Global governance#Usage

The term global governance is broadly used to designate all regulations intended for organization and centralization of human societies on a global scale. 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".{{cite journal |last1=Thakur |first1=Ramesh |last2=Van Langenhove |first2=Luk |date=2006 |title=Enhancing Global Governance through Regional Integration |journal=Global Governance |volume=12 |issue=3 July, September |pages=233–40 |doi=10.1163/19426720-01203002}}

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.James Rosenau, "Toward an Ontology for Global Governance", in Martin Hewson and Timothy J. Sinclair (eds.), Approaches to Global Governance Theory (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999). Some now speak of the development of global public policy.{{cite journal |first=Diane |last=Stone |title=Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks |journal=Policy Studies Journal |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=19–38 |year=2008 |doi=10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00251.x |url=http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1800/1/WRAP_Stone_Global_Agora__Transnational_Public_Policy_JPS.pdf |type=Submitted manuscript }}

The definition is flexible in scope, applying to general subjects such as global security 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).{{cite journal|url=http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Finkelstein.pdf|title=What Is Global Governance?|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415011112/http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Finkelstein.pdf|url-status=dead|first=Lawrence S.|last=Finkelstein|date=September–December 1995|archive-date=15 April 2015|journal=Global Governance|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|volume=1|number=3|pages=367–372|doi=10.1163/19426720-001-03-90000007 |jstor=27800120}}

In the light of the unclear meaning of the term global governance as a concept in international politics,Thomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson (2014), "Rethinking Global Governance? Complexity, Authority, Power and Change", International Studies Quarterly, 58: 1, pp. 207-215 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 relationsK.Dingwerth and P.Pattberg, "Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics", (2006) Global Governance vol. 12:198. 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 disciplineThomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson 920140, "Global Governance to the Rescue: Saving International Relations?", Global Governance, 20: 1, pp. 19-36 particularly when understood as a set of questions about the governance of world orders.Thomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson (2019), Rethinking Global Governance, Cambridge: Polity. {{ISBN|9781509527243}}

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.{{Cite journal |last1=Lissillour |first1=Raphael |last2=Bonet Fernandez |first2=Dominique |date=2020 |title=The balance of power in the governance of the global maritime safety: the role of classification societies from a habitus perspective |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16258312.2020.1824533 |journal=Supply Chain Forum |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=268–280 |doi=10.1080/16258312.2020.1824533 |s2cid=224945365}} 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.{{Cite journal |date=2018 |title=3PL and maritime safety governance : from the perspective of Bourdieu's theory |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/12507970.2018.1527731 |journal=Logistique & Management |volume=26 |pages=214–228 |doi=10.1080/12507970.2018.1527731 |s2cid=158558184}}

The League of Nations (founded in 1920), the predecessor of the United Nations, was one of the first organizations to promote global governance.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d8hHDwAAQBAJ&dq=%22global+governance%22+%22league+of+nations%22&pg=PT325 |title=International Organization and Global Governance |date=16 February 2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781315301891}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F6BYCwAAQBAJ&dq=%22global+governance%22+%22first%22+%22league+of+nations%22&pg=PA4 |title=The Long Battle for Global Governance |date=8 January 2016 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781317276883}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VxxHEAAAQBAJ&dq=%22global+governance%22+%22woodrow+wilson%22&pg=PA54 |title=Rethinking Global Governance |date=16 February 2019 |publisher=Bloomsbury |isbn=9781137588623}}

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.{{Cite journal |last=Kadochnikov |first=Denis |date=2013 |title=Gustav Cassel's purchasing power parity doctrine in the context of his views on international economic policy coordination |journal=European Journal of the History of Economic Thought |volume=20 |issue=6 |pages=1101–1121 |doi=10.1080/09672567.2013.824999 |s2cid=154383662}}

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.[http://www.world-governance.org/spip.php?article15 Blin, Arnaud; Marin, Gustavo; "Rethinking Global Governance"] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120530202243/http://www.world-governance.org/spip.php?article15|date=2012-05-30}}

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|date=October 2024}}

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.Di Mento, Josep; The Global Environment and International law, University of Texas Press; 2003; p 7. 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.

