The past century has seen drastic changes and the pace with which they occur appears yet to be accelerating. It is not only we as individuals who have difficulties following these processes, but also the international legal and institutional framework put in place by previous generations no longer provides efficient responses to the imminent global challenges. It appears that the perennial struggle between continuity and change has reached a new level. This new level is summarized in the global governance debate which is aimed at deepening our understanding of the processes on which our paths depend and, at the same time, at formulating new ideas about new ways we might proceed. However, a global platform on which this debate can unfold is generally absent. International organizations continue their autistic practice and international law fragments further. The question then is how we can create a common platform without a common place to converse. The answer offered in this paper is by starting to create a common vocabulary, as thoughts and words precede and determine our actions. In this global vocabulary, the “developing/developed” dichotomy is one conceptual distinction that, it is argued here, is largely outdated and even malicious in its effects. A survey of its use across various legal contexts not only uncovers institutional fragmentation but also largely contradicts the dynamism inherent in nature. In sum it annihilates the basis for a broader solidarity needed for a more synthetic approach to the solution of many urgent global problems. This conceptual distinction divides the world into so-called “developing countries”, on the one hand, and “developed countries”, on the other. With a view to contributing to the global governance debate, this “constitutional” reading and comprehensive overview of numerous international and national legal instruments marks an attempt to demonstrate the need for more dynamic processes of governance because, ultimately, we all want to live in “developing countries”.