Yurii Ratushyn, Serhii Polenok
CIVILISM OF THE DIGITAL SOCIETY
UDC 821.161.2’06-311.6-94
R60
Ratushyn,
Yu., Polenok, S.
Civilism of the Digital Society / Yurii Ratushyn, Serhii Polenok. – Odesa: Helvetyka Publishing House, 2025. – 420 p.
ISBN 978-617-554-608-6
From the landfill of geopolitics to Civilism — the digital society — a spontaneous order in the web space of the noosphere.
He who governs the web space of the noosphere governs the world.
This book is NOT dedicated to the philosophy of Silicon Valley — it is dedicated to the Ukrainian School of Cybernetics.
Ending eternal wars, overcoming global crises, and adapting to climate change — these transformations lead to the creation of a new international organization — the International Hub for Sustainable Development Project Management.
Accordingly, civilism is the economic and legal form of the digital
society.
© Yurii Ratushyn, Serhii Polenok, 2025
Contents
Struggle of
Ideologies
.................................................................................
4
Interpretation of Terms
............................................................................ 21
Dedication ..................................................................................................
28
About the Authors
.....................................................................................
30
To the Ukrainian Reader
.......................................................................... 31
To the European Reader
............................................................................ 37
Translation into Ukrainian
....................................................................... 41
Meanings ....................................................................................................
45
The Digital Society
....................................................................................
51
The Digital Vector of Evolution
............................................................. 71
Evolution of Social Institutions
.............................................................. 91
Digital Evolution of Order
....................................................................... 107
Civilism: Freedom – Equality – Justice in the Digital Society ..........
162
Democracy, Liberalism and Civilism
..................................................... 196
Exclusive Interview for Delfi
................................................................. 260
Phase Portrait of the Digital Society
..................................................... 296
Final Part
...................................................................................................
410
SUMMARY
The geopolitical chaos of the 20th–21st centuries has become not only a consequence of technological revolutions but also a crisis of meaning, in which the old models of power, ideology, and international law have lost their legitimacy. A world built on the principles of force, balance of fear, and resource domination now stands on the brink of self-destruction.
At the same time, within the digital environment, a new logic is emerging — the logic of Civilism, where order arises not as the result of coercion but as the outcome of ethical interaction.
Civilism is a new philosophy of social governance in which the human being ceases to be an object of the system and becomes a subject of digital institutional action. It is not merely an attempt to reform the state, but a transition from centralized power to a polycentric ethics of responsibility, where each person is a participant in the moral space of the noosphere.
The web space of the noosphere
represents a new stage of civilizational development — a realm where ideas,
data, technology, and consciousness merge into a single algorithm of life.
Whoever can harmonize this space governs not the world through power, but the
world through justice and freedom.
The digital society emerges as an institutional alternative to geopolitical chaos — a new form of international peace founded not on rivalry among states, but on mutual responsibility among digital persons and their institutions.
This is the essence of the transition from the landfill of geopolitics to
the ethics of Civilism.
The book focuses the reader’s attention on the main directions of formation of the digital society.
Ukraine has always been not only the geographical center of Europe but also the mental center of the evolution of legal thought. From Ruska Pravda (11th–12th centuries) to Glushkov’s Cybernetics — this is the path from customary law to the digital logic of ethical governance.
The Ukrainian School of Cybernetics is
not merely a science of systems.
It is a science of the moral boundaries of algorithms, of harmony
between logic and conscience, of responsible management of complex social
processes. Glushkov, Amosov,
Mykhalevych, Yushchenko, Malynovskyi — these thinkers laid the foundations of a
science devoted not only to managing technical systems but also to governing
the evolution of society itself.
On this very foundation, Civilism is born — the continuation of the Ukrainian tradition of governance through reason, conscience, and balance.
· Ruska Pravda (1016) — the first European system of customary law that established balance between individual responsibility and collective justice.
· Yassa of Genghis Khan (1206) — a code of discipline that united vast territories through moral order, not merely through force.
· Magna Carta Libertatum (1215) — the beginning of European legal culture of freedom that limited the arbitrariness of power.
· The Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk (1710) — a Ukrainian prototype of modern parliamentarism and legal humanism.
· The Constitution of the United States (1787) — establishment of a federal model of balance of interests.
· The Napoleonic Code (1804) — unification of law that placed the human being at the center of the legal system.
