{"id":21850,"date":"2026-04-18T19:33:20","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:33:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/?post_type=storiesprojects&p=21850"},"modified":"2026-04-21T19:27:33","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T19:27:33","slug":"chapter-7-by-mark-ortiz","status":"publish","type":"storiesprojects","link":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/stories\/chapter-7-by-mark-ortiz\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 7 by Mark Ortiz"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lessons From the 1970 UN World Youth Assembly for Contemporary Youth Engagement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Over the last decade, the United Nations (UN) system has increasingly invested in creating institutional space for greater youth participation and leadership. Launched in 2018, Youth2030 is a UN-wide youth strategy that prioritises \u201cmeaningful youth engagement in policymaking and decision-making processes\u201d.[i]<\/sup><\/a> Other efforts to systematise youth participation include the UN Youth Office, the UN Youth Envoy, and the 2024 Summit of the Future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attempts to reform institutional architectures to enhance meaningful youth participation have elements that are both new and old, inventive and anachronistic, symbolic and material. Indeed, current attempts to fashion institutions and processes that represent multiple generations have historical antecedents. While many of the UN\u2019s contemporary youth engagement efforts are cast as novel, they are situated within much longer stories of the UN as an institution that is invested in involving and reaching young people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This chapter explores the reinvention of intergenerational politics through the case study of the 1970 World Youth Assembly, held at the UN headquarters in New York. The chapter details several complex aspects of youth representation and offers three lessons for understanding youth engagement in multilateral decision-making today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it is important to pay critical attention to the framings of \u201cgeneration\u201d and \u201cyouth\u201d adopted by different actors to different ends. Examining the varying interpretations of these concepts highlights contradictory narratives that are still relevant for intergenerational politics today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, it is essential to centre analyses of youth engagement in questions of power. Focusing on power enables a nuanced analysis of the intersections of representation, geopolitics, gender, class, and age in shaping the potential and limitations of youth inclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, this case study highlights how young people adapt inherited processes to offer more expansive conceptions of what is political. This suggests that research on youth politics must deal not only with the formal politics of youth engagement in institutions but also with the micropolitics of how young people reimagine politics more generally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>
\n

Mark Ortiz<\/strong> is a Presidential Postdoctoral Fellow and incoming Assistant Professor of Geography at Pennsylvania State University whose research explores youth politics, climate justice, and digital storytelling in global youth climate action<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Get to know Mark<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The 1970 World Youth Assembly<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To commemorate the UN\u2019s 25th anniversary in 1970, then Secretary General U Thant spearheaded a first-of-its-kind World Youth Assembly at the organisation\u2019s headquarters in New York. Over 600 participants from some 120 countries convened in July that year to discuss a broad range of topics, such as education, peace, development, and the environment. The average participant was reported to be in their early 20s, with nearly half engaged in some sort of education or university training, and many involved in youth organisations.[ii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The videos, documents, and speeches that remain from the assembly form a unique archive that illustrates how the UN and its officials articulated their roles in generational language. As U Thant said in a radio broadcast before the assembly, the project\u2019s ambition was to forge a \u201crelationship of mutual confidence and cooperation \u2026 between generations so that we can transmit the goals and ideals with which the United Nations was brought into being a quarter of a century ago\u201d.[iii]<\/sup><\/a> Here, U Thant articulated a mission of progressive betterment intended to engender a sense of global citizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generational conflict and geopolitics<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Framing this mission was a notion of nascent generational conflict. Victor Mills, the assembly\u2019s executive officer, alluded to broad youth dissatisfaction with the sluggishness and inefficacy of institutional politics.