The "cooperative problem-solving arrangements" of global governance may be formal. In that case they take 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, civil society actors) to manage collective affairs.Pawel Zaleski Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector, [in:] Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr [ed.]: "Civil Society in the Making", IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006. They may also be informal (as in the case of practices or guidelines) or ad hoc entities (as in the case of coalitions).{{cite book |author=Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst |url=https://archive.org/details/internationalorg0000karn_s1f7/page/633 |title=International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, 2nd ed |publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-58826-698-9 |location=Boulder, CO |page=[https://archive.org/details/internationalorg0000karn_s1f7/page/633 633]}}

Global governance can be roughly divided into four stages:{{Cite book |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9780511845369/type/book |title=Who Governs the Globe? |series=Cambridge Studies in International Relations |date=2010 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-19891-2 |editor-last=Avant |editor-first=Deborah D. |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/cbo9780511845369 |editor-last2=Finnemore |editor-first2=Martha |editor-last3=Sell |editor-first3=Susan K.}}{{rp|14-16}}

1. agenda-setting (or global goal-setting{{Citation |last1=Biermann |first1=Frank |title=Assessing the Impact of Global Goals: Setting the Stage |date=2022 |work=The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals |pages=1–21 |editor-last=Biermann |editor-first=Frank |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009082945%23CN-bp-1/type/book_part |access-date=2024-10-16 |edition=1 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781009082945.002 |isbn=978-1-009-08294-5 |last2=Hickmann |first2=Thomas |last3=Sénit |first3=Carole-Anne |editor2-last=Hickmann |editor2-first=Thomas |editor3-last=Sénit |editor3-first=Carole-Anne}});
2. policymaking,
3. implementation and enforcement, and
4. evaluation, monitoring, and adjudication.

A "new central approach in global governance" is global goal-setting. Governance of this kind is based on goals that are not legally binding, allow flexibility for each country, and do not come with strong institutional arrangements.{{Cite journal |last1=de Jong |first1=Eileen |last2=Vijge |first2=Marjanneke J. |date=2021 |title=From Millennium to Sustainable Development Goals: Evolving discourses and their reflection in policy coherence for development |journal=Earth System Governance |language=en |volume=7 |pages=100087 |bibcode=2021ESGov...700087D |doi=10.1016/j.esg.2020.100087 |doi-access=free}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The Sustainable Development Goals (to be achieved during the years 2015 to 2030) are one example of global goal setting. They were "expected to have a major impact on the United Nations System" which is a key actor within the global governance concept. Previously, another attempt at "global governance by goal-setting" were the Millennium Development Goals from the year 2000 to 2015. Even earlier examples of global goal-setting include the "Plan of Action of the 1990 World Summit for Children" and the "first Development Decade that dates as far back as 1961".

