Global governance refers to the international and transnational institutions, norms, policies, and practices that collectively shape and regulate political activity across the world. It involves the management and coordination of complex interdependent relationships between states, international organizations, private corporations, civil society actors, and individuals in the globalized era (Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014). The concept recognizes that power and authority in the contemporary world extends beyond traditional state boundaries and sovereign territories.
Global governance is necessary to address global challenges that transcend national borders such as climate change, terrorism, financial crises, pandemics, and human rights. No single state has the capability or resources to solve these complex, interlinked issues alone. Effective global governance requires cooperation between state and non-state actors across multiple levels of formal and informal institutions and networks (Karns & Mingst, 2010). The primary goals are to establish international norms, rules, and decision-making procedures to balance competing interests, build consensus, and ensure accountability.
Scholars have developed different theoretical frameworks to analyze the dynamics of global governance. Key perspectives include liberal institutionalism, constructivism, realism, and critical theory.
Liberal institutionalism emerged after World War II with a focus on how international institutions help states realize mutual gains through cooperation (Keohane, 1984). Institutions reduce transaction costs, facilitate information sharing, establish standards of behavior, and provide mechanisms for dispute resolution. This encourages reciprocity between self-interested states leading to Pareto-optimal outcomes. Liberal institutionalists see global governance as an incremental process of building norms and expanding the institutional framework of world politics.
Constructivism examines how shared ideas, norms, knowledge, and social interactions shape identities and interests of states as well as other global actors (Wendt, 1995). State interests and global governance arrangements are not predetermined but socially constructed through a dynamic process of interaction and interpretation. Constructivists analyze how discourse and collective meaning-making constitute global governance structures and capacities.
Realism contends that global governance ultimately reflects the distribution of material power capabilities between states (Mearsheimer, 1994/95). Institutions cannot transcend the competitive logic of anarchy and self-help in the international system. Global governance initiatives falter without hegemonic power to incentivize cooperation and enforce rules. Changes in relative capabilities lead to shifts in global governance arrangements.
Critical theory focuses on how global governance perpetuates unequal power relations between the Global North and South as well as between elites and marginalized groups (Cox, 1996). Prevailing governance structures privilege technocratic knowledge and agendas of dominant states and transnational capital over subaltern voices and interests. Critical theorists advocate inclusive participation, deliberative democracy, and reflexivity.
Global governance rests on seven core normative principles that provide ethical and legal justification for global rules and institutions (Finkelstein, 1995). These fundamental principles include:
- Individual freedom and human dignity
- Equality of rights and justice for all persons
- Inclusive participation and democratic accountability
- Cooperation, coordination, and subsidiarity
- Sustainability and precaution
- Nonviolent dispute resolution
- Solidarity with future generations
These principles emphasize universal human rights, shared responsibility, pluralism, checks and balances on power, and foresight. Putting them into practice requires mechanisms for transparent deliberation, conflict mediation, policy integration, and collective action across vast geographic and cultural distances.
International relations scholars have identified different conceptual models to characterize the overall structure and distribution of authority in the global governance system (Rosenau, 1995; Held & McGrew, 2002). Four major models include:
- Anarchical Society – Decentralized, minimal rules and institutions
- Liberal Internationalism – Formal interstate organizations based on state consent
- Transnational Network Governance – Informal transnational networks and partnerships
- Cosmopolitan Multilateralism – Hierarchical governance with legal authority over states
In reality, global governance involves variable geometry with a blend of these archetypes coexisting and overlapping across issues and domains. The balance depends on power configurations and functional imperatives within a given policy realm. Understanding patterns of change in global governance requires tracking shifts across these models over time.
The current global governance system has gradually emerged and expanded over the past 150 years through various stages:
- Imperial Era (1870s-1945) – European colonial empires dominate territories and peoples across Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Americas. Minimal multilateral coordination.
- Post-WWII Settlement (1945-1970s) – Rise of US hegemony and East-West divide. Creation of UN system and Bretton Woods institutions based on state sovereignty. Expansion of international law.
- Complex Multipolarity (1970s-1990s) – Decline of US hegemony and rise of Japan and EU. Expansion of international regimes, transnational networks, and regional integration.
- Ascent of Globalization (1990s-Present) – Acceleration of global flows, integration, and complex interdependence. Rise of emerging powers, private authority, and bottom-up networks. Intensified global agenda.
This progression reflects geopolitical shifts as well as increased technological capacity and functional necessity for transborder coordination. Each phase involved crises and learning processes that expanded awareness of global interdependence and need for shared governance mechanisms.
