Reimagining Global Governance Legitimacy

Dan Schreiber and Celine Giuliani

“The old world is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci's sentiment from his 1930 "Prison Notebook" rings truer than ever as the world grapples with a level of geopolitical tensions and gridlock not seen since the Cold War. Geostrategic rivalries are simmering, and conflicts are proliferating, with alarming disregard for international humanitarian law and significant challenge to the traditional rules-based system.

Trust in institutions, both domestic and global, is eroding. In a context of democratic backsliding, misinformation and disinformation campaigns sow discord, while nationalist and divisive narratives gain traction. Inequalities are deepening, compounded by the impact of climate change, and hard-won gains in women's rights are being rolled back. Against this backdrop, global institutions appear paralyzed, struggling to address today’s most pressing and multidimensional challenges.

Is the system of global governance irreparably broken? Probably not, but the legitimacy of the multilateral system is certainly under strain. This think piece explores possible pathways to a more legitimate global governance. We adopt a systems thinking lens, informed by the analytical framework of the OECD's Survey on the Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions to analyze recent developments in global governance. This includes the adoption of the UN Pact for the Future, which counts 'transforming global governance' as one of its five pillars.

We argue that addressing issues of representation in global decision-making bodies and leadership nominations is necessary, but not sufficient, to rebuild trust and space for cooperation in a multipolar, multi-stakeholder world. Progress requires acknowledging the limitations and failures of current approaches, creating space for diverse perspectives and new modalities of cooperation, and rethinking the political economy paradigm that underpins the current global order.

I. Global Governance Paralyzed: Pathways to Breaking the Deadlock

A primary driver of the crisis of legitimacy of global institutions is linked to the perceived decline of their performance. As the OECD highlights in its 2024 survey on the drivers of trust in public institutions, their ability to satisfactorily address societal problems is paramount. Yet, limited progress is being made in addressing the most serious near-term risks identified in the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2024: misinformation and disinformation, extreme weather events, societal polarization, cyber insecurity, and interstate armed conflict.

While it yielded some concrete results (...), the Pact’s overall impact on revitalizing global governance was arguably affected by the very institutional gridlock it aimed to help overcome.

In this context, the Summit of the Future, convened in September 2024, was heralded as a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to restore eroded confidence in the multilateral system and forge a new international consensus as a basis to improve its performance. While it yielded some concrete results in areas such as the international financial architecture reform, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations, the Pact’s overall impact on revitalizing global governance was arguably affected by the very institutional gridlock it aimed to help overcome. Its adoption occurred in a completely different set of circumstances from the time it was initially envisaged: after the COVID pandemic and before the tragedies of Ukraine and Israel-Palestine, a series of military coups in Afghanistan, the Sahel, Myanmar, Sudan, and the closure of several peacekeeping operations, inter alia.

Fixing multilateral governance is of course not a one-off endeavor: the UN and other international organizations have gone through cycles of reforms and performance assessments and various ongoing intergovernmental processes to improve and adapt the multilateral system. The Pact has the merit of providing a picture of where these processes are, the multidimensional challenges they face, and a degree of direction for the way ahead. In fact, in such a difficult context for multilateralism, its mere adoption should be seen as an achievement. Beyond the outcome document, the broad-based consultations held for over a year and a half ahead of the Summit served as a valuable process for keeping multilateral cooperation alive.

The UN appears to have been relegated to a humanitarian function, virtually absent from efforts to implement the mandate for which it was created: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".

Meanwhile, on the ground, UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes continue to deliver much-needed humanitarian aid in harrowing circumstances with very limited budgets to address skyrocketing needs. The UN appears to have been relegated to a humanitarian function, virtually absent from efforts to implement the mandate for which it was created: to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.

In this complex context, reestablishing confidence in the ability of the UN and the wider multilateral system to deliver its mandate can be pursued by:

1. Demonstrating an unwavering commitment to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, and urgently reinvesting in conflict prevention and peacemaking efforts. While the Pact for the Future includes a chapter on peace and security, recalling familiar principles and messages, this content is not matched by a visible leading role for the Organisation in any ongoing mediation or conflict prevention efforts. As the UN is an intergovernmental body, it is in part up to Member States to create the space for UN institutions, and to support the UN Secretary-General in playing his full part, in shared and complementary roles with Regional Organizations. The UN Secretariat also has a role to play in ensuring that the UN is staffed with a range of senior and experienced leaders and mediators to enable it to fulfil its mandate. Now more than ever, leadership for peace means using the fundamentals of international law and information integrity to navigate polarized perspectives in ways that condemn violations by all parties without double standards, while actively proposing pathways to ceasefires and peaceful conflict resolution. The UN must be seen to be reinvesting in its core peace and security mandate, even if it takes months or years to produce results. The UN Resident Coordinator system at the country level needs to be empowered to deliver for peace. This active role in peace must be further complemented by other global actors, including International Financing Institutions (IFIs), climate leaders, digital technology platforms and the private sector.

