Global governance is how the world is governed without a world government - through intergovernmental organisations, treaties and international law. This walk-through takes the four issue areas in turn - economic, environmental, human rights and security - and asks the question the comparison grids are built around: which areas does global governance handle well, and which does it handle badly?
Hold one idea throughout: effectiveness is uneven. Technical and economic coordination can work remarkably well; peace and security, where the great powers hold vetoes, works least. Comparing across the areas is the skill the exam rewards.
Global governance is the cooperation and rule-making among states in a world with no government above them - carried out through intergovernmental organisations, treaties and international law. The main actors span four issue areas:
| Agreement | What it shows |
|---|---|
| Montreal Protocol (1987) | The success story: binding, near-universal, and it healed the ozone layer. Proof that global governance can work when the science is clear and the costs manageable. |
| Kyoto Protocol (1997) | The weak case: binding only on developed states, the US never ratified, and major emitters were exempt. Limited effect. |
| Paris Agreement (2015) | Near-universal but voluntary - nationally determined contributions with no enforcement. Broad participation bought by weak bindingness. |
| COPs and Loss and Damage | Annual summits and a fund for vulnerable states; progress is real but slow, and pledges outrun delivery. |
The comparison-grid method is the skill this topic tests: judge which issue area, or which body, the world has handled best and worst.
The Montreal Protocol (1987) was binding, near-universal and healed the ozone layer; the Kyoto Protocol (1997) bound only developed states and the US never ratified; the Paris Agreement (2015) won near-universal membership only by being voluntary. Interim judgement: governance succeeds on the narrow, manageable problem and struggles on the broad, costly one.
The IMF, World Bank and WTO set and enforce rules, and the coordinated 2008 crisis response showed economic governance acting fast and effectively - though critics say it serves powerful states and creditors. Interim judgement: comparatively strong on coordination and enforcement.
The Security Council's P5 veto blocks action whenever a great power's interests are engaged: R2P was invoked in Libya in 2011 but blocked in Syria, and the ICC has no enforcement arm and lacks the major powers. Interim judgement: this is the weakest area, by design.
Judgement. Global governance is plainly more effective in some areas than others. The decisive variable is the same throughout - where the problem is technical and the great powers align, governance delivers (Montreal, the 2008 response); where enforcement depends on the powers that hold the veto, it fails (Syria, the ICC). The unevenness is structural, not accidental.