TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES 2030 (THE GLOBAL AGENDA) – THE PRINCIPLE =LEAVING NO-ONE BEHIND

Stakeholder Capitalism, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal target 16.9 (legal identity for all), the necessity of inclusive Digital Transformation, and the core principle of Leave No One Behind.

These terms are frequently used by international organizations (such as the UN and World Bank) and private sector entities in discussions about sustainable and equitable global development in the digital age.

Key Concepts

Leave No One Behind (LNOB): This is the “central, transformative promise” of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is an unequivocal commitment to eradicate poverty, end discrimination, and reduce inequalities, focusing on the most marginalized populations first. This principle is meant to cut across all 17 SDGs.

SDG 16.9: This specific target under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) aims to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030”. A legal identity is considered a fundamental human right and a prerequisite for accessing many other rights and services (healthcare, education, finance, voting, social protection), making it a key enabler for the entire 2030 Agenda.

Digital Transformation: The rapid shift towards a digitally enabled society offers immense opportunities for sustainable development but also risks exacerbating existing inequalities if not implemented thoughtfully. International bodies advocate for “inclusive by design” digital transformation strategies that place people and human rights at the center to ensure that vulnerable populations are not excluded from new digital services and opportunities.

Stakeholder Capitalism Partnership: This concept involves a business model where companies focus not just on shareholder value but also on meeting the needs of all stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers, local community, and the environment). Literature suggests that this approach can foster global partnerships and provide an optimal source for promoting decent work, economic growth, and innovation in a sustainable manner, aligning with the SDGs.

Interconnection The provided phrase connects these elements as a framework for inclusive global progress:

  1. Stakeholder Capitalism Partnership approach is seen as a way to mobilize resources and bring together different actors (governments, private sector, civil society).
  2. This collaborative effort would drive a worldwide Digital Transformation that is intentionally designed to be inclusive.
  3. A core objective of this digital transformation is to achieve SDG 16.9 (legal identity for all), often by leveraging digital identity systems.
  4. The ultimate goal of all these intertwined efforts is to uphold the promise to Leave No One Behind in the digital era.

n 2025, the intersection of Stakeholder CapitalismSDG 16.9 (Legal Identity), and Digital Transformation has become a critical focal point for global development efforts aimed at ensuring no one is left behind.

Global Strategy and Progress 2025

SDG 16.9 and Legal Identity: As of 2025, approximately 850 million people worldwide still lack official identification, a fundamental barrier to accessing health, education, and financial services.

Leave No One Behind (LNOB): This remains the central promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, focusing on reaching the “furthest behind first” to eradicate poverty and systemic discrimination.

Digital Transformation as a Lever: The UN and its partners have identified digital transformation as one of six critical transitions needed to accelerate SDG progress by 2030.

Key 2025 Partnerships and Initiatives

Stakeholder Capitalism & Business Action: The World Economic Forum (WEF) hosted the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings 2025 in September to convene business leaders and policymakers on digital trade and inclusive growth.

Identification for Development (ID4D): The World Bank’s ID4D cross-practice initiative continues to support countries in implementing digital ID systems to achieve the SDG 16.9 target.

UN System-Wide Efforts: The 2025 ECOSOC Partnership Forum utilized global stakeholder consultations to harness the power of multi-sector partnerships for SDG implementation.

The SDG 16 Conference 2025 (held May 12, 2025) focused on how investing in peace, justice, and institutions delivers practical dividends for governments and people.

Risks and Challenges in 2025

  • Digital Exclusion: Experts warn that rushing digital solutions without robust legal frameworks can inadvertently “lock out” vulnerable groups, making them “invisible” to governments.
  • Data Protection & Privacy: Ensuring data protection alongside digital identity is a major challenge; misuse of biometric data remains a grave risk for marginalized populations.
  • Funding Gaps: Official Development Assistance (ODA) saw its first decline in five years in late 2024/early 2025, primarily due to shifting global priorities and debt crises in low-income countries.
  • In 2025, programmable and multi-functional digital identification systems have moved from theory to widespread practical implementation across several nations. These systems allow users to selectively share attributes, sign documents, and access integrated government and private services directly through mobile applications.
  • Countries with Active Systems (2025)
  • Bhutan
  • : In February 2025,
  • Bhutanintroduced its National Digital Identity (NDI), which uses self-sovereign identity (SSI) technology. By October 2025, key parts of the system were anchored to the public Ethereum blockchain, allowing residents to manage credentials for over 40 services, including banking and healthcare.
  • India
  • : The Aadhaar system, covering 97% of the population, has evolved in 2025 with a new mobile app that allows for offline verification via QR codes and face authentication. It is used for “programmable” benefits delivery, where subsidies are sent directly to bank accounts linked to digital IDs.
  • South Korea
  • : Launched a digital Resident Registration Card in 2025 that uses blockchain and encryption. It fully replaces physical cards for mobile banking and is tied to a specific smartphone for security; if the device is lost, the ID can be deactivated immediately via a telecom provider.
  • Brazil
  •  continues to expand its blockchain-based digital ID program, which began in 2023. This decentralized system links the Federal Revenue Service with state databases, ensuring data protection and preventing document fraud across all 27 states.
  • European Union (Member States):
  • Estonia
  • : A long-term leader, Estonia’s e-ID allows for digital signatures that are legally binding across the EU. As of 2025, it is transitioning toward the EUDI Wallet.
  • Austria
  •  & 
  • Spain
  • : Both launched or expanded mobile ID systems (ID Austria and MiDNI) in 2025, allowing citizens to store driver’s licenses and national IDs on smartphones for online and offline use.
  • Poland
  • : Over 8 million citizens use the mObywatel app, which is now legally equivalent to physical ID cards for most daily activities.
  • Emerging “Programmable” Features in 2025
  • Selective Disclosure: New systems in
  • China
  •  (launched July 2025) and the EU (EUDI Wallet pilots) allow users to verify specific attributes—such as being over 18—without revealing their full name or date of birth.
  • Conditional Access: The
  • United Kingdom
  •  announced a nationwide Digital ID in September 2025, which will become mandatory for employment by 2029.
  • Cross-Border Interoperability: In September 2025, 16 southern African countries (SADC) announced a regional cross-border digital ID infrastructure to enable federated e-KYC (Know Your Customer) for banking and payments.