2. Pursuing multilateral cooperation in various fora where common ground can be achieved in thematic areas. Progress on the International Financial Architecture, the Global Digital Compact or the High Seas Treaty has shown that there is potential in identifying and exploiting thematic windows of opportunity where progress can be made. Important strides are also being made in other fora in support of global development goals or to maintain momentum on global governance reform. These include the OECD Taxation Initiative and the forthcoming G20, which will be held for the first time in Brazil. Identifying and seizing such opportunities will be key to making progress on pressing challenges, building further momentum for multilateral cooperation, and demonstrating the continued power and impact of multilateralism in a multipolar world.

3. Establishing a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Pact’s “Actions” to improve global governance and track progress across fora. Although the UN Secretariat will likely establish some form of monitoring, the Pact does not seem to provide any specific accountability mechanism to track progress across its five pillars and 53 Actions. While it refers to existing mechanisms for some specific actions, it rarely recommends the establishment of new mechanisms.

II. Towards More Inclusive Global Institutions and Alternative Cooperation Models

A second critical dimension of the legitimacy crisis faced by global institutions relates to their limited “openness”, a concept which, applying the OECD concept to global institutions, encompasses representativeness, participation and opportunities for engagement.

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that global institutions are not sufficiently representative of the people they are serving and voices demanding an end to the Western-dominated global governance model. The negotiations on the Pact for the Future provided some pressure and a platform to address this part of the “openness deficit”. Action 39 commits to reforming the Security Council, recognizing the urgent need to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable. The text emphasizes the need to redress historical injustices, particularly against Africa, and to improve the representation of underrepresented regions, such as Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. With regard to greater representativeness in the decision-making bodies of the IFIs, the Pact focuses on representation on the Executive Boards of the World Bank and the IMF.

While the Pact makes some progress on representativeness of global institutions, it does little to achieve “openness” in its wider sense, i.e. participation and engagement of non-state actors in global governance.

Since changes in effective representativeness are likely to take time, openness or greater inclusion should also be examined from the perspective of process and working methods. For example, the Pact commits to reviewing and enhancing the working methods of the UN Security Council (UNSC), including the pen-holder system, which has seen an enhanced role for non-permanent members in the past decade or so, as well as the use of the veto, and cooperation and communication between the UNSC with the UN General Assembly (UNGA). With regard to the working methods of IFIs, the Pact welcomes recent changes in quotas and voting rights, encourages further steps in this direction by both IFIs and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and makes a few references to closer cooperation between UN bodies and IFIs.

While the Pact makes some progress on representativeness of global institutions, it does little to achieve “openness” in its wider sense, i.e. participation and engagement of non-state actors in global governance. While there are many references scattered throughout the text, the Pact does not provide a clear path for the inclusion of a wide range of actors in existing mechanisms as well as innovative models of cooperation. Yet such inclusion might lead to faster progress in reaching consensus than if left to purely intergovernmental negotiations.

Several avenues can further improve the openness and inclusiveness of global institutions:

1. Ensuring Equitable Leadership Representation of Global Institutions. The Pact for the Future rightly stresses the need for greater transparency and accountability in leadership appointments in global institutions. This includes ensuring equitable geographical representation, gender parity and diversity in the selection of leaders for the UN and other international organizations. While progress has been made at the UN on the gender parity front, and also on intersectional dimension with regards to UN Resident Coordinator nominations, longstanding ring fencing of some UN departments and Heads of Agencies leadership positions for Western or Permanent Members of the UNSC undermines the credibility of the Organisation. Irrespective of his good credentials, the recent appointment of yet another UK national to head the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs highlights the gap between rhetoric and reality and contradicts the recently adopted language in the Pact, stating that “there should be no monopoly on senior posts in the UN system by any State or group of States’. To build trust and legitimacy, global institutions must prioritise diversity and inclusivity at the leadership level. Last but not least, another important statement encourages Member States “to consider nominating women” as UN Secretary-General candidates and to further consider women’s representation on IFIs’ Executive Boards.

Many mechanisms already exist to enable the involvement of non-state actors in global governance, but could be better exploited or expanded.

