he current pandemic and climate change have both exposed the inabilities of the global governance system to address such calamities, and further highlight the importance of multilateralism in dealing with global challenges as well as the need to reform the global governance system.
A recent report by The Economist argued that “international order” does not last forever: the Congress of Vienna, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations all collapsed within a number of decades. The United Nations (UN), born out of the aftermath of a global economic depression and World War II is now 75 years old.
As devastating as the COVID-19 pandemic has been around the world, it is unfortunately but a symptom of a failed global governance system that should have been able to identify, contain, and mitigate such a global development. On the other hand, climate change which is caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is very much like a cancer that has been growing for a century and could lead to the extinction of the human race if it’s not addressed seriously and immediately.
Our current global governance system has undoubtedly failed us. However, the answer is not to turn our backs to multilateralism and retreat to an “America First” attitude. We need to find ways, through multilateralism and shared action to make the UN more capable in dealing with our global challenges, like a pandemic, and especially climate change.
Sovereign Equality
The UN is based on the current international legal system that places paramount importance on national sovereignty. All nations are sovereign within their territory (from any external interference) and all nations are equal irrespective of size, power, or population (from 1.4 billion people China to 11 thousand people Tuvalu). To put it simply, international decision (law) cannot be imposed upon a nation without its consent, and therefore international agreements need unanimity to come to life. A sovereign nation must consent to the application of international law within its jurisdiction.
Therefore, the reason why our global governance system is ineffective in dealing with international challenges which transcend national boundaries (like a pandemic or climate change), or the ability of just a few nations to address…is the need for consensus and unanimity.
Even the UN, which with its universal membership and the closest thing we have to a global government, is unable to act without consensus and unanimity. In particular, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) can only issue “non-binding recommendations,” when 2/3 of members approve. Only the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC) can make decisions that are legally binding on all UN member states, by simple majority voting… and the consent of all permanent members (thus giving veto power to the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France).
On the other hand, the UN has prioritized over the past 75 years (understandably) humanitarian disasters; genocides, poverty/hunger, civil wars, natural disasters, etc. Often, such matters were contained within a few nation states (with the exception of HIV-Aids). Now we face the kind of challenges that by definition transcend nation-states: a pandemic that due to our interconnected global economy spread from one country to the whole world in a matter of months, and rising global temperatures caused by GHG emissions generated by the ever-growing production and consumption of our global economy.
Can the UN continue with “business as usual,” or do these recent developments dictate a drastic shift in its role and function? Is there still a role for the UN, in a post COVID-19 world, where global GHG emissions are still rising? From the U.S. perspective, the answer can certainly not be a retreat to “fortress America” and the abandonment of multilateralism. Such global challenges have an almost inevitable way of impacting our domestic tranquility.
Paradigm Shifting Moment
It is time for the UN to re-align its priorities and focus more on the kind of things that are truly global, that can spread from one country to the next, and that impact the whole world equally and indiscriminately. This might require that primary focus is given to Climate Change, Public Health, and Natural Disasters, but also policing the World Wide Web (access to and availability of information for an otherwise free and open internet), Outer Space, the Oceans, and the Polar Caps.
Overall, the post COVID-19 UN needs to prioritize the protection and stewardship of the global commons, which belongs to all people and not national governments. National sovereignty cannot be an impediment to a new global governance system focused on the protection of the global commons, and in particular the environment (climate, air, water, space). In the face of global pandemics and rising temperatures, “unanimity in decision making” (in the name of national sovereignty) is no longer functional.
Therefore, a new global governance system that makes decisions on the basis of “enhanced majority” might be needed to overcome the challenges of the 21st century.
