The Limits of Global Governance

On 11 March, an article by senior research fellow Nadia Schadlow, entitled The limits of global governance, was posted on the website of the Hudson Institute. The article deals with the State’s changing role amid the new reality in international relations.

The globalist model is no longer guiding US policy. The standoff with Tehran is indicative of a profound divide over how international order should function.

America’s European allies argue that major global challenges require solutions rooted in international institutions, shared rules and collective governance. The view now dominant in Washington holds that the nation State remains the core source of authority and effective action.

The global framework reminds the author of the passive voice in English: it diffuses responsibility, masks root causes and produces complex processes that impede progress. International negotiations often trap officials in webs of meetings and rules that delay or prevent action.

In turn, States generate problems, experience their consequences, and provide the resources to address them. Industries operate within national systems, citizens bear costs, and governments supply the regulation, infrastructure and enforcement.

It is governments that are accountable to citizens and face the political consequences when they fail, especially in democracies. That chain of accountability weakens as authority shifts to international bodies. A State-centered approach also recognizes that time matters: prolonged negotiations delay action while problems intensify. States can respond more quickly and flexibly.

NATO offers an effective State-based model. Although Article Five commits allies to collective defense, it preserves national sovereignty: each member controls its own forces and decides how they are used. The alliance does not replace national militaries but relies on them.

In other words, the American expert recognizes that NATO is needed, but denies the efficiency of economic and governance integration pursued by EU efforts. That is, what is efficient is where Washington multiplies its own potential with allies’ assistance, and whatever competes with the USA in the global economy is deemed inefficient.

A State-centered approach does not abandon multilateral institutions. Rather, it urges a clearer recognition of their limits and a focus on their strengths: convening actors, and sharing information.

European skepticism toward this approach is quite understandable. The desire to constrain state power through integration emerged after nationalism fuelled the 20^th-century wars. However, the state-centered approach should seriously be considered now. The challenge is not whether Washington and its European allies should cooperate, but how. A State-anchored framework offers a path to renewing the transatlantic partnership by grounding cooperation in national capacity.