However, results from a meta-analysis found that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) had so far (as of 2023) failed to integrate the system of global governance 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 has been limited.{{Cite journal |last1=Bogers |first1=Maya |last2=Biermann |first2=Frank |last3=Kalfagianni |first3=Agni |last4=Kim |first4=Rakhyun E. |date=2023 |title=The SDGs as integrating force in global governance? Challenges and opportunities |journal=International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics |language=en |volume=23 |issue=2 |pages=157–164 |doi=10.1007/s10784-023-09607-9 |issn=1567-9764 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2023IEAPL..23..157B }} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License The SDGs are not taken up by a enough of the international organizations. Instead, international organizations cherry-pick only those SDGs that best fit their interest. In particular, they often cherry-pick SDG 8 (on decent work and economic growth), SDG 9 (on industry and innovation), and SDG 12 (on consumption and production).File:Share-voting-rights-international-organizations.png: Share of voting rights in international organizations, for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), as of 2022Our World in Data team (2023) - [https://ourworldindata.org/sdgs/peace-justice-institutions “Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies” Published online at OurWorldinData.org]. ]]One of the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goal 16 on "peace, justice and strong institutions", has a target and indicator regarding global governance (to be achieved by 2030). The wording of this Target 16.8 is: "Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance."United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ([https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313 A/RES/71/313]) Indicator 16.8.1 is used to measure this target by monitoring the “proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizations”.Ritchie, Roser, Mispy, Ortiz-Ospina. [https://sdg-tracker.org/peace-justice "Measuring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals." (SDG 16)] SDG-Tracker.org, website (2018) 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License A UNDP report of 2024 reported that this indicator had made no progress since 2015: "No significant changes in these countries’ voting rights were registered since 2015 at any of the international economic institutions".UNDP, UNODC, and OHCHR (2024). [https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-07/undp-unhcr-unodc-global-progress-report-on-sdg16-indicators-v2.pdf Global Progress Report on Sustainable Development Goal 16 Indicators. At the Crossroads: Breakdown or Breakthrough for Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions].{{Cite web |date=2023-06-29 |title=Target 16.8 - SDG16NOW |url=https://sdg16now.org/report/target16-8/ |access-date=2025-02-12 |language=en-US}}

Orchestration in global governance is defined as a form of soft and indirect steering characterized by a reliance on voluntarily recruited intermediaries. It fills governance deficits by complementing existing regimes and approaches.{{Cite journal |last=van Driel |first=Melanie |last2=Biermann |first2=Frank |last3=Kim |first3=Rakhyun E. |last4=Vijge |first4=Marjanneke J. |date=2023 |title=The UN Regional Commissions as Orchestrators for the Sustainable Development Goals |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/gg/29/4/article-p561_7.xml |journal=Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=561–590 |doi=10.1163/19426720-02904006 |issn=1075-2846 |doi-access=free}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License In other words, orchestration is an indirect mode of governance whereby an actor (e.g. an international organization or a national government) mobilizes one or more intermediaries to take influence on a certain target group. Three orchestration activities are agenda setting, coordination, and support. For example, the five regional commissions of the United Nations Economic and Social Council have carried out these activities (to varying degrees) as part of their role as orchestrators for the Sustainable Development Goals.

International bureaucracies, such as intergovernmental treaty secretariats, play an independent role in global affairs. An example is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Research suggests that these kinds of treaty secretariats have significant influence. They carry out important tasks in global policy-making. Unlike national governments, they lack the power to enforce laws. Instead, they use softer approaches, such as persuasion and coordination, to impact both global and domestic policy-making.{{Cite journal |last1=Hickmann |first1=Thomas |last2=Elsässer |first2=Joshua Philipp |date=2020 |title=New alliances in global environmental governance: how intergovernmental treaty secretariats interact with non-state actors to address transboundary environmental problems |journal=International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics |language=en |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=459–481 |bibcode=2020IEAPL..20..459H |doi=10.1007/s10784-020-09493-5 |issn=1567-9764 |doi-access=free}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

International bureaucracies can work as orchestrators that interact with non-state actors, such as civil society groups, non-profit entities, or the private sector. They can encourage national governments to agree on a more ambitious response to global problems and encourage application of global environmental politics. As of 2022, new alliances are being formed between intergovernmental treaty secretariats and non-state actors.

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.

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.{{rp|9-14}}

There is an increased recognition of courts as institutions that influence global governance.{{Cite journal |last1=Kotzé |first1=Louis J. |last2=Mayer |first2=Benoit |last3=van Asselt |first3=Harro |last4=Setzer |first4=Joana |last5=Biermann |first5=Frank |last6=Celis |first6=Nicolas |last7=Adelman |first7=Sam |last8=Lewis |first8=Bridget |last9=Kennedy |first9=Amanda |last10=Arling |first10=Helen |last11=Peters |first11=Birgit |date=2024 |title=Courts, climate litigation and the evolution of earth system law |journal=Global Policy |language=en |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=5–22 |doi=10.1111/1758-5899.13291 |issn=1758-5880 |doi-access=free}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License References to the role of courts mostly occur in legal discussions about the establishment of an international environmental court and in the domain of transnational climate law, climate governance and climate litigation.

