Towards a New World Order: Replacing Geopolitical Sovereignty with Community Ecological Sovereignty

邁向新世界秩序：以社區生態主權取代地緣政治主權

By Archer Hong Qian（錢 宏）

Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation（CANADA）

鑑於現行主權國家概念，不但沒能解決地緣（土地、人口、民族、宗教）衝突，如俄烏、以伊（以哈、以敘）、台海、朝韓等，無法限制某些大國、強國自行宣稱別國為自己的“一部分”，甚至要把某國“從地球抹去”等強權行徑，而且導致全球化2.0“互害機制”的出現，如中美經貿背後的鄉村敗落、產業空心等，基於生命自組織連接平衡與再平衡的交互主體共生（Intersubjective Symbiosism）思想，提出以“社區生態主權”取代“土地人口主權”的世界秩序，化解地緣衝突、貿易糾紛之可行性！

Given that the current concept of sovereign nation-states has failed to resolve geopolitical conflicts—those rooted in land, population, ethnicity, and religion—such as the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Iran (including the Israel-Hamas and Israel-Syria tensions), the Taiwan Strait issue, and the North-South Korea standoff, and has been unable to restrain certain major powers from unilaterally declaring other nations as “part of their territory” or even threatening to “wipe them off the map,” it has also led to the emergence of the “mutually harmful mechanisms” of Globalization 2.0—such as rural decline and industrial hollowing-out behind U.S.-China economic entanglements.

In response, drawing from the philosophy of Intersubjective Symbiosism—which emphasizes the self-organizing balance and rebalancing of life—it is proposed that a new world order based on Community Ecological Sovereignty replace the outdated paradigm of Territorial-Population Sovereignty, offering a feasible path to resolving both geopolitical conflicts and trade disputes.

這個問題觸及了當今世界政治與經濟體系深層的結構性矛盾，並提出了一個具有啟發性的新範式：“社區生態主權”替代“土地人口主權”。以下我將從概念釐清、現行體系的問題、社區生態主權的內涵與可行性、以及可能的落地路徑等角度作系統分析。

一、現行“土地人口主權”的基本問題

當前主權國家制度起源於1648年《威斯特伐利亞和約》，核心邏輯是“國家擁有對其疆域內的土地、資源、人口的絕對權威”，以領土完整與民族統一為基本原則。這一體系在冷戰後全球化的推動下，逐漸暴露出幾個致命矛盾：

1、地緣政治難題難解

民族與宗教矛盾（如以色列與伊斯蘭國家、印度與巴基斯坦）

邊界爭端和歷史問題（如俄烏、台海、南海、朝韓）

各國都以“主權不可讓渡”為正當理由，陷入零和博弈，缺乏妥協機制。

2、全球化的互害機制

供應鏈全球化導致產業空心化（如美中之間的“脫鈎”討論）

資本追逐成本最優帶來的鄉村凋敝、文化破碎

環境破壞：主權國家只為本國經濟增長負責，缺乏全球協同機制。

二、“社區生態主權”概念的解析

“社區生態主權”（Community Ecological Sovereignty）構想，可視為一種去疆域化、去中心化、跨國家組織的治理新範式，它的核心邏輯包括：

1. 主權單位的轉換：從國家 → 社區

社區不再依據“地理疆域”劃定，而是基於價值認同、生態命運共生體、產業協作圈等形成新的“政治生態單元”。

社區可以是跨國的（如某生態流域、文化走廊），也可以是超國家的網絡（如產業鏈合作體、生態保護組織）。

1. 主權基礎的轉換：從土地人口 → 生態與交互

不再以“誰擁有這塊地、多少人口”為政治合法性，而是以社區內部的“生態共生、資源共享、決策協同”為治理正當性。

重：點轉向環境可持續性、社區韌性、公平互惠。

1. 治理邏輯：自下而上的協商機制

類似“數字DAO”或生態合作社式的治理機制。

強調協商、透明、公正，而非傳統的垂直強制。

三、化解地緣衝突與全球化困局的可行路徑

四、實施路徑與制度構想

1、建立“多主權網絡治理體”