2. Leveraging innovative cooperation modalities to bring a more diverse range of actors. Many mechanisms already exist to enable the involvement of non-state actors in global governance, but could be better exploited or expanded. For example, the UN Global Compact engages the private sector in promoting sustainable development; the World Economic Forum, GAVI and the UN Business for Human Rights provide examples of public-private partnerships; and the OECD has multiple modalities to engage various types of stakeholders. The G20 recently welcomed the AU as a member. In the area of peace and security, the Arria Formula allows the UN Security Council to include non-state actors in informal consultations, although this is an under-utilized mechanism that requires approval of briefers by Permanent Members. The UNGA and ECOSOC have expanded consultations and engagement with non-state actors in recent years. All these mechanisms should be used as inspiration to innovate and embrace greater diversity as a powerful means to influencing and accelerating intergovernmental negotiations and Member State accountability     .

3. Developing more proactive strategies to engage and foster cooperation, including:

• New and alternative geopolitical alliances: Groups such as the G20 and the BRICS offer platforms for cooperation to progress on issues of global cooperation under differing modalities, and influence dynamics in other multilateral settings, especially the UN.
• Regional organizations: Bodies like the African Union and RECs possess deep understanding of regional dynamics and play an increasingly crucial role in conflict prevention and resolution. The AU recently became a permanent member of the G20, in a move that has been broadly welcomed for giving the continent an important voice on key global issues. Regional organizations and region-focused MDBs (Afdb, CDB, ADB) also have an increasing role in dealing with development issues and the impact of climate change.
• Civil society organizations: From grassroots movements to international NGOs, civil society plays a vital role in advocating for human rights, environmental protection, and social justice and can have a major role in influencing and accelerating global agendas and accountability of Member States but also digital platforms and the private sector who play a role in expanding or impeding progress towards global goals.
• National, local governments and cities: Networks like C40 Cities are spearheading innovative solutions and demonstrating the power of local action in addressing challenges like climate change and reducing inequalities. In the context of the rise of authoritarian executives, there is an opportunity to better involve national parliaments in global governance, as key stakeholders of democracy in action. This in turn may enhance the legitimacy of global institutions and better implementation of international non-binding standards.
• The private sector and social entrepreneurship: Businesses and social enterprises have the resources and innovation to contribute to sustainable development goals. Impact investing, for example, channels private capital into initiatives that generate both financial returns and positive social and environmental impact. Greater engagement and partnership would also help leverage impact for global good while the private sector’s contribution to global policy should also come with greater transparency and accountability of those actors, who have long escaped a rule-based order primarily built for States.

III. Shifting the Political Economy Paradigm: A New Foundation for a Fairer Global Order

Ultimately, beyond abiding by its principles and adapting its representativeness and cooperation modalities to the new era, the legitimacy of the system of global governance very much depends on its ability to address systemic inequalities and promote a more just and equitable global order. According to the OECD work on trust in public institutions, a key driver of trust and legitimacy is the ability of public institutions to embody societal values of fairness, integrity and non-discrimination.

In order to achieve legitimate global governance, genuine dialogue aimed at fundamentally changing the political economy paradigm that underpins the current system is more urgent than ever.

There is growing recognition that the current paradigm, driving enormous inequalities, has reached its limits; the UN Sustainable Developments Goals are dangerously off-track. In order to achieve legitimate global governance, meaningful dialogue aimed at fundamentally changing the political economy paradigm that underpins the current system is more urgent than ever.

Key steps to progress towards that shift including

• Acknowledging Past and Present Injustices: The legacies of slavery, colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy continue to exert a profound impact on global inequalities today. Acknowledging these historical and ongoing injustices, as well as the responsibility of the West for the climate and diversity crisis, is a necessary first step towards building a more equitable future and fairer foundations to the global order.
• Embracing a Human-Centered Economic Model: The dominant capitalist paradigm, with its focus on profit maximization and endless growth, has reached its limits. We need an economic model that prioritizes human well-being, social justice and environmental sustainability. This requires rethinking our measure of progress, moving beyond GDP to broader indicators of societal well-being. The Pact for the Future contains a promising call to rethink how sustainable development is measured (Action 54), which also requests the establishment of a follow-on mechanism involving the UN, IFIs and a wide range of stakeholders. This provides an interesting entry point for a broader dialogue to move the needle on transforming the political economy paradigm.
• Promoting Inclusive Institutions and Countervailing Powers: The research of Daron Acemoglu, who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize on Economy, shows that inclusive institutions and countervailing powers are essential to promote shared prosperity as society progresses over time. Strengthening labor movements, civil society organizations and regulations that promote fair taxation, antitrust measures and data governance are critical to achieving a more equitable distribution of economic gains.
• Rethinking Development Cooperation: A genuine commitment to global solidarity must replace the current paradigm, which is characterized by stark inequalities and an 'afterthought' approach to development cooperation. Placing global solidarity at the heart of the global economic model would help level the playing field. It would also move international partnerships beyond charity and aid, which reproduce unhealthy power dynamics, to allow a true partnership for sustainable development cooperation to emerge.