· Creation of the New System of International Security. Civilism (2001–…) — emergence of a digital legal paradigm where freedom, equality, and justice are realized through the Digital Institutional Platform (DIP).
This is not “peace through strength,” not an imperial slogan — it is peace through the institutionalization of the digital society. A peace born from the synthesis of eternal values — Freedom, Equality, and Justice — and strengthened by technological responsibility.
It is peace that nourishes everyone, because it is based on the ethics of shared prosperity, not exploitation.
The pilot operation of the Digital Institutional Platform and the Hub has
demonstrated that the digital institutional model can become not only a
technical but also an ethical solution for the planet.
Thus, the Ukrainian School of Cybernetics and Digital Civilism are links in a single historical chain that began a thousand years ago and is now entering its digital phase of maturity.
We were the beginning. We shall become its continuation.
Evolution of Social Institutions: From Custom to Digital Law
Institutions are not merely instruments of governance but living frameworks of social life that define the order of human interaction, responsibility, and collective purpose. From the first customary norms — from Russkaya Pravda to the Magna Carta — humanity has built social systems that gradually shaped the moral and legal fabric of civilizations.
In the course of institutional evolution, we observe a movement from coercion to awareness, from authoritarian control to the freedom of responsible choice. If the Yassa of Genghis Khan symbolized centralized power, the Magna Carta inaugurated freedom as an institution. Within this historical dichotomy, Civilism emerges — as a search for balance between power and freedom, duty and right, tradition and innovation.
Today, the Civilism of the Digital Society represents the next stage of this evolution — designed to unite governmental, civic, and technological institutions into a single institutional ecosystem, where eternal values — freedom, equality, and justice — are upheld not by the law of coercion but by the law of mutual responsibility.
The purpose of Civilism is not merely the preservation of peace but the creation of a sustainable institutional environment in which digital rights, environmental security, and moral ethics form a new kind of global compact — the Constitution of Digital Civilization.
Every society is born from culture. It is cultural heritage that forms the moral ground upon which social institutions grow. From folk customs to state constitutions — everything is an expression of collective intellect, reflecting the spiritual practices, habits, ethics, and understanding of justice.
In the age of digital evolution, these principles do not disappear — they transform. For the institutions of the digital society, culture becomes not only a memory but a matrix of action — encoding the moral algorithms of behavior. It sets the rules for a new economy of trust, where charity becomes not a choice but a duty, and the share of public ownership in digital assets becomes a symbol of a new equality.
Here emerges the concept of Social Civic Passive Income — an instrument that replaces the old model of redistribution with a model of shared participation in shared prosperity. In such a system, the state does not coerce but coordinates; society does not obey but co-creates; and technology does not alienate humanity but returns it to its humanistic nature.
Digital property, the ethics of charity, and the sovereignty of the individual form the triune foundation of the moral architecture of Civilism. These pillars transform the digital society from a mechanism of consumption into a community of conscious creators — those who think ethically and act ecologically.
Reason is the principal evolutionary institution of humanity. It transforms forms of power, creates institutions, and defines values. In the 21st century, human reason has entered the web space — a new ecosystem of collective thought, where practices, rules, and models of behavior are born in a digital environment. Yet this space lacks protection — it has no guaranteed rights, security, or justice.
Therefore, Civilism establishes the Digital Institutional Platform (DIP) — a space where the web becomes a legal environment. Within it operate not only state norms but also digital law — a new type of civil law, where every digital person can design the rules of their own polycentric institution.
Digital law is ethical freedom within responsibility — the right to digital autonomy without disrupting the integrity of the common space. Its technological component is a mechanism of justice that, through algorithms of restriction and access, ensures compliance with moral boundaries. Without law there can be no society, just as without society there can be no law.
Freedom, equality, and justice here acquire not declarative but operational meaning — embodied in practical action, in the protocols of digital interaction, in neural-network agreements, and in charitable mechanisms of distribution.
Thus, digital law becomes a new social contract between the human and the system, where the guiding principle resounds as the Formula of Civilism:
“Freedom, limited by equality and justice — the foundation of all-encompassing peace.”
Constructivism in public administration and technocratic models creates an illusion of control over social processes but in reality ignores the spontaneous order that arises from the historical, moral, and cultural heritage of society. Humanity is incapable of building a sustainable order through artificial schemes — it can only create conditions for its natural formation.