The contemporary organizational landscape of global governance is highly diverse and complex encompassing formal intergovernmental bodies, transnational networks, and hybrid partnerships (Karns & Mingst, 2010). Key entities include:
- The UN System – General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat, and functional agencies (WHO, UNESCO etc.)
- International Financial Institutions – World Bank, IMF, regional development banks
- World Trade Organization – trade rules and dispute settlement
- Regional Organizations – EU, AU, ASEAN, OAS, Arab League etc.
- Regulatory Networks – Basel Committee, International Accounting Standards Board, ISO etc.
- Partnerships and Multi-stakeholder Initiatives – GAVI, Global Fund, ICANN, Global Compact etc.
This multilayered, loosely coupled architecture lacks a hierarchical structure or single center of power. The UN sits at the apex providing overarching legitimacy, but its capabilities depend on the will of member states. Overall, global governance relies more on horizontal coordination than top-down authority.
Agenda and Policy Domains
Global governance spans a broad and expanding agenda encompassing most major cross-border policy domains (Zurn, 2018). Key areas include:
- Peace and Security – conflict prevention/resolution, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, R2P
- Human Rights – monitoring/accountability, justice mechanisms, norm development
- Environment – climate change, biodiversity, deforestation, marine conservation
- Health – communicable diseases, universal access, emergency response
- Migration and Refugees – displacement, human trafficking, asylum law
- Financial Stability – financial transparency/regulation, crisis management
- Internet Governance – domain names, data flows, cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property – patents, copyrights, counterfeiting, access to medicines
- Disaster Relief – early warning, resilience, emergency response
- Transport and Infrastructure – aviation, shipping, space, polar regions
This list keeps expanding as new issues arise on the global agenda. Priorities and capabilities vary across thematic domains based on interests and resources available for collective action.
Policy Instruments and Tools
Global governance relies on various types of instruments and tools to shape actors’ behavior in pursuit of collective goals (Abbott & Snidal, 2000). Key mechanisms include:
- Intergovernmental Treaties and Conventions – legally binding for signatories
- Norms and Standards – technical/professional standards, benchmarks
- Capacity Building – education, training, technical assistance
- Monitoring and Transparency – reporting requirements, indicators, databases
- Regulation and Oversight – certification, audits, inspections
- Dispute Resolution – arbitration, tribunals, judicial proceedings
- Financing Incentives – aid, loan conditionality, taxes, tradable permits
- Partnerships and Networks – voluntary collective initiatives
- Risk Assessments and Early Warning – simulations, horizon scanning, alerts
Effective global governance combines both mandatory “hard law” and voluntary “soft law” tools tailored to the specific issue and context. Implementing these tools relies on mobilizing expertise, leveraging reputational pressure, and pooling resources from diverse sources.
Global governance involves complex horizontal and vertical interactions between state and non-state actors across levels of analysis (Avant et al, 2010). Major actor roles include:
- States – primary authorities and rule-makers in intergovernmental organizations. Provide funding and legitimacy.
- IO Secretariats – technocratic expertise and capacity. Set agendas and facilitate state negotiation.
- Transnational Advocacy Networks – mobilize public opinion and lobby for norms and policy change.
- Corporations – target of regulation and indispensable partners for implementation.
- Scientific Experts – generate credible information and inform policy debates.
- Philanthropic Foundations – fund innovation and initiative. Bridge policy gaps.
- Cities and Subnational Authorities – pioneer local experiments and experience.
Power Dynamics and Contestation
Global governance reflects underlying power structures and ideological contests over authority and agendas (Barnett & Duvall, 2005). Dimensions of power shaping global governance include:
- Structural Power – control over resources, markets, and geographic position
- Institutional Power – formal decision-making authority and rules that advantage certain actors
- Discursive Power – ability to influence ideas, norms, and meaning through formal and informal channels
- Network Power – occupying strategic nodes and positions in governance networks
These forms of power are unequally distributed between developed and developing states, public and private authorities, and social classes and groups. Global governance institutions and policies privilege dominant states, Western expertise, capitalist logics, and masculine perspectives. This generates resistance and counter-hegemonic struggles from the Global South, indigenous groups, civil society, and marginalized voices seeking more just, equitable, and participatory global governance.