[iv]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, in his opening remarks to the event, U Thant described the central generational fissure as being between the \u201colder generation\u201d, with its emphasis on the \u201clegacy of achievements passed on to the youth of today\u201d, and the younger generation focused on \u201cinjustice, waste, [and a] lack of love and understanding\u201d.[v]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ghana\u2019s permanent representative to the UN, R.M. Akwei, also focused parts of his speech on diagnosing a generational chasm and identifying different articulations of democratic thought. He, like Mills, mentioned a prevailing sense of frustration among young people because of the \u201cinability of individuals to influence institutions in order to make them more humane and responsive to new social values\u201d. He described a \u201cvirtual civil war\u201d between an older generation interested in affluence and younger citizens critical of the \u201cemptiness and callousness\u201d that affluence produces.[vi]<\/sup><\/a> He went on to suggest that the younger generation was interested in a vision of democracy that embraced \u201cspontaneity\u201d, in contrast to rigid institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speeches and historical reporting present contradictory narratives about young people that oscillate between idealism and chaos. A cautionary report for the Boston Globe<\/em> in May 1970 wondered: \u201cWhat happens if the gathering decides its own agenda, different from that offered? And what if it produces a psychedelic manifesto of revolution and irreverence?\u201d[vii]<\/sup><\/a> The central dialectic that emerges is of youthful idealism as either an engine of possibility or a harbinger of social breakdown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UN Chef de Cabinet C.V. Narasimhan identified two potential pathways the assembly could take. The first was that the \u201cthe young will bring a new dimension to our own thinking about how the world should be run … and how the future affairs of mankind should be handled\u201d. The second was a \u201crambunctious youth assembly\u201d that \u201cwould end in chaos\u201d.[viii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

U Thant\u2019s opening remarks leaned into an optimistic vision that framed participants as part of a long historical lineage of young people leading \u201cinspirational\u201d and transformational change.[ix]<\/sup><\/a> Both Narasimhan\u2019s and U Thant\u2019s understandings of young people embodied a faith in them as progressive catalysts. But across the archival materials, a thin line distinguishes youthful idealism and innovation from the omnipresent threat of disorder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each stage of the assembly was animated by the geopolitical conflicts of the era, suggesting the need to take seriously power dynamics in studies of youth engagement and intergenerational politics. For example, countries disagreed over whether a youth assembly should happen at all, with one western representative reportedly suggesting that the Soviet Union was more \u201cworried about [the] unpredictability of youth than we are\u201d.[x]<\/sup><\/a> Another report suggested that \u201cthe big powers, sensing they would be the prime targets of the youthful participants, became wary\u201d.[xi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

U Thant appealed to a sort of universalist generational thinking to elevate the gathering\u2019s importance as transcending geopolitical interests. He suggested that if the event did not happen, its absence would be \u201clikely to affect the relations between generations for a long time to come\u201d.[xii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, generational ideas interacted with questions of geopolitics. In western reporting, many of the delegates who represented communist-affiliated youth fronts were described as older and interested in pursuing a manipulative realpolitik. New York Times <\/em>reporter Kathleen Teltsch described the discussions being dominated by \u201cnot-so-young professionals who had learned their tactics at youth festivals in various communist capitals\u201d.[xiii]<\/sup><\/a> In the same way, a write-up in Time<\/em> magazine decried the presence of \u201cprofessional Youths\u201d in the conference.[xiv]<\/sup><\/a> Here, depictions of young people function as sites of geopolitical contestation that distinguish subversive, not-so-young attendees from communist countries, on the one hand, from their innocent or naive counterparts from the west, on the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delegates\u2019 views<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Many young attendees criticised the way their conversations unfolded along predictable lines and implored other participants to embrace a spirit of possibility. Dennis Smith from Jamaica lambasted the assembly for \u201cquarrelling\u201d in the way that national leaders did in the UN and suggested that the outcomes of such bickering would be \u201cfoolish\u201d.[xv]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speeches by young delegates in the early stages of the assembly challenged the forum\u2019s purported universality: there was criticism of the presence of young people selected by China\u2019s nationalist regime, of military action by the United States (US) in Vietnam, and of global imperialism.