In 2025, Programmable Digital Identification refers to identity systems where the credentials are not just static records but can interact with software (such as smart contracts) to automate actions based on verified identity attributes.

Key Features of Programmable ID in 2025

Smart Contract Integration: Digital IDs are increasingly tied to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and other digital assets. This allows “programmable money” to be released only when specific identity conditions are met, such as age verification or residency status.

Selective Disclosure: Users can “program” their ID to share only the minimum necessary data—for example, proving they are over 18 without revealing their actual date of birth or name.

Conditional Access: Access to services can be automated. For instance, a digital wallet can automatically unlock a rental car or a hotel room as soon as it cryptographically verifies the user’s booking and identity.

Machine-to-Machine ID: In 2025, “identity” has expanded to include IoT devices and AI agents, which use programmable credentials to authorize autonomous transactions.

Implementation by Country (2025 Status)

Bhutan: In October 2025, Bhutan’s National Digital Identity (NDI) anchored its credentials to the public Ethereum blockchain, making it the first national-scale system to use a public ledger for programmable identity verification.

United Arab Emirates: Recognized as the global leader in digitalization in 2025, the UAE uses the UAE Pass to allow citizens to sign documents and access 3,000+ services with a single, programmable biometric login.

European Union: In 2025, member states are rolling out the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet, which allows citizens to store and “program” the use of diplomas, driver’s licenses, and IDs for cross-border services.

India: The Aadhaar mobile app (updated in 2025) now supports offline verification via QR codes and face authentication, enabling “programmable” interactions with private sector services without constant central database queries.

United Kingdom: In September 2025, the UK announced the “Brit Card,” a mandatory app-based system aimed for full rollout by 2029 to simplify interactions with healthcare and welfare.

Emerging 2025 Trends

Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI): A shift toward users owning their data on their own devices rather than in a central government “honeypot” database.

Liveness Detection: To combat AI-generated deepfakes, 2025 systems now mandate 3D face scans and micro-movement tracking as standard for “programmable” remote verification.

Continuous Multi-Factor Verification (MFV): Systems no longer just verify you at login; they continuously monitor behavior and device signals throughout a session to ensure the identity remains valid.

The World Bank Group, primarily through its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative, actively supports the implementation of digital identification systems in developing countries but focuses on inclusive, secure, and interoperable systems rather than explicitly “programmable” ones in the commercial sense of smart contracts. Its focus is on using digital ID as a platform for service delivery and financial inclusion, guided by the 10 Principles on Identification for Sustainable Development to ensure data protection and privacy.

World Bank’s Approach to Digital ID

Goal: The ID4D initiative aims to provide a unique legal identity for all by 2030 (SDG 16.9), with over 800 million people worldwide still lacking official ID as of late 2025.

Focus on Service Delivery: The World Bank views digital ID as an enabler for essential services such as social protection, healthcare, and financial access, especially for the poor and disadvantaged. The integration of these services into a broader “service stack” or Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) allows for more efficient and automated service delivery, which shares characteristics with the functionality of “programmable” systems.

Technology & Standards: The Bank promotes the use of biometrics and digital databases to replace paper-based systems, ensuring systems are robust, interoperable, and conform to an overall standards-based architecture.

Data Protection & Rights: The World Bank emphasizes the need for strong legal frameworks, data security, and privacy protection, and provides guidelines for policymakers to consider as they modernize their ID systems.

“Programmable” Aspects within the ID4D Framework..While the World Bank does not use the term “programmable” in official documentation in the context of commercial smart contracts, the systems it helps implement have the functionality to automate conditional service delivery:

G2Px Initiative: ID4D works closely with its sister initiative, G2Px (digitalizing government to person payments), to facilitate the direct and efficient transfer of benefits to individuals’ bank accounts linked to their digital ID, a “programmable” benefit delivery in function. In Thailand, for example, linking digital IDs to bank accounts allowed for rapid distribution of emergency cash assistance.

Conditional Access: The ID systems supported in countries like Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are designed to facilitate linkages with national social registries and health insurance programs to ensure improved targeting of various social programs.

Criticisms .The World Bank’s ID4D program has faced criticism from civil society organizations regarding the potential for human rights violations. Concerns include:

The promotion of potentially harmful models of digital ID systems that use centralized, biometric data collection.

Instances where poorly implemented ID systems have reportedly led to the exclusion and disenfranchisement of marginalized populations, as alleged with the Aadhaar system in India.

A call for greater transparency and independent, rights-based assessments of the World Bank’s role in supporting these systems.

The World Bank Group and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) are involved in digital ID and currency discussions but maintain distinct approaches regarding “programmable” features.

World Bank Group & ID4D Initiative..The World Bank, through its ID4D initiative, supports developing countries in creating inclusive, secure, and interoperable digital identification systems.

Focus: The primary goal is achieving SDG 16.9 (legal identity for all by 2030) and using ID as a platform to deliver essential services like social protection, healthcare, and finance.

“Programmable” Functionality: While not using the explicit term “programmable ID” in the commercial smart contract sense, the systems they help implement enable automated, conditional service delivery (e.g., G2Px payments), which is functionally similar to programmable benefits distribution.

Principles: The initiative is guided by the 10 Principles on Identification for Sustainable Development, emphasizing data protection, privacy, and the minimization of risks like social exclusion.

 

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ)

The RBNZ is exploring a potential Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), referred to as “Digital Cash,” but has explicitly stated it will not program the money itself.

No “Programmable Money”: The RBNZ has clarified that it will not place limitations or constraints on how the digital cash can be used (e.g., expiry dates or restrictions on spending location).

Programmable Payments: Instead, the RBNZ aims to enable a system where third parties (fintechs, banks, etc.) can build innovative “programmable payments” on top of the digital cash platform. This would allow users to set up automated, conditional transfers (e.g., an automatic rent payment via smart contract), giving users control over their money, similar to automatic payments today.

Privacy and Control: A key design principle for New Zealand’s potential Digital Cash is privacy. The RBNZ has emphasized that neither it nor the government would be able to see an individual’s transactions or collect personal data.

