The global system comprises sovereign states whose relationships determine several international factors, such as social, political, and economic stability. As a result, global governance has emerged as a critical yet highly disputed attribute of the global landscape due to its effectiveness in facilitating collaboration and peaceful co-existence. Liberal and constructivist theorists propose that global governance embarks on order and stability, while realists suggest it is a tool powerful countries use to pursue selfish needs. Nevertheless, judging by state behaviours, nations often consider the potential benefits and setbacks of cooperation and sometimes advocate for initiatives based on selfish interests.
The first proposition is relevant because global governance emerged due to nations’ ambitions to achieve higher levels of cooperation and international stability. For example, the aftermath of World War II necessitated the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and justified its powers in overseeing global security issues (Hooghe et al., 2019). As a result, the purpose of the UN is to maintain political order, prevent conflicts in the future, and encourage international collaboration. The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change justifies the need for global governance as dealing with the matter requires the contribution of global actors, cultural shifts, and significant investments (Sælen et al., 2020). Thus, global governance allows countries to collectively address issues that are otherwise impossible to handle individually.
Similarly, powerful states occasionally use global governance to yield initiatives to their preference and achieve selfish goals. For example, the UN’s decision to assign veto powers to its five permanent UN Security Council members is unfair because it allows them to opt out of their obligations whenever they see fit. Thus, they are inclined to agree with stipulations where they find benefits and disagree where initiatives are costly (Karns et al., 2015). Another example of states’ use of global governance as a means is the US decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement during President Triumph’s tenure. His administration suggested honouring the consensus would harm America’s economy (Sælen et al., 2020). This shows that powerful nations take advantage of global governance establishments to oversee their priorities.
Christianity does not hold a specific position on the permissibility of global governance because it does not associate with political ideologies. Christians can bear different opinions on the plausibility of the issue depending on what they believe about the government’s role and their interpretation of the scripture (Zhao et al., 2019). Regardless, the palatability of global governance is more likely to depend on particular cases, states’ commitment, and circumstances. Philippians 2:4 points out that God’s people should not focus on their personal needs but on others’ interests (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). Thus, global governance is necessary to ensure that powerful countries do not use their resources to harm others. Instead, nations should work together to sustain peace, provide for one another, and build a society that accommodates all individuals.
In conclusion, global governance is a prerequisite to peace and stability because nations can hardly avoid conflicts without limitations. However, the current international governance system is flawed because it allows powerful countries to engage in developments selectively. As a result, they use these platforms as tools to propel their initiatives. The Bible mentions in several verses that God put humans on earth so that they can take care of it and reap what it produces. Therefore, global governance is crucial in limiting the negative implications of states’ anarchy. Nevertheless, international players should re-design their stipulations to prevent powerful countries from taking advantage of others.
References
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Hooghe, L., Lenz, T., & Marks, G. (2019). Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance. The Review of International Organizations, 14(4), 731-743. Web.
Karns, M. P., Mingst, K. A., & Kendall W. S. (2015). International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. (3rd ed.) Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN: 9781626371514
Sælen, H., Hovi, J., Sprinz, D., & Underdal, A. (2020). How US withdrawal might influence cooperation under the Paris climate agreement. Environmental Science & Policy, 108, 121-132. Web.
Zhao, T., Zhao, & Crowley-Vigneau. (2019). Redefining a philosophy for world governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.