Global governance and the role of international organizations
Written by Aman Rasheed
Any views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the views or positions of any entities they are associated with or represent.
In her 1997 book ‘Casino Capitalism’, Susan Strange wrote that states have frequently opposed granting authority to international institutions. She holds the view that governments resist attempts aimed at the devolution and delegation of powers and functions to international organizations. Therefore, she finds no value or utility in charting out a plan for new international authorities.
Contrary to her position, my thesis statement argues that international organizations play a significant role in global governance in our increasingly interconnected world. This essay examines several ideas, concepts and arguments that demonstrate the growing collaboration and partnerships between states and international organizations by presenting theoretically significant and empirically grounded analysis. Initially exploring the concept of global governance and the role of international organizations, particularly in the fields of environment, human rights and development, this essay will then turn towards globalization and its influence on global governance.
Global governance refers to the processes through which national governments, international organizations, corporations, institutions and civil society collectively manage global challenges (Avant et al., 2010). It encompasses norms, values, laws and regulations that aim at addressing issues that transcend national boundaries. Unlike traditional international politics, global governance requires cooperative frameworks to manage complex, interdependent issues. International organizations are critical actors in this framework, offering platforms for collaboration and coordination among diverse stakeholders (Castells, 2005).
The proliferation of international organizations reflects the increasing need to address an even greater number of global challenges, including population growth, poverty, environmental degradation, terrorism and economic inequality. As transnational issues exceed the capacity of individual states to resolve, international organizations provide mechanisms to foster cooperation, prevent conflicts and promote sustainable development. Since the 19th century, the growth of intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) has demonstrated their enduring relevance in shaping global policies.
Contrary to Susan Strange’s claim, international organizations serve as instruments, arenas and actors within global governance. As instruments, they are tools used by states to achieve specific foreign policy goals and global development goals. As arenas, they provide neutral platforms for states to discuss, negotiate and resolve conflicts. As actors, they possess a degree of autonomy, shaping global norms and policies independently. The United Nations (UN) in peacekeeping, the World Health Organization (WHO) in addressing global health crises and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in promoting agricultural development are just some examples.
International organizations have voluntary membership, formal agreements and specialized structures. Key characteristics include multilateral membership that fosters inclusivity and collective decision-making; permanent structures that maintain ongoing operations such as research, administration, and communication functions; and consent-based cooperation rather than compulsion, thereby respecting the sovereignty of member states. The functions of international organizations span several domains such as establishing global standards like the anti-slavery and anti-apartheid values; providing mechanisms for peaceful settlement of conflicts, as seen with the International Court of Justice (ICJ); facilitating communication among states to address common challenges; and offering humanitarian aid and technical assistance, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) aiding displaced populations.
In opposition to Strange’s arguments, the evolution of international organizations can be traced to early defensive leagues and multilateral agreements among city-states in ancient China, Greece and Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which introduced principles of sovereignty and non-interference, became the foundation for modern nation-states. Milestones include the Congress of Vienna (1815), which established the “Concert of Europe” to preserve peace and balance power; the Hague Conferences (1899 and 1907) that focused on peaceful dispute resolution and international law; and Public International Unions (19th century) that addressed technical and administrative issues, such as the Universal Postal Union (1874). The 20th century saw a transition from ad hoc conferences to permanent international organizations, with the League of Nations and later the UN becoming central to global governance.
International organizations play diverse roles in contemporary global governance, including peacekeeping and security wherein organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the UN Security Council (UNSC) manage conflicts and maintain international peace; entities such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) provide financial assistance and foster economic stability; the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and Amnesty International promote and protect human rights through their transnational advocacy activities; bodies like the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) address climate change and sustainability; the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) assists developing counties in strengthening their technical capacities for sustainable agricultural development and the World Health Organization (WHO) coordinates global responses to pandemics and health crises.
However, there are some limitations regarding the functioning of international organizations, including inefficiency, lack of accountability and unequal power dynamics. Dominant states often influence decision-making, undermining the interests of smaller nations. Additionally, the gap between their aspirational goals and actual performance raises concerns. The dualistic nature of international organizations— balancing state sovereignty with global cooperation — creates inherent tensions. While some view them as precursors to world government, others perceive them as instruments for hegemonic powers. This duality underscores the challenges of fostering equitable and effective governance.
In an increasingly interconnected world, international organizations have emerged as crucial players in addressing global challenges. 1. Environmentalism, 2. Human rights, and 3. development represent three interrelated challenges. The complex interplay between these domains necessitates coordinated efforts by states, particularly in addressing transnational issues such as climate change, human rights and socio-economic inequities, which strongly supports my thesis statement.