New Zealand’s Digital ID Framework: New Zealand’s wider digital identity framework is governed by the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Act 2023, administered by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). This framework focuses on secure, voluntary, and private digital credentials (wallets) that the user controls, rather than a central government-operated tracking system.

There is no formal partnership between the World Bank and the RBNZ specifically for a “programmable digital ID” or currency. The RBNZ’s work on digital cash and the DIA’s work on the digital ID framework are separate from the World Bank’s ID4D initiative, which primarily assists developing nations.

The term “China’s scorecard” most commonly refers to its national social credit system, which rates citizens and businesses on a scale of trustworthiness based on their behavior. The related but distinct digital identification system, officially known as the “Cyberspace ID” system, uses digital technology to link online activity to real-life identities, which complements the social credit system and allows for enhanced state control and surveillance.

China’s Social Credit System (The “Scorecard”)

Function: The social credit system assigns individuals and entities a score, typically ranging from 350 to 950 in pilot programs, which influences their access to various services and privileges.

Behavior Monitoring: The system tracks a wide range of actions, including financial responsibility, compliance with laws (e.g., traffic rules), and general social behavior like littering.

Rewards and Punishments:

High Scores (Rewards): Benefits may include cheaper loans, discounts on travel, and easier access to government services.

Low Scores (Punishments): Consequences can be severe, such as travel bans (being barred from trains or flights), denial of loans or mortgages, public shaming, and exclusion of children from top schools.

Goal: The government presents the system as a way to enhance trust in society and encourage better citizenship.

China’s Digital Identification System:-

Function: Rolled out nationally in July 2025, this system provides a unique, encrypted alphanumeric ID and a digital certificate to internet users after real-name and facial verification.

Integration with Surveillance: The digital ID system allows authorities to link online activities directly to a person’s national monitoring systems, effectively eroding online anonymity, which had already been curtailed by “real-name” registration laws.

Official Rationale vs. Concerns:-

Official Rationale: Authorities claim the system protects citizens’ personal information from data leaks and fraud by minimizing the data shared with private platforms.

Concerns: Human rights groups and analysts express serious concerns that the system is a centralized tool for mass surveillance and censorship, threatening online expression and potentially creating a “honeypot” of data vulnerable to massive leaks.

Status: While authorities maintain that the use of the Cyberspace ID is currently voluntary, some analysts warn it could become de facto mandatory due to its integration with major platforms like WeChat and Taobao.

IN 2025…CHINA’S  “scorecard” is primarily represented by its Social Credit System, which is now increasingly integrated with a centralized National Cyberspace ID. This digital infrastructure allows the state to track behaviors and apply “programmable” consequences—both rewards and punishments—based on an individual’s digital score.

The National Cyberspace ID System (Launched July 2025) On July 15, 2025, China officially implemented a unified digital identity system designed to centralize online authentication.

  • Encrypted Identifiers: Users are issued a “network number” (a unique alphanumeric code) and a “network credential”.
  • Centralized Control: Administered by the Ministry of Public Security and the Cyberspace Administration of China, this system replaces the need to provide personal data to private platforms like WeChat or Taobao.
  • Elimination of Anonymity: While marketed as a privacy tool, critics note it effectively links every online action—posts, purchases, and logins—directly to a government-controlled profile, ending any remaining online anonymity.

Programmable “Scorecard” Functions

The system functions as a programmable scorecard by linking behaviors to real-world access through the Social Credit System:

Behavioral Tracking: The system monitors actions such as shopping habits, social media interactions, and even jaywalking.

Dynamic Consequences:

High Scores: Citizens with high scores can access perks like cheaper loans, travel deals, and priority service.

Low Scores/Blacklisting: Low scores can lead to being barred from high-speed trains, planes, or luxury hotels, and can even prevent children from enrolling in top schools.

Real-Time Enforcement: The digital ID can be programmed to instantly block access to services if a user’s behavior is deemed “anti-social” or non-compliant with state rules.

Key Components of the Digital Infrastructure:-

Biometric Integration: The system relies heavily on facial recognition and national population data for verification.

Digital Yuan (e-CNY): China continues to expand its programmable digital currency, which can be restricted to specific types of purchases or geographic areas, further enhancing the “programmable” nature of citizen control.

Corporate Partnerships: Major platforms like Alibaba and Tencent are integrated into the system to facilitate state-led identity verification.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5512706-china-internet-id-law/#:~:text=The%20digital%20ID%20system%20also,sensitive%20biometric%20records%20in%202022.

In this photo taken Thursday, Nov. 15, 2018, a computer screen shows the leaked online post from Guilin University of Electronic Technology warning of “hostile domestic and foreign powers” that were “wantonly spreading illicit and illegal videos” through the internet in Beijing, China. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

On July 15, China passed new legislation known as the National Network Identity Authentication, also called Internet ID. Under this new law, Chinese citizens would voluntarily enroll via a government app, submitting their true name and a facial scan, after which they would be issued a unique ID code used for all online accounts. As of May, approximately 6 million individuals had already obtained IDs during the pilot phase.

Based upon the nature of the control the Chinese Communist Party has over media and censorship, it is not surprising the Chinese government desires the ability to track its population during their internet sessions, especially those citizens who would be critical of the current regime or dissidents that are living outside mainland China.

The new Internet ID law expands on an ongoing digital authoritarianism agenda pursued by China in recent years. Already, the Chinese government has demonstrated its growing capacity and willingness to monitor its citizens’ online activities.

From the widespread usage of internet backbone filtering through the “Great Firewall” to the mandatory real-name registration implemented since 2010, Beijing has increasingly restricted avenues for anonymous speech online. The new ID system is designed to further tighten the government’s grip on cyberspace at an individual level.

This law would enable the Chinese government, enabled by the new digital ID system, to centralize user identities in a government-controlled database, allowing authorities to track which user fronts which online account, even if platforms only see the anonymized token. This approach applies nation-state censorship in a more individualized way and introduces the possibility that content may be filtered or platforms blocked for certain users, both within China, where the government manages internet access, and potentially on a broader scale.

It could allow the Chinese government to use filters and blocking mechanisms within a platform to limit access to certain services associated with a personalized digital ID for specific individuals. While the legislation claims to be voluntary at launch, many fear that adoption could gradually become mandatory. In China’s regulatory environment, the “voluntary” label has frequently functioned as a transitional stage before compulsory enforcement.

