The modern global governance project, conceived in the interwar and post-1945 eras, institutionalized most visibly in the United Nations (UN), contrasts the pre-1914 imperial order. The post-World War settlements fragmented empires into nation-states, while promising to re-aggregate them under a centralized, rules-based architecture for peace and progress. This ambition has remained unachieved due to several factors, including structural and sociological impediments, sovereignty and hard power asymmetries, intra- and inter-institutional conflicts of interest, and persistent democratic lacunae within states and international bodies, inhibit collective action, especially during major crises. This paper traces the evolution of global governance, assesses its shortcomings, and explores alternative prospects for its role in an emerging multipolar order. The United States (US) enjoyed the post-1945 predominance that shaped the UN’s agendas, enforcement patterns, and veto politics. Since the 9/11 attacks, Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), and the aftermath of the Arab Spring, among others, Washington’s capacity and apparent willingness to underwrite a global order have visibly waned. It assesses how these dynamics have limited the effectiveness of the United Nations and discusses prospects for reforming global governance. It concludes that the growing geopolitical assertion of the Global South is shaping a more inclusive and equitable global governance order, though its promise ultimately depends on whether those in positions of power can translate this shift into a more peaceful and sustainable international system.
Aneela Shahzad (Fri,) studied this question.