains the optimal framework for organising political life, but it ignores regional integration processes towards such aims, such as the EU, AU, ASEAN etc. Whereas Thomas Wagner’s Wege aus der Gewalt[7] explores alternatives to conflictual forms of political organisation that have historically accompanied nationalism and underscores shared sovereignty as a future way of governance without wars.

The issue is therefore not the disappearance of nations, but the inadequacy of nations alone as the still assumed sovereign level of governance. Democracy is to be practised with shared competences at all levels -- from local, provincial, national and regional to global governance. Governance proves most effective with the participation of all legitimate stakeholders, with competence and trust from the people.

Therefore, making a distinction between what is only international (i.e. between formal nations) and what relates directly to people becomes increasingly important. Artificial intelligence confirms this distinction through neologism: 

The term "interpopular" refers to relationships and interactions among people across borders, emphasizing people-to-people connections rather than official state or national representations. It highlights collaboration and communication among individuals and civil society groups, such as NGOs, that transcend national boundaries.

In contrast, "international" typically pertains to relations between nations or states, often involving formal diplomatic interactions and agreements. It focuses on the actions and policies of governments rather than the direct engagement of individuals or communities.

So, while "international" is about state-level interactions, "interpopular" emphasizes the importance of the collective voice and interests of people globally.

 

There is a parallel between the distinction between "interpopular" and "international" and the difference between public and private law.

Public law governs the relationships between individuals and the state, as well as the structures and operations of government itself. It includes areas such as constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law, focusing on issues that affect society as a whole.

Private law, on the other hand, deals with relationships between private individuals or entities. It encompasses areas like contract law, tort law, and family law, focusing on the rights and obligations of individuals in their personal and business interactions.

In this analogy, "interpopular" can be likened to private law, as it emphasizes the direct interactions and relationships among individuals and civil society across borders. Meanwhile, "international" resembles public law, as it pertains to the formal relationships and agreements between nations and states.

(sic Chatbase.co, 2025/01/22)

 

The continuation of the article is available HERE

 

 

Endnotes:

[1] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, Preamble, San Francisco, 26 June 1945: “We the Peoples of the United Nations …” 

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text 

On the continuing significance of the phrase “We the Peoples”, see United Nations, “The UN Charter: A Living Document for Peace, Justice and Global Cooperation”, 2025

[2] Debora Mackenzie, End of Nations: Is There an Alternative to Countries?, New Scientist, 3 September 2014 

https://www.newscientist.com/author/debora-mackenzie/ 

[3] Hugo Grotius, Mare Liberum, Leiden, 1609 

[4]  Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, New York: Crown Publishers, 2012

[5]  Acemoglu and Robinson define “inclusive institutions” as institutions that distribute political and economic power broadly throughout society and thereby facilitate prosperity; ibidem, p. 70-96

[6]  Rana Dasgupta, After Nations, London: Canongate, 2026

[7]  Thomas Wagner, Wege aus der Gewalt: Über neue Formen politischen Zusammenlebens, Berlin: Aufbau Verlag, 2025, p. 99

[8] Nadine Godehardt, Zhang Xin, China’s Emergence as Volumetric State, SWP Comment 2026/C 22, 12.06.2026

https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/chinas-emergence-as-a-volumetric-state

[9] Wolfgang Pape, Opening to Omnilateralism: Democratic governance for all, from local to global with stakeholders 汎地球主義　全边主義, AuthorHouse UK, Bloomington, 2021

www.authorhouse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/720631-opening-to-omnilateralism 

[10] Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden, Ein philosophischer Entwurf, Königsberg, 1795, p. 33

[11] António Guterres has repeatedly called for broader participation of civil society and stakeholders in global governance. See United Nations, Our Common Agenda, New York, 2021

https://www.un.org/en/common-agenda 

[12] Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Transforming the United Nations System, Tokyo, 2013, p. 7

[13] John Keane, The Life and Death of Democracy, London: Simon & Schuster, 2009, especially the concept of “monitory democracy” with civil society, p. 585, 708

[14] Terry Macdonald, Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation Beyond Liberal States, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 163

References:

Barber, Benjamin R., 2013, If Mayors Ruled the World ‒ Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities, Yale, University Press

Berggruen, Nicolas, and Gardels, Nathan, 2013, Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century, Cambridge, Polity Press

de Tocqueville, Alexis, 1835, De la Démocratie en Amérique, Paris

Kissinger, Henry, 2014, World Order - Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, London, Allen Lane Penguin Books

Needham, Joseph, 1954, Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 1, Introductory Orientations, Cambridge, University Press

Pape, Wolfgang, 2014, Is the ‘American lake’ drying up in the China Sea? In: Foreign Policy, CEPS Commentaries, 31 July 2014, 

http://www.ceps.be/book/%E2%80%98american-lake%E2%80%99-drying-china-sea  

Piketty, Thomas, 2013, Le capital au XXIe siècle, Paris, Seuil

Rose, Gideon, Editor, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2015

Rudd, Kevin, 2020, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/coronavirus-will-not-change-xi-jinping-china-governance-by-kevin-rudd-2020-02

von Weizsäcker, Ernst Ulrich and Wijkman, Anders, Come On! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet - A Report to the Club of Rome, Springer, New York, 2018

NB: The article’s author encourages the wider use of the terms ‘interpopular’ and ‘people’, and the reduction of ‘international’ and ‘nation’ to their original, limited meanings, in order to moderate nationalism that is still leading to wars worldwide. He will freely send a digital copy of his 2021 book “Opening to Omnilateralism” upon request to [email protected]