Global governance gaps

We face planetary-scale challenges—climate change, pandemics, nuclear weapons, AI safety, biodiversity collapse—but our governance systems remain stuck in the 17th century. We have nation-states, each claiming sovereignty within their borders, but no effective mechanisms for coordinating action on problems that ignore borders entirely.

This is the global governance gap: the mismatch between the scale of our challenges and the scale of our institutions. We’ve globalized commerce, technology, and communication, but not governance. We’re trying to solve 21st-century problems with 17th-century political structures.

From a universal perspective, this gap represents humanity’s failure to recognize itself as a single planetary civilization. We’re one species, on one planet, facing shared existential risks—yet we remain fragmented into competing nation-states, unable to act collectively even when our survival depends on it.

The problem: coordination failures at scale

Most of humanity’s greatest challenges require global coordination:

Climate change: Greenhouse gases don’t respect borders. One nation reducing emissions while others increase them doesn’t solve the problem. We need collective action, but countries free-ride, hoping others will bear the cost.

Pandemics: Viruses travel on airplanes. A disease outbreak anywhere can become a pandemic everywhere. Yet we lack global early warning systems, coordinated response protocols, and equitable vaccine distribution.

Nuclear weapons: The risk affects everyone, but control is fragmented across nine nuclear powers. Arms control treaties have weakened. No global authority can enforce disarmament.

AI development: Countries and companies race to develop artificial general intelligence, fearing that slowing down means falling behind competitors. Result: capabilities advance faster than safety. We need coordination to slow down, prioritize alignment research, and develop international AI safety standards. But without governance, it’s a race to the bottom.

Biodiversity: Species and ecosystems cross borders. The Amazon rainforest is Brazil’s territory, but it’s also a global climate stabilizer and carbon sink. Who has authority to protect it? National sovereignty vs. planetary necessity.

The pattern repeats: problems are global, but governance is national. This is a recipe for catastrophic failure.

Why global governance is so hard

If the solution seems obvious—“just cooperate globally!”—why hasn’t it happened? Several deep challenges:

1. Sovereignty and the Westphalian system

The modern international system is based on the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which established the principle of national sovereignty: each state has supreme authority within its borders, and no external power can interfere.

This was progressive in 1648—it ended religious wars in Europe by establishing that each state could choose its own religion. But 375 years later, absolute sovereignty is an obstacle to solving planetary problems.

Climate change doesn’t respect sovereignty. Pandemics don’t respect sovereignty. AI development in one country affects everyone. Yet the Westphalian principle says “you can’t tell us what to do in our territory.”

Result: collective action problems. Each nation acts in its perceived self-interest, leading to outcomes worse for everyone (tragedy of the commons).

2. The free-rider problem

Global public goods (stable climate, pandemic prevention, nuclear nonproliferation) benefit everyone, whether or not they contribute. This creates incentive to free-ride—let others bear the cost while you reap the benefits.

Example: Climate action is expensive. If other countries reduce emissions while you don’t, you get a stable climate plus economic advantage from cheaper energy. Rational self-interest says: free-ride. But if everyone reasons this way, no one acts, and the climate collapses. Game theory predicts failure.

3. Short-term thinking

Democratic politicians face election cycles (2-6 years). Corporate CEOs answer to quarterly earnings. But climate change, existential risks, and long-term development require thinking in decades and centuries.

Result: temporal myopia. We discount the future, prioritizing present gains over long-term survival. This isn’t individual failure—it’s systemic. Our institutions aren’t designed for deep time thinking.

4. Power asymmetries

Some nations are far more powerful than others. The UN Security Council has five permanent members with veto power, enshrining post-WWII geopolitics. This makes reform nearly impossible.

Meanwhile, the countries most affected by climate change (small island nations, Global South) have the least power to shape policy. The countries most responsible for emissions (industrialized nations) have the most power. This is unjust and makes coordination harder.

5. Lack of trust

Global cooperation requires trust. But nations don’t trust each other. Verification is hard. Enforcement is harder. Without trust or enforcement mechanisms, agreements are fragile.

Example: Arms control treaties work only if all parties believe others are complying. If trust breaks down (as with the INF Treaty collapsing in 2019), nations resume arms races.

6. Cultural and ideological differences

Nations have different values, political systems, and visions of the good life. Liberal democracies value individual rights. Authoritarian states prioritize order and state power. Some cultures emphasize hierarchy, others egalitarianism.

