Global governance

Global governance refers to institutions that coordinate the behavior of transnational actors, facilitate cooperation, resolve disputes, and alleviate collective action problems.^[1][2][3] Global governance broadly entails making, monitoring, and enforcing rules.^[4] Within global governance, a variety of types of actors – not just states – exercise power.^[4]

In contrast to the traditional meaning of governance, the term global governance is used to denote the regulation of interdependent relations in the absence of an overarching political authority.^[5] The best example of this is the international system or relationships between independent states.

The concept of global governance began in the mid-19th century.^[1] It became particularly prominent in the aftermath of World War I, and more so after the end of World War II.^[1] Since World War II, the number of international organizations has increased substantially.^[1] The number of actors (whether they be states, non-governmental organizations, firms, and epistemic communities) who are involved in governance relationships has also increased substantially.^[1]

Various terms have been used for the dynamics of global governance, such as complex interdependence, international regimes, multilevel governance, global constitutionalism, and ordered anarchy.^[6]

The term world governance is broadly used to designate all regulations intended for organization and centralization of human societies on a global scale. The Forum for a new World Governance defines world governance simply as "collective management of the planet".^[7] Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, was one of the first organizations to promote global governance.^[8][9][10]

Traditionally, government has been associated with governing, or with political authority, institutions, and, ultimately, control. Governance denotes a process through which institutions coordinate and control independent social relations, and that have the ability to enforce their decisions. However, governance is also used to denote the regulation of interdependent relations in the absence of an overarching political authority, such as in the international system.^[11] Some now speak of the development of global public policy.^[12]

Adil Najam, a scholar on the subject at the Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University has defined global governance simply as "the management of global processes in the absence of global government."^[13] According to Thomas G. Weiss, director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center (CUNY) and editor (2000–05) of the journal Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, "'Global governance'—which can be good, bad, or indifferent—refers to concrete cooperative problem-solving arrangements, many of which increasingly involve not only the United Nations of states but also 'other UNs,' namely international secretariats and other non-state actors."^[14] In other words, global governance refers to the way in which global affairs are managed.

Global governance has also been defined as "the complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental, through which collective interests on the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated".^[15]

The definition is flexible in scope, applying to general subjects such as global security and order or to specific documents and agreements such as the World Health Organization's Code on the Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The definition applies whether the participation is bilateral (e.g. an agreement to regulate usage of a river flowing in two countries), function-specific (e.g. a commodity agreement), regional (e.g. the Treaty of Tlatelolco), or global (e.g. the Non-Proliferation Treaty).^[16] These "cooperative problem-solving arrangements" may be formal, taking the shape of laws or formally constituted institutions for a variety of actors (such as state authorities, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, other civil society actors, and individuals) to manage collective affairs.^[17] They may also be informal (as in the case of practices or guidelines) or ad hoc entities (as in the case of coalitions).^[18]

However, a single organization may take the nominal lead on an issue, for example the World Trade Organization (WTO) in world trade affairs. Therefore, global governance is thought to be an international process of consensus-forming which generates guidelines and agreements that affect national governments and international corporations. Examples of such consensus would include WTO policies on health issues.

In the light of the unclear meaning of the term "global governance" as a concept in international politics,^[19] some authors have proposed defining it not in substantive, but in disciplinary and methodological terms. For these authors, global governance is better understood as an analytical concept or optic that provides a specific perspective on world politics different from that of conventional international relations^[20] theory. Thomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson have even argued that global governance has the capacity to overcome some of the fragmentation of international relations as a discipline^[21] particularly when understood as a set of questions about the governance of world orders.^[22] Other authors conceptualized global governance as a field of practice in which diverse stakeholders, such as public, private, and supra-governmental actors can compete for influence about issues that are not bound to national boundaries.^[23] This conceptualization allows to better understand the principles of exclusions of specific stakeholders from the negotiation field as some actors lack the economic, social, cultural and symbolic resources required to gain enough influence.^[24]

While attempts of intergovernmental coordination of policy-making can be traced back to ancient times, comprehensive search for effective formats of international coordination and cooperation truly began after the end of the WWI. It was during that post-war period that some of the still existing international institutions (or their immediate predecessors) were founded. Among thinkers who made major contributions to the period discussions on the goals and forms of international governance and policy coordination were J.M. Keynes with his "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" and G. Cassel with his works on the post-war development of the global monetary system.^[25]

