Eelco Dykstra writes a monthly column called “A smile and a thought…” The columns put a playful spotlight on the interface between the Dutch and the International Community it hosts. Yes, his musings may appear at times to be mildly provocative at first sight but they are first and foremost playful – with a little irony thrown in here and there… You be the judge!

His columns are intended to give you ‘a smile and a thought’. A smile because perhaps you hadn’t quite looked at something that way and a thought because the column may leave you wondering…

European (Dis)Union?  Money matters… and ‘Secure Societies’  too… As you know, this column regularly reviews what’s on the mind – and in the hearts –  of people. It often does so by linking  the perspectives  of ’policy’ and ‘practice’. While one would assume that these perspectives coincide, this is alas, often not the case. So, what’s on the minds of the ‘policy’ people? Risks. Risks to loose (political) power and influence, sure, but also grander issues such as ‘Pandemics’, ‘Climate change’, ‘Terrorism’ and ‘Cyber security’. And the economic crisis of course, particularly because the recovery from it in Europe ranges from ‘slow’ to ‘non-existent’. So, what’s on the mind of the ‘practice’ people? Being able to work and being able to do the work; caring, supporting managers, a reasonable salary and interesting work. And security of course, we all want to live in ‘secure societies’. When we look at ‘Secure Societies’, this also means talking about ‘economics’ and ‘risk’ from an European perspective. Now, before you decide you want to leave this page to look for lighter fare, let me assure you it will be fun to read on. A thought with a smile and a smile with a thought, I promise. Is there a European mandate? The European Union has no executive mandate but a legislative one. ‘Brussels’ produces policies and some laws, but doesn’t decide nor execute. The EU member states do. This thing called ‘Subsidiarity’, remember? So where does the funding for the EU come from and what does it do with the money? European money matters… The EU depends for its funding entirely on contributions by its member states. For many years, the EU has been overspending, running up a considerable deficit. Yet, unlike the member states themselves, the EU cannot borrow money to finance it debts.  It appears therefore on the books as “Resté à Liquider”… to the tune of well over € 322,000,000,000 (and growing…). European research programs Since the EU has no executive mandate, it does develop a lot of policy papers . Many of these policy papers are based on research conducted by consortia that are made up of partner organizations from EU member states. ‘Horizon 2020’ A new multi-year research program called Horizon 2020 is about to start and includes a Work Program on ‘Secure Societies’ which deals with – inter alia –  pandemics, cyber security, terrorism, CBRNE and Climate change. A recent initiative is worth mentioning. It is aimed at bringing the many stakeholders and the many EU Directorate-Generals that bear responsibility for the complex issue of ‘Secure Societies’, together into a ‘Community of Users’, a CoU.   Cross connections, much needed in the European (Dis)Union. Is this useful or important to you? – The Hague is the international city of peace, justice and… security, n’est ce pas? – Secure Societies combine policies and practice. – Secure Societies includes cyber security, a hot topic at the moment and subject to an international summit in April 2015 in The Hague. – Secure Societies and Horizon 2020 also reaches out to non-EU partners in the research projects. ‘Secure Societies’ is an important and over-arching issue, for Horizon 2020 for The Hague for the European (Dis)Union for You. Is this useful or important to you? Me Thinks So.            

 

By Jhr. Mr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland, Justice (Judge) in the Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs of the Municipality of The Hague.

