he Americas have a long history of promoting regional integration and cooperation. As far back as 1826, the Latin American liberator, Simón Bolívar, hosted the Congress of Panama to develop regional cooperative mechanisms. In 1889, the United States hosted the first Pan–American Conference which would lead to the development of the Pan–American Union and other regional institutions. And, as the world looked to create a new model for global governance through the United Nations, Latin American diplomats pushed for Chapter VIII of the UN Charter to promote regional integration. Today, there are over 40 regional organizations and other intergovernmental forums that are specific to the Western Hemisphere—ranging from broad based political bodies to specific functional groups and from trade promotion bodies to multilateral development banks. Further complicating this cornucopia of regional governance mechanisms are an abundance of regionalized civil society and business organizations as well as growing linkages between select regional governments and global entities—such as participation in the BRICS group.
Yet, collective governance and regulation in the Americas remains elusive. The challenge, though, is not too few organizations—but rather too many. Many of the different forums engage both public and private sector actors and have mechanisms for civil society engagement. However, they also have overlapping memberships and mandates. These overlaps threaten the effectiveness of existing institutions to address their mandates creating a situation of “contested multilateralism” in which countries are able to “forum shop.” This means that states, companies, and civil society groups can choose the body that they think best fits their interests rather than being forced to negotiate through complex processes.
These opportunities may seem like a win for collective governance, but it creates a problem in which different organizations have different norms and governance standards despite their shared memberships and mandates. It also creates opportunities for actors to shift debate between different forums in order to stall progress or restart negotiations. The problem is compounded by a common trend of creating more organizations or resurrecting zombie organizations when facing obstacles through existing frameworks.
Whether governing AI or combating climate change, regional and global challenges require collective responses. However, the oversaturation of regional governance bodies complicates cooperation rather than easing it. As nations, companies, and civil society seek to address these challenges they will need to understand the pitfalls of an overly crowded governance field and work to streamline processes rather than falling into the temptation of creating yet more channels that further dilute governance mechanisms.
a global affairs media network
The risks of abundance and fuzzy lines for regional governance
Pan–American Union Building in Washington, D.C. Photo courtesy of Wally Gobetz via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
July 15, 2025
The Americas have a long history of promoting regional integration and cooperation. Yet an overabundance of governance–facing institutions and overlapping mandates hampers collective governance and regulation in the region, writes Adam Ratzlaff.
T
he Americas have a long history of promoting regional integration and cooperation. As far back as 1826, the Latin American liberator, Simón Bolívar, hosted the Congress of Panama to develop regional cooperative mechanisms. In 1889, the United States hosted the first Pan–American Conference which would lead to the development of the Pan–American Union and other regional institutions. And, as the world looked to create a new model for global governance through the United Nations, Latin American diplomats pushed for Chapter VIII of the UN Charter to promote regional integration. Today, there are over 40 regional organizations and other intergovernmental forums that are specific to the Western Hemisphere—ranging from broad based political bodies to specific functional groups and from trade promotion bodies to multilateral development banks. Further complicating this cornucopia of regional governance mechanisms are an abundance of regionalized civil society and business organizations as well as growing linkages between select regional governments and global entities—such as participation in the BRICS group.
Yet, collective governance and regulation in the Americas remains elusive. The challenge, though, is not too few organizations—but rather too many. Many of the different forums engage both public and private sector actors and have mechanisms for civil society engagement. However, they also have overlapping memberships and mandates. These overlaps threaten the effectiveness of existing institutions to address their mandates creating a situation of “contested multilateralism” in which countries are able to “forum shop.” This means that states, companies, and civil society groups can choose the body that they think best fits their interests rather than being forced to negotiate through complex processes.
These opportunities may seem like a win for collective governance, but it creates a problem in which different organizations have different norms and governance standards despite their shared memberships and mandates. It also creates opportunities for actors to shift debate between different forums in order to stall progress or restart negotiations. The problem is compounded by a common trend of creating more organizations or resurrecting zombie organizations when facing obstacles through existing frameworks.
Whether governing AI or combating climate change, regional and global challenges require collective responses. However, the oversaturation of regional governance bodies complicates cooperation rather than easing it. As nations, companies, and civil society seek to address these challenges they will need to understand the pitfalls of an overly crowded governance field and work to streamline processes rather than falling into the temptation of creating yet more channels that further dilute governance mechanisms.
