Search results

What is the historical, normative and institutional setting that helps leading Latin American and Eurasian countries to implement a post-hegemonic agenda and contribute to the multipolarization of global politics? Post-hegemony describes a situation in which the unipolar organization of the world political economy is challenged by a plurality of alternative projects, without however being entirely replaced by another system. Emblematic of post-hegemonic initiatives is the rise of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa countries who have taken the lead in creating alternative institutions that constrain US global hegemony, while however failing to spearhead a coherent, uniform and confrontational opposition movement. Regarding post-hegemonic regionalism, Latin American regionalism – as represented by Bolivarian Alliance for Our America (ALBA) – is characterized by a social justice-driven agenda that refutes US neoliberal hegemony, whereas the peculiarity of Eurasian regionalism – as represented by Shanghai Cooperation Organization – lies in its security-oriented focus that confronts US interventionism and international terrorism. An underlying commonality of both Latin American and Eurasian experiences is that they constitute a multi-front struggle centered on four main areas: culture, economy, financial cooperation, and regional defense. They both hinge on a strong normative framework and firm commitment in the regionalization of an endogenous culture, educational cooperation, and defense system. They all accord primary importance to social, financial, and infrastructural development. Overall, these experiences suffer from unresolved tensions between national sovereignty and supranationalism alongside the predominance of charismatic leaders inhibiting institutionalization. The limitations and contradictions of post-hegemonic transformations also include Latin America’s inability to resolve the question of extractivism, Eurasia’s neglect of the question of democratic participation, and both regionalism’s failure to offer a coherent alternative model of economic development to US hegemonism.

The aspirations at the 2021 World Congress for Justice WITH Children [WC] were lofty: ‘nothing about children without children’. Then a dose of reality kicked in. Children's live participation at the WC was almost as rare as sightings of white tigers in the wild. While several youths aged 18–25 had live speaking roles at the WC, their placement at the small table meant few would hear them.

In this Chapter, four Child and Youth Advisory Board [CYAB] members discuss why it matters that children and youth receive a seat at the big table. Children and youth offer the ‘lived experiences’ of young persons, which adults cannot possibly duplicate. Given the post-hegemonic character of youth organisations, the youth themselves are the ones best suited to use these experiences to analyse the child justice system and to develop policy goals germane to the best interests of the current generation of youth. To facilitate the youth contribution from the ground floor up, the CYAB members call upon adults to serve as intergenerational partners who resist the temptation to discipline the form and content of the youth's ideas. Along these lines, this Chapter itself is designed to let the youth voices resonate.