Артём Лебедев / Artyom Lebedev

Introduction
The very idea of cosmopolitan panarchy (or the synthesis of panarchy and cosmopolitanism) was not only not taken seriously, it was not considered by almost anyone. Sometimes cosmopolitanism was considered within the framework of panarchy, but very superficially and abstractly, without presenting a specific social system. The term "panarchy" is not even found in works aimed at studying and theorizing cosmopolitanism. However, such a synthesis represents a very interesting model of how a social system of the world can be structured to ensure the happy life of every individual on Earth. This synthesis resolves the contradictions and shortcomings of both systems: panarchy and cosmopolitanism, and also offers a completely new and unconventional perspective on global and local politics.

What is panarchy?
Panarchy is a social system that involves multiple governments (or communities) whose services are spread solely voluntarily to individual persons, rather than to a specific territory. The word itself comes from the Greek compounds "pan-" (including all elements) and "-archy" (rule), so it can be translated as "rule of all".
Panarchy consists of the following fundamental principles:

• "laissez-faire, laissez passer" (from French meaning "let do, let pass") refers to the principle of non-interference by the government in the economy and business activities, as well as the principle of free movement of people and goods. In simple terms, this principle allows things to take their own course.
• Extraterritoriality - a particular jurisdiction applies to a person who chooses to be within that legal field. Extraterritorial jurisdiction cannot apply to any territory. This principle can be compared to religions in a secular state (meaning that each person chooses the religion they want to join, or they can choose not to join any).
• Freedom of association is the principle that allows people to freely form and join any communities, organizations, or governance systems they choose, without being coerced into participating in any system or state they do not agree with.

Thus, we get an interesting theory of how society can be structured without a state monopoly on providing various services to individuals, and how people with different beliefs and aspirations can coexist harmoniously in the same territory.
For the first time, such an idea was proposed by the economist of the classical liberal tradition Gustave de Molinari in 1849 in his book "Les soirées de la Rue Saint-Lazare" (Evenings on the Saint-Lazare Street). Here, Molinari talks about "free governments" ("governments whose services I can accept or reject at my own free will").

Eleven years later, in 1860, the Belgian botanist Paul-Émile de Puydt published an article "Panarchy" in Revue Trimestrielle, where he wrote more detailed about this idea and gave it a name. Perhaps it was Molinari's ideas that influenced the writing of this article.

What is cosmopolitanism?
Cosmopolitanism is a worldview (but not an ideology) that focuses on perceiving all of humanity as a single and indivisible subject, and is based on a rejection of involuntarily formed (i.e., solely due to birth in a certain territory or belonging to a particular social class) social constructs (nations, tribes, etc.).
It is crucial to clarify that this is specifically a worldview, not an ideology, as cosmopolitanism cannot propose a concrete political and economic system. Cosmopolitanism is primarily oriented towards philosophical, ethical, and social issues, which better fits the definition of a worldview. This is because among those who call themselves “cosmopolitan”, we can find both statists and anarchists, or communists and capitalists (and many others).
However, cosmopolitanism can branch out into completely different and often contradictory currents (for example, by supplementing this worldview with specific political or economic models, or by assuming religiosity/atheism). Thus, after such a “supplement,” cosmopolitanism can be considered an ideology. But “pure” cosmopolitanism (the one referred to at the very beginning of this section) cannot be considered an ideology.
This specific definition of cosmopolitanism is necessary to avoid the impression that I am proposing an oxymoronic title for the social model discussed in this article. What I mean is that a specific political, economic, or religious system cannot be combined with panarchy, which presupposes a multitude of different models of social organization.
The cosmopolitanism that I will be discussing in the next section does not even imply a philosophical, ethical, or social worldview (because that also contradicts panarchy, meaning the concept of “cosmopolitan panarchy” would still be an oxymoron). From this point forward, by the word “cosmopolitanism”, I will only mean a state where national state borders do not exist, as well as the cooperation of various communities to achieve universal or global goals.

What does the synthesis of panarchy and cosmopolitanism entail?
To begin, I would like to provide examples of shortcomings or aspects that raise questions about both panarchy and cosmopolitanism. These are questions asked by those who have only recently learned about one of the systems.

Questions about Panarchy:
1. Under which jurisdiction will a person be judged who has killed (or committed another crime) against someone who chose a different jurisdiction?
2. How should relations between communities be regulated?