[xvi]<\/sup><\/a> Some participants withdrew from the forum entirely, including one Puerto Rican participant who cited a \u201cclimate of ideological intolerance\u201d.[xvii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A delegate from Mali exhorted participants to \u201chave faith in our capacity to persuade, in our capacity to change each of these youth into the men of tomorrow\u201d, suggesting a promising view of the possibility of negotiation and interpersonal change. Australia\u2019s Kenwin Smith suggested that \u201cvirtually no one has managed to break beyond the concepts of the adult generation\u201d.[xviii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A young participant from the US offered a different view: \u201cThere has been an overt sign of entire chaos, but I think underneath a lot of work has been getting done.\u201d Lars Thalen, who chaired the assembly, insisted that the role of young people was to take a \u201clonger view\u201d and inject politics with a future-oriented moral vision.[xix]<\/sup><\/a> Overall, the participants\u2019 experiences emphasised that young people cannot be shoehorned into reductive symbols of progressivism or future-oriented politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In closing the assembly, U Thant remarked that \u201cthe ideological, political, and other preoccupations of the world were bound to reflect themselves in the attitudes of youth\u201d. His sober concluding assessment departed from the aspirational tone with which the assembly was opened and imagined. Interviews with attendees after the event painted a negative image of the affair, with one Chicago Tribune<\/em> headline reading \u201cU.N. parley disillusions youth\u201d.[xx]<\/sup><\/a> Meanwhile, an appraisal for the Boston Globe<\/em> claimed that \u201cadult cynicisms and ploys crept into the attitudes and voices of the young supplanting the dreams of a better world with polemics of the present\u201d.[xxi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Norwegian delegate quoted in the Chicago Tribune<\/em> recounted being disillusioned that young people were not \u201cmore capable of international cooperation than their elders\u201d; another delegate remembered how her \u201chopes sank lower and lower\u201d as she watched the assembly unfold.[xxii]<\/sup><\/a> Even amid the maelstrom of the gathering, Thalen hoped the forum would provide the basis for the creation of a \u201cpermanent channel through which youth or young people can speak to the General Assembly and to the U.N.\u201d, indicating modest ambitions for institutional innovation.[xxiii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reflections on 1970 in the context of intergenerational representation today<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As U Thant remarked presciently at the closing of the 1970 World Youth Assembly, \u201cthe United Nations will probably never be the same\u201d.[xxiv]<\/sup><\/a> While the assembly\u2019s organisers expressed an ambition that the delegates would \u201cinject new ideas\u201d into the conversations unfolding on the international stage, participants and news reporters converged on how congruent the assembly was with the broader geopolitics of the moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what, if anything, did the assembly accomplish, and what can scholars and practitioners interested in youth engagement today glean from this historical moment? Three lessons stand out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The importance of framings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

First, analysts must be attentive to \u201cyouth\u201d and \u201cgeneration\u201d as symbolic constructs loaded with complex and often contradictory meanings, depending on who is using them. This results in tensions that mark young people as unsettled political subjects and materially shape the politics and possibilities of participation. While some observers extol young people as bridges to a new historical formation, the same commentators often describe the potential for youth politics to become unruly, chaotic, or destructive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Young people are often depicted as the political foils to older adults. However, as institutions like the UN increasingly carve out space for youth participation, the contrary expectation is that young participants will inject new ideas, practices, and energies into inflexible institutional settings while embodying the norms of staid, bureaucratic dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The centrality of power<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The second lesson is that any study of young people that does not take seriously questions of power will be limited in its analytical utility. As with the World Youth Assembly, in any political deliberations involving young people today, articulations of youth are key battlegrounds on which states, corporations, and other actors seek to articulate, curate, and control their images and extend their influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The World Youth Assembly was undeniably shaded by the great-power geopolitics of the cold war, the rising tide of decolonisation and anti-imperial insurgencies, and the countercultural youth and student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Within today\u2019s power dynamics, youth representation in settings like UN climate negotiations is vitiated by concerns about so-called youth-washing \u2013 the careful selection and curation of young spokespeople to exhibit representativeness, which presents potentially misleading images of governments and corporations.