Global governance for sustainability is highly fragmented, consisting of many international organizations, states, and other actors working in separate clusters. A study from 2022 identified 335 international organizations active in this field. These organizations are often weakly connected. They compete for resources and focus on their own mandates. Proposed reforms include clustering institutions, embracing complexity, or centralizing global sustainability governance under strong coordinating authorities.

Fragmentation contributes to the complexity of global environmental governance. It occurs when multiple public and private institutions operate in the same policy area, leading to overlapping responsibilities and potential inefficiencies. For example, the theme complex of climate change is no longer governed solely by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) but also by institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Security Council, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which do not have climate change as their main focus.{{Cite journal |last1=Elsässer |first1=Joshua Philipp |last2=Hickmann |first2=Thomas |last3=Jinnah |first3=Sikina |last4=Oberthür |first4=Sebastian |last5=Van de Graaf |first5=Thijs |date=2022 |title=Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research |journal=International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics |language=en |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=373–391 |bibcode=2022IEAPL..22..373E |doi=10.1007/s10784-022-09569-4 |issn=1567-9764 |doi-access=free |hdl-access=free |hdl=1854/LU-8744744}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

One of the negative consequences of fragmentation is the emergence of conflicting institutional centers within regime complexes. This can make it harder to establish legally binding, internationally accepted regulation. For example, the UNFCCC and International Maritime Organization (IMO) have both addressed the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping but without reaching consensus for solving the problem.

The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, aimed to improve policy coherence and institutional integration among the myriad of international institutions. However, research suggests that this aim has not been achieved: Fragmentation has not decreased. Instead, institutions have become more isolated, forming silos around their specific SDG issues and around the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

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. The idea for the creation of a new, overarching World Environment Organization (WEO) was first discussed around the year 2000.{{Cite journal |last=Biermann |first=Frank |date=2000 |title=The Case for a World Environment Organization |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139150009605762 |journal=Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development |language=en |volume=42 |issue=9 |pages=22–31 |bibcode=2000ESPSD..42i..22B |doi=10.1080/00139150009605762 |issn=0013-9157}}

Others have argued for modifying existing decision-making procedures and institutional boundaries in order to enhance their effectiveness instead of creating new—likely dysfunctional—overarching frameworks. For example, they have said that instead of creating a WEO to safeguard the environment, environmental issues should be directly incorporated into the World Trade Organization (WTO).{{Cite journal |last=Moltke |first=Konrad von |date=2001-02-01 |title=The Organization of the Impossible |url=https://direct.mit.edu/glep/article/1/1/23-28/14102 |journal=Global Environmental Politics |language=en |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=23–28 |doi=10.1162/152638001570741 |issn=1526-3800}} Some academics also argue that multiple institutions and some degree of overlap and duplication in policies is necessary to ensure maximum output from the system.

It is an ambition of modern global governance to have a higher level of inclusiveness with regards to advancing the interests of low-income countries. This applies in particular to least developed countries, small island developing states and landlocked developing countries.

{{See also|Earth system governance|Environmental governance}}

The most pressing transboundary environmental challenges include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation.

A publication of 2020 described global environmental governance as "one of the institutionally most dynamic areas in world politics" in the last thirty years. Numerous new international institutions and actors have emerged in this field since the 1970s. This growth has resulted in overlapping institutional roles, contributing to both fragmentation and complexity. However, it also creates opportunities for cooperation and productive interactions between institutions, involving multiple actors and levels of governance.