The European Union (EU), in its need to get past unanimity in its decision-making process, adopted a system of qualified (or double) majority. Under this approach, decisions require the support of 55% of member states, which must also represent 65% of the population. This system can be further enhanced to form a new decision-making model for the UN, that bypasses the requirement of unanimity. UN decisions could be based on a 2/3 majority of the member states, capturing such a majority in 2/3 of the main categories: number of members, population, and depending on the issue either GDP (for public health issues), GHG emissions (for climate change issues), and trade (imports/exports for economic development issues).
For example, in a UN of 193 members, a working majority would be 129 countries, representing 5.1 billion people (out of a total of 7.7 billion), account for $58 trillion in GDP (out of a total of $87 trillion), and emitting 67% of all GHG. Just for comparison, the OECD (the ultimate rich nation club—give or take a few countries) which accounts for $53 trillion of global GDP and 34.7% of global GHG emission, only has 37-member states, representing only 1.3 billion people. Similarly, the top 25 countries by wealth (which includes the G-20), account for $70.9 trillion of global GDP, and 76% of total global GHG emission, and even represent 4.69 billion people…would only represent 25 countries.
Of course, there is no guarantee that a global governance system based on a 2/3 majority of any combination will be more functional, but it should have a better chance of responding to global developments then the current system of unanimity and sovereign equality.
Amending the UN Charter
Which brings us back to the current UN decision-making system, which was adopted after the devastating effects of World War II, and which was underpinned by the new emerging global super-powers (the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China) and with an eye on the impending collapse of the British and French colonial empires. According the UN Charter (Art. 18), each member state has one (equal) vote in the General Assembly (because post-colonialism independent states have equal power as past colonial empires), which however can only issue non-binding “recommendations” (because of the need to respect national sovereignty) to the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, has the power to issue decisions that are legally binding on all UN member states, but it also has five permanent members (the old and new post WWII superpowers) that can veto any such decision. Obviously, the UN Security Council is the closest thing we have to a global government, with the power to overcome national sovereignty. However, the UN Security Council has also been the most ineffective in dealing with either climate change or the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Reforming the UN Security Council has been a constant topic of discussion, within the UN and by external experts. The current permanent membership of the U.S., China, Russia, UK, and France, no longer represent the reality of the world we live in. Although obviously the U.S., China, and Russia can maintain some legitimate reasons for being considered the top global superpowers (due to economic or military might), the UK and France cannot. There have been many proposals to reform the UN Security Council, most of which include some kind of variation of adding more permanent members of higher wealth (like Japan and Germany) or of regional representation (Brazil and South Africa).
The most meaningful UN Security Council reform however, would be to remove the UK and France and replace them with the EU (second largest market in the world) and India (second most populous nation in the world). If the U.S., China, Russia, India, and the EU were the five permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council, they would constitute 48% of the worlds population, 67% of global GDP, and 63% of global GHG emission.
Unfortunately, any effort to reform the UN, will require amending the UN Charter. Whether the goal is to empower the General Assembly to make binding decisions through an EU-style qualified majority system, or to change the membership of the UN Security Council to achieve greater global representation, amending the UN charter will require the consent of the current permanent (veto-wielding) UN Security Council members. (Amendments to the UN Charter require 2/3 majority of the General Assembly, plus Security Council approval.) The chances of any of the current permanent five giving up any power to the General Assembly or to other member states are slim to none.
One example of bypassing the UN Security Council is through the use of UN General Assembly resolution 377A (V) (the Uniting for Peace resolution), which was passed on November 3rd, 1950, to deal with the Korean War. According to that resolution, if the Security Council cannot or will not act to fulfill its primary obligation (maintain peace and security) due to lack of unanimity, then the General Assembly shall consider and direct other UN members to act appropriately. The most recent case by the International Court of Justice that addressed this issue was issued in 2004, where the ICJ opined that: “Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States.” Of course, this “Emergency Special Session” can only be used for “peace and security” issues, and a new “Uniting for the Platen” resolution might have to be adapted.
