Global Governance: Who Governs the World?

The Problem of Global Government

Many of the most important problems of today — climate change, nuclear weapons, pandemics, financial crises, internet regulation — are transboundary. They require coordination between states. But there is no world government — there exists an anarchic system of sovereign states.

Classical international theory: realism (Morgenthau, Waltz) — states maximize power and security, international institutions work only when they serve these interests. Liberalism (Keohane, Nye) — international institutions, regimes, interdependence reduce the likelihood of conflict and create stable cooperation.

Reality: partially both. The UN works in limited cases. The WTO genuinely regulates trade. But the Security Council is paralyzed by the veto power of the great powers. Climate agreements are voluntary and insufficient.

Global Justice vs. Sovereignty

The doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P, 2005): state sovereignty is not absolute. If a state cannot or does not want to protect its own citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity — the international community has the right and obligation to intervene.

This is a revolutionary shift in international law: from the Westphalian principle of non-intervention to conditional sovereignty. Application: Rwanda 1994 (there was no intervention — 800,000 dead), Kosovo 1999 (intervention without UN Security Council), Libya 2011 (intervention with UN Security Council mandate, but with contentious results).

Critique: R2P is used as a pretext for geopolitical interests ("humanitarian" interventions which are actually about oil or power). This does not refute the principle — but requires strict legitimation procedures.

Question for reflection: Who makes the decisions about the rules of the internet, to which you entrust your data and through which you receive information? To whom are they accountable?