How do you create global governance when participants disagree on fundamental values? Can liberal democracies cooperate with authoritarian regimes on existential risks? What principles should govern a planetary civilization?

What exists today: patchwork and insufficient

We’re not starting from zero. Several international institutions exist:

United Nations (1945): Created to prevent another world war. Includes the General Assembly (all member states, one vote) and Security Council (5 permanent members with veto power). Has achieved some successes (peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, international law) but is often paralyzed by veto power and lack of enforcement capability.

World Health Organization: Coordinates global health responses. Struggled during COVID-19 due to funding constraints, limited authority, and politicization.

International Criminal Court: Prosecutes war crimes and crimes against humanity. But major powers (US, Russia, China) haven’t ratified it, limiting effectiveness.

Paris Agreement (2015): Voluntary emissions reduction commitments. No enforcement mechanism. Countries set their own targets. We’re not on track to meet goals.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968): Slowed but didn’t stop nuclear weapons spread. Nine nations now have nukes. Treaty is weakening.

World Trade Organization: Coordinates trade, resolves disputes. More effective than most international institutions because trade benefits are clear and immediate. Suggests that global governance works when incentives align.

These institutions represent progress—but they’re insufficient for the challenges we face. They lack:

Enforcement power: Most international law is voluntary
Democratic legitimacy: Citizens don’t elect UN representatives
Adequate funding: WHO’s budget is smaller than some city hospital systems
Binding authority: Nations can ignore or withdraw from agreements

We have a patchwork of institutions designed for a world that no longer exists—pre-nuclear, pre-internet, pre-climate crisis, pre-AI. We need governance fit for the 21st century.

What’s needed: Planetary coordination

Solving global governance gaps doesn’t require world government (which seems neither feasible nor desirable). But it does require upgrading our coordination capacity. Here are some models and proposals:

1. Strengthened UN with reform

Proposal: Reform the UN to be more representative, effective, and legitimate.

Possible reforms:

Eliminate or expand Security Council veto power
Give voting weight to population size or emissions responsibility
Create a UN Parliamentary Assembly (directly elected by citizens)
Establish binding arbitration for international disputes
Fund the UN adequately (currently member states can withhold dues)

Challenge: Reform requires agreement from those who benefit from the current system (veto powers won’t vote to eliminate their veto).

2. Issue-specific global bodies

Proposal: Rather than one world government, create specialized agencies with real authority over specific global issues.

Examples:

Global AI Safety Authority: Sets and enforces AI development standards, monitors capabilities, coordinates international AI policy
Pandemic Prevention Agency: Global surveillance, rapid response, vaccine development, equitable distribution
Climate Stabilization Council: Binding emissions targets, carbon pricing, enforcement mechanisms
Nuclear Security Commission: Arms control verification, disarmament coordination

Advantage: Easier to get agreement on single-issue bodies than comprehensive world government. Nations might cede authority on AI safety without ceding all sovereignty.

Challenge: How to enforce decisions? How to ensure democratic legitimacy?

3. Polycentric governance

Proposal: Not one global institution, but a network of overlapping authorities at multiple scales—local, national, regional, global—coordinating through established protocols.

Think of the internet: no central authority, but agreed-upon protocols (TCP/IP) allow seamless global communication. Could we create governance protocols that allow coordination without centralization?

Advantage: Flexible, adaptive, doesn’t require surrendering all sovereignty. More realistic politically.

Challenge: Complexity. Who has authority over what? How to prevent fragmentation and coordination failure?

4. Coalition of the willing

Proposal: Don’t wait for universal agreement. Form coalitions of nations willing to cooperate on specific issues. Start small, prove success, expand membership.

Example: A coalition of nations committed to AI safety could set standards, share research, and coordinate development pace. Others might join once benefits are clear.

Advantage: Overcomes the lowest-common-denominator problem (where progress is limited by the least cooperative member).

Challenge: Excludes some nations, creates fragmentation, risks geopolitical competition.

5. Global Governance Frameworks

Proposal: The Global Governance Frameworks project proposes a comprehensive, modular approach to planetary coordination—not as a single world government but as an ecosystem of frameworks addressing specific challenges while maintaining coherence.

