Myths and Realities of Global Governance

Abstract

Is more global governance necessary? That was the question posed to me by the organizers of the 2021 Federalist Society Annual Conference. It struck me when hearing this question that there are often deep misconceptions about the meaning of global governance lurking behind debates over whether there should be “more” or “less” of it. I hope to shine light of some of them today.

Global governance is not one thing, of course. It is a multitude of different international legal arrangements covering an array of activities that states as well as nonstate actors engage in. Yes, there is the United Nations, but that is simply one of many multinational organizations—and perhaps not even the most important of them. Global governance includes well–known organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the International Criminal Court, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but it also includes lesser–known organizations such as the International Coffee Organization, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the Wassenaar Arrangement. These organizations did not emerge of their own accord. Indeed, the greatest misconception that exists about global governance is that international organizations operate at the expense of states. The reality, instead, is that they are created by states to serve specific purposes that states find valuable. They give states a way to achieve ends that they could not achieve on their own—or that they would find much more difficult and expensive to achieve on their own. To illustrate this argument, this essay examines five key topics in global governance—international courts and tribunals, trade, use of force, international human rights, and geopolitical competitition.