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of a long period of international history based on a policy of balance of powers. Since this historic event, the planet has entered a phase of geostrategic breakdown. The national-security model, for example, while still in place for most governments, is gradually giving way to an emerging collective conscience that extends beyond the restricted framework it represents.^[26]

In its initial phase, world governance was able to draw on themes inherited from geopolitics and the theory of international relations, such as peace, defense, geostrategy, diplomatic relations, and trade relations. But as globalization progresses and the number of interdependencies increases, the global level is also highly relevant to a far wider range of subjects, such as climate change, environmental protection and sustainability in general.^{[citation needed]}

In the 20th century, the risks associated with nuclear fission raised global awareness of environmental threats. The 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibiting atmospheric nuclear testing marked the beginning of the globalization of environmental issues. Environmental law began to be modernized and coordinated with the Stockholm Conference (1972), backed up in 1980 by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.^[27] The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was signed and ratified in 1985. In 1987, 24 countries signed the Montreal Protocol which imposed the gradual withdrawal of CFCs.

Global governance can be roughly divided into four stages:^{[28]: 14–16}

1. agenda-setting (or global goal-setting^[29]);
2. policymaking,
3. implementation and enforcement, and
4. evaluation, monitoring, and adjudication.

A "new central approach in global governance" is global goal-setting.^[29] The Sustainable Development Goals (to be achieved during the years 2015 to 2030) are one example of global goal setting. Previously, another attempt at "global governance by goal-setting" were the Millennium Development Goals from the year 2000 to 2015.^[29] Earlier examples of global goal-setting include the "Plan of Action of the 1990 World Summit for Children" or the "first Development Decade that dates as far back as 1961".^[29]

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were "expected to have a major impact on the United Nations system" which is a key actor within the global governance concept.^[29] However, the SDGs have broadly failed to integrate global policies and to bring international organizations together. By and large, the SDGs have not become a shared set of connecting goals, and their uptake in global governance remains limited.^[31]

Global sustainability governance is marked by a highly fragmented system of distinct clusters of international organizations, along with states and other actors.^[32] The 17 Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by the United Nations in 2015, explicitly aimed at advancing policy coherence and institutional integration among the myriad of international institutions. However, research has shown that since the implementation of the SDGs, fragmentation among international organizations has not decreased. Instead, the formation of silos has increased around the 17 SDG issue areas as well as around the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.^[32]

The UN Sustainable Development Goal 16 on "peace, justice and strong institutions" has a target and indicator regarding global governance (to be achieved by 2030). The full text of Target 16.8 is: "Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance."^[33] The target has a single indicator which is the "Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizations".^[34]

Research published in 2023 has shown that the SDGs have not lived up to expectations that they would help integrate the system of global governance. The SDGs are not taken up by a large enough group of international organizations, and organizations continue to cherry-pick SDGs that best fit their interest. In particular, international organizations often cherry-pick SDG 8 (on decent work and economic growth), SDG 9 (on industry and innovation), and SDG 12 (on consumption and production).^[31]

International bureaucracies (in the form of intergovernmental treaty secretariats) exert autonomous influence in various domains of global affairs. An example of an intergovernmental treaty secretariat is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Scholars are finding that international bureaucracies can be actors with considerable agency and can have important tasks in contemporary global policy-making.^[35] They rely on soft modes of governance to affect global and domestic policy-making due to their lack of coercive power compared to state actors that can enforce legally binding rules.^[35]

International bureaucracies can work as orchestrators that interact with non-state actors, such as civil society groups, non-profit entities, or the private sector to encourage national governments to agree on a more ambitious response to collective action problems in the realm of global environmental politics.^[35] Orchestration can be understood as an indirect mode of governance whereby a given actor (e.g. international organizations or national governments) mobilizes one or more intermediaries to take influence on a certain target group.

As of 2022, there is a general trend towards the involvement of non-state actors into global policy-making.^[35] For example, new alliances are being formed between intergovernmental treaty secretariats and non-state actors.