Key Challenges and Debates
Scholars and policymakers have identified major challenges and debates regarding the performance and reform of global governance:
- Democratization – calls to remedy democratic deficits and expand representation of marginalized actors
- Effectiveness – gap between proliferating institutions and ability to provide collective goods
- Policy Coherence – lack of coordination on cross-cutting issues and trade-offs
- Compliance and Implementation – inadequate state capacity and political will
- Power Shifts – declining US/Western dominance and ascent of emerging powers
- Role of Non-State Actors – appropriate balance between public authority and private governance
- Reform Proposals – expansion/restriction of IO mandates, weighted voting, subsidiarity
- Theoretical Disputes – extent of anarchy vs. integration; role of material, ideational, and social factors
Debates persist between liberal, realist, and critical perspectives on these interlinked challenges. Advocates of global governance emphasize incremental progress, while critics argue sufficient authority and community remain lacking at the global level.
Assessing Performance and Impact
Evaluating the overall performance and impact of global governance remains complex given the decentralized, fragmented nature of the system and multidimensional criteria involved (Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014). Assessment requires analyzing:
- Goal attainment – progress achieving defined targets and objectives
- Problem-solving effectiveness – reducing negative externalities, managing interdependence
- Rule compliance and implementation – changing state behavior
- Input legitimacy – representativeness, transparency, accountability
- Output legitimacy – effectiveness, efficiency, equity
- Capacity building – enhancing skills, resources, and networks across levels
- Policy learning and diffusion – spread of ideas, norms, technology, and standards
Evidence suggests global governance contributes to expanding interstate cooperation, avoiding conflict, codifying international law, and diffusing liberal norms, but performance varies significantly across issue areas (Zurn 2018). There are notable implementation gaps between global policy commitments and realities on the ground.
Cosmopolitan Democracy Models
The concept of cosmopolitan democracy aims to address limitations of the current state-centric governance model and its democratic deficits (Held, 1995). Proposed models seek to integrate:
- Stronger legal cosmopolitan rights and obligations transcending state borders
- Transnational representation and deliberation in global forums
- Multi-level delegation of governance authority balancing subsidiarity and global interests
- Expanded parliamentary assemblies and stakeholder councils at regional and global levels
- Reformed global institutions accountable to citizens not just governments
- Global rule of law and impartial judicial mechanisms
- Transnational political parties and civil society movements
- Multiple collective identities grounded in shared human dignity
Implementing these ambitious principles raises complex redistributive trade-offs and risks of abuse absent safeguards. But advocates argue cosmopolitan democracy provides valuable regulative ideals to guide long-term institutional transformation towards post-Westphalian governance.
Theories of World Government
Scholars have proposed theories of complete global political integration through democratic world government, but these remain highly contested (Cabrera, 2010). Proponents argue absent top-down authority, global governance lacks mechanisms to appropriately balance global public goods and state sovereignty. Binding global law and universal citizenship are required to build stable peace and justice.
Criticisms include risks of unchecked tyranny, cultural homogenization, and bureaucratic overload from centralizing power at the global level. monde federalists counter that democratic safeguards, subsidiary principles, and civil society oversight could constrain world government excess. But any transition would require building much greater political community and solidarity across diverse world citizens.
Given current constraints, most observers believe moves towards global political authority will be incremental not revolutionary. But world government theories highlight long-term questions about Representing humanity through global political institutions enjoying widespread legitimacy. Ongoing integration and interdependence continue to raise the functional need and pressure for greater global capability, accountability, and solidarity. The balance between sovereign states and post-Westphalian governance remains a critical fault line running through globalization debates.
The Role of Global Public Opinion
An often overlooked dimension of global governance is the role of global public opinion in both constraining and empowering global policymaking (Kleinberg & Fordham, 2018). Issues like climate change and human rights illustrate how transnational moral consciousness emerges across borders and pressures governments towards wider interests and ethical responsibilities.
But the global public sphere remains weak compared to national media spaces and identities. Most global polling relies on elite samples. Building genuine global demos requires deeper infrastructure encompassing:
- Global media platforms and narratives transcending cultural boundaries
- Cross-national civil society networks mobilizing public engagement
- Social media spaces fostering global social imaginaries and connections
- Educational curriculum fostering global citizenship and perspectives
- Deliberative forums to sample informed global public opinion
Strengthening these foundations could enhance communicative power and legitimacy of global governance across societal not just governmental levels. But any global public sphere also risks intensifying polarization, disinformation, and demagoguery at planetary scale. Managing these tensions remains pivotal for realizing democratic global governance.