The digital society is a new oecumene of the noosphere, in which polycentric institutions operate, founded on the equality of personal sovereignties. Each individual possesses their own account — a digital space of freedom — through which they realize their cultural, intellectual, and economic potential and act as a Digital Polycentric Institution (DPI).
Thus, the digital society creates a mechanism of self-sustaining social justice, where technological institutions are subordinated not to power but to the eternal values of freedom, equality, and justice.
In the digital age, world order is no longer formed by states but by sovereign individuals united through polycentric institutions. This is an order of organized chaos — a self-organizing system that operates without coercion, guided by moral and technological principles.
Each individual, possessing digital property and a financial account, bears responsibility toward others through digital law, where the sovereignty of one person is limited by the sovereignty of another.
Such an architecture establishes a new system of international security without wars, shifting conflict resolution from the interstate level to the level of electoral self-organization within digital communities.
The digital society functions according to the laws of self-regulated equilibrium — between freedom, stability, and the speed of change. The organized chaos of polycentric institutions generates adaptive security: to stand still, one must move. This movement itself becomes the evolutionary form of human survival in the digital age.
· Origin: from civis — citizen; in the digital context — ius civis digitalis, the right of a citizen of the digital society.
· Essence: a form of inter-civilizational interaction among citizens of the new era not through power, but as individuals with Digital Polycentric Institutions (DPIs).
· Goal: creation of a legal field of freedom of spontaneous order, where the individual is not an object of power but a bearer of rights.
· Freedom — the fundamental principle of Civilism that precedes equality and justice.
· Spontaneous order — the natural self-organization of society without centralized coercion.
· Digital Civilism overcomes constructivism (imposed planning) and creates a space for human action through technological institutions.
· Core principle: “Freedom feeds me” — freedom becomes the source of prosperity, not a threat to the system.
A philosophical and legal concept of the structure of the digital society, founded on the right of every digital person to an inalienable ideal share in the common digital property formed within the Digital Institutional Platform (DIP).
This right is realized through Social Passive Income, ensuring fair, decentralized, and inclusive distribution of revenues without state or corporate intermediaries.
1. Civilitarian Property:
Property is neither private nor state-owned but civilitarian — an inalienable ideal share of the common digital heritage belonging to each participant of the digital society.
2. Social Passive Income as a Legal Mechanism:
A regular payment reflecting the share of a digital person in the commercialized products of the DIP (advertising, licenses, services, data, AI, etc.), independent of labor activity or capital.
3. Post-Socialist Transformation in Digital Form:
Transfers the ideas of legal de-socialization into the digital dimension — from nationalized property to digital communal property, the source of passive income without centralized redistribution.
4. Inalienability of the Right:
The right to Social Passive Income cannot be sold, transferred, confiscated, or annulled. It is assigned to a digital person from the moment of registration in the DIP and remains valid throughout life.
5. Decentralized Distribution:
Payments are made without the mediation of banks, states, or corporations — directly through the institutions of the DIP, ensuring transparency, trust, automation, and equality.
The right to income from common digital property belongs to every citizen of the digital society as a personalized share in the global digital prosperity.
It is a new paradigm of post-socialist justice, replacing centralized redistribution with technological, legal, and neuro-adaptive institutionalization of fairness.
Digital Freedom and the Noospheric Web Space
Freedom versus Marginalization
Civilism and the New International Security System
Digital Freedom as Personal Sovereignty
Charity as a Form of Freedom, Not Coercion
Artificial Intelligence and Digital Self-Organization
Constructivism and Spontaneous Order
Freedom as a Pattern of the New Social Contract
Inter-System Struggle and a New Level of Justice
In digital society, inter-system interaction occurs not between states, but between polycentric institutions of individuals. This is a new level of social self-organization, where coercion by collective authority disappears, and balance is formed through equal starting conditions and social passive income, which ensures basic security for all.
Charity becomes not optional, but a systemic function of justice — reflecting freedom limited by equality and responsibility for others.
Separation of Powers: National States and Spontaneous Web Order
Digital society is a meta-level, where each person, acting through their DPI, acquires real capacity to create their own welfare.
A new separation of powers emerges — between traditional state structures and the self-regulating order of the noospheric web space. Authority remains at the national level, while spontaneous order of algorithms governs the web space.