Reviving the UN Trusteeship Council
Even a more modest effort to elevate the issue of climate change within the UN hierarchy will require amending the UN Charter, which will make it subject to the approval the permanent five. For example, the UN has officially six principal organs: The General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council, and the Trusteeship Council. The first four are very much standard in function, while the Economic and Social Council is the one with a specific subject matter (recognizing the importance of dealing with economic and social issues post-WWII). The Trusteeship Council was set up to administer trust territories (former dependent territories from colonial times) and guide them towards self-government or independence.
The UN Trusteeship Council ceased its operations in 1994, when the last of the trust territories (Palau) gained its independence. The UN Charter section on the Trusteeship Council makes reference to the promotion of “the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories” (Art. 76), and that the trusteeship system shall not apply to member states of the UN. The focus therefore, is on people, while respecting member state sovereignty. However, an argument can be made that climate change could inevitably impact not only the life of people but also the very sovereignty of several UN members states: especially certain island nations.
We could wait until then to deal with a whole new host of trust territories (or people without a country) that will need to be administered by the UN. Or, we can re-purpose the Trusteeship Council with a new mandate: to protect and safeguard the sea, the air, the environment (in essence the global commons)—the parts of our planet that are under threat by climate change, that do not belong to any one sovereign nation. This, of course, cannot be done unless and until we amend the UN Charter.
The U.S. Presidential Election
The COVID-19 pandemic and climate change crisis require a response that our current system of governance is not able to offer. Maybe reforming the decision-making process of the UN is a “pie in the sky” unrealistic solution. But the answer is certainly not the nationalism of the Trump administration, which withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization.
Until we can find a way to reform the UN Security Council and amend the UN Charter, we will have to rely on the unilateral action and leadership of like-minded nations; the kind of global leadership that Joe Biden is promising to reestablish if he wins the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election. Not only do we need the U.S. to engage more with the world in a multilateral way, but until we can reform the UN we also need the U.S. to lead the world again, in order to overcome our current challenges.
a global affairs media network
Global Governance Reform in a Post-COVID-19 World
September 25, 2020
T
he current pandemic and climate change have both exposed the inabilities of the global governance system to address such calamities, and further highlight the importance of multilateralism in dealing with global challenges as well as the need to reform the global governance system.
A recent report by The Economist argued that “international order” does not last forever: the Congress of Vienna, the Treaty of Versailles, and the League of Nations all collapsed within a number of decades. The United Nations (UN), born out of the aftermath of a global economic depression and World War II is now 75 years old.
As devastating as the COVID-19 pandemic has been around the world, it is unfortunately but a symptom of a failed global governance system that should have been able to identify, contain, and mitigate such a global development. On the other hand, climate change which is caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is very much like a cancer that has been growing for a century and could lead to the extinction of the human race if it’s not addressed seriously and immediately.
Our current global governance system has undoubtedly failed us. However, the answer is not to turn our backs to multilateralism and retreat to an “America First” attitude. We need to find ways, through multilateralism and shared action to make the UN more capable in dealing with our global challenges, like a pandemic, and especially climate change.
Sovereign Equality
The UN is based on the current international legal system that places paramount importance on national sovereignty. All nations are sovereign within their territory (from any external interference) and all nations are equal irrespective of size, power, or population (from 1.4 billion people China to 11 thousand people Tuvalu). To put it simply, international decision (law) cannot be imposed upon a nation without its consent, and therefore international agreements need unanimity to come to life. A sovereign nation must consent to the application of international law within its jurisdiction.
Therefore, the reason why our global governance system is ineffective in dealing with international challenges which transcend national boundaries (like a pandemic or climate change), or the ability of just a few nations to address…is the need for consensus and unanimity.
Even the UN, which with its universal membership and the closest thing we have to a global government, is unable to act without consensus and unanimity. In particular, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) can only issue “non-binding recommendations,” when 2/3 of members approve. Only the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC) can make decisions that are legally binding on all UN member states, by simple majority voting… and the consent of all permanent members (thus giving veto power to the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France).