Key frameworks include:

The Discovery Commons: Ensuring scientific knowledge remains open, ethical, and accessible
Moral Operating System (MOS): Extending rights across all beings (humans, animals, ecosystems, AI)
Frontier Governance Protocol: Managing space exploration, resource use, and potential extraterrestrial contact
Deep Time & Relativistic Governance: Representing future generations and coordinating across long timescales
Conflict Resolution & Peacebuilding: Preventing and resolving conflicts at all scales

Advantage: Comprehensive but modular. Each framework can be adopted independently while designed to work together. Includes mechanisms for democratic legitimacy, enforcement, and evolution.

Challenge: Requires significant political will to implement. Needs champions at national and international levels.

Principles for effective global governance

Whatever form it takes, effective planetary coordination should embody certain principles:

Subsidiarity

Decisions should be made at the lowest effective level. Local issues handled locally, national issues nationally, only truly global issues at global level. This prevents overcentralization and respects cultural diversity.

Polycentricity

Multiple centers of authority, coordinating through shared protocols. Avoid both centralized world government and chaotic fragmentation.

Democratic legitimacy

Global institutions must be accountable to people, not just states. This might mean:

Directly elected global assemblies
Citizen participation mechanisms
Transparency and oversight
Protection of human rights and civil liberties

Inclusivity and equity

Global governance must represent all nations, especially those most affected by global challenges (climate-vulnerable nations, Global South). Power can’t be concentrated in wealthy Western nations.

Binding authority with enforcement

Voluntary agreements aren’t sufficient for existential risks. We need:

Binding treaties with teeth
Enforcement mechanisms (sanctions, intervention as last resort)
Verification and monitoring
Consequences for non-compliance

Flexibility and evolution

Governance systems must adapt as challenges and knowledge evolve. Build in mechanisms for reform, learning, and updating.

Long-term thinking

Institutions that represent future generations:

Future Generations Commissioners (Wales has one)
Long-term strategy councils
Constitutional protections for those not yet born

The urgency of now

We’re living through a brief window where global governance reform is both necessary and possibly achievable:

Necessary: The risks are acute. Climate tipping points, AI development, pandemic potential, nuclear arsenals—we’re on track for catastrophic failures without coordination.

Possible: Technology enables global communication and coordination in ways never before possible. The internet, social media, satellite monitoring—we have tools previous generations lacked. And there’s growing awareness that nation-states alone can’t solve these problems.

But the window is closing. Once tipping points are crossed, once superintelligent AI is deployed, once nuclear weapons proliferate further—coordination becomes much harder. We need to build governance capacity before the next crisis, not during it.

The universal perspective

From a universal viewpoint, the global governance gap represents humanity’s adolescence. We’re smart enough to create world-altering technologies but not yet wise enough to coordinate their use. We’re powerful but not yet mature.

A mature civilization would recognize that:

We’re one species on one planet. National borders are human constructs; planetary boundaries are real.
Our fates are intertwined. Climate change, pandemics, AI—we succeed or fail together.
Sovereignty must be balanced with responsibility. No nation has the right to destabilize the planet’s life-support systems.
Future generations have rights. We’re temporary stewards, not owners. We must leave Earth habitable for those who come after.

The question isn’t whether we’ll eventually develop planetary governance. If we survive long enough, we inevitably will—because the alternative is failure and collapse. The question is whether we’ll develop it in time.

What you can do

Global governance seems distant from individual action. But:

Educate yourself and others: Most people don’t understand why global coordination is necessary. Spread awareness of planetary challenges and governance gaps.

Support international cooperation: Advocate for multilateralism over nationalism. Support politicians who prioritize international agreements, UN funding, and global coordination.

Engage with governance reform: Organizations like the UN Association, World Federalist Movement, and Global Governance Frameworks need supporters and volunteers.

Think and act globally: See yourself as a planetary citizen, not just a national one. Universal perspective is the mental shift that makes global governance possible.

Build local and regional cooperation: Practice coordination at smaller scales. Show that cooperation works. Scale up from there.

The arc of history bends toward larger circles of cooperation—from family to tribe to city to nation. The next step is planet. We’re late in making that transition, but not too late. Not yet.

Further exploration

Books:

Governing the Commons by Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Prize winner on collective action)
The Parliament of Man by Paul Kennedy (history and future of UN)
Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah

Organizations:

Related:

Existential risks - Why coordination matters
Climate & planetary boundaries - Specific challenge requiring governance
Deep time governance - Representing future generations