Participation is not enough: on the new principles for youth participation at the United Nations

There is something that has been shifting in recent years within the world of international cooperation and global governance. Youth participation is no longer an aspirational idea — it has become a structural issue. It is no longer just about inviting young people into spaces, but about seriously asking what role they actually play within them.

In a meeting we held not long ago with Felipe Paullier, he mentioned that the United Nations system was working on a series of documents to better organize and deepen this conversation. Among them, what are now the Core Principles for Meaningful Youth Participation. At the time, the idea was clear: it was necessary to move from narrative to practice. Today, that effort is beginning to take concrete form.

One of those limitations is accessibility. For years, youth participation in international spaces has been constrained by very concrete barriers — economic, geographic and linguistic. The document explicitly acknowledges this and proposes mechanisms to reduce these gaps. Opening the door is not enough if only a few are able to walk through it.

In that same direction, the principle of diversity and representativeness emerges. It is not simply about including young people, but about asking which young people are being included — and which ones are left out. Without that reflection, participation risks reproducing the very inequalities it seeks to transform.

Another central aspect is safety and safeguarding. Participation often requires taking positions, expressing opinions, and engaging in hierarchical environments. Ensuring safe conditions is not a technical detail — it is a necessary condition for participation to be genuine.

One of the most interesting — and demanding — aspects of the document is the idea of co-governance. That is, moving beyond consultative participation and allowing young people to be part of decision-making processes at different stages: from agenda-setting to policy evaluation. This is perhaps where the gap between aspiration and reality becomes most evident.

The document also addresses something that is often overlooked: clarity of roles. Participation frequently fails not because of a lack of willingness, but because of a lack of definition. What is expected from each actor? What is the scope of their participation? Clarifying this is not bureaucracy — it is a condition for effectiveness.

Closely linked to this is the issue of resources. Participation is not free. It requires time, preparation and, often, mobility. If institutions do not account for these costs, they end up excluding — indirectly — those who cannot afford to participate.

Capacity building appears as another key dimension. Young people need tools to engage meaningfully, but institutions also need to learn how to interact differently. Meaningful participation, ultimately, is a practice that must be built over time.

In terms of process, transparency and access to information are fundamental. One cannot participate in what one does not understand. And finally, the principle of feedback responds to one of the most persistent criticisms: the absence of follow-up. For years, many young people have participated in processes without ever knowing whether their contributions had any impact. Without feedback, participation loses its meaning.

The document concludes with an idea that, in my view, is particularly powerful: intergenerational collaboration. This is not about replacing actors, but about rethinking how decisions are built collectively.

So why does all of this matter?

It matters because it emerges at a moment when the multilateral system — and the United Nations in particular — is facing increasing levels of scrutiny. In that context, discussions about reform are inevitable. But those discussions cannot be limited to pointing out what is not working. They must also involve recognizing and strengthening initiatives that seek to adapt the system to new realities.

These principles do not solve the challenges of global governance on their own. But they do point in a direction. And, perhaps more importantly, they introduce an uncomfortable question: how willing are we to redistribute power within our institutions?

For civil society organizations, this document should not be read as something external. On the contrary, it acts as a mirror. It forces us to reflect on our own practices. Are we truly creating spaces for meaningful participation, or are we still operating under more traditional logics?

In the case of Global Kairos, these frameworks are particularly relevant. Because if there is something we seek to build, it is precisely that: spaces where young people do not simply participate, but develop criteria, voice and the capacity to influence the debates that shape their present and future.

After going through these principles, the discussion becomes much clearer. Young people are already participating.

Now the question is something far more profound: what kind of participation are we willing to build — and how much are we willing to change to make it possible?