Historically, environmental concerns were peripheral to the agendas of nation-states. It was not until the mid-20th century that the need for transboundary coordination became evident. The 1949 United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources marked an early milestone. The 1960s saw international organizations like the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) expanding their mandates.
(1) Environmentalism has emerged as a significant area of study within the broader discipline of international relations, focusing on the interaction between human societies and the natural world. Since its early development in the mid-19th century, the field has expanded to address critical global challenges such as climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, deforestation and desertification.
The 1987 Brundtland Report was a landmark document that advocated sustainable development and influenced the policies of entities such as the World Bank. The establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) following the 1972 Stockholm Conference further institutionalized environmental concerns within the global governance framework. UNEP has since played a pivotal role in facilitating treaties, transferring knowledge and integrating environmental considerations into economic planning. In support of my thesis statement, these indicate the growing prominence of international organizations in environmental protection and their increasing engagement with states to provide actionable insights.
The following discussion highlights the interaction between states, non-state actors and international organizations to address environmental issues. Since the establishment of global environmental governance structures, such as UNEP in 1972, nation-states have negotiated international agreements to address issues like climate change and pollution. However, these efforts get derailed by diverging national interests, mistrust and uncertainty of environmental impacts. As a result of these challenges, state-led governance remains the cornerstone of global efforts to mitigate environmental problems (Deudney, 1990).
However, non-state entities, including international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and corporations, have taken on active roles. Partnerships between NGOs and corporations, such as the collaboration between the World Wildlife Fund and Coca-Cola on water use practices, demonstrate how these actors can contribute to global environmental solutions. These initiatives often exhibit greater transparency and legitimacy, challenging the traditional dominance of state-led governance (Barnett, 2000).
Moving forward, scientific advancements play a pivotal role in defining environmental problems, identifying solutions and shaping global agendas. Scientific reports prepared by experts at the IPCC have become integral to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). These institutions influence decision-making processes and raise awareness of critical issues such as climate change, ozone depletion and biodiversity loss. The integration of scientific expertise in global climate discussions underscores the importance of evidence-based approaches in addressing environmental challenges (Ostrom, 1990).
Several key international agreements highlight the progress made in global environmental governance such as the Montreal Protocol (1987) that focused on protecting the ozone layer by regulating substances that deplete it; the Rio Earth Summit (1992) that addressed natural resource destruction and pollution, laying the groundwork for sustainable development goals; and the Paris Agreement (2015) that aimed to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to restrict it to 1.5°C. These agreements illustrate the evolving nature of international cooperation in addressing environmental crises and emphasize the need for collective action to achieve sustainable outcomes (Ostrom, 1990).
However, there are some limitations regarding the functioning of international organizations, such as their perceived prioritization of economic growth over environmental protection. For instance, NGOs have accused the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) of promoting policies that exacerbate environmental degradation. Concerns include reductions in environmental spending, deforestation driven by export-focused programs and weakened regulatory frameworks. For instance, the rampant deforestation of the Amazon is partially a result of the global trade in meat.
The promotion and protection of (2) human rights have been integral to international organizations since the aftermath of World War I. The League of Nations addressed minority protections, while the International Labor Organization (ILO) established conventions on worker safety. These efforts culminated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, a cornerstone document that inspired subsequent treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966.
The United Nations (UN) has adopted several human rights treaties, addressing issues ranging from racial discrimination to the rights of women and children. The European Convention on Human Rights (1953) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (1986) complement these global frameworks. Despite these achievements, international organizations have faced criticism for complicity in human rights violations. Examples include austerity measures imposed by the IMF that undermine socio-economic rights and the adverse human impacts of UN sanctions.
Humanitarian intervention remains one of the most contentious issues in international relations (Kardas, 2003). Defined as the use or threat of force by a state, group of states or regional organization to prevent or end widespread and severe violations of fundamental human rights within another state’s territory — typically without the latter’s consent — this concept challenges the traditional boundaries of state sovereignty. The debate surrounding humanitarian intervention highlights tensions between realist and liberal perspectives, issues of legality and legitimacy, and the evolving norms of international engagement (Kardas, 2003).
Humanitarian intervention involves external interference, often through military means, to address grave human rights abuses. It raises fundamental questions about the balance between respecting state sovereignty and protecting human rights. Realists prioritize sovereignty and view intervention as justified only to maintain order and balance of power. By contrast, cosmopolitans or liberals argue that human rights take precedence over sovereignty, positing a moral duty for states to intervene in extreme cases of human suffering (Gerhards et al., 2024).
The UN Charter provides the importance of sovereignty and non-intervention through provisions such as Article 2(4) and Article 2(7), which prohibit the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states and emphasize non-interference in domestic affairs. However, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is authorized to use force when threats to peace, breaches of peace or acts of aggression are identified (Chapter VII of the Charter).
