s global governance evolves, it will demonstrate a mixed record! In some ways, the future of governance will be more inclusive, including stakeholders who were previously excluded. In other ways, global governance will embrace exclusion amid shifting international norms and power dynamics. Here are five ways global governance is evolving and what they mean for our future.
Non–state identity groups getting a seat at the table. The international community is increasingly recognizing the importance of including Indigenous groups and non–member state observers. Local Indigenous groups collaborating with nations and institutions in the Arctic Circle is one of the latest examples. The Arctic States are taking more projects with the local Indigenous population. The Arctic Circle's commitment to working more closely with Indigenous populations on combating climate change, science and research, and cultural projects. Non–member observer states are also engaged in similar projects in the Arctic.
The inclusion of health practitioners will remain a priority. Covid transformed the international community’s approach to tackling future pandemics. Health practitioners are increasingly included in more multilateral forums. Additionally, the PRC’s leadership in global health is contributing to this inclusiveness at multilateral entities, as Beijing continues to prioritize health cooperation. Through its Health Silk Road initiative, the PRC is actively engaged in vaccine diplomacy and has promoted its own health–related technologies.
Global governance alternatives gain momentum. The rise of the non–Western bloc involves primarily but not only states from the Global South and specifically excludes Western countries. BRICS is the current most clear example with its recent expansion of membership and non–member partner countries and increased attention being made to its evolving approach to cooperation. These emerging blocs are increasingly willing to address critical global issues without Western intervention—and often advocate for creating an entirely new institutional ecosystem as alternatives to the Breton Woods institutions.
Strategic competition fuels further exclusion. The era of strategic competition means less governance cooperation among competitors. For instance China and Russia, as near–peer competitors to the U.S., were excluded from negotiations with critical regional security implications—such as AUKUS and the Abraham Accords. Beyond peace and security matters, U.S. competitors are being excluded from some economic and technical partnerships, limiting opportunities for major governments to cooperate where their interests overlap.
Global pariahs getting institutional recognition. The international community is still committed to the norm of not including drug cartels, terrorist groups, and gang–affiliated organizations. However, some of these groups, the Taliban being the most noteworthy example today, have gained such power and influence that the international community is pressured to include them. The Taliban, despite being labeled a terrorist group, now controls Afghanistan effectively enough that the international community has to deal with in order to work with Afghanistan.
a global affairs media network
Future of global governance a mixed bag
An inuksuk in Arctic Canada, built by Inuit. Including Indigenous groups in the Arctic region in governance processes is one place where governance will become more inclusive in the future. Image by Louise Lavallée from Pixabay
July 29, 2025
Governance is evolving, with its current trajectory suggesting future governance will be more inclusive, but others shifting norms and power dynamics will create exclusionary currents, writes Asha Castleberry–Hernandez.
A
s global governance evolves, it will demonstrate a mixed record! In some ways, the future of governance will be more inclusive, including stakeholders who were previously excluded. In other ways, global governance will embrace exclusion amid shifting international norms and power dynamics. Here are five ways global governance is evolving and what they mean for our future.
Non–state identity groups getting a seat at the table. The international community is increasingly recognizing the importance of including Indigenous groups and non–member state observers. Local Indigenous groups collaborating with nations and institutions in the Arctic Circle is one of the latest examples. The Arctic States are taking more projects with the local Indigenous population. The Arctic Circle's commitment to working more closely with Indigenous populations on combating climate change, science and research, and cultural projects. Non–member observer states are also engaged in similar projects in the Arctic.
The inclusion of health practitioners will remain a priority. Covid transformed the international community’s approach to tackling future pandemics. Health practitioners are increasingly included in more multilateral forums. Additionally, the PRC’s leadership in global health is contributing to this inclusiveness at multilateral entities, as Beijing continues to prioritize health cooperation. Through its Health Silk Road initiative, the PRC is actively engaged in vaccine diplomacy and has promoted its own health–related technologies.
Global governance alternatives gain momentum. The rise of the non–Western bloc involves primarily but not only states from the Global South and specifically excludes Western countries. BRICS is the current most clear example with its recent expansion of membership and non–member partner countries and increased attention being made to its evolving approach to cooperation. These emerging blocs are increasingly willing to address critical global issues without Western intervention—and often advocate for creating an entirely new institutional ecosystem as alternatives to the Breton Woods institutions.
Strategic competition fuels further exclusion. The era of strategic competition means less governance cooperation among competitors. For instance China and Russia, as near–peer competitors to the U.S., were excluded from negotiations with critical regional security implications—such as AUKUS and the Abraham Accords. Beyond peace and security matters, U.S. competitors are being excluded from some economic and technical partnerships, limiting opportunities for major governments to cooperate where their interests overlap.
Global pariahs getting institutional recognition. The international community is still committed to the norm of not including drug cartels, terrorist groups, and gang–affiliated organizations. However, some of these groups, the Taliban being the most noteworthy example today, have gained such power and influence that the international community is pressured to include them. The Taliban, despite being labeled a terrorist group, now controls Afghanistan effectively enough that the international community has to deal with in order to work with Afghanistan.