On the other hand, the UN has prioritized over the past 75 years (understandably) humanitarian disasters; genocides, poverty/hunger, civil wars, natural disasters, etc. Often, such matters were contained within a few nation states (with the exception of HIV-Aids). Now we face the kind of challenges that by definition transcend nation-states: a pandemic that due to our interconnected global economy spread from one country to the whole world in a matter of months, and rising global temperatures caused by GHG emissions generated by the ever-growing production and consumption of our global economy.
Can the UN continue with “business as usual,” or do these recent developments dictate a drastic shift in its role and function? Is there still a role for the UN, in a post COVID-19 world, where global GHG emissions are still rising? From the U.S. perspective, the answer can certainly not be a retreat to “fortress America” and the abandonment of multilateralism. Such global challenges have an almost inevitable way of impacting our domestic tranquility.
Paradigm Shifting Moment
It is time for the UN to re-align its priorities and focus more on the kind of things that are truly global, that can spread from one country to the next, and that impact the whole world equally and indiscriminately. This might require that primary focus is given to Climate Change, Public Health, and Natural Disasters, but also policing the World Wide Web (access to and availability of information for an otherwise free and open internet), Outer Space, the Oceans, and the Polar Caps.
Overall, the post COVID-19 UN needs to prioritize the protection and stewardship of the global commons, which belongs to all people and not national governments. National sovereignty cannot be an impediment to a new global governance system focused on the protection of the global commons, and in particular the environment (climate, air, water, space). In the face of global pandemics and rising temperatures, “unanimity in decision making” (in the name of national sovereignty) is no longer functional.
Therefore, a new global governance system that makes decisions on the basis of “enhanced majority” might be needed to overcome the challenges of the 21st century.
The European Union (EU), in its need to get past unanimity in its decision-making process, adopted a system of qualified (or double) majority. Under this approach, decisions require the support of 55% of member states, which must also represent 65% of the population. This system can be further enhanced to form a new decision-making model for the UN, that bypasses the requirement of unanimity. UN decisions could be based on a 2/3 majority of the member states, capturing such a majority in 2/3 of the main categories: number of members, population, and depending on the issue either GDP (for public health issues), GHG emissions (for climate change issues), and trade (imports/exports for economic development issues).
For example, in a UN of 193 members, a working majority would be 129 countries, representing 5.1 billion people (out of a total of 7.7 billion), account for $58 trillion in GDP (out of a total of $87 trillion), and emitting 67% of all GHG. Just for comparison, the OECD (the ultimate rich nation club—give or take a few countries) which accounts for $53 trillion of global GDP and 34.7% of global GHG emission, only has 37-member states, representing only 1.3 billion people. Similarly, the top 25 countries by wealth (which includes the G-20), account for $70.9 trillion of global GDP, and 76% of total global GHG emission, and even represent 4.69 billion people…would only represent 25 countries.
Of course, there is no guarantee that a global governance system based on a 2/3 majority of any combination will be more functional, but it should have a better chance of responding to global developments then the current system of unanimity and sovereign equality.
Amending the UN Charter
Which brings us back to the current UN decision-making system, which was adopted after the devastating effects of World War II, and which was underpinned by the new emerging global super-powers (the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China) and with an eye on the impending collapse of the British and French colonial empires. According the UN Charter (Art. 18), each member state has one (equal) vote in the General Assembly (because post-colonialism independent states have equal power as past colonial empires), which however can only issue non-binding “recommendations” (because of the need to respect national sovereignty) to the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, has the power to issue decisions that are legally binding on all UN member states, but it also has five permanent members (the old and new post WWII superpowers) that can veto any such decision. Obviously, the UN Security Council is the closest thing we have to a global government, with the power to overcome national sovereignty. However, the UN Security Council has also been the most ineffective in dealing with either climate change or the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Reforming the UN Security Council has been a constant topic of discussion, within the UN and by external experts. The current permanent membership of the U.S., China, Russia, UK, and France, no longer represent the reality of the world we live in. Although obviously the U.S., China, and Russia can maintain some legitimate reasons for being considered the top global superpowers (due to economic or military might), the UK and France cannot. There have been many proposals to reform the UN Security Council, most of which include some kind of variation of adding more permanent members of higher wealth (like Japan and Germany) or of regional representation (Brazil and South Africa).