Authorities have encouraged social media giants, e-commerce platforms and even payment providers to begin integrating the Internet ID into their user authentication flows. If access to essential digital services becomes dependent on possession of this ID, individuals may find their ability to function online is effectively contingent upon submitting their biometric and personal data to the state.

This law is just the next step in China’s desire for digital authoritarianism, enhancing the government’s ability to surveil, monitor, shape and control a population down to the individual citizen level.  The digital ID system also complements other previously designed surveillance systems, such as Sharp Eyespolice cloud systemsfacial recognition closed-circuit television systems and grid-style social management, allowing the Chinese Ministry of State Security to link online activities directly into national monitoring systems.

The digital ID system also complements broader data-localization and true-name tracking policies first enacted in 2017 under the Cybersecurity Law and fortified under the Personal Information Protection Law of 2021.

The Chinese government will argue that the system protects its citizens from fraud or other cyber-related crimes and is voluntary, but that voluntary argument fails the reality test, based upon mandatory aspects of previous digital legislation. This new digital ID system erodes the anonymity already curtailed by China’s real-name registration laws from 2010.

The other cybersecurity risk that a centralized database creates is the one-stop honeypot of data that, if compromised, could be catastrophic to the Chinese population, not unlike the past leaks of over 1 billion sensitive biometric records in 2022. Looking ahead, the introduction of China’s Internet ID is a decisive move further away from digital anonymity, putting powerful surveillance and censorship tools in the hands of the authorities.

If history is a guide, this technology may not remain voluntary for long. Its effects on privacy, civil liberties and the freedom of expression within and beyond China’s borders could be profound. As more platforms adopt mandatory digital ID checks, Chinese citizens face an even more controlled and surveilled internet for years to come.

James Turgal is the former executive assistant director for the FBI Information and Technology Branch and Optiv Security’s vice president of cyber risk, strategy and board relations.

Tags china Internet ID Chinese government Great Firewall Sharp Eyes

 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/564790/china-tightens-internet-controls-with-new-centralised-form-of-virtual-id

China tightens internet controls with new centralised form of virtual ID  21 June 2025

China has mastered the craft of policing the internet, operating one of the world’s most extensive online censorship and surveillance regimes. With mandatory identity checks on every online platform, it has become almost impossible for users to stay anonymous. But this rigidly moderated online environment is about to face even stricter controls with the introduction of a state-issued national internet ID.

Instead of requiring individuals to submit their personal information for identity checks separately on each platform, the government now seeks to centralise the process by issuing a virtual ID that will allow users to sign in across different social media apps and websites. The rules for the new system, currently voluntary, were released in late May and will be implemented in mid-July. It aims to “protect citizens’ identity information, and support the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy,” according to the published rules.

Experts, however, have raised concerns that the new policy will further erode already limited freedom of expression by forcing internet users to relinquish even more control to the state.

Since Chinese leader Xi Jinping took power in 2012, the country has further tightened its grip on the digital space through an army of censors. Deployed around the clock, they remove posts, suspend accounts and help authorities identify critics, quashing any sign of dissent before it can gain traction.

The finalised rules were announced after a proposal that was opened for public comment last summer, a typical step in China’s legislative process. During the course of the public consultation over the past year, the proposal faced backlash from law professors, human rights experts and some internet users. Yet, the finalised rules remained largely similar to the draft.

“This is a state-led, unified identity system capable of real-time monitoring and blocking of users,” said Xiao Qiang, a research scientist studying internet freedom at the University of California, Berkeley. “It can directly erase voices it doesn’t like from the internet, so it’s more than just a surveillance tool – it is an infrastructure of digital totalitarianism.”

Control of China’s vast portion of the global internet has largely been delegated to a decentralised range of different groups, with authorities relying partially on the social media platforms themselves to identify comments deemed problematic. Xiao warned that a centralised system using the internet ID could make it much easier for the government to wipe out a user’s presence across multiple platforms at once.

Shane Yi, a researcher at China Human Rights Defenders, an advocacy group, echoed Xiao’s worries. The system gives the Chinese government expanded power to “do what they want when they see fit” on the internet, as authorities are able to track users’ entire digital trail “from point zero,” she said.

At home, Chinese state-run media has called the internet ID a “bullet-proof vest for personal information” and touted the system as being able to greatly reduce the risk of personal data leaks. Already, more than six million people have registered for the ID, according to Chinese state-run media Xinhua last month, out of a total estimated online population of more than one billion.

A cybersecurity official from the Ministry of Public Security told Xinhua that the internet ID service was strictly “voluntary,” but the government encourages various industries and sectors to integrate with it. “Its goal is to provide individuals with a secure, convenient, authoritative and efficient means of identity verification, in support of the development of the digital economy,” the person was quoted as saying.

But experts have also questioned how voluntary the system truly is and highlighted risks of potential data breaches, as personal information is now being collected in a centralised manner. Haochen Sun, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, said that, although the law presents the system as voluntary, it could gradually evolve into a system which users may struggle not to opt in to.

“If the government wants to promote this internet ID verification system, it can do so through various arrangements – essentially by encouraging people to adopt it, offering more conveniences in return,” he said. Sun also raised concerns about the increased risks of data leaks. “A centralized, nationwide platform inherently creates a single point of vulnerability, making it an attractive target for hackers or hostile foreign actors,” he said.

Government data breaches have occurred around the world. One notable incident in China involved a police database containing the personal information of one billion citizens being leaked online in 2022.

Criticism silenced..Although the new rules won’t take effect until mid-July, hundreds of apps started trialling the internet ID since last year.

The system was born out of a proposal by a police official early last year. Jia Xiaoliang, a cyber police deputy director in northeastern China who is also a delegate to China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress, first proposed the system during the Congress’ annual meeting in March 2024.

As soon as the government began soliciting public comments on the proposal last July, experts and legal scholars voiced opposition. Lao Dongyan, a prominent law professor at Tsinghua University, compared the system to “installing a surveillance device on every individual’s online activity” in a post on Weibo, an X-like Chinese social media platform.

The post was removed soon after, and her account was subsequently suspended from posting for three months, for “violating relevant rules.”