The G20, G7 & G8
The rise of the G20 summit as the premier forum for international economic cooperation highlights the shifting landscape of global governance. The G20 members encompass 85% of world GDP, 75% of international trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population, including major emerging economies. The forum gained prominence during the 2008 global financial crisis as leaders coordinated macroeconomic stimulus and financial reforms. This revealed the limits of older institutions like the G7 and IMF that did not adequately represent changing economic realities (Cooper 2010).
Critics argue the G20 remains an informal club lacking binding authority, implementation capacity, and adequate participation of non-state actors. But its ascension reflects a trend towards greater inclusion of emerging powers across forums like the BRICS coalition and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Such plurilateral networks enable major economies to navigate global governance bottlenecks and bypass institutions still dominated by Western post-WWII politics.
The future balance between “new multilateralism” informal clubs and representative UN-style institutions raises key questions about the structure and legitimacy of 21st century global governance. Scholars debate whether minilateralism will undermine or pave the way for more universal global institutions. Managing power shifts and expanding participation remain central governance challenges.
Transnational Cooperation in the Anthropocene
Environmental interdependence and planetary scale risks are generating growing calls for new modes of transnational cooperation beyond traditional forms of state-led governance (Biermann, 2014). Alternative proposals include empowering city networks, devolving authority to bioregional ecosystems, implementing eco-cosmopolitan law, instituting an Earth system council within the UN, and coordinating global people’s assemblies to deliberate environmental decisions.
Such initiatives aim to build a collective ethos of shared responsibility for the future of life on Earth. This involves contested debates over rights, ethics, justice, and values across humanity’s relationship to non-human nature. The institutional terrain remains complex and fragmented. But Anthropocene realities are compelling deeper cooperation between governments, corporations, civil society, indigenous groups, and scientists in pursuit of resilience.
The Long Crisis of Global Governance
Recurring gridlock across multilateral institutions has led some scholars to describe international cooperation as stuck in a “long crisis” (Hale et al 2013). Causes include:
- Diverging national interests impede collective action on divisive issues
- Lack of resources and enforcement capacity leads to implementation gaps
- Emerging powers contest existing governance structures shaped by Western dominance
- Multipolarity fosters minilateralism that undermines inclusive forums
- Non-state actors multiply channels of authority beyond multilateral control
This crisis of the liberal international order is unlikely to be resolved quickly given deep roots in shifting structural conditions. Yet critics argue framing global governance as dysfunctional obscures how cooperation remains routine across many technical domains outside high politics. The long crisis perspective privileges Western liberal preferences and downplays learning, adaptation, and progress towards a more complex, pluriversal order. Overcoming gridlock ultimately requires building new post-Western narratives and commitments to cooperation that align with 21st century realities.
Global Governance of the Internet
The Internet is a transnational network that transcends territorial boundaries, challenging traditional governance frameworks. Key global governance issues regarding the Internet include setting technical standards, allocating domain names, coordinating cross-border data flows, and promoting human rights online (DeNardis, 2014).
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) plays a central role managing Internet protocol addresses, domain name systems, and root servers. However, tensions persist between calls for greater state sovereignty over Internet governance versus support for multi-stakeholder models giving voice to the private sector, civil society, and technical experts in addition to governments.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF), convened annually by the UN, provides an open platform for debate, knowledge sharing, and norm development regarding new technologies. But the IGF lacks decision-making authority. Proposals for a new UN Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) aim to establish greater intergovernmental oversight and policy direction. However, critics argue this could enable state censorship and fragmentation of the Internet along national lines (Raymond & Smith, 2013).
Cyber-security has become a major global governance priority given growing problems of cyber espionage, cyber warfare, and cyber-crime across borders. Key instruments include the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, guidelines by the UN Group of Governmental Experts, and efforts to build Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTS) and other operational capacity in developing countries. However, efforts to codify rules of the road for state conduct in cyberspace remain embryonic and contested.
Overall, theorists debate whether multi-stakeholder governance networks centered on technical expertise and pragmatism can cope with intensifying geopolitical struggles over information, resources, and ideology mediated by digital technologies (Chernobrov, 2016). The future evolution of global Internet governance likely depends on uneasy compromises between interests of states, citizens, and technology companies across the ubiquitous network.
Global Migration Governance
Cross-border migration governance encompasses some of the most acute political tensions and policy failures in the 21st century global order. The IOM estimates over 280 million migrants worldwide lacking adequate legal protection and representation in global forums. Key governance challenges include:
- Establishing coherent asylum protocols balancing state sovereignty, human security, and burden sharing.
- Expanding safe and legal migration pathways to reduce illegal trafficking and exploitation.
- Integrating migrants while managing cultural tensions and labor market impacts on host populations.