World authorities including international organizations and corporations achieve deference to their agenda through different means. Authority can derive from institutional status, expertise, moral authority, capacity, or perceived competence.^{[28]: 9–14}

The most pressing transboundary environmental challenges include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation.^[36][35] Solving these problems now warrants coordination across a variety of institutions featuring many actors and encompassing different levels and scales of governance.^[36]

Following the growth of international environmental institutions from the 1970s, intergovernmental and transnational environmental governance has rapidly proliferated over the last few decades. As a result of this proliferation, domains of institutional competence increasingly overlap. This compounds the fragmentation and institutional complexity of global environmental governance, but also creates opportunities for productive interactions among institutions.^[36]

The field of global environmental governance has been characterized as “one of the institutionally most dynamic areas in world politics regarding the number of international institutions and actors that have emerged over the past three decades”.^[35] The International Environmental Agreement Database Project currently comprises almost 1300 multilateral agreements and over 2200 bilateral agreements (see also list of international environmental agreements).^[35]

The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) coordinates the environmental activity of countries in the UN. For example, UNEP has played a vital role as a coordinator and catalyzer for an array of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).^[36] UNEP was envisioned to take up a leading role in more centralized global environmental governance. However, UNEP has been widely considered as a weak international organization, as many institutional arrangements concerned with regulating environmental matters have become increasingly independent of UNEP over the past decades, resembling a very loosely and sometimes poorly coordinated network. Moreover, some opponents have doubted the effectiveness of a centralized overarching institutional framework to govern global environmental governance and law.^[36]

The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposed an agenda for global environmental governance. These objectives are:^[37]

• leadership;
• positioning science as the authoritative basis of sound environmental policy;
• coherence and reasonable coordination;
• well-managed institutions;
• incorporate environmental concerns and actions within other areas of international policy and action (mainstreaming)

Scholars have discussed the formation of an overarching institutional framework as a means to improve institutional interaction, more effectively address transboundary environmental problems, and advance sustainable development. Some have advocated for a new, overarching World Environment Organization (WEO). Others have instead argued for modifying existing decision-making procedures and institutional boundaries in order to enhance their effectiveness instead of creating new—likely dysfunctional—overarching frameworks.^[36]

Some analysts also argue that multiple institutions and some degree of overlap and duplication in policies is necessary to ensure maximum output from the system.^[38] Others, however, claim that institutions have become too dispersed and lacking in coordination which can be damaging to their effectiveness in global environmental governance.^[39] Whilst there are various arguments for and against a WEO, the key challenge, however, remains the same: how to develop a rational and effective framework that will protect the global environment efficiently.

The idea for the creation of a WEO was discussed since the year 2000.^[40][41] It received fresh attention in the light of disappointing outcomes from ‘environmental mega conferences’^[42] (e.g.Rio Summit and Earth Summit 2002). Proposals in this area have discussed the issue of how collective environmental action is possible. Many multilateral, environment-related agreements have been forged in the past 30 years, but their implementation remains difficult.^[43]

Many proposals for the creation of a WEO have emerged from the trade and environment debate.^[44] It has been argued that instead of creating a WEO to safeguard the environment, environmental issues should be directly incorporated into the World Trade Organization (WTO).^[45] The WTO has "had success in integrating trade agreements and opening up markets because it is able to apply legal pressure to nation states and resolve disputes".^[44]

Relations between the Global North and Global South have been impacted by a history of colonialism, during which Northern colonial powers contributed to environmental degradation of natural resources in the South.^[46] This dynamic continues to influence international relations and is the basis for what some historians recognize as the "North-South divide."^[47] Scholars argue that this divide has created hurdles in the international lawmaking process regarding the environment. Scholars have noted that unindustrialized countries in the Global South sometimes are disconnected from environmentalism and perceive environmental governance to be a "luxury" priority for the Global North.^[47] Also, environmental governance priorities in the Global North have been at odds with the desire to focus on economic development in the Global South.^[48]