In late May, when the finalised rules were unveiled after a year, almost no criticism could be found online. Xiao explained that it’s not the first time authorities have spaced out the time between a proposal and its implementation, to allow critics to “blow off steam.” “It’s done deliberately … Many of their measures follow the same pattern, and they’ve proven effective,” he said. 

By John Liu, for CNN

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER Cassie

...

Global Governance Blog Posts View all Categories

THE COINED PHRASE ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVLOPMENT’- THE LIFEBOAT PARADIGN DEFINES WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME BOAT

The Utopian Fiction of the Life Boat Paradigm that suggests that “Harmony & Interests – Lifestyles -are all the same”

Personally I believed the coined phrase Sustainable Development should be totally banned. Its corrupted, meaningless. Obscures real issues. It’s a catch phrase of Globalist Governance – A political-Economic- Societal Global Agenda

The coined phrase describes anything & everything. Is extremely vague & loaded with assumptions, hidden agenda’s – often promotes a Decolonization Theory  as a global strategy

Corporations, companies that leach poisons, toxins down drains into waterways etc., are often marketed as Sustainable. The worlds most used marketing, advertising word ‘Sustainability’ And the masses fall prey to it.

The Sustainability Development trap. The ideology of Nature back to Nurture. Promoting Sustainable Development at any cost. The biggest cost is to the consumer. Yet Sustainable Development is entwined into the Global Degrowth Strategy.

Sustainable Development – You’ll be Happy but you will own Nothing. The New Normal- The Decade of Action. A Socialist Global Governance worldwide. An extremist radical global Agenda. Transforming Our World 2030 (Without your consent) A Global Political Agenda

The concept of ‘Sustainable Development. The Village Civilization endorsement of the SDGs. The Brundtland Report– Sustainable Development for the ‘Present Generation and for Future Generations to Come.

Namely described as ‘Meeting the Needs of the Present’- without compromising the Ability of Future Generations to meet their own Needs. Is not necessarily sustainable for Future Generation..

This is exploitation of the Present Generations and Future Generations to come- The Zero Sum Game Changer in the name of the globalized Catch-Phrase ‘Sustainable Development’

In the name of Sustainable Development- Drones- Robots- Wind and Solar Farms on vast pieces of productionable land for Food Security. But justified under the concept of Sustainable Development

The destruction of the lives of Small Farming Industries-. Small Businesses all the name of Sustainable Development. Destruction of the Free-market innovative Economy all under the globalist Sustainable Development Strategy.

The expansion of Free Choice and many other virtues of the Free-market economy- individual choice. Adam Smiths Wealth Of Nations which spells out the benefits of the Invisible Hand for Citizens and Society- But populations worldwide are trapped in the Sustainable Development Globalist Agenda

Economic Freedom is at the heat of Free-markets, a precondition for Political Freedom  of Expression. Under Stakeholder Capitalism (Socialism) Production is under centralized control by the Govt where individuals lack the economic means to sustain themselves

Free-markets create a future promoting integrity and trust where the future matters. Multi-Stakeholder Capitalist is everywhere.. Klaus Schwab’s baby which was originally popularized post the 2008-2009 Global Recessions by Govts, Corporations-Corporations etc., worldwide.

Stakeholder Capitalism the new mantra of the Business Round Table announced in August 2019 endorsed by 200 CEO’s of the largest Corporations in the world, the worlds top business CEO’s in DAVOS Switzerland ‘Corporate Capture- Sustainable Development

Its not a new idea.. it was launched by the 1932 Management Classic ‘The Modern Corporation’ and ‘Private Property’ author Adolf A Berle & Gardiner C Means. Where Public Firms have Public Managers who would balance the claims of different stakeholders- taking into account public policy

Big companies tried to implement it over 40years, it led to mass confusion  was known as the  as  the ‘Garbage Can Organizations’. Trapped in Sustainable Development. Corporation the front seat drivers. Govts the Back Seat Passengers & Civilians  (Citizens) the Window Dressing.

The UN & UN Member States enables Corporate Capture. Creating a narrative where corporations are portrayed as benevolent heroes that are necessary for the world to achieve Sustainable Development

Unmasking Corporate Capitalism (Eco Socialism) Sustainable Development a monopoly of Corporate Control

The Green Ideology of many shades of Grey. Sustainable Development a concept that’s mainly philosophically packed with hidden agenda’s, assumptions, predictions, theories… of Wind and Solar Farms. It will be a Dark World when the Lights Go Out. All In The Name Of Sustainable Development.

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER: Cassie

...

NEW ZEALAND’S VERY OWN GREAT RESET

The Washington Post reported on 12th December 2022 an article titled ‘For Better or Worse, Billionaires Guide Climate Policy. Referring to Bill Gates and other ultra wealthy business people that are steering the energy transition towards the worldview and most favoured technologies. Ultra Billionaires having never been elected to office, however have massive influence with UN Member head of States and the UN itself. Influence over govt’s worldwide, hence influences over populations globally

All key players of Schwab Great Global Redesign Initiative the New Normal, the Great Reset. Ultra wealthy investors, philanthropists green wealth to the ultra billionaire few.  Politically economically, social, trade off to destroy small businesses, small farming communities to replace them with a stakeholder capitalist corporate economy.

Namely a global Marxist-Socialist ideology of a two class system. In the name of collectivism, of which the core is  ‘totalitarianism’. Fraudulent, Corrupt ESG Scores. Economic, Social, governance scoring. Marxism is its two class identity. Everyone has a group identity, dismiss individual identity. Identity Politics, the dark side of politics. New Zealand own great reset has been a boiling frog, the waters are boiling and the majority of the population are going to be burned. The National Iwi Leaders Chairs Forum, The Maori Council, The Human Rights Commission, The Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group established in 2005 under Labour Clark led govt. All collaborating  with successive govts Labour and National.

Like the ultra billionaires the global Elite, NZ has its own Iwi Elite. Iwi Corporations. Iwi Freshwater Leaders driving the Three Waters Reform. They have become the front seat drivers, the government the back seat passengers and we the audience the roadkill. Iwi/Maori with special elite privileges to manage control New Zealand Natural Resources including freshwater.  Promoted by both Labour and National led govts. Indigenous Data, Indigenous Constitution, Indigenous Freshwater, Indigenous control, management over all natural resources in NZ. Indigenous policy making and implementation . Iwi leaders incorporating  Iwi values into the . Resource Management Act NZ. The government enacting race based legislations, laws.

