Перевод
Язык оригинала
15.07.2025
The Future of the World | New Platform for Global Growth: Investments in Communication and Integrity
In relevant historical period, an individual will be concerned to varying degrees with current international reality and crisis — or series of crises — occurring in the world; these crises are defined, identified, and ranged by individuals in accor- dance with a complex set of interconnected factors resulting fr om their charac- ter, personal development, access to information, personal values, political beliefs, etc. Such individuals are undoubtedly social and must develop in an environment wh ere other individuals interact, and a group of which, in its turn, interacts with other groups and so on up to the level of the State, to which they entrust a part of their natural liberties and guarantees and provide this higher entity with authori- ties and power to conclude a social contract. Thomas Hobbes, the English founder of the contractual theory of the origin of the state, indicated that as a result of the union of free and egoistic individuals their rationalism will lead them to the estab- lishment (but not materialization or discovery) of morality, as they understand and recognize that cooperation is more beneficial than controversy1. Later, Rousseau and Montesquieu will examine such contract and power distribution according to it in more detail. It was this agreement between the governed and the ruler, the pur-pose of which is to solve collective problems and interests by one person or a net of public and private entities2 asserting their rights and redefining actual powers, that underwent several major transformations in terms of its goals and, first of all, means, an element of which that currently became of vital importance is integrity in its modern sense.
Unfortunately, the term of integrity is distorted, and in the sphere of domestic and especially foreign political science it is confused, misinterpreted or completely unknown. On March 1, 2025, I carried out random interviews with students aged 19–22 fr om different undergraduate programs regarding their basic understand- ing of the following concept: global integrity. Out of 20 respondents 18 called this concept a process of international cohesion and provided examples, causes, and consequences that are more similar to the process of globalization. Only 2 respon- dents indicated ethics, morality, and sustainability, which shall be the features of such global interactions. Based on this, it is possible to define global integrity as “implementation of values, principles, and standards in daily activities of various social entities, including individuals, organizations, governments, and global insti- tutions, which is of crucial importance for establishment of responsibility, trust, communication, fairness, and discipline in state institutions within and outside the country”. As regards to contents of these values, principles, and norms that can be designated with the notion of global ethics, it is divided into two areas defined by fluidity of the term, i. e. dependent on whether global ethics, its characteristics, and norms are static or dynamic. Küng assumes that it is actually static due to its universality and that it features three characteristics: а) global scale; b) multidis- ciplinarity (I disagree and believe that this should be interdisciplinarity), and c) combination of theory and practice, i. e. pre-formed practice of morality. Besides, he sets out in detail four basic principles that are based on the establishment of culture, common system of beliefs, customs, and deeply-rooted and common iden- tities. It shall be mentioned that custom in positivist law, the basis of the Mexican rule of law, is the source of law, which is confirmed by Latin notions: Inveterata Consuetudo (established custom) and Opinio Juris Sevis Necessitatis (conviction of the legitimacy and necessity). This practice may give legally binding potential — both at the national and international level — to the guidelines mentioned by Küng:
I. Commitment to the culture of non-violence and respect for life; II. Commitment
to the culture of solidarity and fair economic order; III. Commitment to the culture of tolerance and life in truth, and IV. Commitment to the culture of equality and partnership between men and women3.
The greatest concern in achievement of efficient and comprehensive global integrity is the means and goals of communication between citizens and the state, as well as efficient and transparent access to the same. This refers to such
organization of political life and state governance, in which the state implements, practices, and promotes persistent communication and survey of citizens through referendum, vote, public survey or plebiscite is a way of forming of the state policy; both domestic and foreign. The old models described by Niccolo Machiavelli in the West and Ivan Peresvetov in the East that are based on the absolute power of a sovereign, suppression of public opinion, and interference in the government are archaic and obsolete, and although they fulfilled their function in the formation of modern state and creation of books on political systems, modernity and diversity of the current world that is typical for it require their elimination and introduction of new prerogatives. The problem gets more complicated when extrapolated to the international reality: wh ere the differences between people are more latent; the number of actors increases — IGOs, NGOs, states, interest groups, criminal groups, transnational companies, etc.; where the language barrier is the least of concern; and even where rarely detected interaction occurs, such as between foreign coun- try “X” and foreign nationals “Y”, which, as a rule, is minimal or completely absent, which was of fundamental importance in recent years in the process of building and maintenance of the world.
