Published September 21, 2025
The UN Charter is based on the principle of superb equality between all Member States. In practice, however, this ideal has been compromised. The current remains concentrated in a few hands, with the strongest nations that bend the system to their will – and by their whims – giving rise to ensilateralism, hegemonic ambitions and a retreat to economic protectionism. These violations not only threaten global peace and stability, but also undermine the credibility and authority of international institutions created to maintain collective governance.
There is a growing realization that the existing structure-large-scale seen by Western centrical frames has become ineffective and odd. Before our eyes, the system has failed to prevent regional conflicts, deliver inclusive economic growth, or confront the defining collective challenge of our time – climate change, an existential threat to both the global south and the north.
This wider failure is mirrored in recent events that have put the shortcomings of global governance. Israel’s unilateral military actions – especially its ongoing “genocide” in Gaza and its strikes in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Qatar – show its obvious ignoring international law and systems set up to prevent such violations. Yet, even in the light of arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court, the international system has not failed to hold Israeli leaders responsible for what a UN investigation commission has described as “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in Gaza. Instead, Tel Aviv has been shielded by layers of political and military support from both the United States and its Western allies.
The war in Ukraine gives another sharp example. The United States and its partners have weapons the international financial system to punish Russia and force states that refuse to adapt to their attitude towards the conflict. Such selective enforcement shows how Western powers are utilizing global institutions to serve narrow geopolitical interests.
The biggest battle for global governance may come from the United States itself – the original architect of the system. The Trump administration has ignited a trade war by unilateral introduction of sweeping tariffs for trading partners in violation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. Not only the weakened Trump further multilateral institutions by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO), which undermines international efforts to tackle critical environmental and public health challenges.
In the midst of this new wave of unilateralism, the international institutions are fighting after 2 World War II to prevent wars, stimulate economic development and maintain the rule of law to fulfill their basic mandates. The United Nations and its multilateral structure faces a legitimacy crisis born out of the under -representation of the global South, the erosion of international norms and the shining failures of climate change, pandemics, AI and outer space control.
Such deficiencies make systemic reform not only desirable, but inevitable. And the first pressure of such reforms was presented by China’s President Xi Jinping at the recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Tianjin. He suggested the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) -A comprehensive, human-centered and action-oriented framework aimed at promoting a more just, inclusive and democratic international order. Rooted in President Xi’s vision of a “society with a shared future for humanity” is GGI based on five core concepts: sovereign equality, the rule of law, multilateralism, human-centered governance and tangible action.
Let’s break it down.
First, sovereign equality. Each state, regardless of its size, strength or wealth, deserves equal respect, voice and participation in global decision making. Although the UN-Charter occurs the same principle, the powerful nations and blocks continue to monopolize decision making. Thus, GGI’s emphasis on equality resonates strongly with the global south and offers a transformative vision of justice and inclusion in worldwide.
Secondly, universal rule of law. In order for governance to be credible, international law must be applied equally and consistently. However, a selective application of the law of the West has eroded the credibility of global institutions such as the UN Security Council, where the West has enormous structural benefits. GGI challenges such double standards and selective enforcement that calls for great forces to lead an example.
Third, real multilateralism. GGI claims that complex global challenges cannot be solved through ensilateralism or exclusive blocks. This is in sharp contrast to the united states’ zero-sum mentality-pleasing caught by former US Secretary of State Antony Blink, who noticed at Munich’s Security Conference in 2024: “If you’re not at the table, you’ll probably be in the menu.”
In the GGI vision, “everyone at the table” is in global decision-making and none is “placed on the menu.” The initiative confirms that the UN will remain the central platform for multilateral cooperation, while other institutions are encouraged to supplement its role. Unlike exclusionary alliances and unilateral actions, GGI depicts a more democratic, inclusive and effective multilateral system.
Fourth a folk -centered approach. GGI places human well -being at the core of governance. Whether they address global challenges, including climate change, poverty, health or digital dividing lines, the initiative emphasizes that institutions should remain associated with the needs and hopes of ordinary people. A management system detached from the people it seeks to earn risks of losing one’s legitimacy. This perspective contrasts directly with the trend of Western leaders, marked by Trump’s “America First” method, to prioritize narrow national interests over global cooperation.
Fifth, tangible results. Abstract ideals and high statements are not enough. Management must produce real, coordinated and sustainable actions to tackle both urgent problems and long -term challenges. It claims that developed nations should shoulders their responsibilities by providing more public goods, while developing countries must cooperate to improve their collective capacity.
GGI is not an isolated initiative. It weaves into the wider framework defined by President XI, with the aim of tackling the many dimensions of global challenges. This framework also includes the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Global Development Initiative (GDI), Global Security Initiative (GSI) and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). Each focuses on another dimension: bri on infrastructure and connection; GDI on Development and the UN 2030 agenda; GSI about peace and security; and GCI on intercultural dialogue, with GGI, which serves as the overall framework for reforming government principles and institutions.
Some Western commentators may reject it as a “theoretical proposal”, but China’s Track Record suggests otherwise. China has consistently translated its global government view into concrete action. From the eradication of poverty and technological development at home to south-south collaboration abroad, Beijing has shown that it can translate vision into practice.
That said, GGI does not seek to regret the existing international system, but rather to reform it, making it more inclusive, credible and responsive to the realities of an increasingly polarized, unlike and chaotic world. If anything, GGI presents a compelling alternative to the dominance of unilateralism and double standards that have undermined confidence in global institutions. Unlike symbolic obligations that often fall short, GGI emphasizes practical action and shared responsibility, especially between developed and developing countries.
While GGI may interfere with the Western concept of a “rules-based” order or what is left of it-has Peking’s plan still lifted to deliver a fairer system. President Xi’s vision of a “society with a common future for humanity” can hardly prove a greater disappointment than reality that takes place for us today: A global system is tilting more and more in favor of the powerful, rising inequalities and leaving the world more shared than ever.