On Wednesday October 1st the King received the ambassadors of Belgium, Ireland and France. H.E. Chris Hoornaert (Belgium; born 1963) was diplomatic advisor of the Prime Minister, permanent representative at OESO in Paris and advisor external relations of the harbour of Antwerp. H.E. John Neary (Ireland; 1951) works already 40 years for the MFA in Dublin, Luxembourg, London, Riyadh, Vienna and Brussels and was Irelands ambassador in Tokio since 2010. H.E. Laurent Pic (France; 1964) –who studied Russian – worked in Bahrein, Brussels and New York, was deputy secretary general European Affairs and was diplomatic advisor of the Prime Minister. The new ambassadors of South Africa, Hungary and Georgia presented their credentials on October 15th. H.E. Vusi Bruce Koloane (South Africa; 1962) started his diplomatic career in Cairo, Tokio, Shanghai and Beijing. Then he became ambassador in Madrid and was afterwards Chief of State Protocol. H.E. Ms Orsolya Szijjarto (Hungary) got a PhD in economics and studied also in The Netherlands (Maastricht). She was lately managing director of a  company on tourism and EU consultancy. H.E. Konstantine Surguladze (Georgia; 1971) worked in politics and in the oil industry and was lately state minister for the Georgian diaspora. In November the King received the ambassadors of Panama, Cuba and Guatemala on the 19th and those of South Corea and Costa Rica on the 26th. H.E. Willys Delvalle Velasco (Panama; 1958) worked all his life in the maritime business. Since 2012 he was president of the Maritime Chamber of Panama. H.E. Fermin Gabriel Quinones Sanchez (Cuba; 1971) was from 2001 to 2004 second secretary at the Cuban embassy in The Hague. He was since 2011 the Cuban ambassador in Prague. H. E. Gabriel Edgardo Aquilera Peralta (Guatemala; 1940) was university professor and diplomat; was deputy minister of foreign relations, ambassador in Germany and Peru and wrote several books. H.E. Jong-hyun Choe (South Korea; 1956) worked in Seoul, Canada, El Salvador and New York. Since 2010 he was ambassador in Oman and lately director protocol at the MFA. H.E. Sergio Ugalde Godinez (Costa Rica; 1971) is expert in international law and since 2006 member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. I wish all of you a lot of success and also happy years in The Hague ! a.beelaerts@planet.nl    

By Baron Henri Estramant. The UAE has celebrated for the 43^rd time the creation of a union amongst the emirates of the Gulf formerly known as the Trucial States under a British protectorate. What many people do not seem to fathom is that the Emirates is composed of much more than Abu Dhabi and Dubai, though the richest emirates in the Union, there are in fact seven emirates as federal entities of the United Arab Emirates. These Emirates and their ruling dynasties are Abu Dhabi (ruled by Al Nahyan), Ajman (ruled by Al Nuaimi), Dubai (Al Maktoum), Fujairah (Al Sharqi), Ras al-Khaimah (Al Qasimi), Sharjah (Al Qasimi), and Umm al-Qaiwain (Al Mu’alla). According to the country’s constitution the Chief of State (President) is to be elected amongst the hereditary amirs (or rulers as they are also known in English), nevertheless, in practice the position of President of the UAE has gone twice already to the reigning Amir of Abu Dhabi, first with the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (1971-2004), then to his eldest son, heir for Abu Dhabi and incumbent, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (2004- today). It is expected that Amir Khalifa will be succeeded as President by the present Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, General Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is already Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, the President’s half-brother. Hence making the office de facto hereditary for the Amir of Abu Dhabi, albeit the constitution clearly states that the seven amirs in the Federal Supreme Council should vote every five years for a President and a Vice-president. However it is not known whether a symbolic election to ratify the incumbents actually takes place in council. The President serves as Head of State, Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, Chairman of the Supreme Council of Rulers and the Supreme Petroleum Council. The Vice-presidency as well as the Premiership are held in trust by the Al Maktoum, the ruling house of Dubai. The incumbent is likewise The Amir of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. His two deputy prime ministers, are two half-brothers of the country’s president and members of Abu Dhabi’s Ruling House, that is since 2009, Sheikh Saif and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (also Minister for Presidential Affairs). The Prime Minister is Head of Government, chairs the cabinet meetings held weekly in Abu Dhabi. Thus far his deputies always hail from the ranks of Al Nahyan or Al Maktoum, excluding all other five ruling houses from the main political offices of the federation. Yet the amirs enjoy great sovereign powers within their own emirates, since all powers not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution belong to the endemic amirs. Some amirs also preside over their own executive councils, and oversee “departments”or “authorities” reflective of federal ministries, particularly in the fields of tourism, culture and heritage, the environment, investment, water supplies, or health. In addition to the heirs apparent titled “crown princes”, the amirs appoint “deputy rulers” who deputise the monarchs in the exercise of some of their executive, legislative and judicial prerogatives. Sometimes these offices also serve to provide a powerful office to another line of the Ruling House. The amirs of the UAE The word Amir in Arabic simply translates to Prince, in this regard it is used as “Sovereign Prince” as those in Monaco or Liechtenstein. Therefore the ruling houses are “princely” or “amirial” rather than “royal” as they lack a king. It is simply a question of ranking. The amirs are colloquially known by the honorific “Sheikh” followed by their given forename, patronym and name of their house. For instance, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE. The title of sheikh is an honorific used by all the members of all seven ruling houses regardless of their own ranking within the dynasties. It is not equal to a princely title. The amirs, their heirs apparent (crown princes), children and siblings are normally styled “Highness”. Other high-ranking members are entitled to the style “Excellency” whereas the lower ranking (normally those who are not descendants of previous rulers) have no claim to a form of address by birth in addition to their “sheikh/sheikha” honorifics. The spouse(s) of the amirs may become patrons of different organisations yet are normally not seen in public, or television. They are not styled “Amira of the Emirate of X”, nor are there any official “crown princesses”. The only true publicly known spouse of any Emirati amir, is the second wife of the Amir of Dubai, HRH Princess Haya bint El Hussein of Jordan. Seven amirs HH The President of the UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed AL NAHYAN, Amir of Abu Dhabi HH The Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid bin Said AL MAKTOUM, Amir of Dubai HH Dr Sheikh Sultan III bin Mohammed AL QASIMI, Amir of Sharjah HH Sheikh Saud bin Saqer AL QASIMI, Amir of Ras Al-Khaimah   HH Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid AL NUAIMI, Amir of Ajman HH Sheikh Saud bin Rashid AL MU’ALLA, Amir of Umm Al Qaiwain Al Qawasem control as only dynasty two emirates, Sharjah and Ras Al-Khaimah. Malaysia has a similar federal system with nine monarchs notwithstanding these enjoy far less powers and prerogatives than in the UAE.  