To manage freshwater and land. Freshwater and Indigenous Biodiversity. Iwi and freshwater governance. Three Waters, He Puapua the entrenchment of the UNDRIP into NZ all part of the Govt-Iwi Vision 2040 plan of action. NZCPR. NZ Centre for Political Research. Dr Muriel Newman authored an article March 14th 2011. The shadowy and powerful group of tribal iwi have become a driving force behind the acquisition of public assets, most people are unaware how Iwi Elite have deeply penetrated the National and Labour Govts.

Auckland University Professor Elizabeth Rata had written extensively about the dangers to NZ’s democratic system of an indigenous rights strategy that threatens public commons that threatens our coastlines, our National parks our water and our air. The Iwi Elite seeking to privatise these public assets. In her speech at Auckland University titled ‘People Power or Ethnic Elites in 2005. She explains about the shift in strategies used by Iwi, the quest for property rights and constitutional recognition The shift from a Treaty of Waitangi justification to a comprehensive indigenous groups rights, to claim customary rights on property guaranteed under Common Law.

The Iwi approach if successful is very means very serious consequences for NZ. The property rights will privatise large socio-economic assets into the hands of Iwi Corporations. Small Iwi Elite autocratic over the majority of New Zealanders of all ethnicities.. This will undermine the integrity of the New Zealand nation, Rata said.  Elizabeth Rata said the Marine & Coastline Area Bill will privatise to Iwi Corporations, there is an massive  appetite for public resources. Political commentator Matthew Hooton described the relationship between Iwi leaders and Govt “The groups inter-relationships with Iwi, Maori Party and the Govt are murky, they don’t speak for all Maori but behave as if they do”. The Iwi Elite grew out of the Sealord deal where 57 tribal groups were mandated to receive and manage the settlement proceeds., this was not to help and support the wider Maori population. Over the years this self selected group of Iwi authority of chair persons have side-lined traditional methods to retain control and power over a growing asset base.

According to their website, key members of the elite clique that make up the Iwi Chairs Forum, are Mark Solomon from Ngai Tahu, Tukoriorangi Morgan of Te Arataura, Sonny Tau of Ngapuhi, Prof Margaret Mutu of Ngati Kahu, Toko Renata of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Ngahiwi Tomoana of Ngati Kahungunu, and Apirana Mahuika of Ngati Porou. They have a close association with the government which has resulted in personal benefit for Tuku Morgan who was paid $141,000 in directors fee’s as well as $100,000 in success fee’s for completing Tainui Waikato River settlement. In edition he was paid as a Crown facilitator to help other Iwi settlement. Between November 2008 and March 1st 2009 the office of Treaty Settlements paid him $171,000. At the time this article was authored by NZCPR Iwi/Maori Corporations were understood to be worth approx. $25 Billion, almost half the value of NZ Stock Exhange. They have a myrid of other commercial assets, opportunities including oversease interests eg With the Chinese.

The National Party and the Labour Party leaders have jumped to the tune of the powerful Iwi/Maori Elite, the Iwi Tribal corporations underlying strategies to privatise valuable public assets over a number of years, Hence He Puapua, Three Waters reform to implement Iwi rights, interests over all others, who are the mixed ethnic races that our NZ Cit

The top global names of the ultra super wealthy, Bezos, Mike Bloomberg, Gill Gates. The wealthy billionaires with huge climate ambition. Again involving controlling natural resources of the world. In the global market place, through fear tactics, a continuous Marxist crisis ideology to re-engineer societies behaviour to replace traditions, cultures with a post modern multistakeholder corporate political economy. Wealth not health. De-growth not innovative growth. These few ultra wealthy billionaires that work closely and fund the UN and their Climate policies. UN Climate Change Conference in Egypt – COP27, where their projects were on prominent display. The ultra wealthy that rub shoulders with UN Member government leaders, NGO, CEO’s, large corporations that have caused are guilty of  toxic pollution.

Like Bill Gates who has huge influences in UN Agencies, climate change and COVID19 and they call themselves planet savers. PPP = People Planet and Profit, very, very huge profits at the peoples expense. Bill gates and his innovations where he receives and plans to receives potentially billions of dollars in the WEF-Klaus Schwab  Great Global Redesign Initiative. Pushing the initiatives, strategies of the new green hydrogen, nuclear and carbon capture technologies, the climate package Gates helped champion by Biden. The Jeff Bezos Earth Fund created by the Amazon founder and Washington Post owner is a key partner to the US Govt in carbon trading programs, climate solutions. Mike Bloomberg with his large climate efforts has been named as a United Nations special envoy on climate. He invested more that $1.5 billion into programs that move countries away from fossil fuels. Billionaire engagement in climate action, private companies, corporations, philanthropists and governments worldwide. All obsessively redirecting, replacing the free- market economy for a Klaus Schwab Multistakeholder Corporate capitalist one led by Marxist Socialist Regimes worldwide with their two class society ideology.

Jeff Bezos Earth Fund, Rockefeller Foundation being Biden’s admin partners in creating the US climate envoy. John Kerry said  in his speech referring to fighting global warming  “No government in the world has enough money to get this job done,” Kerry said at the program’s unveiling. “We will only succeed with a massive infusion of private capital.”

Closer to home, across the ditch, an Australian mining magnate, billionaire- is another climate activist wanting to save the planet with ‘green hydrogen’. Andrew Forrest who said he has personally met Biden. Forrest said in an interview his company is investing in these renewable technologies and creating massive green energy sites around the world all committed as a galloping herd to help send the world green”.  “The company is investing in these technologies and creating massive green energy sites around the world, all committed as a galloping herd to help send the world green.” No billionaire in the world is as influential as Bill Gates as he has invested billions into dozens of CO2 Zero emissions projects.

