Representation and rules

The Global Governance Initiative is a practical pathway toward a more just global order

One year ago, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Tianjin Summit, President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Governance Initiative, centered on five principles: sovereign equality, international rule of law, multilateralism, a people-centered approach and real action. Now there arises a larger question: How can global governance become more just and inclusive when countries are more closely connected than ever, yet remain unequal in their capacity to shape international rules and institutions?

The question resonates well with Marxist thought. Marx and Engels paid close attention to the way modern production and the expansion of the world market drew previously separate societies into wider relations of exchange and dependence. They described this process as one in which history increasingly became "world history". Yet neither Marx nor Engels assumed that closer connections would automatically bring greater equality. The same forces that widened exchange could also produce new forms of dependence and unequal power. For global governance today, that insight directs attention to how influence is distributed within institutions and who benefits from the order they create.

The 21st century is far removed from the world Marx and Engels knew. Climate change, financial instability, public health risks and artificial intelligence cross national borders. No country can deal with all of them alone. At the same time, countries differ greatly in their economic, technological and institutional capacities to respond to these challenges and bear the costs of collective action. In that setting, sovereign equality cannot remain only a legal formula.

Already a basic principle of the United Nations Charter, sovereign equality often eludes the harder question of what it means in practice, especially for the Global South. Developing countries and emerging economies now account for a growing share of the world's population and economic activity, but their representation in parts of the global governance system has not kept pace. The Global Governance Initiative stresses that countries, regardless of size, strength or wealth, should participate in, make decisions on and benefit from global governance as equals. In institutional terms, this requires more than formal membership: Countries affected by international rules should have a meaningful role in shaping them. As the balance of the world economy changes, institutions gain legitimacy when decision-making better reflects the countries and populations affected by their decisions.

This concern also explains the contemporary relevance of Marxist internationalism. Internationalism need not mean erasing national autonomy. Engels argued that international association presupposed the existence, autonomy and independence of nations. That point still matters because international cooperation is sometimes framed as a choice between sovereignty and common rules. A more durable internationalism respects national autonomy while creating the basis for meaningful cooperation.

The same applies to international rule of law and multilateralism. Rules are indispensable to international cooperation, but their authority depends on consistent application. If countries come to believe that some states are bound by rules while others can set them aside when convenient, confidence in the system weakens. Selective application creates a sense of injustice and makes cooperation harder to sustain. Trust is therefore integral to effective global governance: institutions struggle to coordinate collective action when states doubt that rules will be applied consistently. Fairness and effectiveness are closely linked because rules seen as legitimate are more likely to sustain voluntary cooperation.

This is one reason the Global Governance Initiative places the UN and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter at the center of global governance. The UN system, multilateral institutions and international law are major achievements in the long effort to manage common affairs without leaving everything to power politics. Some structures nevertheless need to adjust to changes in the distribution of economic and political weight. The Global Governance Initiative seeks to make multilateralism more representative and effective by reforming and strengthening the existing system.

The people-centered principle raises a basic question: What is global governance for? Debate can easily become absorbed in procedures, voting arrangements and institutional design. From a Marxist perspective, institutions should ultimately be judged by the conditions they create for human development. Marxist thought treats human emancipation and the development of human capacities as central measures of social progress. Applied to global governance, this means looking beyond aggregate economic gains to whether ordinary people can actually benefit from them. Trade, investment and technological change can improve lives, but their benefits remain unevenly distributed across and within countries. A people-centered approach therefore draws attention to the distribution of opportunities and resources. The North-South gap extends beyond differences in national income, shaping access to education, healthcare, technology and infrastructure.

The Global Governance Initiative received support or positive responses from over 150 countries and international organizations. Its agenda has also begun to take shape around specific areas of global governance. In international finance, reform of International Monetary Fund quotas and World Bank shareholding concerns whether the growing economic weight of developing countries is adequately reflected in international decision-making. In AI, developing countries also need the capacity and opportunity to help shape emerging rules on safety and ethics.

These examples also show why the Global Governance Initiative's emphasis on action matters. The effectiveness of global governance ultimately depends on whether declarations and commitments are implemented. The one-year mark offers an early opportunity to assess whether broad principles are beginning to shape institutional agendas and practical cooperation. Deeper change will take much longer, but the emergence of concrete discussions on representation, capacity and rule-making is a meaningful first step.

The Global Governance Initiative should also be viewed alongside China's three other global initiatives. The Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative address development, security and exchanges among civilizations, while the Global Governance Initiative focuses more directly on the institutions and rules through which countries deal with common problems. Together, they give concrete expression to the idea of a community with a shared future for humanity by addressing interconnected dimensions of international cooperation.

The Global Governance Initiative now points toward wider participation in global governance, more consistent application of common rules, and greater attention to whether governance benefits ordinary people. In an interdependent world, a fairer global order is more likely to command trust, sustain cooperation and make global governance more effective.

The author is an associate professor at the School of Marxism at South China Normal University.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.