- Linking migration to development and harnessing remittances for poverty reduction.
- Protecting vulnerable migrant groups including refugees, stateless persons, and trafficked individuals.
While states have codified some minimum rights through conventions, implementation often falls short. There is no comprehensive global migration organization or treaty delineating systemic governance (Hansen et al, 2016). Instead, regional consultative processes and non-binding dialogues like the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) aim to build consensus and partnerships around best practices. But politicization hampers cooperation.
Looking ahead, climate change and global demographic shifts are likely to drive more migration across borders, necessitating improved governance. Proposals include establishing a World Migration Organization, stronger policy coordination between origin-transit-destination states, embedding migrant rights in trade agreements, harnessing city networks, and linking migration to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. But making global migration safe, legal, and mutually beneficial remains an urgent work in progress.
Global Health Governance
The increasing intensity and interdependence of global health challenges have highlighted gaps in leadership and capacity for coordinated action (Fidler, 2010). Key governance priorities include pandemic preparedness, uncompensated care, R&D incentives, counterfeit medicines, health worker migration, and access barriers in developing countries.
The World Health Organization (WHO) plays a central role providing expertise, monitoring disease outbreaks, facilitating surveillance networks, and managing responses to health emergencies. However, the organization relies on member state consensus and suffers from politicization and resource constraints.
To fill gaps, new multistakeholder partnerships have emerged including GAVI, the Global Fund, UNAIDS, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). The World Bank has become a lead financier for health system strengthening. Foundations like Gates and Rockefeller play agenda-setting roles advancing innovative solutions. These partnerships generate results, but also raise concerns about conflicts of interest, accountability, and consistency across the complex global health ecosystem.
Looking forward, strengthening WHO’s capabilities and financing for independence and normative leadership remains vital amidst increasing political headwinds and pandemic threats. Yet, effective global health governance will also require flexible, networked approaches that bridge governments, industry, science, and civil society.
Global Economic Governance
The 2008 global financial crisis revealed major gaps in international oversight and coordination of systemic risks in the globalized economy (Eichengreen, 2016). This spurred debates over reforms to strengthen global financial stability mechanisms. The G20 and Financial Stability Board (FSB) were empowered to monitor financial institutions, set prudential standards, and coordinate national policies. But implementation remains incomplete a decade later.
Broader challenges include managing volatile capital flows, reforming the international monetary system centered on the US dollar, upgrading representation at the IMF and World Bank, coordinating tax policies against evasion and avoidance, providing macroprudential regulation of banks, and building consensus around appropriate policies for financial stability, growth, and development.
Overall, economic governance remains hampered by divergent national interests, lack of binding enforcement tools, and the growing influence of private financial institutions and ratings agencies. The risks of future economic shocks and contagion highlight needs for stronger global safety nets and regulations grounded in multilateral legitimacy, despite political headwinds. But cooperative solutions confront tensions between financial globalization and national autonomy.
Towards a G20-Centered Economic Order?
The rise of the G20 marks a potential shift towards a new plurilateral economic order different from US hegemony or universal multilateralism under the WTO (Subacchi, 2017). The G20 exhibits variable geometry, combining the systemic influence of major economies with more flexible minilateralism compared to inclusive but unwieldy universal institutions.
Proponents argue the G20 filled coordination gaps revealed by the global financial crisis and subsequent tensions over trade, investment, tax, climate, and development. Its informal leader-led process enables candid deliberation and package deals. Rotation of chairs and agenda setting compels attention to diverse priorities.
However, critics contend the G20 suffers from inconsistent membership criteria, lack of formal authority, exclusion of marginalized voices, inadequate follow-through, and competition from other forums and coalitions. Questions persist over whether the G20 will solidify as legitimate steering committee or remain an ad hoc emergency council. The future of global economic governance depends on whether minilateral networks catalyze wider cooperation or fragment world politics.
Regionalism and Global Governance
Regional organizations play growing roles articulating shared interests, mobilizing collective actions, and mediating global-local relationships within their domains (Fawcett, 2005). The European Union has taken the most integrated approach to regional governance across trade, human rights, environment, development, and security policies. Other groupings like ASEAN or the African Union have made uneven progress towards regional integration given weaker institutions and greater internal divides.
Scholars debate whether regionalism facilitates or hinders global governance. Supporters argue regional forums provide building blocks for world order, enabling functional spillovers and socialization that strengthens global norms and institutions over time. Critics counter that regionalism prioritizes narrow agendas dividing world politics into competing blocs, undermining universal cooperation.
