'Global governance is always successful in it's implementation'. To what extent do you
agree?
Global governance attempts to tackle the worlds problems/ issues by creating laws and norms for
the world to follow, they are made by global governing bodies such as the UN, a global governing
body set up in 1945 with the overarching aim of reducing conflict and preventing future world wars.
however, does this come with any negatives?
Many would say that global governance is extremely successful in what it does. Global governance
attempts to tackle many world issues, for example health. The WHO was set up to improve equity of
health around the world and is a UN organisation, they played a big role in reducing the number of
deaths and the rapid transmission of malaria by acting quickly by providing vaccines, drugs and
mosquito nets which all combined to lead to a massive reduction in malaria cases. However,
although the WHO has been successful in some cases other outbreaks have been a lot slower
processes such as the COVID-19 outbreak which is still seeing deaths and transmission over a year on
from when it started, this has then led to less funding from countries such as the USA (who cut their
funding by half in one year.) Which is detrimental to an organisation that was already massively
underfunded. This clearly shows already that although global governance can be successful it
doesn’t “always” do a good job in what it sets out to achieve.
Another issue that is tackled by global governance is economic stability. Organisations such as the
IMF look at solving economical issues by providing loans to countries around the world. One
negative of this is that these loans sometimes come with conditions, an example of this is in Ecuador
where the conditions put in place meant that thousands of people lost their jobs and there was
political unrest in the country, although this has caused massive, short term issues for the country
many predict it will benefit the country in the long run. An example where the IMF has been
extremely successful is in Serbia where since the loan was provided has seen an all-time high GDP
and employment in Serbia. The IMF once again shows how global governance comes with both
successes and failures. Finally global governance seeks to reduce conflict and wars around the world,
as said earlier, the UN play a massive role in trying to reduce the conflict by employing peacekeepers
to go to different countries to help resolve issues. One example of the successfulness is in the Ivory
coast peacekeepers have helped solve the problem by disarming and reintegrating 70,000
combatants back into society. On the other hand many people have argued that the UN could’ve
done a lot more in places such as the Rwandan and Bangladesh genocide where hundreds of
thousands of people died. This shows that the UNs actions are sometimes flawed. Furthermore, one
huge issue is been the amount of major human rights violations that have happened to vulnerable
people from the peacekeeping missions, UN peacekeepers have been found to have committed
crimes such as rape, murder and child prostitution on extremely vulnerable which puts forward the
argument whether sometimes peacekeepers are causing more harm than good.
In conclusion I would slightly agree with the statement as I believe overall global governance does
have a positive role in helping to mitigate and solve these global issues in cases such as Serbia and
Ivory coast which have massively benefited from global governance. However I would argue we still
have a long way to go before global governance is “always successful in its implementation.”
agree?
Global governance attempts to tackle the worlds problems/ issues by creating laws and norms for
the world to follow, they are made by global governing bodies such as the UN, a global governing
body set up in 1945 with the overarching aim of reducing conflict and preventing future world wars.
however, does this come with any negatives?
Many would say that global governance is extremely successful in what it does. Global governance
attempts to tackle many world issues, for example health. The WHO was set up to improve equity of
health around the world and is a UN organisation, they played a big role in reducing the number of
deaths and the rapid transmission of malaria by acting quickly by providing vaccines, drugs and
mosquito nets which all combined to lead to a massive reduction in malaria cases. However,
although the WHO has been successful in some cases other outbreaks have been a lot slower
processes such as the COVID-19 outbreak which is still seeing deaths and transmission over a year on
from when it started, this has then led to less funding from countries such as the USA (who cut their
funding by half in one year.) Which is detrimental to an organisation that was already massively
underfunded. This clearly shows already that although global governance can be successful it
doesn’t “always” do a good job in what it sets out to achieve.
Another issue that is tackled by global governance is economic stability. Organisations such as the
IMF look at solving economical issues by providing loans to countries around the world. One
negative of this is that these loans sometimes come with conditions, an example of this is in Ecuador
where the conditions put in place meant that thousands of people lost their jobs and there was
political unrest in the country, although this has caused massive, short term issues for the country
many predict it will benefit the country in the long run. An example where the IMF has been
extremely successful is in Serbia where since the loan was provided has seen an all-time high GDP
and employment in Serbia. The IMF once again shows how global governance comes with both
successes and failures. Finally global governance seeks to reduce conflict and wars around the world,
as said earlier, the UN play a massive role in trying to reduce the conflict by employing peacekeepers
to go to different countries to help resolve issues. One example of the successfulness is in the Ivory
coast peacekeepers have helped solve the problem by disarming and reintegrating 70,000
combatants back into society. On the other hand many people have argued that the UN could’ve
done a lot more in places such as the Rwandan and Bangladesh genocide where hundreds of
thousands of people died. This shows that the UNs actions are sometimes flawed. Furthermore, one
huge issue is been the amount of major human rights violations that have happened to vulnerable
people from the peacekeeping missions, UN peacekeepers have been found to have committed
crimes such as rape, murder and child prostitution on extremely vulnerable which puts forward the
argument whether sometimes peacekeepers are causing more harm than good.
In conclusion I would slightly agree with the statement as I believe overall global governance does
have a positive role in helping to mitigate and solve these global issues in cases such as Serbia and
Ivory coast which have massively benefited from global governance. However I would argue we still
have a long way to go before global governance is “always successful in its implementation.”
