For decades, multilateralism has been the default mode of global governance, but it is now facing multiple challenges. Many international organisations (IOs) established to facilitate cooperation after the Second World War – including the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations (UN) – are struggling with rising political tensions among member states and declining public trust, which limits their ability to address global issues effectively.
Yet the demand for international cooperation has not diminished. Nearly every major challenge of our time – including climate change, pandemics, inequality, mass displacement, and the digital transformation – transcends national borders and requires collective action. As a result, cooperation occurs across a broader range of institutional settings. ENSURED's Conceptual Framework focuses on three analytically central pathways through which cooperation is provided:
- Minilateralisation: To overcome gridlock in multilateral negotiations, small groups of powerful states cooperate in less inclusive, informal club-based arrangements, such as the G20 or plurilateral trade agreements.
- Regionalisation: Governance is delivered by regional organisations such as the African Union (AU) or the European Union (EU).
- Counter-institutionalisation: This pathway describes a more fundamental shift in how cooperation is organised. Here, states move from a community-based, problem-solving mode of cooperation to a more competitive and strategic approach. Rather than seeking compromise within established institutions, states create or rely on alternative mechanisms to advance their preferences. Together, these pathways have become regular features of today’s global governance landscape.
Drawing on findings from 15 qualitative case studies across five major policy areas – trade and inequality, climate and biodiversity, global health, migration and human rights, and digitalisation – and the ENSURED expert survey, the report shows that international cooperation is not declining, but transforming.
The report reveals a systematic reconfiguration of global governance that has critical implications for the theory and practice of global governance.
By tracing the three pathways across five central policy areas, the report reveals a systematic reconfiguration of global governance that has critical implications for the theory and practice of global governance. Multilateral institutions frequently interact with, and at times compete against, minilateral initiatives and regional organisations. As such, the report argues that global governance today operates through a variable geometry, in which different institutional forms interact in shifting, context-specific ways. The concrete geometry of governance varies across policy areas and over time, shaped by problem structures, power dynamics, and political alignment.
Three global governance configerations stand out:
- The first configuration features a strong multilateral core with little fragmentation. Climate governance exemplifies this pattern: the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement remain the uncontested centres of cooperation, while minilateral initiatives occur sporadically and mainly support implementation rather than undermining the multilateral framework. Regional organisations and counter-institutions play only marginal roles. In this area, variable geometry exists, but it remains tightly bound.
- The second configuration combines a weakened multilateral core with moderate fragmentation. Global health and human rights governance fit this pattern. In both areas, multilateral institutions continue to set standards and convene negotiations, but they do not control all key governance functions.
- The third configuration is marked by high fragmentation and institutional competition. Trade and digitalisation governance fall into this category. Multilateral trade rules remain relevant, but cooperation increasingly unfolds through a dense web of plurilateral and regional arrangements. Digitalisation governance exhibits even greater fragmentation: cryptocurrency governance relies heavily on minilateral cooperation, cybersecurity combines minilateral and regional approaches, and AI governance has recently seen strong regional leadership.
These patterns have direct implications for how we conceptualise multilateral cooperation today. A single conceptual lens can no longer capture the dynamics of multilateralism. For policymakers, this variable geometry presents both challenges and opportunities for strengthening global governance and making it more robust, effective, and democratic.
The variable geometry presents both challenges and opportunities for strengthening global governance and making it more robust, effective, and democratic.
From a bird’s-eye perspective, the variable geometry of today’s arrangements complicates global governance, making it harder to direct, but simultaneously allowing greater adaptability for multiple actors. For policymakers, maintaining cooperation in this context requires continuous attention to institutional relationships, a clear grasp of how different arrangements interact, and a thoughtful balancing of comparative institutional advantages.
Citation Recommendation: Schmidtke, Henning, and Stephanie C. Hofmann. 2026. “Pathways for Global Governance Transformation: Evidence from 15 Case Studies.” ENSURED Research Report, no. 26 (March): 1–35. https://www.ensuredeurope.eu.
.png)