There is a growing need for efficient and transparent communication under
conditions of the emergence of communication technologies that, as reported, are used by 5.5 billion people having access to the Internet and 5.2 billion people having accounts in social networks4. Innovative technologies provide people with vast opportunities in terms of the speed of communication, simplicity of efficient language and dialect translation, reduced prices for purchasing and implementa- tion of such technologies without or with minor regulation of artificial intelligence. International actors and, in particular, the state must take a beneficial vantage point in relation to these technologies, as well as, in addition to their legal regulation or guaranteeing of access to them for their citizens, acknowledge and establish that current technological and social layer, in which subjects develop, exchange ideas, and carry out daily transactions with the world’s population, and it is and it will remain the second Earth with certain difficulties due to its anarchic nature pro- moted by the Internet and social networks. At the same time, although the state and media companies have power over them, in my opinion, total regulation is a rea- sonable path. When building state government models, it is important to remem- ber that digital technologies are intangible, thus the rules will not apply evenly. It would be the same mistake to allow technology to develop under the guidance of Smith’s “invisible hand” and the principle of non-intervention. It is only through participation and discussion of this issue with the population that the foundation of a communications platform based on the relevant legal framework will be laid with guaranteed quality and efficient access, the goal of which, in addition to lei- sure and recreation, is coexistence of individuals, state, and supranational entities.
Thus, communication will be ensured on a multilateral basis and faster than in a traditional way, which will increase the level of global integrity in yet another corner of the international reality, the corner that is growing exponentially and becoming more and more relevant.
Unfortunately, the term of integrity is distorted, and in the sphere of domestic and especially foreign political science it is confused, misinterpreted or completely unknown. On March 1, 2025, I carried out random interviews with students aged 19–22 fr om different undergraduate programs regarding their basic understand- ing of the following concept: global integrity. Out of 20 respondents 18 called this concept a process of international cohesion and provided examples, causes, and consequences that are more similar to the process of globalization. Only 2 respon- dents indicated ethics, morality, and sustainability, which shall be the features of such global interactions. Based on this, it is possible to define global integrity as “implementation of values, principles, and standards in daily activities of various social entities, including individuals, organizations, governments, and global insti- tutions, which is of crucial importance for establishment of responsibility, trust, communication, fairness, and discipline in state institutions within and outside the country”. As regards to contents of these values, principles, and norms that can be designated with the notion of global ethics, it is divided into two areas defined by fluidity of the term, i. e. dependent on whether global ethics, its characteristics, and norms are static or dynamic. Küng assumes that it is actually static due to its universality and that it features three characteristics: а) global scale; b) multidis- ciplinarity (I disagree and believe that this should be interdisciplinarity), and c) combination of theory and practice, i. e. pre-formed practice of morality. Besides, he sets out in detail four basic principles that are based on the establishment of culture, common system of beliefs, customs, and deeply-rooted and common iden- tities. It shall be mentioned that custom in positivist law, the basis of the Mexican rule of law, is the source of law, which is confirmed by Latin notions: Inveterata Consuetudo (established custom) and Opinio Juris Sevis Necessitatis (conviction of the legitimacy and necessity). This practice may give legally binding potential — both at the national and international level — to the guidelines mentioned by Küng:
I. Commitment to the culture of non-violence and respect for life; II. Commitment
to the culture of solidarity and fair economic order; III. Commitment to the culture of tolerance and life in truth, and IV. Commitment to the culture of equality and partnership between men and women3.
The greatest concern in achievement of efficient and comprehensive global integrity is the means and goals of communication between citizens and the state, as well as efficient and transparent access to the same. This refers to such
organization of political life and state governance, in which the state implements, practices, and promotes persistent communication and survey of citizens through referendum, vote, public survey or plebiscite is a way of forming of the state policy; both domestic and foreign. The old models described by Niccolo Machiavelli in the West and Ivan Peresvetov in the East that are based on the absolute power of a sovereign, suppression of public opinion, and interference in the government are archaic and obsolete, and although they fulfilled their function in the formation of modern state and creation of books on political systems, modernity and diversity of the current world that is typical for it require their elimination and introduction of new prerogatives. The problem gets more complicated when extrapolated to the international reality: wh ere the differences between people are more latent; the number of actors increases — IGOs, NGOs, states, interest groups, criminal groups, transnational companies, etc.; where the language barrier is the least of concern; and even where rarely detected interaction occurs, such as between foreign coun- try “X” and foreign nationals “Y”, which, as a rule, is minimal or completely absent, which was of fundamental importance in recent years in the process of building and maintenance of the world.
