GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: POWER POLITICS TESTS GLOBAL RULES

Withdrawal undermines international organisations by shrinking their funding base. The WHO has been left scrambling because the USA provided around 15 per cent of its funding, although before leaving it withheld its 2024 and 2025 dues, already forcing the organisation to cut jobs.

The defunding of multilateralism extends beyond US withdrawal. The USA made headlines by dismantling USAID, the world’s biggest aid agency, but other major donors, including France, Germany and the UK, are slashing aid, including multilateral support, while increasing defence spending.

People gather outside the USAID headquarters in Washington, DC, USA on 3 February 2025 to protest against a directive suspending the agency’s core operations. Photo by Kent Nishimura/Reuters via Gallo Images

The UN’s 2026 core budget cuts spending by 15 per cent and staff numbers by around 19 per cent. The UN80 efficiency drive is reviewing potential merger of some mandates and exploring relocation of staff from expensive cities to cheaper ones. One proposed merger is between UN Women and the UN Population Fund, a move that would threaten gender equality and reproductive rights commitments precisely when they’re under attack.

US cuts hit hard because it’s the UN’s biggest funder, expected to provide 22 per cent of the regular budget. The USA also habitually pays late, along with many others. In 2025, arrears stood at record levels, with over US$1.8 billion of almost US$3.5 billion unpaid. The biggest powers account for the largest share of non-payment: the USA tops the list, with arrears worsening under Trump, followed by China and Russia. In February 2026, Secretary-General António Guterres warned that late payments left the UN at risk of ‘imminent financial collapse’.

Many crucial initiatives depend on voluntary rather than mandatory contributions, and shortfalls are leaving key humanitarian bodies struggling. Dependence gives states leverage, and as support becomes scarcer, they can dictate terms. In December, the USA pledged US$2 billion in humanitarian support but restricted it to 17 countries aligned with its priorities, excluding others with acute needs. It specified how funds should be spent and made support conditional on the UN making efficiency reforms that meet its expectations. This had little to do with humanitarian principles.

Human rights functions suffer most from deteriorating funding. Human rights is one of the UN’s three pillars, alongside peace and security and sustainable development, but receives only around five per cent of the regular budget. The loss of US support and voluntary funding cutbacks from several European states have forced the Human Rights Council to merge some mandates, terminate others and shorten sessions, reducing opportunities for civil society participation. At its July session, it announced the cancellation of 18 activities due to shortfalls.

Funding for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dropped by around US$90 million in 2025, causing around 300 job losses, with another 110 positions set to go. Its Myanmar programme and work to protect LGBTQI+ rights and prevent gender-based violence are among activities that have suffered, meaning less protection for survivors and more impunity for perpetrators.

The UN system could be more efficient, and relocating functions to global south countries could bring benefits for civil society. But more ambitious ideas about reforming UN funding – such as proposals to require states to contribute a fairer share of national income, which would broaden the funding base and reduce vulnerability to shocks from the most powerful states – haven’t been considered. If the UN pursues more voluntary support, it increases the risk of undue influence by states and billionaire philanthropists. Human rights and civil society access suffer when a small group of funders can call the shots.

States are increasingly bypassing formal UN processes to form ad hoc coalitions. This has become necessary on climate and environmental issues. At COP30, major commitments were left voluntary, delegated to coalitions led by willing states, and the same may happen with plastics treaty negotiations. The consensus requirement allows states opposed to action to block progress, forcing those that want change to work without them. Some progress may result, but it creates a regulatory patchwork.

International agreements have always begun with coalitions. Civil society-backed campaigns, taken up by groups of committed states, led to landmines and nuclear weapons treaties. Similar hopes inspire the campaign to develop a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. But building coalitions is getting harder. On AI governance, for example, three camps currently advance incompatible visions, and it’s unlikely they’ll reach consensus to develop the regulations required.