[xxv]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, as one researcher has suggested, while youth-led change may be \u201cpartial and incomplete\u201d, it is \u201calways playful in the sense that it is generative and creative\u201d.[xxvi]<\/sup><\/a> While it may be impossible to trace any large-scale changes emerging from the 1970 assembly, a sense of the micropolitics of youth advocacy helps analysts understand the modest advances that emerged across the gathering. U Thant\u2019s closing remarks alluded to some of them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Your informal manners, the practice of certain commissions to limit the statements to five minutes or even less, the recognition of speakers by number rather than country, and most of all the principle of individual participation rather than governmental representation \u2026 all of these may affect in some way the practice of the United Nations organs in the long run.[xxvii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The value of history<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The third finding is that as the international community pursues ever more substantive modes of intergenerational inclusion, it is essential to look back at the histories of youth and intergenerational politics in order to more perspicaciously look forward. The stories of generational tension and the divergent representations of youth that unfolded at the World Youth Assembly resembled the stories that shape multilateral negotiations, local forums, and political conversations around the world today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assembly\u2019s final declaration expressed \u201cregret that the conditions of the World Youth Assembly did not permit the participation in the Assembly of all the youth organizations and movements\u201d and did not embody a \u201cuniversal character\u201d.[xxviii]<\/sup><\/a> The document also prioritised representation of young people from the \u201cThird World\u201d, the importance of protections for those in work, and efforts to promote literacy among \u201cout-of-school youth\u201d. These priorities offer important precursors of what would become an interest in meaningful youth engagement that takes broad inclusion seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final statement also envisaged the creation of a \u201cUN International Youth Centre\u201d that would \u201cwork through a decentralized structure \u2026 through many local bases directly\u201d. These modest visions, along with Thalen\u2019s insistence on creating a more permanent platform for UN youth engagement, have stood the test of time and find their institutional forms in the youth-focused strategies and offices of today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current younger generation may leverage social media, digital technologies, and pop culture to articulate their political dissatisfaction.[xxix]<\/sup><\/a> But the \u201cdo-it-ourselves\u201d politics of youth climate activism in the 2010s and 2020s is not so different from the visions of democracy and shared generational consciousness expressed by many attendees back in 1970.[xxx]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2024 Summit of the Future<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Comparing more recent efforts to engage young people in multilateral institutions with the 1970 World Youth Assembly reveals both parallels and contrasts. One major event was the UN\u2019s 2024 Summit of the Future, which focused on meaningful youth engagement, reflecting commitments made in the Youth2030 strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the two-day negotiations on 22\u201323 September, UN Secretary General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres convened two action days to set the tone for the talks. The first was entitled \u201c#YouthLead for the Future\u201d. Speaking at this action day, UN Assistant Secretary General for Youth Affairs Felipe Paullier described the summit as an opportunity to \u201cput young people at the centre\u201d of multilateral decision-making.[xxxi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The media that documented the summit and the preceding action days reveal a diverse range of young participants. The involvement of marginalised individuals, such as disabled people, Indigenous groups, children, and others, signalled an evolution of inclusion since 1970. Similarly, the language used in the outcome document of the 2024 event reflected a greater emphasis on generation-spanning challenges and insisted on the importance of factoring future generations into today\u2019s decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Juxtaposing the highly curated media, interviews, and celebratory tone of the 2024 summit with the grainy, amateurish footage of the 1970 assembly, it would be tempting to believe that youth inclusion has evolved in a singularly positive direction. And indeed, the organisers of the 2024 event took strides to contribute to the aspiration expressed in the