The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) is responsible for coordinating responses to environmental issues within the United Nations System.{{Cite web |date=November 18, 2014 |title=Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and Others |url=https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/funds-programmes-specialized-agencies-and-others/index.html |website=un.org}}{{cite web |title=About UN Environment Programme |url=http://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200409185727/http://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment |archive-date=2020-04-09 |access-date=2019-02-10 |website=UNEP}} For example, UNEP has played a key role as a coordinator for a range of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). However, UNEP has been widely considered as a weak international organization. Many institutional arrangements for regulating environmental matters have become increasingly independent of UNEP over the past decades (as of 2022). These arrangements now resemble a loosely and sometimes poorly coordinated network. Scholars have also doubted the effectiveness of a centralized overarching institutional framework to govern global environmental governance and law.

{{See also|United Nations Environment Programme#Reform}}

The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposed a reform agenda for global environmental governance (GEG) in 2006. They formulated five goals that "can be the basis of a shared global vision for the global environmental governance system":[http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/geg.pdf Najam, A., Papa, M. and Taiyab, N. Global Environmental Governance. A Reform Agenda; IISD; 2006.]{{rp|72}} leadership, knowledge ("science should be the authoritative basis of sound environmental policy"), coherence (see also policy coherence for development), performance, mainstreaming ("incorporate environmental concerns and actions within other areas of international policy and action, and particularly so in the context of sustainable development").

Political scientists have said that structural changes in global environmental governance are urgently needed both within and outside United Nations (UN) institutions. This applies to fully fledged international organizations, specialized bodies and programs, as well as secretariats of international environmental agreements. 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). These secretariats can reach out to non-state actors in order to pursue specific policy goals.

Treaty secretariats can help break political deadlock by gaining support from transnational and sub-national actors. They can engage with non-state actors to encourage national governments to adopt more ambitious international agreements.

{{Main|International environmental agreement|List of international environmental agreements}}

The International Environmental Agreement Database Project currently (as of 2020) comprises almost 1300 multilateral agreements and over 2200 bilateral agreements (see also list of international environmental agreements). Until now, the formulation of environmental policies at the international level has been divided by theme, sector or territory, resulting in treaties that overlap or clash. International attempts to coordinate environment institutions, include the Inter-Agency Coordination Committee and the Commission for Sustainable Development, but these institutions are not powerful enough to effectively incorporate the three aspects of sustainable development.{{Cite book |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/526023?ln=en&v=pdf |title=Emerging forces in environmental governance |date=2004 |publisher=United Nations Univ. Press |isbn=978-92-808-1095-0 |editor-last=Kanie |editor-first=Norichika |location=Tokyo |editor-last2=Haas |editor-first2=Peter M.}}

The main three multilateral conventions, also known as Rio Conventions (because they were agreed at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992), are as follows:

1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992–1993): aims to conserve biodiversity. Related agreements include the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). [https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes]. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (1992–1994): aims to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would stabilize the climate system without threatening food production, and enabling the pursuit of sustainable economic development; it incorporates the Kyoto Protocol.
3. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (1994–1996): aims to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought and desertification, in developing countries (though initially the convention was primarily meant for Africa).

Further international conventions:

• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971)
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) (entered into force on 1 July 1975)
• Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (entered into force in 1983)
• Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) (entered into force on 6 October 1996)
• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (entered into force on 5 May 1992)
• Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (effective as of 24 February 2004)
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (COP) (entered into force on 17 May 2004)