People gather at Place de la République in Paris, France to demand an international fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty on 23 June 2023. Photo by Thomas Samson/AFP

The Trump administration refuses to cooperate when international processes don’t serve its agenda. At its insistence, major US corporations won exemption from the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development tax agreement.

Repressive states are collaborating to make the global system even less democratic and rights-oriented. In December, China launched the Friends of Global Governance, a UN bloc of 43 states that includes many notorious human rights offenders. The group claims to uphold UN principles and correct global south under-representation in decision-making, but advances an entirely state-centric vision of cooperation. It aims to implement China’s Global Governance Initiative, which asserts the protection of domestic affairs from what it calls ‘external interference’, leaving no space for international-level human rights accountability.

States are also forming more selective organisations that sidestep the UN. The BRICS group, founded by Brazil, China, India and Russia in 2009, consists largely of repressive states, with authoritarian Indonesia joining in 2025. BRICS positions itself as a response to global south under-representation but functions largely as an autocrats’ club with no meaningful civil society engagement or human rights accountability.

The G20 is more established and made headlines because of the USA’s boycott of the South Africa-hosted meeting, but that didn’t prompt discussion about whether it, rather than the UN, should lead global economic decision-making. That Trump will host the next meeting at his private Miami club speaks volumes about the forum’s exclusionary nature.

Selective multilateralism has reached a new level with the Board of Peace. This body originated in a Security Council resolution that agreed to subject Gaza to external governance. The vague and controversial resolution was seen as the only way of securing Trump’s support. But what was launched at the January 2026 World Economic Forum goes much further. Trump appears to envision a permanent body with a wider brief under his chairmanship, with personal power to veto decisions, issue resolutions, set agendas and invite and dismiss members. Its executive board is stacked with his allies.

US President Donald Trump, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto take part in the launch the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on 22 January 2026. Photo by Denis Balibouse/Reuters via Gallo Images

Permanent membership costs US$1 billion, and it isn’t clear where the money goes, although Trump has routinely exploited his presidency for personal gain. The body’s draft charter makes no mention of human rights or civil society access. As it stands, this looks like another autocrats’ club, overwhelmingly convening states responsible for serious human rights violations. Its credibility was further undermined when Israel joined in February 2026. Several democracies have refused to join, often citing concerns about the body’s relationship with the UN.

The Board of Peace appears to be an attempt to supplant the UN, particularly the dysfunctional Security Council, positioning Trump as the international dealmaker who’ll bring leaders together. The move should prompt fresh debate about long-stalled Security Council reform proposals on expanding membership and, above all, limiting veto powers. What’s needed isn’t a Trump-dominated club but a functional Security Council capable of maintaining peace and security.

At the World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney staked his claim to lead the global governance debate. Speaking from the perspective of a relatively powerful global north state no longer able to rely on the old order, he admitted what many in civil society have long known: the concept of a rules-based international order was always something of a fiction, maintained by global north states that benefited from power asymmetries until the USA threatened to use its greater power against them.

Carney’s speech won international acclaim because he stood up to Trump and championed multilateralist rather than isolationist responses to changing dynamics. But what he offered instead was a vision of selective multilateralism, with coalitions forming around shared interests and relatively powerful states cooperating to defend themselves. This defensive vision of cooperation marks a retreat from the principle of global rules that apply to all states. It also implies states may buffer US pressure by forging warmer relations with China, a process evidently underway, which means further limiting accountability for China’s appalling human rights record.

Carney’s speech came in response to Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and unravel NATO, rather than to Israel’s violations of international law. He said nothing about global south states or civil society, even though both have vital contributions to make on issues from climate financing to accountability for conflict atrocities.

Selective multilateralism may open some opportunities for civil society but can’t uphold universal standards. The established system, despite many problems, provides institutionalised structures and procedures that enable a degree of accountability and gives civil society opportunities to influence decisions through sustained engagement. Declarations, resolutions and treaties provide standards to measure states by. A more ad hoc approach where rules are unclear and backroom deals prevail means reduced civil society access.