Questions about Cosmopolitanism:
1. What should a world government/federation/confederation do if a nationalist uprising begins, given that this government calls itself peaceful/pacifist?
2. What political and economic model will be established?

We can only adequately and clearly answer all four important questions for both systems if we proceed from the perspective of cosmopolitan panarchy. We apply cosmopolitanism to the shortcomings of panarchy and panarchy to the shortcomings of cosmopolitanism.

The answer to the question, “Under which jurisdiction will a person be judged who has killed (or committed another crime) against someone who chose a different jurisdiction?” from the standpoint of cosmopolitan panarchy:
While some answer that the criminal will be judged according to the jurisdiction chosen by the victim, this answer may be unsatisfactory (because there may be two or more victims, in which case the problem remains unresolved). For such precedents, there will be an inter-jurisdictional court that makes decisions based on its own established principles. These principles will not be ideologized in any way. They will be universal or standardized (where possible). And the trial process will be as objective and fair as possible. Yes, the perpetrator did not voluntarily choose this jurisdiction, but it is the most adequate solution to such dilemmas (especially since the perpetrator was aware that they would be judged under a different jurisdiction but intentionally committed the crime).

The answer to the question, “How should relations between communities be regulated?” from the standpoint of cosmopolitan panarchy:
If a conflict arises between two extraterritorial communities (governments), they can resolve it through negotiations within the framework of a global, supra-jurisdictional organization.

The answer to the question, “What should a world government/federation/confederation do if a nationalist uprising begins, given that this government calls itself peaceful/pacifist?” from the standpoint of cosmopolitan panarchy:
Nothing. There will be no “world government.” A nationalist uprising cannot begin under cosmopolitan panarchy because conflicts of interest will be reduced to either zero or a minimum. Here, we can follow simple logic. Why do uprisings, revolutions, and popular discontent begin? Because the interests of the authorities and the discontented do not coincide. If interests do not coincide, what can each person dissatisfied with the government do? Leave the jurisdiction of that state and join another (or not join at all). This is the most logical and simple panarchic answer, completely destroying the meaning of cosmopolitan statism without losing its cosmopolitan nature.

The answer to the question, “What political and economic model will be established?” from the standpoint of cosmopolitan panarchy:
There will be many political and economic systems coexisting extraterritorially. There will be no monopolistic model, especially not for the entire world.
Based on these answers, it is already possible to generally understand what cosmopolitan panarchy is and its simple but clear logic.

Cosmopolitan panarchy is a social organization of the world based on individual sovereignty (i.e., the ability to choose a government or refuse it), as well as global cooperation of extraterritorial communities. Cosmopolitan panarchy is aimed at solving both local and global problems.
Under cosmopolitan panarchy, the following institutions would exist:

• Organization of Humanity (also can be named as the global supra-jurisdictional organization) – for resolving conflicts between governments, as well as for their cooperation. It may include other organizations specializing in a specific area (for example, human rights, culture, etc.).
• World Parliament – for resolving global issues that directly affect the lives of individuals. A delegate(s) from an extraterritorial community, for example, could be nominated to it.
• Inter-Jurisdictional Court – for resolving conflicts between individuals who have chosen different jurisdictions and, consequently, are in different legal frameworks.

The decisions of the Organization of Humanity are made exclusively through consensus or compromise and apply to those communities that have membership there. These decisions concern only global issues and do not affect local ones.
We can also transfer the principle of competition between governments to the global level. I.e., if a certain institution is not performing its duties well, is too bureaucratized, etc., then a new one can be created, and governments and individuals can turn to the services of this new institution if they deem it necessary.

Conclusion
This can be considered only an unfinished, idealistic theory of how the world could be organized in the most rational way. Many discussions will be needed on how to improve these proposals. But I also believe that this article may be of great interest to those who are interested in social science, political organization, and unconventional ways of solving certain social problems. In any case, the presence of any interest in such ideas will show whether they are important or not.

Sources
1. Aviezer Tucker and Gian Piero de Bellis, Panarchy: Political Theories of Non-Territorial States (2016)
2. Gian Piero de Bellis, On Panarchy. A brief review and a personal view (2009)
3. Richard Maxheim, United Nations or United Mankind (2024)
4. Policonomics: Laissez-Faire