RNZ reported 29th November 2022. Carbon Capture Firm wants to Remove millions of tonnes of CO2 from the air in NZ. The Govt’s Emissions Reduction Plan spending $2.9 billion from the Emergency Response Fund (RNZ 14/5/2022) over the next 4 years. Both Labour and National have committed themselves to this emissions budget. This includes accelerating and establishing a Centre for Climate Action on Agriculture Emissions,($339 Million).  Active Shared transport ($23 Million).  Increasing walking, cycling and public transport ($350 Million),  Decarbonising public transport ($40 million), Decarbonizing freight transport ($20 million). Seven year spend. Decarbonization $650Million over 4 years, plus $25 million and planning for suture years $330 million. Embedding Te Tiriti  and matauranga Maori into researc, science and innovation. Cleaner Cars Climate Emergency Fund $569 million

Over $6 million to support implement He Waka Eke Noa.  $35.4 million for the transition for farmers and grower, whenua Maori collaboration.  Sustainable Food and Fibre Future Fund. Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor said the country’s economic security depended on the sector. Govt call this their biggest export earner. Agriculture Minister Meka Whaitiri said funding would help Iwi / Maori to lower emissions in their growing primary industry. “It’s about determining the most appropriate uses for our whenua, adopting new technology to reduce emissions, and providing on the ground support to make the changes.”

Govt also plan to roll out at least another 100km of urban cycleways 25 pedestrian areas. And also removing car parking spaces outside businesses and some residential areas. Iwi businesses are flourishing, extending their investment into more social iniatives

Iwi Leaders Forum, Iwi Freshwater, management, control of freshwater in NZ. Judge Anthony Willy authored an article for the NZCPR 3rd April 2016. The Water, The Rule and the Treaty. Anthony Willy is a Barrister and Solicitor, served as a judge on four courts. District, Environment, Tax and Valuation. He is a former law lecturer University Canterbury. An Arbitrator, commercial mediator a Resource Management Act Commissioner as at April 2016. The majority of New Zealanders must despair when they see such powerful forces arraigned against them and mounting such a determined assault on the Rule of Law which mandates in the matter of fresh water allocation as in all other areas of public policy that the law apply equally to all regardless of colour, creed, or status.

Judge Willy “There would be an obligation on local councils to consult with iwi about the use of water in which they might have a special interest, but there was to be no suggestion of “co-governance” and all decision-making with regard to water would continue to be vested in democratically-elected councils.  He reminded the audience that the Government had repeatedly made it clear that nobody owns the water.(My emphasis)” NZ Centre Of Political Research 3rd April 2016)

Hobsons Pledge article ‘The tribal claim for water ownership’ Stuff NZ reported 13/11/2015 Iwi-Kiwi theme set to return in campaign over water rights. A political think-tank is set to revive the “Iwi-Kiwi” advertising theme to highlight what it claims is a plan to give Maori water rights by stealth.

Power resides in those that own, control the water. Water Algorithms like gold is on the world stock market. Scoop News NZ. Race based water rights a step closer 24th April 2015. Water is being targeted by Iwi/Maori elite as the next resource to control. The influential Iwi Leaders Group is pushing ahead with their demand for a proprietary right to freshwater. They want a preferential allocation – in perpetuity – that can be commercialised.

NZ has its own Great Reset happening, and its been growing expanding for almost a decade. Identity Politics, Divide and Separate, a two tier society perpetrated by political and Iwi Leader disrupters of NZ society.  The Maori King gathered a thousand people and announced “Maori have always owned water”. But the snow, rain ice are all naturally occurring and essential for human life.

LINKS:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/73957635/iwi-kiwi-theme-set-to-return-in-campaign-over-water-rights

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1504/S00709/race-based-water-rights-a-step-closer.htm?from-mobile=bottom-link-01

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1504/S00709/race-based-water-rights-a-step-closer.htm?from-mobile=bottom-link-01

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/12/billionaires-climate/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479711/carbon-capture-firm-wants-to-remove-millions-of-tonnes-of-co2-from-the-air-in-new-zealand

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/467196/first-emissions-reduction-plan-spends-2-point-9b-from-emergency-response-fund

https://www.nzcpr.com/water-the-rule-of-law-and-the-treaty/

.

 

...

NZ PANDEMIC PLAN- A FRAMEWORK FOR PANDEMIC ACTION & A GLOBAL EARTH ALLIANCE

INTERIM UPDATE JULY 2024- PAGE 125

SPECIAL POWERS TO USE FORCE ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF NEW ZEALAND

SPECIAL POWERS: Special powers are authorized by the Minister of Health or by an Epidemic Notice – these apply where an emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act

THE POWER TO DETAIN: The power to detain, isolate, quarantined – allows a medical officer of health to ‘require persons’, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals or things to be isolated, quarantined or disinfected (Section 70 (1)(f) Can enter your property without a Warrant.

THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE PREVENTIVE TREATMENT: Allows a Medical Officer of Health, in respect of any person who has been isolated or quarantined, to require people to remain where they are isolated, quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, and until they have undergone such preventive treatment as the Medical Officer of Health as prescribed.

THE USE OF FORCE: Section 71A states that a member of the Police may do anything reasonable necessary (including the use of force) to help a Medical Officer of Health or any person authorized by the Medical Officer of Health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under Sections 70 or 71

THE ONE HEALTH APPROACH: Has already been implemented, this is described as :- Humans, Animals- Wild and Domestic, Oceans, River waterways, soil, plants, tree’s, the whole world’s Eco-System is inter-connected. This is namely an ‘Earth System Governance’. A Global Environmental governance in times of turbulence to  create vast complex societies- globalized economies..corporate capture. (Earth systems are deeply connected)

THE MOBILIZING OF AN EARTH GOVERNANCE ALLIANCE: . This is at the forefront of moving towards the sustainable (Socialist Blueprint) global strategy the global transformation to leave no-one behind. Everyone, everywhere – at every age.

RESPONDING TO FUTURE PANDEMICS: The New Zealand Pandemic Plan sets out the health system strategy and framework for actions for preparing for and responding to future pandemics. It can be adopted and applied (with adaptations as necessary) to any pandemic event. It sets out the health system strategy and framework for actions in preparing for and responding to future pandemics. While the plan is focused on respiratory pathogens, such as influenza and COVID-19, it can be adopted and applied (with adaptations as necessary) to any pandemic, regardless of the nature of the pathogen and its severity. NOTE: REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PATHOGEN AND ITS SEVERITY

A DEMOCRACY WITHOUT BORDERS: A Mega new campaign aims at strengthening the ‘Global Environmental Governance’ (The Global Order)  A meeting was held in Geneva on the March 26th 2024 as to  Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA) will serve as a platform to build a coalition of civil society organizations and like-minded states, along with legislators, experts, business actors and other stakeholders, who intend to work together in this field and amplify relevant initiatives. Climate Governance. MEGA Platforms. UN Member States at the Decision making table

Researcher Cassie

WakeUpNZ

...