International humanitarian law is increasingly disregarded, including in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian civilians, Sudan’s disastrous conflict and wars worldwide. The global legal regime has always faced the challenge that the most powerful states face less accountability than weaker ones. But international laws used to be viewed as lines that most states, most of the time, wouldn’t cross. The alternative is anarchy.

Mothers and other relatives of drug war victims react to the International Criminal Court’s decision to reject former president Rodrigo Duterte’s appeal for interim release in Quezon City, Philippines, on 28 November 2025. Photo by Eloisa Lopez/Reuters via Gallo Images

Israel has systematically targeted UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine, killing hundreds of its staff and banning it from operating. Russia has violated international law by abducting children and torturing civilians and prisoners of war. The USA has violated international law through airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean and its intervention in Venezuela. Israel and the USA have continuously vilified the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, with Trump imposing sanctions. Israel has repeatedly ignored International Court of Justice orders to halt its genocide, aware that the world’s highest court lacks enforcement powers and the USA will shield it from consequences. Global north states disregard the Refugee Convention through deportation deals to send migrants to unsafe countries.

The ICC faces sustained attacks. It demonstrated its value in 2025, when it sentenced two militia leaders from the Central African Republic and arrested former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte. Civil society played a vital role in collecting evidence: Filipino women-led groups documented thousands of extrajudicial killings.

But states are intensifying pressure on the court. The UK government threatened to withdraw funding over the arrest warrant against Netanyahu. The Trump administration sanctioned numerous ICC officials and reportedly threatened further action unless the ICC revises its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, to explicitly exclude jurisdiction over non-member states, presumably to protect itself from prosecution. Hungary defied the rules when it hosted Netanyahu despite being required to arrest him. Italy released a wanted Libyan warlord.

The European Convention on Human Rights and its court are under fire for defending the rights of migrants and refugees. In December, 27 states called for a reinterpretation of the convention to redefine degrading and inhuman treatment and make deportation easier. Such actions are increasingly fraying international law.

At this pivotal moment, states must choose a new UN secretary-general, as Guterres’ second term expires at the end of 2026. The process is opaque and the five permanent Security Council members hold veto power, making any candidate who might challenge their interests unlikely to prevail. The likely outcome is a compromise candidate all can tolerate: potentially someone who flatters Trump, doesn’t stand up to China and Russia and promises more cost-cutting, further limiting the UN’s human rights functions.

Civil society is pushing for ambition. The 1 for 8 billion campaign demands a transparent selection process and a leader committed to upholding the UN Charter. It urges the UN General Assembly, where all states have an equal vote and none have a veto, to push back if the Security Council imposes a candidate many oppose. And as all nine previous appointees have been men, it calls for a feminist woman to lead the UN.

Activists from the 1 for 8 Billion campaign call for the appointment of the first female UN Secretary-General during the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York, USA, on 17 March 2026. Photo by UNA-UK

More broadly, civil society continues to propose UN reform but remains unheard. Participation is often tokenistic, and when the UN holds its high-profile annual event, the high-level General Assembly opening week, even accredited civil society organisations are locked out. Straightforward reform proposals, such as establishing an international civil society day to recognise civil society’s contribution and offer a rallying point for advocacy, have yet to be taken up.

The current system has major deficiencies of accountability, democracy, effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. Change is needed, but it must be democratic, inclusive and rights-oriented. Instead, things are moving in the opposite direction. Today’s attempts to weaken the global system aren’t temporary disruptions. Trump’s funding cuts and other actions won’t be quickly reversed. Even if he respects US term limits, the Board of Peace shows he intends to keep dominating the global arena beyond his presidency. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping plans to vacate the stage either.

The growing global governance emergency demands urgent dialogue about what kind of architecture is needed to protect human rights and address the many problems that cross borders. The crisis also offers an opportunity to decolonise global governance and make the international order fairer and more representative. Multilateralism must mean more than states negotiating over their interests. Civil society’s vision deserves a fair hearing.