如城市聯盟（C40 Cities）、跨境流域治理組織（多瑙河委員會、湄公河治理平台）

支持以社區為單位的“主權試驗區”（例如生態共生體、數字主權平台）

2數字治理與DAO賦權

利用區塊鏈、AI、協同平台建設分布式治理系統，防止傳統主權的壟斷和操控。

3、推動國際法規和認知框架更新——制定《全球共生公約》

修正《聯合國憲章》與《世界貿易組織協定》，承認生態/數字/社區主權為合法單位。

4、開展教育與輿論重構

打破民族主義與地緣意識形態，強化生態命運共生體、人類共識、公平貿易等教育。

五、挑戰與反思

六、結語：走向“主權2.0”世界秩序

“社區生態主權”不是完全取代主權國家，而是在數字時代、氣候危機、全球經濟深度融合的背景下，對主權進行重構與補充。從“零和的地緣主權”向“共生的生態主權”轉變，是未來世界秩序邁向和平與可持續的可能路徑之一。

2025年6月23日晨初稿於Lisboa The 7 H0tel

Towards a New World Order: Replacing Geopolitical Sovereignty with Community Ecological Sovereignty

By Archer Hong Qian | Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation

I. The Problem with the Current Concept of Territorial-Population Sovereignty

The modern notion of state sovereignty—born out of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia—centers on the absolute authority of the state over its land and people. In practice, this model has revealed structural limitations, especially under Globalization 2.0:

1. Geopolitical Stalemates

• Ethnic and religious tensions (e.g., Israel vs. Iran, India vs. Pakistan)

• Border disputes and historical conflicts (e.g., Russia-Ukraine, Taiwan Strait, Korean Peninsula)

• “Non-negotiable sovereignty” leads to zero-sum logic and deadlocks.

2. Mutually Harmful Globalization

• Industrial hollowing and rural decline (e.g., U.S.–China trade decoupling)

• Global supply chains maximize profit but destroy local resilience.

• Environmental damage as states prioritize domestic GDP over global sustainability.

II. Defining “Community Ecological Sovereignty”

The concept of Community Ecological Sovereignty proposes a paradigm shift: away from land and population-based sovereignty toward interactive, ecological, and community-based legitimacy.

1. Shift in Sovereign Unit: From Nation-States to Communities

• Communities are defined not by borders but by shared values, ecological interdependence, or collaborative economies.

• These can be cross-border (e.g., watershed communities) or transnational networks (e.g., industrial ecosystems).

2. Shift in Legitimacy: From Territory and Demography to Ecology and Interaction

• Political legitimacy stems from sustainable interaction, collaborative governance, and shared resources—not territorial control.

• Key values: environmental sustainability, mutual resilience, and equitable exchange.

3. Shift in Governance Logic: From Top-Down to Distributed Negotiation

• Inspired by DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) models and ecological cooperatives.

• Prioritizes transparency, participation, and fairness over centralized enforcement.

III. Conflict Resolution and Global Rebalancing Through Community-Based Solutions

IV. Implementation Pathways

1. Polycentric Sovereignty Networks

• City alliances (e.g., C40 Cities), watershed governance (e.g., Danube or Mekong Committees)

• Pilot Sovereignty Sandbox Zones for ecological or digital governance experiments

2. Technological Infrastructure

• Use of blockchain, AI, and Web3 tools to build decentralized governance platforms

• Avoids traditional power monopolies through algorithmic transparency

3. Legal Recognition and International Frameworks——Global Symbiosis Convention

• Revisions to the UN Charter and WTO Agreements to accommodate digital/ecological/community-based sovereign actors

4. Cognitive and Educational Transformation

• Replace nationalism and territorial ideology with shared human destiny, ecological literacy, and fair trade education

V. Challenges and Strategic Reflections

VI. Conclusion: From Sovereignty 1.0 to Sovereignty 2.0

“Community Ecological Sovereignty” does not seek to abolish the nation-state, but to reframe sovereignty in the age of digital interdependence, ecological crisis, and post-globalization transformation.

A peaceful and sustainable world order requires moving beyond zero-sum territorial sovereignty toward interactive, community-based, and symbiotic sovereignty. This is not utopia—it is the logical evolution of governance under the pressures of climate, technology, and civilization itself.

2025年6月23日晨初稿於Lisboa The 7 H0tel