<p>The desire for governance at the global level is not new; the earliest documentation of global governance can be traced back to the 14th century. For example, in Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia (1311) and its 1949 translation, On World Government. It can be argued that some of the early attempts at global governance occurred in the domain of religion, where the universality of monolithic religions sought influence over the entire mankind, but failed. Attempts at global governance through religious warfare came to a pause in the mid-17th century and led to the concept of sovereignty in the Westphalian region of Germany. This concept has been at the core of the international system as we know it today.</p>.Synergia Foundation's roundtable conference discusses future of digital security, sovereignty.<p>Sovereignty, as it originated in Europe, was primarily concerned with peace and security in Europe. In its purest interpretation, it implies that a sovereign must not intervene in the sovereignty of another sovereign. It was not until the 19th century that this concept came into full play and continues to define the in-vogue world order. Yet, the evolution in scientific knowledge has transformed the traditional understanding of this concept.</p>.<p>In its evolution, sovereignty, which was once located with God, transferred to the Papal, then to the King and the State, and finally, to the people. In our times, sovereignty is mostly popular as a social contract that allows the State to act on behalf of the people. In a globalised world, a moderate sovereignty is in practice, where a sovereign, by its own willingness, sets the limits of its sovereignty in relation to other sovereigns and hence, volunteers to make compromises to its absolute authority.</p>.<p>This rationale of popular sovereignty is in play in the United States’ recent invasion of Venezuela and the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. The US has justified its use of military force against another sovereign by locating the concept of sovereignty with the people of Venezuela. According to US President Donald Trump, “the people in Venezuela are free again”. Furthermore, following his Angelus prayer at St Peter’s Square, the first US pope told the crowd that “the welfare of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail over all other considerations”. Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, announced “free broadband service to the people of Venezuela through February 3, ensuring continued connectivity”.</p>.<p>Governance requires technology that defines the objective of governance. For example, population as a governance concern came into being due to the advancement in the ‘technology’ of statistics, and environment as a governance concern due to climate change. Global governance, in this regard, requires technologies to work around the concept of sovereignty located at the level of the nation-state.</p>.<p><strong>One goal, two methods</strong></p>.<p>The two great powers within the present international system, the US and China, employ two dissimilar approaches to pursue global governance. The US has banked on the concepts of freedom, justice, and human rights as tools of global governance, while China has used the concept of development, borrowed from Marxism, as a technology for global governance. Providing financial assistance to another nation and investing in railways, roads, or ports there can be seen as a violation of the idea of sovereignty.</p>.<p>The primary purpose for employing these technologies – human rights or development – in global governance is to address the concept of sovereignty, which contradicts the idea of global governance. The US’s attack on Venezuela came hours after a Chinese special envoy met with Maduro to reaffirm Beijing’s support for his regime. This underscores the clash between the approaches followed by two great powers, both seeking prominent roles in global governance.</p>.<p>This case demonstrates some of the gaps in China’s reliance on the development formula for global governance, and necessitates a careful analysis of the US’s emphasis on human rights, which have been upgraded to god-given natural rights in the US National Security Strategy of 2025.</p>.<p>The world is nearing the end of the sovereign period in history, which began in the 17th century. Much of the churn we witness today in the international system can be traced to a transition from this period to one marked by post-sovereign interests. India’s foreign policy must steal a march on this change, given the weakening sovereignty of its neighbours in South Asia. This is the time for India to establish an appropriate framework of regional governance and develop the requisite technologies to meet that objective.</p>.<p>(The writer lectures at the Sichuan International Studies University, Chongqing, China)</p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>The desire for governance at the global level is not new; the earliest documentation of global governance can be traced back to the 14th century. For example, in Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia (1311) and its 1949 translation, On World Government. It can be argued that some of the early attempts at global governance occurred in the domain of religion, where the universality of monolithic religions sought influence over the entire mankind, but failed. Attempts at global governance through religious warfare came to a pause in the mid-17th century and led to the concept of sovereignty in the Westphalian region of Germany. This concept has been at the core of the international system as we know it today.</p>.Synergia Foundation's roundtable conference discusses future of digital security, sovereignty.<p>Sovereignty, as it originated in Europe, was primarily concerned with peace and security in Europe. In its purest interpretation, it implies that a sovereign must not intervene in the sovereignty of another sovereign. It was not until the 19th century that this concept came into full play and continues to define the in-vogue world order. Yet, the evolution in scientific knowledge has transformed the traditional understanding of this concept.</p>.<p>In its evolution, sovereignty, which was once located with God, transferred to the Papal, then to the King and the State, and finally, to the people. In our times, sovereignty is mostly popular as a social contract that allows the State to act on behalf of the people. In a globalised world, a moderate sovereignty is in practice, where a sovereign, by its own willingness, sets the limits of its sovereignty in relation to other sovereigns and hence, volunteers to make compromises to its absolute authority.</p>.<p>This rationale of popular sovereignty is in play in the United States’ recent invasion of Venezuela and the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. The US has justified its use of military force against another sovereign by locating the concept of sovereignty with the people of Venezuela. According to US President Donald Trump, “the people in Venezuela are free again”. Furthermore, following his Angelus prayer at St Peter’s Square, the first US pope told the crowd that “the welfare of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail over all other considerations”. Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, announced “free broadband service to the people of Venezuela through February 3, ensuring continued connectivity”.</p>.<p>Governance requires technology that defines the objective of governance. For example, population as a governance concern came into being due to the advancement in the ‘technology’ of statistics, and environment as a governance concern due to climate change. Global governance, in this regard, requires technologies to work around the concept of sovereignty located at the level of the nation-state.</p>.<p><strong>One goal, two methods</strong></p>.<p>The two great powers within the present international system, the US and China, employ two dissimilar approaches to pursue global governance. The US has banked on the concepts of freedom, justice, and human rights as tools of global governance, while China has used the concept of development, borrowed from Marxism, as a technology for global governance. Providing financial assistance to another nation and investing in railways, roads, or ports there can be seen as a violation of the idea of sovereignty.</p>.<p>The primary purpose for employing these technologies – human rights or development – in global governance is to address the concept of sovereignty, which contradicts the idea of global governance. The US’s attack on Venezuela came hours after a Chinese special envoy met with Maduro to reaffirm Beijing’s support for his regime. This underscores the clash between the approaches followed by two great powers, both seeking prominent roles in global governance.</p>.<p>This case demonstrates some of the gaps in China’s reliance on the development formula for global governance, and necessitates a careful analysis of the US’s emphasis on human rights, which have been upgraded to god-given natural rights in the US National Security Strategy of 2025.</p>.<p>The world is nearing the end of the sovereign period in history, which began in the 17th century. Much of the churn we witness today in the international system can be traced to a transition from this period to one marked by post-sovereign interests. India’s foreign policy must steal a march on this change, given the weakening sovereignty of its neighbours in South Asia. This is the time for India to establish an appropriate framework of regional governance and develop the requisite technologies to meet that objective.</p>.<p>(The writer lectures at the Sichuan International Studies University, Chongqing, China)</p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