The tension between sovereignty and human rights is visible in Article 55 of the UN Charter, which promotes universal respect for human rights, and Article 39 of the UN Charter, which enables the UNSC to expand the definition of “threats to peace” to include mass human rights violations. The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), introduced in 2005, builds on this foundation by framing sovereignty as a responsibility rather than a right. R2P emphasizes prevention, international assistance and intervention as a last resort to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (Hall & Khudayberdieva, 2010).
Humanitarian interventions during the 1990s marked a shift in international norms, as the UNSC began to assert the primacy of human rights over the exclusive domestic jurisdiction of states. Operations in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrated the international community’s willingness to act, albeit selectively and inconsistently. For instance, in Kosovo (1999), NATO intervened without explicit UN authorization, citing the Milosevic regime’s atrocities against Kosovo Albanians. While the justification for the intervention was on humanitarian grounds, critics highlighted underlying geopolitical motives, such as containing Russian influence and preventing regional instability. In Rwanda (1994), the failure to intervene during the genocide highlighted the limitations of international mechanisms and the lack of political will (Hall & Khudayberdieva, 2010).
Humanitarian intervention involves a lot of challenges. Critics argue that strategic interests rather than humanitarian concerns often drive interventions. The subjective nature of human rights can lead to abuses of intervention, where powerful states exploit humanitarian justifications for political or economic gain. Realists question the morality of risking soldiers’ lives for altruistic purposes, asserting that national interests should guide foreign policy. Disagreements over what constitutes justifiable intervention and who decides its necessity complicate efforts to establish consistent principles (Welsh, 2003).
Introduced by Brazil in 2011, the “Responsibility while Protecting” (RwP) concept refines the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by emphasizing accountability, assessment and prevention. It proposes criteria for military intervention, mechanisms for monitoring Security Council mandates and a renewed focus on capacity building to avert crises. This approach seeks to address concerns about misuse and enhance the legitimacy of interventions (Tourinho et al., 2015).
Get Common Futures Conversations | Chatham House’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The UN has played a pivotal role in global (3) development, guided by its mandate to promote higher living standards, full employment and socio-economic progress. Its comprehensive approach to eradicating poverty, advancing human well-being and fostering global stability underscores its role in addressing developmental challenges. The development role of the UN can be assessed through its agenda-setting initiatives, assistance programs, specialized agencies and collaborative efforts with international organizations (Browne, 2013).
Since its inception, the UN has led the global conversation on development. Beginning in 1960, the UN General Assembly established International Development Strategies every decade, outlining priorities and goals. These strategies evolved into landmark initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), introduced in 2000. The MDGs set measurable targets across eight critical areas, including poverty eradication, universal primary education, gender equality and environmental sustainability, to be achieved by 2015 (Karver et al., 2012). Building on the MDGs, the UN adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, expanding the focus to 17 goals with a target year of 2030. These goals integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions, emphasizing the interconnected nature of development challenges and promoting global equity and sustainability (Arora & Mishra, 2019).
The development measures taken by the UN are put into place by its specialized agencies, which provide technical and financial support across various sectors. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) focuses on child survival, health, nutrition and education in over 160 countries; the World Food Programme (WFP) delivers emergency food aid and supports development programs to combat hunger; the FAO supports states in enhancing their technical capacities to enhance agricultural production; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) drives sustainable development, poverty reduction and democratic governance; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) promotes global collaboration in education, science, culture and human rights; the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) provides population assistance, emphasizing reproductive health and gender equality; and United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) advocates for sustainable urban development and adequate housing for all.
The UN fosters collaboration among its agencies and with external partners to address multifaceted development challenges. Key initiatives like the Joint UN programme on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) unite the expertise of 11 UN agencies. The Global Environment Facility channels funds for sustainable environmental projects. The UN collaborates with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), regional organizations and financial institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), to enhance its reach and impact (Colglazier, 2015).
The global presence of the UN, along with its neutrality and comprehensive mandate, are its strengths in promoting development. Its non-partisan approach ensures inclusivity, giving equal representation to both developed and developing nations in decision-making processes. However, challenges remain, including resource constraints, implementation bottlenecks and the need to balance diverse national interests. A discussion on global governance cannot exclude the role of globalization, a phenomenon of increasing interconnection across economic, cultural and political systems, that has become a defining feature of contemporary society. It shapes interactions between individuals, communities and nations, offering both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges.