final outcome of the 1970 assembly that future gatherings should evolve towards a more \u201cuniversal character\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But today, the central question is pivoting from the mere inclusion of young people in traditionally adult-dominated meetings to more meaningful ways to link multilateral processes with transformative, youth-centred outcomes on the ground. As young climate change commentators such as Greta Thunberg have noted extensively, and as could be heard even in the youth speeches of 1970, although young people may be at the table, too often the words, promises, and commitments of older political figures do little to enable intergenerational equity in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A continuous legacy of youth leadership<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There remains work to be done to translate the lofty promises of forums such as the 2024 summit to the layered and often unjust realities experienced by children and young people around the world. Worryingly, progress in the representation and inclusion of young people in multilateral governance is set against the backdrop of declining faith in multilateralism, antidemocratic turns in many nations, and widespread youth dissatisfaction, as evidenced in protest movements around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet, the outcome of the 2024 summit, particularly the first-of-its-kind Declaration on Future Generations, enshrined an intergenerational ethic at the heart of the multilateral system. The declaration considers the past, present, and future as a set of interlinked flows that shape the material realities of the children and young people of today and tomorrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This type of intergenerational outlook is something that young people have been campaigning for through their participation in multilateral institutions \u2013 from Thalen\u2019s speech at the 1970 World Youth Assembly to then 12-year-old Severn Cullis-Suzuki\u2019s words at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit or Thunberg\u2019s many speeches at UN climate summits. From the 1970 assembly to the 2024 summit and beyond, there is a continuous legacy of youth leadership. This legacy, which is embodied in young people\u2019s insistent demands that global institutions evolve to more meaningfully represent them and their successors, continues to influence the shape and scope of multilateralism today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n
\n
Explore the Full Study<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This chapter is part of a Deep Dive of Young Researchers who worked on Youth Participation for three years. This deep dive is a global collection of 12 case studies unpacking how young people are reshaping political engagement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Young Researchers\u2019 Network<\/strong> is an initiative developed in the framework of the European Democracy Hub<\/a><\/strong> and EPD\u2019s Women and Youth in Democracy<\/a><\/strong> WYDE Civic Engagement<\/strong> project, supported by the European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Get to know the 12 Young Researchers<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

[i]<\/a> \u201cYouth2030: Working With and for Young People\u201d, United Nations Youth Office, 2018, https:\/\/www.un.org\/youthaffairs\/sites\/default\/files\/2024-12\/Youth2030_UN%20Youth%20Strategy_EN.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ii]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone: Unlike Their Elders\u201d (video), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1970, https:\/\/www.unesco.org\/archives\/multimedia\/document-5119<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[iii]<\/a> \u201cU Thant on the World Youth Assembly\u201d (radio), WNYC, 6 May 1970, https:\/\/www.wnyc.org\/story\/u-thant-on-the-world-youth-assembly\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[iv]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone,\u201d UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[v]<\/a> \u201cWorld Youth Assembly, United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y., 9-17 July 1970. Message to the General Assembly of the United Nations, Reports of the Commissions, Statements to the World Youth Assembly\u201d, United Nations (UN) Digital Library, 30 July 1970, https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/3906570?ln=en&v=pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[vi]<\/a> \u201cWorld Youth Assembly\u201d, UN Digital Library.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[vii]<\/a> Darius S. Jhabvala, \u201cWorld youth assembly runs into new snags\u201d, Boston Globe<\/em>, 14 May 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[viii]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ix]<\/a> \u201cWorld Youth Assembly\u201d, UN Digital Library.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[x]<\/a> Robert H. Estabrook, \u201cPowers argue over U.N. youth assembly\u201d, Washington Post<\/em>, 10 January 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xi]<\/a> Darius S. Jhabvala, \u201cWorld youth assembly opens today at UN\u201d, Boston Globe<\/em>, 9 July 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xii]<\/a> Jhabvala, \u201cNew snags\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xiii]<\/a> Kathleen Teltsch, \u201cWorld Youth Assembly\u201d, New York Times<\/em>, 20 July 1970, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1970\/07\/20\/archives\/world-youth-assembly-parroting-of-elders-slogans-in-familiar.