Policy Toolkit

Why does it matter?

• Global human rights and migration governance are increasingly contested, as rising authoritarianism challenges established norms, restricts civil society, and weakens funding across frameworks.
• For the EU, a weakened UN human-rights regime threatens core EU values. Poor governance risks egregious violations, internal political tensions, and strained partnerships.

Where is reform possible?

• Geopolitical tensions limit prospects for reform. Global migration frameworks will remain forums for discussion, with states prioritising minilateral and bilateral cooperation. UN human-rights mechanisms face pushback but hold the line on existing standards.
• Progress will depend on stronger implementation, reduced administrative burdens, protected civil-society participation, reformed complaint procedures, stronger membership criteria, and adequate funding for UN human-rights institutions.

What can the EU do about it?

• Advocate for a voluntary peer review mechanism at the 2026 International Migration Review Forum.
• Coordinate EU and member-state contributions to UNHCR and IOM, targeting operations in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and the Western Balkans.
• Shift development cooperation conditionality from migration-control numbers to refugee-protection standards, and operationalise this through Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument programming.

Why does it matter?

• Global health governance is fragmented, inefficient, and incoherent. Too many actors, overlapping rules, limited financing and disputes over fair access undermine the World Health Organization’s (WHO) coordinating role.
• For the EU, weak global health governance raises the risk that future crises will disrupt European societies and limits its ability to respond swiftly to protect its population.

Where is reform possible?

• Major reform is unlikely. Instead, the most realistic options are incremental improvements to existing frameworks.
• Key priorities are to strengthen the WHO through more predictable financing and clearer responsibilities, and to ensure the Pandemic Agreement is finalised, ratified, and backed by sustained political will.
• Further gains could include improving transparency and inclusiveness within the WHO, and better connecting EU policies around health, trade, and intellectual property.

What can the EU do about it?

• Link epidemic control to national security and supply-chain resilience to build domestic support for EU-level health commitments.
• Use the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2034) to pool resources and build coalitions.
• Shift WHO contributions from earmarked, project-based funding to long-term core funding, and link compliance with the Pandemic Agreement and International Health Regulations.

Why does it matter?

• Global trade and tax systems struggle to adapt to rising geopolitical tensions.  Disagreements among major powers hinder World Trade Organization (WTO) reform and weaken core functions.
• For the EU, this translates directly into higher tariffs, legal uncertainty, and fewer protections against unfair practices for European exporters.
• Gaps in global tax governance also allow multinational companies to shift profits across borders, reducing national tax revenues.

Where is reform possible?

• Geopolitical divides make major structural reform unlikely. The most realistic way forward is to make incremental improvements within existing frameworks.
• On tax, progress depends on whether the parallel OECD/G20 and UN initiatives can come together in a way that is both effective and inclusive.
• On trade, reform will likely advance through informal and non-binding approaches — information sharing, best practices, or voluntary guidelines — particularly where WTO members can see clear benefits.

What can the EU do about it?

• Acknowledge the trade-offs between strategic autonomy and WTO rules, and prioritise coalition-building within and outside the WTO.
• Expand the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) and improve developing countries' access to WTO dispute settlement.
• Engage constructively with the UN-led tax process and address Plural South concerns about representation and fairness.

Why does it matter?

• Landmark agreements like the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) were designed to address the planetary crisis, but ambition is outpacing real-world action.
• The problem: limited funding, lack of political will, and continued disagreements among countries hinder progress.
• For the EU, the consequences are real. Missing climate targets will intensify extreme weather events and threaten both food security and public health. Plus, biodiversity loss erodes natural resilience, leaving the EU vulnerable to climate impacts and raising long-term costs.

Where is reform possible?

• Reforms can target negotiation spaces (within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)) and/or implementation.
• Within negotiations, consensus-based decision-making, widespread distrust, and limited political will make smaller procedural changes more realistic than substantial reform — which require stronger trust, expanded capacity-building, and streamlined agendas.
• On implementation, progress hinges on party commitment: translating ambitious pledges into domestic action and deploying effective financial instruments.

What can the EU do about it?

• Prioritise domestic political alignment and timely Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submissions ahead of Conference of the Parties (COP) deadlines.
• Reduce bargaining inequalities at COP negotiations by increasing the UNFCCC Trust Fund, expanding virtual participation, and improving access to informal settings.
• Create domestic enabling frameworks for private biodiversity finance, coordinate member states’ climate-finance contributions strategically, and send Commissioners and Heads of Government to CBD COPs.