Transformation of Democracy and Liberalism into Civilism
In digital society, there is no dominance of collective will — only freedom limited by equality and justice. This is democracy without majority dictatorship, where charity serves as a criterion of true freedom.
Crisis of Democracies and the Need for a New International Order
Modern democracies degenerate into autocracies due to fear of losing privileges and social populism.
The solution is the creation of a New System of International Order, based on personal sovereignty, where international institutions function not as alliances of states, but as a neural network of personal institutions.
Ukraine, by becoming one of the first three countries to ratify the Agreement on the Establishment of the International Hub for Sustainable Development, can lay the foundation of this system.
Civilism as the Evolution of Liberalism
In the digital era, classical liberalism, based on individualism, loses effectiveness because the individual without an institutional digital form becomes vulnerable to algorithms and populism.
Civilism overcomes this weakness by creating digital polycentric institutions that ensure self-governance through technological law.
This is not reformed liberalism, but a new civilizational doctrine, where the “right to be” is realized through personal participation in the global neuroeconomic process.
The Role of the Individual in Digital Society
Digital society eliminates the power of the majority.
It is based on paired connections between individuals, where each has the right to accept or reject another’s initiative — based on their understanding of freedom, equality, and justice.
A group becomes a community not through legislative coercion, but by following shared behavioral rules that ensure the survival of the system.
Democracy Is Not Freedom
Democracy grants the majority the right to determine the actions of the minority, but it does not guarantee freedom.
Civilism is freedom realized through the freedom of others.
Those who grant freedom to others take responsibility for their freedom.
Here emerges a new type of social ethics — digital charity, forming a stable system of mutual responsibility.
From Reflection to Self-Organization
Digital society is based on the reflection of purpose: shared aspiration can unite even opponents.
The thought of the individual becomes the foundation of collective knowledge.
Thus, a spontaneous order of the noosphere is created — a dynamic network of experience, where decisions are not imposed but evolve.
Impact of Civilism on State Systems
The digital civilizational process already influences national governments:
This marks a transition from a state-hegemon to a networked society.
Conclusion
Democracy
and liberalism have completed their historical mission of establishing freedom
through the collective.
Civilism opens a new phase — freedom through individuality, where digital
law, charity, and autonomy form the foundation of peace and justice.
This is not a negation of democracy but its meta-evolution — from the political
will of the majority to the institutional balance of individuals in the digital
environment.
Project of the New International Security System
Purpose and Global Context
The Project of the New International Security System (hereinafter — the Project) is a fundamental initiative aimed at overcoming the systemic crisis of contemporary international relations and creating a new level of global interaction based on the digital economy, neural network connections, and principles of sustainable development.
The initiative of the President of Ukraine to form a new security architecture provides Ukraine not only the opportunity to strengthen its own agency but also to become a central node in a global network of partners capable of creating a new level of civilizational development mobilization.
This book presents the Project of the New International Security System in a qualitatively different dimension of global security — digital, polycentric, and neuro-institutional — in which traditional institutions are complemented by a system of self-regulation through digital platforms, neuro-chain interaction, and noospheric knowledge exchange.
The absence of such a systemic vision in leading centers of power — the USA, China, the UK, the EU, India — has resulted in security issues being postponed. The Project fills this gap by forming the intellectual, legal, and economic foundation of the New International Security System (NISS).
Origins of the Concept: from “Limits to Growth” to the Digital Noosphere
The first global models of human development, including the famous reports of the Club of Rome (“Limits to Growth,” “No Limits to Learning”), described the boundaries of industrial thinking — an era when resources were limited, and development was considered a threat to the very existence of civilization.
In 1972, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology led by D. Meadows created the first systemic model of global development, showing that under continued industrial logic, population and production growth would deplete resources within a few decades.
However, the digital era has overturned this determinism. The advent of information technologies, artificial intelligence, neural networks, and decentralized financial systems opened a new model — one of infinity rather than limitation.
If in the 20th century the boundaries of development were defined by resources, in the 21st century they are determined by access to knowledge.
“The web of knowledge is infinite, and therefore — the possibilities of civilization are infinite as well.”
From this flows the main thesis of the Project of the New International Security System: the infinity of knowledge generates infinite civic passive income and infinite development. In digital society, knowledge becomes the principal asset, not a scarcity.
Humanity as a Distributed Knowledge System
As F. A. Hayek emphasized, “The more humanity knows, the smaller the fraction of that knowledge any individual can encompass.”