By Jan Melissen and Julian Slotman. Networking is as old as diplomacy and often instinctively considered an “embassy game”. Foreign ministries themselves do however rely more and more on their networks. Collaboration with actors outside the public sector is on the rise. High-quality networks are not just for purposes of outreach, but also to help deliver concrete and measurable results, and contribute significantly to policy innovation.  As part of its broader action plan on the modernization of its diplomacy, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has decided to take a closer look at its own networking practices. In close cooperation with the MFA Strategic Advisory Unit, the Clingendael Institute is currently conducting pilot research on the complex policy networks of the Ministry. Changes in international relations require a more open and flexible organizational structure for the foreign ministry – and not just in The Hague. With this pioneering project, the Dutch seem to make the point that governmental networking practices may require an update to modern-day realities. Recent innovations in diplomatic policy making such as trilateral cooperation, digital diplomacy and the integrative approach of combining defence, diplomacy and development policies, require a more systematically networked approach. In actual fact, the need for more systematic networking applies to MFA activities across the board. It has everything to do with diplomacy becoming increasingly enmeshed with society and the need for more MFA extra-governmental collaboration. Ten MFA departments, directorates, task forces and embassies in and outside Europe are participating in interactive workshop sessions, with the aim of thoroughly analysing their networks and networking practices. The workshops are part of a larger research effort aimed at a thorough understanding of current practices as well as the scope for improvement. Surveys, in-depth interviews and the workshops in the purpose-designed MFA Strategy Lab result in a wealth of information about the diversity of networks and current practices. Local staff at the Dutch embassy in New Delhi, for instance, faces entirely different issues when broadening and deepening their networks, both India and back home, than employees of a task force or thematic directorate in the Foreign Ministry. Inefficiencies in policy networks have to be addressed to stay ahead in the diplomatic environment of the 21st century. Indeed, openness and flexibility are the key ingredients of future diplomacy. Our preliminary conclusion warranted by discussions in the MFA Strategy Lab so far, is that individual diplomats, their teams and the MFA as a whole can significantly improve their performance through improved networking. A strategic perspective and more systematic approach will be instrumental in promoting desired diplomatic outcomes. This project will result in a report for the Netherlands MFA. In the interests of sharing best practices, some of the main findings will be published on the Clingendael website in early 2015.  Jan Melissen is a Senior Research Fellow at the Clingendael Institute, Professor of Diplomacy at the University of Antwerp and founding Co-Editor of The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. Julian Slotman is a Clingendael Research Assistant on the Clingendael project on MFA Networking.

