The question of whether global governance is possible is usually approached through very formal images such as institutions, treaties, and cooperation between states (Weiss, 2013). It almost immediately suggests a kind of centralized authority capable of organizing and regulating the international system. But the more one thinks about it, the more this image feels a bit restrictive.

Governance, especially at a global scale, may not depend entirely on visible or fully structured forms of control. Joseph Nye’s idea of soft power introduces something more difficult to grasp (Nye, 1990). Influence does not always impose itself directly. It can be quieter, less visible, shaping behaviour without coercion, sometimes without even being recognised as power. From major powers to smaller actors such as Taiwan, these forms of influence seem to organize interactions in subtle ways. Not quite governance in the traditional sense, but not entirely separate from it either.

This creates a slightly uncomfortable thought… What if global governance does not need to be constructed because it is already there, just not in the form we expect?

Structures of Governance

Perhaps the issue is not its absence, but our way of looking for it. In that sense, a fully centralized model may remain unlikely, yet more fragmented and partial forms of governance could already exist. Still, they do not function freely. They are constantly shaped, and limited, by sovereignty and by inequalities of power that are difficult to ignore. Additionally, global governance is often imagined as something structured, almost like a global state with the ability to enforce decisions everywhere. But this expectation quickly becomes unstable as governance does not necessarily require a single sovereign actor. It might emerge instead from a combination of institutions, norms, and interactions that are not always immediately visible.

In everyday life, traces of this appear almost without intention. One encounters international organisations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the International Monetary Fund, sometimes without really thinking about what they represent. They regulate, coordinate, advise. Yet they cannot fully enforce. They do not impose in the way a state would. Their authority depends on something far more fragile, the willingness of states to follow.

That alone complicates the definition of governance. If there is no real enforcement, is it still governance? Or is coordination enough?

Soft Power

Naturally, there are even less obvious forms. Soft power makes things more ambiguous. It feels strange to associate something as ordinary as a drink or a cultural image with political influence. At first, it almost sounds exaggerated. But then again, perception matters. The global popularity of Taiwanese bubble tea, for example, does more than circulate a product. It makes Taiwan visible, present, in a space where its political recognition is complex. In a different way, China’s panda diplomacy suggests how even symbolic gestures can shape relationships without direct pressure. Even cities such as Paris project an image that travels far beyond their borders, attracting admiration, tourism, and investment. These examples might seem minor, almost
anecdotal. But maybe that is precisely why they matter.

Governance does not always declare itself, it does not always appear as authority. Sometimes it exists through influence so subtle that it blends into everyday life. And once this is combined with economic interdependence, it becomes harder to ignore. Leading us to global supply chains connecting states and corporations so deeply that separation becomes nearly impossible. Taiwan’s role in semiconductor production, particularly through TSMC, is a good illustration. A single actor can influence entire industries and, indirectly, political decisions. At that point, the distinction between influence and governance becomes less clear.

Little by little, the idea of governance begins to shift. It is no longer confined to institutions as it appears in relationships, in dependencies, in interactions. States, corporations, societies, all participate in shaping the system. Governance may already exist, but not as a unified authority. More like a network, uneven, sometimes invisible, but real nonetheless. Evidently, It would be tempting to stop there and conclude that global governance already exists, and that the question is resolved. However, that would be too simple. What appears to function as governance is constantly limited, sometimes even contradicted, by deeper structures.

The Obvious and Less Obvious Limitations

State sovereignty remains one of the most obvious limits. Even in a highly interconnected world, states continue to prioritise their own interests and cooperation often remains conditional. This refers to unrespected signed agreements and withdrawn participation when it becomes inconvenient. This suggests that governance at the global level cannot override the basic logic of the international system, which is still built on independent states. At the same time, power is far from equally distributed. Institutions that present themselves as collective spaces often reflect existing hierarchies instead of reducing them. Stronger states shape decisions, influence rules, and guide outcomes. Weaker states, especially in the Global South, struggle to be heard.

This raises a question that is difficult to avoid. Can governance really be called global if it does not include all actors on equal terms?

There is also the problem of enforcement. Unlike domestic governance, global governance does not rely on a central authority/ institution capable of ensuring that rules are followed. International law exists, but its application is uncertain. It depends on voluntary compliance. In practice, this means that rules can be respected, ignored, or negotiated. Governance becomes less about obligation and more about balance, reputation, and interest. All of this gives the impression of a system that exists, but in an unstable form. Not entirely absent, but not fully established either. It operates somewhere in between, in a constant tension between cooperation and competition, between shared challenges and conflicting priorities.

So presumably the question itself needs to be reconsidered. If global governance cannot resemble a centralized authority, then asking whether it is possible in that form may not be the right approach. The more relevant question might be what form it is already taking, and what form it can realistically take.

What seems to emerge is not a single system, but a series of overlapping ones. In areas such as climate policy, agreements like the Paris Agreement show that coordination is possible without a global government (UNFCCC, 2015). States commit, not because they are forced to, but because they recognize a shared interest. Trade works in a similar way, through networks of agreements and institutions that operate across regions and sectors. There is no single authority, and yet there is still a form of order.

At the same time, governance is no longer limited to states. Corporations, non-governmental organisations, and especially digital platforms, play a growing role. They influence decisions, shape opinions, and act across borders in ways that states sometimes cannot. This makes governance harder to define, but plausibly also more adaptable. In this case, Alexis de Tocqueville could be mentioned as he warned our people about the stinging truth of conformity overpowering laws (Tocqueville, 1835). Therefore, norms also play a vast role. Ideas such as
human rights or environmental responsibility influence behaviour even without strict enforcement. States may comply not because they are forced to, but because they seek legitimacy, credibility, or stability within the international system.

Process, Rather than a Structure

In this sense, global governance begins to look less like a structured system and more like a process. Something that emerges rather than something that is imposed. Less visible, less stable, but not necessarily weaker. Hence, the question of whether global governance is possible cannot really be answered with a simple yes or no, it’s controversial. A fully compact system seems unlikely, limited by sovereignty and unequal distributions of power. Besides, governance, in another form already exists. It appears through institutions, through interdependence, through influence that is sometimes almost invisible. Potentially, the difficulty lies less in reality and more in our expectations. We continue to imagine governance as something that must resemble the state, structured, hierarchical, enforceable. But at the global level, it seems to take another shape. More diffuse, more uncertain, but still present.

References:

Nye, J. (1990) Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
Weiss, T.G. (2013) Global Governance: Why? What? Whither? Cambridge: Polity Press.
United Nations (2023) What is global governance? https://www.un.org (Accessed: 17 March 2026).
UNFCCC (2015) The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (Accessed: 17 March 2026).
Tocqueville, A. (1835) Democracy in America. Paris: Gosselin.
World Trade Organization (2023) Understanding the WTO. https://www.wto.org (Accessed: 17 March 2026).

Anita Murgulch
Latest posts by Anita Murgulch (see all)
Last updated on May 31, 2026