There is a growing need for efficient and transparent communication under
conditions of the emergence of communication technologies that, as reported, are used by 5.5 billion people having access to the Internet and 5.2 billion people having accounts in social networks4. Innovative technologies provide people with vast opportunities in terms of the speed of communication, simplicity of efficient language and dialect translation, reduced prices for purchasing and implementa- tion of such technologies without or with minor regulation of artificial intelligence. International actors and, in particular, the state must take a beneficial vantage point in relation to these technologies, as well as, in addition to their legal regulation or guaranteeing of access to them for their citizens, acknowledge and establish that current technological and social layer, in which subjects develop, exchange ideas, and carry out daily transactions with the world’s population, and it is and it will remain the second Earth with certain difficulties due to its anarchic nature pro- moted by the Internet and social networks. At the same time, although the state and media companies have power over them, in my opinion, total regulation is a rea- sonable path. When building state government models, it is important to remem- ber that digital technologies are intangible, thus the rules will not apply evenly. It would be the same mistake to allow technology to develop under the guidance of Smith’s “invisible hand” and the principle of non-intervention. It is only through participation and discussion of this issue with the population that the foundation of a communications platform based on the relevant legal framework will be laid with guaranteed quality and efficient access, the goal of which, in addition to lei- sure and recreation, is coexistence of individuals, state, and supranational entities.
Thus, communication will be ensured on a multilateral basis and faster than in a traditional way, which will increase the level of global integrity in yet another corner of the international reality, the corner that is growing exponentially and becoming more and more relevant.
La persona en su respectivo periodo histórico, se preocupará a diversas escalas por su actual realidad internacional y la percibida crisis -o series de crisis- en su mundo; definidas, identificadas y jerarquizadas según una propia y compleja red de factores interrelacionados que surgen desde la naturaleza, la formación individual, el acceso a la información, los valores personales, las convicciones políticas, entre muchos otros. Esta persona, indudablemente es social, tal que debe desarrollarse en un entorno donde interactúan otras personas, cuyo grupo a su vez se relaciona con otros grupos y así sucesivamente hasta alcanzar una escala Estatal la cual cedemos fracciones de nuestras libertades y garantías naturales para otorgarle a este ente superior autoridad y poder - un contrato social - . Thomas Hobbes, contractualista inglés, inclusive señalaría que a partir de dicha unión entre individuos libres y egoístas, su capacidad racional los conduciría a la generación de la moral
-no su materialización ni su descubrimiento- , pues entenderán y reconocerán más beneficios en la cooperación que en la discordia.1 Posteriormente Rousseau y Montesquieu elaborarían en más detalles normativos y sustantivos de tal contrato y su distribución de potestad, y es precisamente dicho pacto entre gobernado y gobernante, cuyo objetivo radica en abordar problemas e intereses colectivos, posiblemente por un actor pero también por una red de actores públicos y privados2, reivindicando y redefiniendo los poderes fácticos, que ha sufrido una serie de magnas transformaciones en materia de sus fines y sobre todo los medios, elemento que en la actualidad ha cobrado una importancia vital, contemporáneamente entendida como integridad.
La palabra integridad, desafortunadamente, se ha diluído y en el campo de la ciencia política interior y notablemente en el exterior, se confunde, malinterpreta o simplemente desconoce. El pasado 1° de marzo de 2025, realicé una entrevista aleatoria a alumnos de edades entre 19-22 años de diversas licenciaturas, sobre su entendimiento elemental del siguiente concepto: integridad global. De 20 personas entrevistadas, 18 refirieron al concepto como un proceso de cohesión internacional; señalando ejemplos, causas y efectos con mayor semejanza al proceso de globalización. Únicamente dos personas entrevistadas señalaron el carácter ético, moral y sostenible que dichas interacciones globales deben de poseer. Partiendo de esta preocupación, definiré integridad global como “la aplicación de valores, principios y normas en las operaciones diarias de varias entidades sociales; incluidos individuos, organizaciones, gobiernos e instituciones globales, crucial para promover la responsabilidad, confianza, comunicación, justicia y la disciplina en las administraciones públicas, tanto al interior como al exterior.” En cuanto a la definición sustantiva de dichos valores, principios y normas -la cual la condensaré en el concepto de “ética global”- se bifurca en dos vertientes que se caracterizan en la fluidez del término, es decir, si la ética global