                            By: Sanae Hamzaoui, Project Manager Education & Events. It happens every year. A flow of young professionals (judges, prosecutors and civil servants) come to The Hague, the legal capital of the world, and get equipped with up-to-date knowledge and skills to strengthen the rule of law in their own countries.  At the Asser institute, we know this quite well: since 2012 and until the end of 2015, together with two partner’s organisations Ecorys and The Hague Academy for Local Governance, we organise a series of trainings in The Hague on pre-accession and rule of law. Through this programme, our sponsor, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aims to promote institutional capacity- building in the field of the rule of law within government organisations in the target countries (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey) using the Dutch experience and best practices. Another important objective of the trainings is the creation of networks among the participants. The past three years have seen a large number of alumni (almost 600 up to October 2014) and the challenge of keeping all of them “in touch” and enabling them to continue sharing their experiences needed to become a reality. It is with great enthusiasm that the Asser institute has responded positively to the request of the Dutch government to implement a follow-up project that would involve the participating countries and all alumni. The idea of organising a series of events in the region appeared to reach the objectives well: a roundtable where selected alumni would share experiences since their passage in The Hague, followed by a reception where other organisations and embassies in the host country will gather and network. Five Matra Patrol countries have been chosen to host the roundtables each one with a different topic. On November 7, 2014, we kicked off this follow-up project in Ankara by discussing “Process of Harmonization with EU standards”, quite relevant for Turkey at the moment. Our first surprise was how “our” alumni reacted to our invitation: would you be able to attend a one-day event, and give a short presentation with colleagues from your country (colleagues who attended one of the Matra Patrol trainings in The Hague but not necessary the same one)? Yes, yes and yes! Not only alumni were delighted to meet and greets their friends again but they are particularly keen to share their experiences and discuss deeply all aspects of their daily work related to the given topics. The same goes for Tirana, where the second roundtable took place on another interesting topic: “Judicial cooperation in the region: criminal and civil law matters”. Again, the attendees list astonished us: alumni, representatives from relevant organisations, ambassadors of the invited countries. The Netherlands initiative is welcomed by everyone. At the moment, our alumni are gathered in Skopje, and the last two events will be held in Sarajevo and finally Belgrade. At the end of the project, a virtual platform will be created where all participants will be connected and sustainable network will be facilitated.   

By the Dr Ali Fahimdanesh, Legal Adviser of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Netherland ^[1]. On the first of December 2014, H.E. Mr. Alireza Jahangiry, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic Iran and the Secretary-General of the Hague Academy of International Law, Prof. Yves Daudet unveiled a replica of Cyrus Cylinder at the Peace Palace, The Hague, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Hague Academy of International Law have their seats. The gift, a 22.5 x 10 cm replica of the clay cylinder kept in the British museum, London, was presented to the peace palace by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and in view of its nature it is placed in the Building of the Hague Academy of International Law. During the ceremony, speeches were made by H.E. Ambassador Jahangiry and, the Secretary-General of the Hague Academy, Prof. Yves Daudet and the General Director of the Carnegie Foundation Mr. Steven van Hoogstraten. At this juncture, I would like to briefly touch upon the story of the Cyrus Cylinder, a human rights charter belonging to the ancient Persia, also described as the First Declaration of Human Rights;

1. Cyrus the Great (585-529 BC), the Iranian Emperor and founder of the first Persian Empire carved the First Declaration of Human Rights on this cylinder. Cyrus is admired more as a liberator than a conqueror of his vast empire because of his respect for human rights and humane treatment of those he ruled. Cyrus gives account of how he achieved this with the aid of Marduk, the god of Babylon. He then describes measures of relief he brought to the inhabitants of the city, and recounts how he returned a number of images of gods, which Nabonidus had collected in Babylon, to their proper temples throughout Mesopotamia and western Iran. At the same time, he arranged for the restoration of these temples and organized the return to their homelands of a number of people who had been held in Babylonia by the Babylonian kings.
2. The Cylinder is an important document for the following reasons. Firstly, it records that Cyrus occupies Babylon peacefully, preventing bloodshed and looting; secondly, it says that Cyrus absolved the inhabitants of the city from forced labor which had been imposed upon them by the Babylonian kings; thirdly, Cyrus says that he sent back god statues to the shrines from which they had been removed; fourthly, he sent deported peoples to their homelands. The first Charter of Human Rights in 1971 was translated in all the official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3. From ancient Iran, the idea of human rights spread quickly to other civilizations and has continued until contemporary ages through several famous documents which are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights documents. However, the roots of the human rights have been attributed to Greek civilization but it is clear that in present times, both the “Athenian Democracy” and the “human rights principles contained in Cyrus’ Proclamation” have merged in a way that democracy and human rights have become integrated and inseparable. No doubt that both Athenian Democracy and Cyrus’ Proclamation would then prove to be only two drops in the vast ocean of human rights aspirations. Only then could the ambiguity surrounding the universality of human rights be removed.
4. Once it is understood that all civilizations result from constant interactions between cultures, the futility of some human rights misconceptions leading to a confrontational approach between cultures might fade away. Indeed, “tolerance and respect for diversity facilitate universal promotion and protection of human rights and constitute sound foundations for civil society, social harmony and peace.” Only then might a constructive dialogue between different cultures begin.