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xiv]<\/a> \u201cUnited Nations: Professional Youths\u201d, Time<\/em>, 27 July 1970, https:\/\/time.com\/archive\/6843354\/united-nations-professional-youths\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xv]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xvi]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xvii]<\/a> William Fulton, \u201cU. N. youth parley invites reds\u201d, Chicago Tribune<\/em>, 11 July 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xviii]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xix]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xx]<\/a> \u201cU.N. Parley disillusions youth\u201d, Chicago Tribune<\/em>, 20 July 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxi]<\/a> Darius S. Jhabvala, \u201cFaith in young deeply shaken by world youth assembly\u201d, Boston Globe<\/em>, 19 July 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxii]<\/a> \u201cU.N. Parley\u201d, Chicago Tribune<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxiii]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxiv]<\/a> \u201cInternational Zone\u201d, UNESCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxv]<\/a> Mark Ortiz, Charles Mankhwazi, and Neeshad Shafi, \u201cWho is going to talk about my granddad? Who is going to talk about me?\u201d, Climate and Development<\/em> 16, no. 10 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/17565529.2024.2360618<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxvi]<\/a> Stuart C. Aitken, \u201cWhat happened to adventurous young people and their cool places?\u201d, Children\u2019s Geographies<\/em> 17, no. 1 (2019): 9\u201312.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxvii]<\/a> \u201cWorld Youth Assembly\u201d, UN Digital Library.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxviii]<\/a> \u201cWorld Youth Assembly\u201d, UN Digital Library.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxix]<\/a> Nuurrianti Jalli, \u201cFrom anime to activism: How the \u2018One Piece\u2019 pirate flag became the global emblem of Gen Z resistance\u201d, The Conversation<\/em>, 24 September 2025, https:\/\/theconversation.com\/from-anime-to-activism-how-the-one-piece-pirate-flag-became-the-global-emblem-of-gen-z-resistance-265526<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxx]<\/a> Sarah Pickard, \u201cYoung Environmental Activists and Do-It-Ourselves (DIO) Politics: Collective Engagement, Generational Agency, Efficacy, Belonging and Hope\u201d, Journal of Youth Studies<\/em> 25, no. 6 (2022): 730\u201350, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13676261.2022.2046258<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[xxxi]<\/a> \u201cAction Days for the Future\u201d (video), UN Web TV, 22 September 2024, https:\/\/webtv.un.org\/en\/asset\/k12\/k12uooughw?_gl=1*llk69a*_ga*MjAwNzI3NTE3MC4xNzY5NTQ0OTYw*_ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*czE3Njk1NDQ5NTkkbzEkZzAkdDE3Njk1NDQ5NTkkajYwJGwwJGgw<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lessons From the 1970 UN World Youth Assembly for Contemporary Youth Engagement Over the last decade, the United Nations (UN) system has increasingly invested in creating institutional space for greater youth participation and leadership. Launched in 2018, Youth2030 is a UN-wide youth strategy that prioritises \u201cmeaningful youth […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":21851,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"story-category":[94],"project-category":[242],"project-region":[311],"story-tag":[110,30,39,43,31],"class_list":["post-21850","storiesprojects","type-storiesprojects","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","story-category-research-content","project-category-wyde-civic-engagement","project-region-north-america","story-tag-research-on-youth-political-participation","story-tag-youth-engagement","story-tag-youth-inclusion","story-tag-youth-leadership","story-tag-youth-policy"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/storiesprojects\/21850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/storiesprojects"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/storiesprojects"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/storiesprojects\/21850\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22156,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/storiesprojects\/21850\/revisions\/22156"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21851"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"story-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/story-category?post=21850"},{"taxonomy":"project-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project-category?post=21850"},{"taxonomy":"project-region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project-region?post=21850"},{"taxonomy":"story-tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/youthdemocracycohort.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/story-tag?post=21850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}