In the mountains of Afghanistan, girls are restricted from freely pursuing secondary and higher education. In Sudan, women live under a system with no laws criminalizing domestic violence. These are urgent realities that demand attention. Yet across the globe, questions persist about who bears the responsibility to act—and on what authority. The principle of state sovereignty, a cornerstone of the international order, holds that nations have the right to govern their own affairs without outside interference. Where universal human rights and that principle come into tension, there are rarely easy answers.

The rights of women and girls—and the competing claims of state sovereignty—should not be regarded as abstractions confined to think tanks and diplomatic corridors. Both are topics with profound global impact that deserve rigorous global dialogue. That is why this year, they will be argued by thousands of students across the world in the 26th annual International Public Policy Forum (IPPF).

Founded in 2001 by the Brewer Foundation and now jointly administered with New York University, the IPPF is a global competition that invites high school students to debate public policy issues through a format combining written and oral advocacy. This year’s resolution: Resolved: The United Nations should prioritize protecting the rights of women and girls over respecting state sovereignty.

Last year, a record 332 teams from 39 countries participated in the largest competition to date. The most remarkable part is not that these students care about the policy issues, because many do. But— these students took on a role much larger than just “debater,” and became producers of policy rooted in evidence and real lived experience.

Each year, thousands of debaters submit 3,000-word qualifying round essays – in hopes of being one of the 64 teams invited to compete in a single-elimination, written debate tournament. After seven months of written rounds, eight teams emerge. Those teams travel to New York to compete in oral debates.

The tensions addressed in this year’s topic between human rights and state sovereignty are among the defining conflicts of the current global order. And when we look at current international policy, there is no clear answer. From ongoing debates on humanitarian intervention to the United Nations uneven enforcement of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), we see the struggle between sovereignty and intervention. When policymakers are unsure where to draw the line, where do we go?

Students in the IPPF are not waiting for the diplomats to figure it out. Teams from across the globe – Mongolia to Slovenia, Italy to India – already signaled they are ready to take this challenge head on.

As I judged the final debate of the 2026 IPPF, I was reminded why we created this competition 25 years ago: our collective belief that the skills of effective advocacy can be life changing. Yet in an era when disagreement often is often met with a reflexive rejection – these high school students offered a welcome reminder of what principled debate looks like.

In today’s fractured political climate, it’s easy to forget that disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect. Leaders not only accept polarization, they embrace it. The Pew Research Center reports that fewer than half of Americans, just 41 percent, believe there is common ground on key issues between Republicans and Democrats. Our elected officials sidestep inconvenient facts in favor of attacks on their opponents – addicted to whatever fuels the catchiest headline.

Too often, the substance of an argument is lost in favor of a blind pursuit to victory. Civil discourse should not aways be about winning – sometimes it should be about understanding the stakes, hearing the other side, and making the strongest case for your own.

Watching the final debate this year, I saw all of that. The team from North Allegheny Senior High School and Millburn High School, along with their peers, remind us that civil discourse is still alive. It may not always be visible in our political dialogue, but it is alive in the next generation.

And so, in an era when ad hominem attacks on this “other” side seem “normal” – I believe that, even in turbulent times, there are young people committed to clarity over noise, curiosity over certainty, and dialogue over division.

Debate equips its participants with the tools to lead, to question, and to speak with purpose. The IPPF and other programs like it are not just a competition; they are a proving ground for tomorrow’s policy thinkers and public voices.

We don’t have to look far to see what is possible – the next generation is standing right in front of us.

William A. Brewer III

William Brewer is partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and founder of the Brewer Foundation / NYU International Public Policy Forum, now entering its 26th year.

Co-Authored by Jasmine McClure

IPPF Program Coordinator