 

5. This strategy requires some tangible action to overcome the new emerging challenges posing serious threats to mankind including poverty, famine, armed conflict, unprecedented loss of civilians, mostly women and children, violence and extremism. It is essential to uphold some fundamental principles such as rule of law and mutual respect and global support for a world against violence and extremism. It was in the same spirit that the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran proposed the resolution A/RES/68/127 entitled “World against Violence and Violent Extremism” at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly and gained a unanimous support and approval.

 

6. The promulgation of a culture of dialogue is a key step towards the promotion and protection of human rights and the fight against extremism and violence. The “respect for the dignity of others” as an important point in this regards requires that “Human Rights Education” this world education take into account “other” civilizations’ experiences of egalitarian conceptions

In conclusion, as Cyrus the Great stated 2550 years ago, I also wish everyone the most profound peace, security, prosperity and progress without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

---

By Jean Paul Wyers, director of the Institute of Protocol The Hague. The Dutch and protocol; it is an ambiguous relationship. For many, protocol stands for unnecessary formalities but in my view protocol holds the future. Leaders and managers can only survive with a good network and by knowing the right people. In The Grant Study researchers came to a similar conclusion; “It is the capacity for relationships that predicted flourishing. Culture has become more attuned to the power of relationships.” The need for a good network has created the need for good network management, or protocol management as we call it.  A State Visit is much more than a meeting of two Heads of State. At all levels meaningful meetings are planned and protocol is used to structure all this. The private sector has the same need for meaningful meetings and thus for protocol management.   There is another reason why protocol has a future. Time has become a luxury. Personal time is the greatest good we can give to someone. It is the modern currency of relationships. For example Banks divide their personal attention into several groups of customers: retail, preferred banking, private banking and private wealth management. The more interesting you are to the bank, the more personal attention is given to you. Modern protocol management offers an efficient and effective way of managing a network. It optimises those few moments of personal contact and maximises the added value that personalised attention can bring. Modern protocol officers are vital to the successful management of a network. The classic protocol officers will cease to exist, because they put the rules of protocol first. A modern protocol officer understands the greater picture, the goal of the meeting and even the strategy of the organisation. He or she is an expert in translating this into a different protocol every time. Modern protocol management is not only about protocol rules; it is about analysing, translating and finally applying. At the Institute of Protocol The Hague this has always been our vision and it has made us successful. The ambiguous relationship the Dutch have with protocol has provided us with some challenges, but it also resulted in a modern view on protocol.  