Digital society resolves this contradiction — it transforms knowledge into a shared, distributed resource, generated through polycentric institutions and restored almost instantaneously.
This model creates a new level of resilience — a system where self-organization, neural interaction, and feedback ensure global balance without centralized control.
A digital noosphere emerges, where freedom, equality, and justice act as three coordinates of the global spontaneous order.
Conclusions
PHASE PORTRAIT OF THE DIGITAL SOCIETY
Digital Three-Dimensionality as the Foundation of a New Social Order
The
phase portrait of the digital society describes the evolution of human
civilization within a three-dimensional digital space — digital property,
polycentric institution, and charity.
These three coordinates define the structure of the Digital Institutional
Platform (DIP), which is not merely a technical instrument but a new type
of social space — a topologically connected system of self-organization, where
the individual becomes the sovereign of their own digital existence.
The
three-dimensionality of digital space confirms that the digital society is not
an abstraction but a real form of being, analogous to the noosphere.
Its stability is based on the philosophical and mathematical principles of Kant
(apriorism), Poincaré (conventionalism), and Hegel (the
law of negation of negation).
Conventionalism and Apriorism: The New Philosophy of Digital Truth
In
the digital society, models of three-dimensionality may change according to the
principle of homeomorphic motion — continuous transformation of forms
while preserving their essence.
This ensures dynamic adaptation of society to new circumstances without
destroying its core principles — freedom, equality, and justice.
Thus, the digital society has its own epistemology: knowledge arises not from experience but from digital interaction, representing a new form of reason — a neuro-polycentric intelligence.
Self-Organization and Stability of the Digital Society
Self-organization in the digital society occurs through the interaction of three-dimensional structures that define its phase space:
All
these coordinate systems form a closed topological structure in which a
disturbance in one dimension is compensated by stabilization in another.
This creates an internal homeostatic mechanism, allowing the digital
society to remain resilient to external influences.
In
essence, the digital society is a self-regulating neural system, in
which each person, through their polycentric institution, participates in
collective self-organization.
Such a system can shorten the time of cause-and-effect processes,
accelerating the resolution of challenges that in traditional models might take
years.
Phase Space and Phase Transitions in the Digital Society
The phase space of the digital society is a multidimensional field of variables where each polycentric institution represents a phase point, and the entire system — a set of phase trajectories.
The digital society undergoes phase transitions — state changes occurring during the shift from one dimensional structure to another:
Each
transition generates a new phase three-dimensionality — a new form of
social, economic, or cultural interaction.
This approach transforms society into an open nonlinear system that
evolves through the laws of Hamiltonian dynamics and the dialectic of
the unity of opposites.
Conclusion: The Digital Society as a Phase Space of Human Evolution
The
digital society represents a new form of noospheric existence, where each
individual possesses their own coordinate space and development dynamics.
Its resilience is ensured by the deterministic interaction of
three-dimensionalities that cannot be destroyed by any external factors.
This model describes a phase transition of humanity — from chaos to order, from competition to co-creation, from state centralization to polycentric self-organization.
The
phase portrait of the digital society is not merely a scientific abstraction
but a philosophical and mathematical model of the future world order,
where freedom, equality, and justice become not declarations but
functional coordinates of a new reality.
Toward a Critique of the Global Digital Compact (GDC Rev.3)
(“Silence Procedure” Draft)
The
Global Digital Compact (GDC Rev.3) of the United Nations General
Assembly, published on 20 September 2024, proclaims key goals and
principles for the development of a digital society oriented toward human
well-being, sustainable resource governance, and the achievement of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).
While the document recognizes the significant potential of digital technologies
in promoting global inclusiveness and accelerating development, it demonstrates
substantial limitations in understanding the institutional and innovative
dimensions of digital transformation.
Objectives of GDC Rev.3
3–4.
The document acknowledges the risks of rapid technological progress and the
need for human oversight, sustainability, and protection of human rights.
Its ultimate goal — to create an inclusive, open, and secure digital
environment — requires institutionalizing the noospheric web space as the
foundation of a new global order.
5–6.
Cooperation with governments, the private sector, civil society, and
international organizations must remain flexible and adaptive to the rapidly
changing digital landscape.
