or nearly a century—from NATO and the Bretton Woods institutions to the political dominant consortia of the G7 and G20—international governance has largely been the domain of governments. Newly emergent global realities are challenging these traditional power dynamics, which were defined by geoeconomics and geopolitics. The defining features of those eras have been joined by a new, arguably more powerful vector: geo–technology. Advancements in technology infrastructure driven by global companies have upended commerce and the flow of labor and capital—and are influencing government oversight and sovereign power.
Increasingly, technological innovation by and among private sector actors are enabling governments to deliver services domestically and driving partnerships internationally. Those same innovations are also being exploited to create new threats which require new governance solutions. Here are several examples:
Facebook allegedly enabled atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar, as its algorithms encouraged the spread of anti–Rohingya rhetoric—an issue Amnesty International said Meta was aware of. With the spread of mis– and disinformation at an all–time high, we need new governance solutions to protect vulnerable groups. Other social media platforms are enabling anti–Muslim atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar faster than security forces have been able to move to protect them.
Satellites supplied by Starlink have been a boon for Ukraine in its defense against Russia, relaying information to strategic spaces more rapidly than government–controlled assets have been able. Yet this illustrates how much governments can come to rely on private companies—and thus private individuals—for national security, long the domain of governments alone.
The U.S. dollar’s continued status as the global reserve currency and baseline for global swaps, commodities, and corporate debt transactions is being supported and extended by digital asset service providers and the growth and use of tokenized value. With this growth, private stablecoin companies have become the 16th largest holder of U.S. treasuries. This relationship is concerning, given that digital assets in general are creating macro–economic stability concerns that cannot be addressed with the usual policy and market tools. While real time payments and liquidity efficiencies present positive financial market infrastructure upgrades, new vulnerabilities emerge in tandem.
These examples illustrate various ways technological innovation is directly impacting geopolitical and geoeconomic activities. The growth of AI is further expediting innovative solutions while creating new vulnerabilities.
This situation requires entirely new governance structures. In some ways, those structures are already evolving.
The private sector is increasingly working to drive governance solutions where governments have failed or been slow to date. Some global companies in alternative energy security are teaming up with governments to address the consumer and financial impacts of climate change absent global convergence on common standards. Core competencies in data science and web–innovation are increasingly being made open source, democratizing innovation across the globe. Small businesses are increasingly engaging global talent where labor movement has been traditionally constrained. Global standard setters across these spaces are creating common protocols for data sharing and interoperability between cloud and future iterations of the web. Governments are being forced to respond more robustly through direct engagement with, investment in, and support of companies reckoned to be vital to national interests.
But a significant challenge remains—aligning incentives. Our collective adoption of economic success as a bellwether for progress has enabled and emboldened the billionaire class. Their ability to extend power beyond markets to political influence is resulting in greater disparity, disenfranchisement, and exploitation of the world’s most vulnerable. Ultimately, the biggest threat to global governance will remain a human challenge, one that requires us to reorient markers of progress from the highest success of the few, the collective success of the many.
a global affairs media network
Global governance in the geo–technology era
Image by Joshua Woroniecki from Pixabay
July 17, 2025
The governance of yesterday was defined primarily by geoeconomics and geopolitics, but in the future of governance this binary will become a triad with the introduction of geo–technology, writes Amit Sharma.
F
or nearly a century—from NATO and the Bretton Woods institutions to the political dominant consortia of the G7 and G20—international governance has largely been the domain of governments. Newly emergent global realities are challenging these traditional power dynamics, which were defined by geoeconomics and geopolitics. The defining features of those eras have been joined by a new, arguably more powerful vector: geo–technology. Advancements in technology infrastructure driven by global companies have upended commerce and the flow of labor and capital—and are influencing government oversight and sovereign power.
Increasingly, technological innovation by and among private sector actors are enabling governments to deliver services domestically and driving partnerships internationally. Those same innovations are also being exploited to create new threats which require new governance solutions. Here are several examples:
Facebook allegedly enabled atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar, as its algorithms encouraged the spread of anti–Rohingya rhetoric—an issue Amnesty International said Meta was aware of. With the spread of mis– and disinformation at an all–time high, we need new governance solutions to protect vulnerable groups. Other social media platforms are enabling anti–Muslim atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar faster than security forces have been able to move to protect them.
Satellites supplied by Starlink have been a boon for Ukraine in its defense against Russia, relaying information to strategic spaces more rapidly than government–controlled assets have been able. Yet this illustrates how much governments can come to rely on private companies—and thus private individuals—for national security, long the domain of governments alone.
The U.S. dollar’s continued status as the global reserve currency and baseline for global swaps, commodities, and corporate debt transactions is being supported and extended by digital asset service providers and the growth and use of tokenized value. With this growth, private stablecoin companies have become the 16th largest holder of U.S. treasuries. This relationship is concerning, given that digital assets in general are creating macro–economic stability concerns that cannot be addressed with the usual policy and market tools. While real time payments and liquidity efficiencies present positive financial market infrastructure upgrades, new vulnerabilities emerge in tandem.
These examples illustrate various ways technological innovation is directly impacting geopolitical and geoeconomic activities. The growth of AI is further expediting innovative solutions while creating new vulnerabilities.
This situation requires entirely new governance structures. In some ways, those structures are already evolving.
The private sector is increasingly working to drive governance solutions where governments have failed or been slow to date. Some global companies in alternative energy security are teaming up with governments to address the consumer and financial impacts of climate change absent global convergence on common standards. Core competencies in data science and web–innovation are increasingly being made open source, democratizing innovation across the globe. Small businesses are increasingly engaging global talent where labor movement has been traditionally constrained. Global standard setters across these spaces are creating common protocols for data sharing and interoperability between cloud and future iterations of the web. Governments are being forced to respond more robustly through direct engagement with, investment in, and support of companies reckoned to be vital to national interests.
But a significant challenge remains—aligning incentives. Our collective adoption of economic success as a bellwether for progress has enabled and emboldened the billionaire class. Their ability to extend power beyond markets to political influence is resulting in greater disparity, disenfranchisement, and exploitation of the world’s most vulnerable. Ultimately, the biggest threat to global governance will remain a human challenge, one that requires us to reorient markers of progress from the highest success of the few, the collective success of the many.