By Steven Stuij, LL.M., Researcher/PhD Candidate in private international law, T.M.C. Asser Instituut Private international law (PIL), also known as the conflicts of laws, is the field of (international) law that governs private law relations in a cross-border setting. It regulates the issues of applicable law, jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Multilateral unification in this field of law used to be the domain of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, but nowadays it attracts increasing attention from the EU as well. Several Regulations on PIL matters have already been enacted. Notwithstanding ongoing unification, a wide variety of issues is still unresolved. This was shown during a Meeting for PhD Candidates in PIL that was held at the Asser Institute on the 9^th of October. Candidates of both Dutch and Flemish universities attended the meeting and presented a wide variety of interesting (PhD) topics.   Some of the issues were of a thematic nature, like the international aspects of employment in road transport. What is the value of protective rules for workers if so-called ‘letterbox companies’ can engage in a practice called ‘social dumping’? Another example was the liability of societies that classify sea ships, which led to an interesting debate as to the question how the regulation on international jurisdiction (“Brussels I”) should be applied.   Other topics concerned procedural law. The EU aims at a policy of ‘free circulation of judgments’, meaning that judgments of EU member states can be easily recognised in other member states. But what if the recognition of such judgment would violate human rights as enshrined in the ECHR? And what should happen to judgments from ‘outside’ the EU: is a European standard necessary for that? Interesting is the question how enacted instruments actually operate in practice. One of the participants presented a refreshing approach to this question by gathering empirical data on the operation of EU instruments that introduced uniform civil procedures, like the Small Claims procedure. Finally, some issues touched upon the very basis of choice-of-law rules. Does the fact that PIL is ‘Europeanised’ mean that a new methodology of PIL – i.e., a new paradigm of determining what law is applicable – is necessary? And if a national court finds that a foreign law is applicable, should the court ascertain the contents of that foreign law of its own motion, or can this matter be left to the parties? Though the topics seem to focus on EU PIL, the influence of The Hague in PIL is not yet over. In many issues the relations with third states are still very important and the EU will need their cooperation. And the Asser Institute, being located in The Hague, will continue to further inter-university cooperation, for instance by organising this kind of PhD meetings.            

By Spanda Fondation. Climate change is among the most urgent problems affecting the world today. According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the highest in the last eight-hundred thousand years and, between 1880 and 2012, the temperature of earth’s surface and oceans has risen by almost 1° C. There is little time to step in and keep global warming below the 2° C-border, a point of no return for a process in which human footprint is the main cause. IPCC warns that, if the current change of the climate continues in the next forty years, the process becomes irreversible unless greenhouse gas emissions are drastically cut. The report, produced by eight hundred and thirty scientists worldwide, is the most comprehensive appraisal of climate changes yet undertaken and will be the framework in which international decision-makers will shape policies and conceive visions for the 21st session of the UN Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP21) taking place in December 2015 in Paris, where a new global agreement on climate management is expected to be adopted. The goal of the Conference is to achieve, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, a binding agreement on climate management from all the nations of the world. It will take the form of a protocol, an agreed outcome with legal force, relevant to all Parties. The agreement will be fully implemented from 2020 onward and will, hopefully, bear many positive effects. In a similar spirit, on November 12th, 2014, the US and China have signed an agreement to stop the growth of the carbon-emission by 2030. However, tackling climate change is a difficult task calling for a measure of decisiveness humans have repeatedly failed to muster. Since the 1990s, governments and international institutions have made a number of fruitless efforts to promote environment-friendly practice and means but, after years of spreading knowledge, today’s public awareness is only a few percentages higher than in 1989. Yet, engaging people on a personal level is integral for whatever global action.  After the release of the IPCC report, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, spoke about catastrophe, danger, and dramatic consequences for the future generations. When questioned about the roles of US and China, the world’s biggest polluter states, he called for a collective action as “no single country causes climate change, and no one country can stop it.” Here Kerry fails to engage the individual, as he only frames climate change in a long-term and global perspective. Furthermore, as a recognised world-leader, Kerry’s words are disseminated through the ordinary media platforms without much critical approach; thus the individual becomes alienated from the issue at hand without a deeply-rooted motivation to engage personally in the public sphere in the name of climate change. First and foremost, climate change needs a social change: it is a global concern requiring both local and personal solutions. Without widespread voluntary participation, with no ordinary common sense and active citizenship, regulations, investments and mobilisation, all campaigns are doomed to fail. The problem-assessment needs wider social commitment through targeted actions aimed at enhancing public awareness: a skilfully executed communication that play well in mobilizing and sustaining civic action, in building a community that acts on res publica. In order to implement this transformation, people need not reduce living standards or lose available options. Humankind does not lack in knowledge, capital, and technologies to make the transition to a more climate-friendly economy and lifestyle: the instruments for a new environmental energy policy are already in place. The core of the problem lies with the political will, and with the inadequate translation of the point of no return, the 2° C-border, into a need for mandatory global commitment. Media should investigate climate change as a procedure to resolve the problem of future living conditions, stimulating people to build their own society they actually want to live in. Rather than pointing to drastic global slashes, dangers, and threats, the media should positively promote sustainable innovations. By facilitating public acceptance of regulation while stimulating grass-roots’ actions, a valid communication strategy can reconcile the top-down and bottom-up approaches regarding climate issues, synchronising the actions of decision-makers with the global community.