In practice, the relationship remains fluid and variable across issues. Looking ahead, regional organizations are likely to play pivotal bridging roles, but their contributions depend on leadership, resources, and balancing inward cohesion with outward promotion of global interests. Strong regional institutions may ultimately prove essential for undergirding a rules-based multilateral order.
Hope and Skepticism for Future Global Governance
Looking ahead, the future of global governance remains contested and uncertain. Pessimists argue zero-sum nationalism, great power rivalry, institutional inertia, and collective action problems constitute enduring constraints absent a central authority to impose order. Progress depends on enlightened national leadership or hegemonic power to incentivize cooperation.
In contrast, liberal internationalists emphasize how growing interdependence provides functional necessity and incentives for building wider political community. Technological advances expand connections and awareness of global risks requiring joint action. Norms and identities are already shifting towards post-Westphalian governance benefiting humanity.
Pragmatists highlight mixed evidence of both gradual institutional development and persistent deadlock. The path ahead is not pre-ordained but depends on political agency in periods of contingency. Crises reveal collective failures but also catalyze imagination and strategy for governance innovations. The uneven dialectic between cooperation and conflict continues, but windows for progress persist.
There are no easy answers to realize more legitimate, just and effective global governance. But rising cosmopolitan voices call for strengthening multilateral ethics of care, building solidarity across diversity, and cultivating global citizenship to navigate our common risks and responsibilities on a shared planet.
In conclusion, global governance remains messy, contentious and fluid – an ongoing series of experiments lacking hierarchical authority or overarching design. But the expanding grid of institutions, regimes, partnerships, and networks reveals an incremental process of building wider interests and rules spanning the planet. What principles and values should guide this global polity and its accountability to both states and citizens remains deeply contested. Efforts to democratize globalization confront contradictions between capital mobility, state sovereignty, and citizen representation across borders. But the core challenge ahead is constructing new social contracts and mutual responsibilities at global scale for an increasingly interdependent world.
Abbott, K.W. & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421-456.
Avant, D.D., Finnemore, M. & Sell, S.K. (2010). Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in Global Governance. Cambridge University Press.
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene. MIT Press.
Cabrera, L. (2010). Political Theory of Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Case for the World State. Routledge.
Chernobrov, D. (2016). Ontology of the International? Competing Approaches to the Global Governance of the Internet. Globalizations, 13(3), 290-304.
Cooper, A.F. (2010). The G20 as an Improvised Crisis Committee and/or a Contested ‘Steering Committee’ for the World. International Affairs, 86(3), 741–757.
Cox, R.W. (1996). Approaches to World Order. Cambridge University Press.
DeNardis, L. (2014). The Global War for Internet Governance. Yale University Press.
Eichengreen, B. (2016). Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Uses-and Misuses-of History. Oxford University Press.
Fawcett, L. (2005). Regionalism from an Historical Perspective. In M. Farrell, B. Hettne & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Global Politics of Regionalism. Pluto Press.
Fidler, D. (2010). The Challenges of Global Health Governance. Council on Foreign Relations.
Finkelstein, L.S. (1995). What is Global Governance? Global Governance, 1(3), 367-372.
Hale, T., Held, D. & Young, K. (2013). Gridlock: Why Global Cooperation is Failing When We Need It Most. Polity.
Hansen, R., Koehler, J. & Money, J. (2016). Migration, Nation States, and International Cooperation. Routledge.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order. Stanford University Press.
Held, D. & McGrew, A. (2002). Governing Globalization: Power, Authority, and Global Governance. Polity.
Karns, M.P. & Mingst, K.A. (2010). International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Keohane, R.O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
Kleinberg, K.B. & Fordham, B.O. (2018). Don’t Know Much about Foreign Policy: Assessing the Impact of “Don’t Know” and “No Opinion” Respondents on Public Opinion Polls. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 429–445.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994/95). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
Raymond, M. & Smith, G. (2013). Reimagining the Internet: The Need for a High-Level Strategic Vision for Internet Governance. Chatham House Report.
Rosenau, J.N. (1995). Governance in the Twenty-first Century. Global Governance, 1(1), 13-43.
Subacchi, P. (2017). The G20 is Evolving into a New System of Global Governance. Italian Institute for International Political Studies.
Weiss, T.G. & Wilkinson, R. (2014). International Organization and Global Governance. Routledge.
Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing International Politics. International Security, 20(1), 71-81.
Zürn, M. (2018). Contested Global Governance. Global Policy, 9(1), 138-143.