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.{{Cite book |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/international-environmental-law-and-the-global-south/F20B81AFC3AB12E6ABC114BEFDA88BF1 |title=International Environmental Law and the Global South |date=2015 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-05569-8 |editor-last=Alam |editor-first=Shawkat |location=Cambridge |doi=10.1017/cbo9781107295414 |editor-last2=Atapattu |editor-first2=Sumudu |editor-link2=Sumudu Atapattu |editor-last3=Gonzalez |editor-first3=Carmen G. |editor-last4=Razzaque |editor-first4=Jona}} Also, environmental governance priorities in the Global North have been at odds with the desire to focus on economic development in the Global South.{{Cite journal |last=Duffy |first=Rosaleen |date=April 2013 |title=Global Environmental Governance and North—South Dynamics: The Case of the Cites |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c1105 |journal=Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy |language=en |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=222–239 |bibcode=2013EnPlC..31..222D |doi=10.1068/c1105 |issn=0263-774X |s2cid=154558633}}

Some analysts propose a shift towards "non-state" actors for the development of environmental governance.{{Cite journal |last=Bäckstrand |first=Karin |date=December 2006 |title=Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106069321 |journal=European Journal of International Relations |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=467–498 |doi=10.1177/1354066106069321 |issn=1354-0661 |s2cid=146248414}} Environmental politics researcher Karin Bäckstrand claims this will increase transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. In some cases, scholars have noted that environmental governance in the Global North has had adverse consequences on the environment in the Global South.{{Cite journal |last=Minneti |first=Jeffrey |date=2018-10-15 |title=Environmental Governance and the Global South |url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol43/iss1/4 |journal=William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=83 |issn=1091-9724}} Environmental and economic priorities in the Global North do not always align with those in the Global South. 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.{{Cite journal |last=Winchester |first=N. |date=2009-01-01 |title=Emerging Global Environmental Governance |url=https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol16/iss1/2 |journal=16 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 7 (2009) |volume=16 |issue=1}}

{{Excerpt|Climate governance|paragraphs=1-3}}

On 16 September 1987 the United Nations General Assembly signed the Montreal Protocol to address the declining ozone layer. Since that time, the use of chlorofluorocarbons (industrial refrigerants and aerosols) and farming fungicides such as methyl bromide has mostly been eliminated, although other damaging gases are still in use.Gareau, Brian J. From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Global Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol (2013, Yale University Press).

{{See also|Global health|Governance#Health governance}}

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.{{Citation |last1=Dodgson |first1=Richard |title=Global Health Governance, A Conceptual Review |date=2017-05-15 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315254227-33 |work=Global Health |pages=439–461 |access-date=2023-05-09 |publisher=Routledge |last2=Lee |first2=Kelley |last3=Drager |first3=Nick|doi=10.4324/9781315254227-33 |isbn=9781315254227 |doi-access=free }} There is a call for a clearer definition and “conceptual clarity” for GHG due to its multiple meanings and varied uses.{{Cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Kelley |last2=Kamradt-Scott |first2=Adam |date=2014-04-28 |title=The multiple meanings of global health governance: a call for conceptual clarity |journal=Globalization and Health |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=28 |doi=10.1186/1744-8603-10-28 |issn=1744-8603 |pmc=4036464 |pmid=24775919 |doi-access=free }}

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. 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. 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.{{Cite journal |last=Ibragimova |first=Irina |date=2022-01-01 |title=Governance for global health: the role of Nordic countries |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG-12-2021-0121 |journal=International Journal of Health Governance |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=150–179 |doi=10.1108/IJHG-12-2021-0121 |bibcode=2022IJHG...27..150I |s2cid=247368519 |issn=2059-4631}}

• {{annotated link|Engaged theory}}
• {{annotated link|Global citizenship}}
• {{annotated link|New World Order (conspiracy theory)}}
• {{annotated link|Social Network Analysis}}
• {{annotated link|United Nations Global Compact}}
• {{annotated link|World community}}
• {{annotated link|World government}}

{{Reflist|2}}

• [https://www.goldmercury.org/glogo-monitoring-system-gold-mercury-international GLOGO - The Global Governance Monitoring System]

{{Commons category}}

{{World government}}

{{Globalization|state=autocollapse}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Global Governance}}

Category:International relations

Category:Supranational unions

Category:World government

Governance

Category:Globalization