The most meaningful UN Security Council reform however, would be to remove the UK and France and replace them with the EU (second largest market in the world) and India (second most populous nation in the world). If the U.S., China, Russia, India, and the EU were the five permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council, they would constitute 48% of the worlds population, 67% of global GDP, and 63% of global GHG emission.
Unfortunately, any effort to reform the UN, will require amending the UN Charter. Whether the goal is to empower the General Assembly to make binding decisions through an EU-style qualified majority system, or to change the membership of the UN Security Council to achieve greater global representation, amending the UN charter will require the consent of the current permanent (veto-wielding) UN Security Council members. (Amendments to the UN Charter require 2/3 majority of the General Assembly, plus Security Council approval.) The chances of any of the current permanent five giving up any power to the General Assembly or to other member states are slim to none.
One example of bypassing the UN Security Council is through the use of UN General Assembly resolution 377A (V) (the Uniting for Peace resolution), which was passed on November 3rd, 1950, to deal with the Korean War. According to that resolution, if the Security Council cannot or will not act to fulfill its primary obligation (maintain peace and security) due to lack of unanimity, then the General Assembly shall consider and direct other UN members to act appropriately. The most recent case by the International Court of Justice that addressed this issue was issued in 2004, where the ICJ opined that: “Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States.” Of course, this “Emergency Special Session” can only be used for “peace and security” issues, and a new “Uniting for the Platen” resolution might have to be adapted.
Reviving the UN Trusteeship Council
Even a more modest effort to elevate the issue of climate change within the UN hierarchy will require amending the UN Charter, which will make it subject to the approval the permanent five. For example, the UN has officially six principal organs: The General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council, and the Trusteeship Council. The first four are very much standard in function, while the Economic and Social Council is the one with a specific subject matter (recognizing the importance of dealing with economic and social issues post-WWII). The Trusteeship Council was set up to administer trust territories (former dependent territories from colonial times) and guide them towards self-government or independence.
The UN Trusteeship Council ceased its operations in 1994, when the last of the trust territories (Palau) gained its independence. The UN Charter section on the Trusteeship Council makes reference to the promotion of “the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories” (Art. 76), and that the trusteeship system shall not apply to member states of the UN. The focus therefore, is on people, while respecting member state sovereignty. However, an argument can be made that climate change could inevitably impact not only the life of people but also the very sovereignty of several UN members states: especially certain island nations.
We could wait until then to deal with a whole new host of trust territories (or people without a country) that will need to be administered by the UN. Or, we can re-purpose the Trusteeship Council with a new mandate: to protect and safeguard the sea, the air, the environment (in essence the global commons)—the parts of our planet that are under threat by climate change, that do not belong to any one sovereign nation. This, of course, cannot be done unless and until we amend the UN Charter.
The U.S. Presidential Election
The COVID-19 pandemic and climate change crisis require a response that our current system of governance is not able to offer. Maybe reforming the decision-making process of the UN is a “pie in the sky” unrealistic solution. But the answer is certainly not the nationalism of the Trump administration, which withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization.
Until we can find a way to reform the UN Security Council and amend the UN Charter, we will have to rely on the unilateral action and leadership of like-minded nations; the kind of global leadership that Joe Biden is promising to reestablish if he wins the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election. Not only do we need the U.S. to engage more with the world in a multilateral way, but until we can reform the UN we also need the U.S. to lead the world again, in order to overcome our current challenges.