y sus característica y directivas son estáticas o en movimiento. Küng propone que en efecto es estática por su condición de universalidad y determina que posee tres características: a) De alcance mundial; b) Multidisciplinario (discrepo y opino que debería ser interdisciplinario) y c) Combinando teoría y práctica, es decir, una praxis de la moral previamente construida. Asimismo, detalla sus cuatro directrices, todas sustentadas en la creación de una cultura, un sistema compartido de creencias, costumbres e identidades arraigadas y compartidas. Pertinente sería mencionar que la costumbre en el derecho positivista, fundamento del estado de derecho mexicano, es una fuente de derecho, con dos locuciones latinas que lo respaldan: Inveterata Consuetudo y Opinio Juris Sevis Necessitatis. Esto podría proyectar un potencial jurídicamente vinculante -tanto a escala nacional como internacionales- a las directrices que Küng señala: I. Compromiso a una cultura de no-violencia y respeto por la vida; II. Compromiso a una cultura de solidaridad y orden económico justo; III. Compromiso a una cultura de tolerancia y veracidad y IV. Compromiso a una cultura de derechos igualitarios y de asociación entre hombres y mujeres.3
Mi preocupación más latente para el alcance de una efectiva y universal integridad global refiere al medio y fin de la comunicación entre la ciudadanía y el Estado al igual que su acceso efectivo y transparente. Parto del supuesto de organización política y administración pública donde el Estado asume, practica y predica una comunicación asertiva donde la consulta al ciudadano mediante referéndum, sufragio, encuesta pública o plebiscito figura una forma de generar política pública; tanto interior como exterior. El modelo antigüo prescrito por Nicolás Maquiavelo en Occidente y por Ivashka Peresvétov en Oriente, basado en la potestad absoluta del soberano y la supresión de la opinión e injerencia popular en el ejercicio del poder, son arcaicas y anticuadas y mientras cumplieron su función en la formación de un Estado moderno o la elaboración de literatura política, la contemporaneidad y su característica pluralidad del mundo actual demanda su desplazamiento e introducción de nuevas prerrogativas. Se complejiza la preocupación cuando extrapolamos la condición a la realidad internacional: donde las diferencias entre individuos son más latentes; los actores se diversifican y multiplican -OIGs, ONGs, Estados, grupos de Interés, grupos criminales, compañías trasnacionales, etc. ; donde la barrera lingüística es la de menor preocupación; e inclusive donde se produce una interacción que pocas veces se identifica, aquella entre Estado extranjero “X” y ciudadanía extranjera “Y”, la cual tiende a ser mínima si no es que ni se lleva a cabo, que ha resultado en los últimos años fundamental en el proceso de construcción y mantenimiento de la paz.
Es de mayor relevancia la reivindicación de la comunicación efectiva y transparente ante el advento de las tecnologías de la comunicación, cuyo acceso se reporta a 5.5 mil millones de personas con acceso al internet y 5.2 mil millones con acceso a redes sociales4 cuyas innovaciones sin cesar proporcionan al individuo con grandes poderes, haciendo referencia a la velocidad de comunicación, la facilidad de interpretación efectiva entre idiomas y lenguas, disminución de precios para su adquisición e introducción sin o poca regulación de la inteligencia artificial. Los actores internacionales y el Estado en particular deben colocarse en una situación de ventaja y vanguardia en torno a estas tecnologías lo cual más allá de regularlas jurídicamente o garantizar el acceso a sus ciudadanos, ambos deben reconocer e identificar que el plano tecnológico-social donde se desarrollan, comparten sus ideas y generan transacciones diarias la población mundial, es uno el cual figura y seguirá figurando como una segunda Tierra, con un grado de complejidad en materia a la naturaleza anárquica que el internet y las redes sociales propician, que si bien el Estado y compañías mediáticas tienen la potestad sobre ellas, no me parece que el camino sensible a seguir sea uno de regulación absoluta. Siguiendo un modelo de construcción estatal, debemos de recordar que lo digital no es tangible y por lo tanto las reglas no se aplicarán de igual forma. Permitir que el camino que La Mano Invisible de Smith y el Laissez-faire señalarían, se desarrollen, sería una equivocación igualmente. Entonces, precisamente mediante la injerencia popular y su consulta, se deberán crear las bases para una plataforma de comunicación fundamentada en su respectivo cuerpo legal, con acceso garantizado de calidad y efectivo y cuyo propósito más allá del ocio y recreación, sea de crear un plano de convivencia entre individuos, Estado y actores supraestatales. Así, la comunicación se propiciará de forma multilateral y con mayor celeridad que en un plano convencional, esclareciendo la integridad global en un rincón más de la realidad internacional, un rincón que crece en tamaño y relevancia de forma exponencial.
Читать весь текст
Социальные сети Instagram и Facebook запрещены в РФ. Решением суда от 21.03.2022 компания Meta признана экстремистской организацией на территории Российской Федерации.