The Compact references existing international frameworks (WSIS, the Tunis
Agenda, and the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation) but
does not outline mechanisms for integrating these initiatives into the
structural model of the digital society.
The
main objectives — bridging digital divides, expanding access to the
digital economy, ensuring safe and inclusive cyberspace, and establishing
equitable data governance and AI oversight — require institutional
mechanisms:
digital property, a Digital Institutional Platform (DIP), and personal
digital sovereignty. These remain declarative within GDC Rev.3.
Principles of Cooperation (Sections 8–9)
The Compact identifies a range of cooperation principles, including:
Commitments and Actions (Sections 9–18)
Critical Observations
Conclusion
The
Global Digital Compact Rev.3 demonstrates ambitious goals for digital
transformation and expresses commitment to building an inclusive, safe, and
sustainable digital environment.
However, without the establishment of a Global Digital Institutional
Platform — integrated with legal, economic, and technological mechanisms —
these aspirations remain declarative.
The
institutionalization of the noospheric web space, digital property,
and personal digital sovereignty is the key prerequisite for
achieving the Compact’s strategic mission:
the formation of a new world order of the digital society.
Final Stage: Summary–Conclusions: Declaration
From Values to Their Realization**
The book demonstrates that the key transformation of the modern world lies not only in formulating abstract values — freedom, equality, justice, and peace — but in their practical realization through new institutional mechanisms. Using the example of the Draft Declaration on the Establishment of the International Hub for Sustainable Development Project Management, it shows how global values can be transformed into concrete actions encompassing political, technological, and social dimensions.
The International Hub serves as a platform that consolidates states, international organizations, charitable foundations, digital platforms, and scientific centers to implement sustainable development. Importantly, the Hub’s goal is not the declarative proclamation of values, but the creation of real instruments for their implementation through digital and polycentric infrastructure.
Strategic Necessity of a New Institution
The
modern international order is experiencing a systemic crisis: armed conflicts,
climate disasters, technological inequality, and growing threats to human
rights and sovereignty.
Traditional mechanisms, oriented toward national jurisdictions, are incapable
of ensuring coordination and accountability at the global level.
The
Declaration provides an answer to this crisis through the creation of a multilateral
institutional mechanism that unites states, digital entities, and
civilizationally oriented platforms.
It demonstrates that effective management of global challenges is possible only
through inclusive, polycentric, and digitally supported mechanisms that
ensure fair access to knowledge, technologies, and resources.
Legal and Political Architecture
The
document has a political and legal nature and forms the foundation for
the future Agreement and Statute of the Hub.
It is grounded in international law — the UN Charter, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, international covenants, the Sustainable
Development Goals, and the Global Digital Compact — adapting these
instruments to the challenges of the digital age.
Its
key innovation lies in combining a value-based framework, strategic goals,
and a structural proposal.
The International Hub not only declares principles but also proposes institutional
realization of digital sovereignty, human rights, coordination of large-scale
transnational projects, support for crisis regions, and development of the
digital economy.
Civilizational Approach and Innovation
The
book emphasizes that the classical inter-state logic is no longer capable of
ensuring a viable future.
It is necessary to go beyond traditional diplomacy and create polycentric
and digital institutional platforms that ensure co-evolutionary
development.
The
International Hub proposes a new civilizational model that unites the
human being, nature, technology, and social justice.
Through digital legal personality and institutional mechanisms,
the Hub ensures genuine participation of citizens, digital platforms, and
states in shaping a post-crisis world.
Openness, Inclusiveness, and Global Solidarity
The
Declaration project emphasizes openness:
The Hub is open for accession by states, international organizations,
charitable foundations, scientific platforms, and digital communities.
Such inclusiveness forms a global polycentric alliance, providing all
participants with real instruments to achieve peace, sustainable
development, and digital equality.
Significance for Ukraine and the Global Order
Ukraine,
as a country enduring aggression and remaining at the center of global
transformations, serves as a laboratory of a new international architecture.
Local initiatives can become the foundation for a global civilizational
breakthrough, demonstrating how digital and polycentric mechanisms can
transform local challenges into large-scale international solutions.
Conclusion
The
book underscores that sustainable development, peace, and security in the
21st century can be achieved only through the integration of digital,
polycentric, and innovative instruments into the global governance system.
It serves as part of the description of the Project of the New System of
International Security, designed for states, organizations, and digital communities
striving to build a viable, just, and secure world.
.