Some analysts propose a shift towards "non-state" actors for the development of environmental governance.^[49] Environmental politics researcher Karin Bäckstrand claims this will increase transparency, accountability, and legitimacy.^[49] In some cases, scholars have noted that environmental governance in the Global North has had adverse consequences on the environment in the Global South.^[50] Environmental and economic priorities in the Global North do not always align with those in the Global South.^[50] Tension between countries in the Global North and Global South has caused some academics to criticize global environmental governance for being too slow of a process to enact policy change.^[51]

Political scientists have said that structural changes in global environmental governance are urgently needed both within and outside United Nations (UN) institutions, including fully fledged international organizations, specialized bodies and programs, as well as secretariats of international environmental agreements.^[35] Three examples of intergovernmental treaty secretariats include the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (climate secretariat), the Convention on Biological Diversity (biodiversity secretariat), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (desertification secretariat) and non-state actors. These secretariats can reach out to non-state actors in order to pursue distinct policy goals.^[35]

International bureaucracies might mitigate political gridlock by rallying support from transnational and sub-national actors or turning to non-state actors in order to mobilize advocacy, create demonstration effects, or otherwise nudge national governments towards more ambitious international agreements.^[35]

Where governance refers to institutional arrangements between state and non-state actors, global health governance refers to such institutional arrangements that have a direct and indirect impact on health. Prior to 2002, the term "global health governance" did not exist; it emerged as a description of cross-border initiatives (structures and processes) tackling global health. Global health governance (GHG) has come to replace an earlier term "international health governance" (IHG) which worked in a more state-centric system and era.^[52] There is a call for a clearer definition and “conceptual clarity” for GHG due to its multiple meanings and varied uses.^[53]

Global health governance foregrounds the interconnectivity that is needed between state and non-state actors. This interconnectivity differs from former global health systems in the greater role for non-state actors whose numbers are also increasing. Non-state actors are seen as vital at a time when state actors alone cannot address the many health challenges. Global health governance gives new roles for both non-state and state actors, in areas such as agenda setting, resource mobilization and allocation, and dispute settlement.^[52] These changing roles have generated new kinds of partnerships such as the global campaign against the marketing of breast milk substitutes: collaboration between UNICEF, WHO, the International Baby Food Action Network, and other like-minded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) came together to address this issue.^[52] Given the diversity found within the NGO community, specific NGOs can work in collaboration with state actors on specific issues, forming a more permanent yet fluid collaboration between the two.^[54]

One of the ambitions of global governance nowadays is to have a higher level of inclusiveness. This means a "commitment to bring in, and advance the interests of, those countries that fared worst in economic globalization, especially the least developed countries", as well as Small Island Developing States and landlocked developing countries.^[29]

Global governance for sustainability as a system of international institutions and organizations remains fragmented. Hundreds of international organizations are active in this field (for example, a study in 2022 analyzed 335 of them).^[32] However, they are only sparsely connected and often compete for scarce resources while prioritizing their own mandates. There is a need for enhanced international cooperation to better address the interconnected global governance challenges such as health, trade, and the environment. Policy proposals and reform ideas include clustering institutions, managing regime interplay, embracing complexity, or centralizing global sustainability governance through strong coordinating authorities.^[32]

Fragmentation is a main driver for institutional complexity within global environmental governance. It results from the proliferation of public and private institutions in a given policy area, which can have consequences for the effectiveness of interacting institutions due to overlapping mandates and jurisdictions. The regime complex of climate change, for example, is no longer governed exclusively by the UNFCCC as its institutional core, but also by institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Security Council, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and many others, which are not geared toward addressing climate change as their primary governance target.^[36]

One of the negative consequences of fragmentation is the emergence of conflicting institutional centers within regime complexes. This can hamper the formation of legally binding, internationally accepted regulation. The UNFCCC and International Maritime Organization (IMO), for example, have both addressed the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping without consensus among key actors on a common approach toward resolving the problem.^[36]

• Engaged theory – Comprehensive critical theory
• Global citizenship – Idea that all people have rights and responsibilities from being a member of the world
• New World Order (conspiracy theory) – Conspiracy theory regarding a totalitarian world governmentPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Social Network Analysis – Analysis of social structures using network and graph theoryPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• United Nations Global Compact – Non-binding United Nations pact
• World community – political or humanitarian term referring to the entire global civilization created by mankind or aggregate of nation-statesPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• World government – Notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Global governance.