Globalization is the growing interdependence of countries worldwide as a consequence of increasing cross-border transactions in goods, services and capital, as well as the rapid diffusion of technology and ideas. Sociologist Roland Robertson describes it as a “compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, 1992). The key features of globalization include the diminishing relevance of national borders in economic, cultural and technological exchanges; innovations in information and communication technologies, such as fiber optics and the internet, enabling real-time global interactions; enhanced movement of goods, services, capital and people, driven by reduced transport costs and liberalized trade policies; a blending of cultures, evidenced by the global reach of media, cuisine and entertainment; the migration of skilled workers and the collaboration of multinational corporations in fostering global talent mobility; and increasing roles for multinational corporations, international organizations and non-governmental entities in shaping global agendas.
Globalization has accelerated with advancements and innovations in communication and transportation, liberalization of trade policies, and the formation of trading blocs like the European Union (EU), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Furthermore, the proliferation of global media networks has bridged cultural and informational divides; the deregulation of capital markets has enabled seamless international capital flows; and there is an increased willingness and ability of individuals to migrate for employment.
In conclusion, challenges associated with globalization, such as inequality, call for balanced approaches that prioritize local needs while minimizing negative consequences, emphasizing the importance of collaborative solutions in an interconnected world. While globalization has fostered economic growth and cultural exchange, it has also faced criticism for widening income inequalities, undermining local traditions and exacerbating environmental degradation. The phenomenon of deglobalization, characterized by a retreat from global interconnectedness, has gained traction in recent years due to populist movements that oppose global trade and institutions.
Events such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities in global supply chains. Geopolitical tensions have led to trade conflicts and a shift towards protectionism. Deglobalization reflects a growing scepticism of global approaches, with a resurgence of nationalism and local solutions taking precedence over international cooperation. Nevertheless, international organizations remain crucial for global governance, facilitating cooperation, setting norms and resolving conflicts. They must enhance inclusivity, accountability and efficiency to tackle transnational challenges efficiently.
New approaches to governance are a need of the hour due to the growing complexity of global issues. International organizations are essential for fostering collaboration and addressing cross-border challenges, even if they might not be able to overpower state authority. The value and future of global governance rest on the ability of international institutions to strike a balance between state sovereignty and coordinated action.
Bibliography
Arora, Naveen Kumar, and Isha Mishra. “United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and environmental sustainability: race against time.” Environmental Sustainability 2, no. 4 (2019): 339–342.
Avant, Deborah D., Martha Finnemore, and Susan K. Sell, eds. Who governs the globe?. Vol. 114. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Barnett, Jon. “Destabilizing the environment — conflict thesis.” Review of international studies 26, no. 2 (2000): 271–288.
Brown, Oli, Anne Hammill, and Robert McLeman. “Climate change as the ‘new’security threat: implications for Africa.” International affairs 83, no. 6 (2007): 1141–1154.
Browne, Stephen. “The UN and global development.” In Handbook of Global Economic Governance, pp. 265–289. Routledge, 2013.
Carnegie, Allison. Power plays: how international institutions reshape coercive diplomacy. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Castells, Manuel. “Global governance and global politics.” PS: Political science & politics 38, no. 1 (2005): 9–16.
Colglazier, William. “Sustainable development agenda: 2030.” Science 349, no. 6252 (2015): 1048–1050.
Deudney, Daniel. “The case against linking environmental degradation and national security.” Millennium 19, no. 3 (1990): 461–476.
Drezner, Daniel W. “The global governance of the Internet: Bringing the state back in.” Pol. Sci. Q. 119 (2004): 477.
Fazal, Tanisha M. “Health diplomacy in pandemical times.” International Organization 74, no. S1 (2020): E78-E97.
Gerhards, Jürgen, Lukas Antoine, and Rasmus Ollroge. “State sovereignty and the protection of human rights. how military humanitarian intervention is supported by citizens around the world.” International Journal of Sociology 54, no. 3 (2024): 155–176.
Hall, B. Welling, and Nadira Khudayberdieva. “International law and the responsibility to protect.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 2010.
Henke, Marina E. Constructing allied cooperation: Diplomacy, payments, and power in multilateral military coalitions. Cornell University Press, 2019.
Kardas, Saban. “Humanitarian Intervention: a conceptual analysis.” Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 2, no. 3&4 (2003).
Karver, Jonathan, Charles Kenny, and Andy Sumner. “MDGs 2.0: What goals, targets, and timeframe?.” IDS Working Papers 2012, no. 398 (2012): 1–57.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press, 1990.
Robertson, Roland. “Globalization: Social theory and global culture.” (1992).
Tourinho, Marcos, Oliver Stuenkel, and Sarah Brockmeier. ““Responsibility while protecting”: Reforming R2P implementation.” Global Society 30, no. 1 (2016): 134–150.
Welsh, Jennifer M., ed. Humanitarian intervention and international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