CHINA WANTS ITS OWN INTERNATIONAL RULES BASED ORDER. ‘INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE INTERNATIONAL RULES BASED ORDER’

Are we living in are globalist coup effectuated a wealthy powerful international elitists that are ambitiously determined to control all of humanity, executed by various International instruments, regulations, restrictions, controls and policies. Time and time again I hear leaders of UN Nation States, Christopher Luxon since becoming the leader of NZs  governing Coalition Party eluding to the International Rules Based Order. As an avid researcher my curiosity got the better of me as I asked myself “Is there a difference between International Law and the International Rules Based Order, if there is then what is it and what does it mean”?

My research led me to the following:-The International Rules Based Order ignores ‘Human Rights Laws”. That China’s Communist Government want their own ‘International Rules Based Order”

There are double standards when it comes to Human Rights however the Universal Declaration of Human Rights insists that the Rules Based International System must be founded on Human Right and applied to everyone, everywhere. Ever since UN’s creation there has been inadequate to say the least response to Human Rights violations that has taken place all around the world. Since the beginning of 2020 these have been massively violated mandating populations to become human lab rats, the injecting of experimental substances into the arms of babies, from the cradle to the grave. (IA 2030 leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age’. The huge weaponizing of freedom of thought, opinion, speech, the tracing, tracking of civilians worldwide, building up a treasure trove  personal digital information, described as ‘Digital Governance’  (Digital Surveillance and Digital Censorship equates to a top down global  totalitarian Digital Regime .

Revolutionary Leftist Socialist minority groups hamstrung by demanded that they have self determining rights that the rest of the population must cede their self determining rights.. The global powerful International Rules Based Order that sparks fear into the minds of populations globally to obtain the Future they Want, this future is called ‘The wonderful world of Utopia, where we are all told time and time again ‘For the Common Good Of All’. Our Common Future, the communist global manifesto. Our Common Future includes everyone has exactly the same wants, beliefs, hopes etc., that peoples lifestyles are determined in in exactly the same way, the destruction of individual thoughts, individual lifestyles this is global Totalitarian Top Down Tyranny. (A Global Communist Regime controlling everyone, everything on this planet)

Hypocrisy and staggering double standards were UN Nation States cannot criticize human rights violations just because their interests are at stake. This has happened in NZ when the ACT Party put a motion into the House (Parliament)., calling China out on Genocide. In the end other parties were more worried about their relationship with China so took out the word Genocide and softened the content within the motion. (This quite simply explains how the International Rules Based Order works)  UN Member State Governments fail to put their heads above the parapet to take a stand against Human Rights Violations even when it comes to millions being tortured, imprisoned and murdered. No wonder within the parameters of UN States themselves Human Rights Abuses continue to happen.  All that this International Rules Based Order can use as an excuse is ‘Blame Colonization’. Wake up the whole world has been colonized by different cultures, ethnicities, tribes etc.,  Whats the real reason? Of course its globalized Citizenship a One World International Order to rule, order the populations of the world.

Time and time again they voice its all about race, I disagree, if they can find an excuse they will use it. Its all about divide, conquer and the victim approach, the blame and shame game. Destroy westernization destroy the family destroy your personal identity, destroy sovereign nations, mass migration dilute traditional sovereign nations, destroy Christianity, destroy motherhood and fatherhood replace XX and XY with LGBTQ1+ 120 or more gender ideologies. Replace Science and Biology with Ideology  and dramatic theatre. UN Nation States Governments have jumped on board with this, hence we have an uncontrollable corrupted insane world. Corrupt, disruptive Woke institutions that are fully funded and promoted by Human Rights Commissions. The Rules based order is seen as a concept developed by political scientists and politicians that does not take into fall account International Law

The International Rules Based System makes no attempt to proclaim a legal order with defined rules and law making. It is an alternative regime outside that of the discipline of International Law which actually threatens individuals rights, instead works for the revolutionary collective minority groups. Political scientists often study elites, who seek to acquire and to maintain power by invoking and manipulating international law to suit their own individual interests, they fit nicely under that of which I call an International Rules Based System.

International Law is the independent good for all citizens of the world promotes individualism (individual human rights) Where each of us all have self determining rights. Freedom of speech is where any sort of voiced opinion criticism lies in the ears of the beholders not controlled by a top down totalitarian regime. The Rules and Principles of International Law are universally accepted principles of international law include the following: that a state will respect the sovereign equality of all states; that a state will refrain from the threat or use of force against another state except in self-defence; and that states will settle their dispute by peaceful means. The ultimate basis of international obligation, for sociological jurists, is the society itself. They contend that social necessities provide not only the origin, but also the basis and the validating criterion of law

International Law is premised on the values of the internal community enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The  deliberate ignorance to condoning of massive Human Rights Violations fits under the International Rules Based System where genocidal communist regimes and socialist leftist are protected, where corrupt feet of the WEF C EO’s have their feet under the table of the UN which I personally believe is the International Rules Based System. The International Rules based System has been described as “nothing but a tool for a select group of  global elitists, for selective countries to advance their own exploitive ambitions. Under the International Rules Based Order there is an overarching authority enforcement authority that often goes completely unchallenged. UN Nation States Government sign the citizens of the country up to UN Treaties, Agreements without any consideration as to what the majority population want or do not want, this goes unchallenged, the collaboration of an International Rules Based System (Order)

The ultimate basis of international obligation, for sociological jurists, is the society itself. They contend that social necessities provide not only the origin, but also the basis and the validating criterion of law. “China exhibits a flexible approach to international law that enables it to benefit from and exploit the international order without the need to advocate changes to the letter of the law in most areas”. But China wants it own International Rules Based Order

RESEARCHER: Carol Sakey (Cassie)

 

...