Click any step to jump to it - the lit step is the one showing below. The institutions are built after 1945, succeed on technical and economic problems, but are repeatedly checked on peace and security. Green = governance works or a step forward · Amber = mixed or contested · Red = a failure or paralysis.
Timeline tucked away while you test yourself. Close the quiz to bring it back.
What happened. The UN Charter (1945) founded the United Nations, committing members to "universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all" and establishing the Security Council.
What it shows. The birth of the modern global governance system. UN Charter founds the system
What happened. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), adopted by the General Assembly, was the first internationally agreed statement of civil, political and social freedoms, based on the "inherent dignity" of all humans.
What it shows. A shared global standard for human rights governance. UDHR sets global standards
What happened. The Montreal Protocol (1987) was binding, near-universal and healed the ozone layer.
What it shows. Proof governance works when the science is clear and costs are manageable. Montreal Protocol success story
What happened. The Rio Earth Summit (1992) established the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the basis for all later climate negotiations and the COP structure.
What it shows. The framework for climate governance is built. Rio Earth Summit and UNFCCC
What happened. At Srebrenica (1995) UN peacekeepers with a weak mandate stood by as Serb forces massacred around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II.
What it shows. A catastrophic failure of UN peacekeeping. Srebrenica massacre
What happened. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) bound only developed states, the US never ratified, and major emitters were exempt.
What it shows. Governance struggling on the broad, costly problem of climate. Kyoto Protocol weak case
What happened. The 2007-08 financial crisis spread through globalised markets, but the coordinated G20 and central bank response showed economic governance acting fast and fairly effectively under pressure.
What it shows. Economic governance coordinating well in a crisis. 2008 crisis response
What happened. R2P (the responsibility to protect) was invoked in Libya in 2011 but then blocked in Syria, where the Security Council veto stopped collective action.
What it shows. Selective, veto-bound enforcement on peace and security. Libya then Syria veto
What happened. The Paris Agreement (2015) was near-universal but voluntary, with nationally determined contributions and no enforcement.
What it shows. Broad participation bought by weak bindingness. Paris Agreement trade-off
What happened. COP29 in Baku (2024) pledged $300bn a year in climate finance to developing nations by 2035, far below the $1.3tn they demanded.
What it shows. Real progress, but North-South tension and pledges that outrun delivery. COP29 Baku finance deal
Roll up and down: use the arrows, scroll or swipe inside the box, the up and down keys, or click any step in the arc above.
Read top to bottom, the pattern is uneven effectiveness. The system is built after 1945 (the UN Charter, the UDHR), then succeeds where the problem is narrow and the great powers agree (Montreal, the framework set at Rio, the 2008 crisis response).
Where the problem is broad and costly, or where a great power's interest is engaged, governance stalls. Kyoto and Paris trade bindingness against participation; Srebrenica and the Syria veto show peace and security failing whenever the Security Council is blocked.
The same events split by side. Build each paragraph around one point from each column, then judge.
Strongest answers compare across issue areas: concede governance works on technical and economic problems, then judge that it fails on peace and security because the veto bites where great-power interests collide.
For "how effective is global governance?", build one paragraph on success (Montreal, Rio, the 2008 response) and one on failure (Srebrenica, the Syria veto, Kyoto), then judge that effectiveness is uneven across issue areas.
Pair a success with a failure: Montreal against Kyoto, the 2008 response against Syria. Pairing across areas, not listing bodies, is the AO2 mark in this topic.