Global Governance Course

Course Philosophy

Course Development Philosophy

The course is designed according to Martin Zubko’s teaching philosophy, expressed in the principle that:
“A supreme principle of teaching is to ignite curiosity that leads to purposeful research, resulting in discoveries that bring meaning.” 

This approach informs the course structure, where intellectual curiosity serves as the starting point for research-driven learning. Through engagement with theoretical debates and independent investigation, students are encouraged to develop original insights and contribute to deeper understanding of international politics. 

“With each course, my aim has been to develop a research-driven intellectual workshop in which teaching is built around two complementary dimensions: mentoring and coaching. I recognise the limitations of my own knowledge in comparison with the expanding capabilities of artificial intelligence systems; however, the central purpose of my work lies elsewhere — in cultivating individuals who can navigate a complex and often chaotic information environment shaped by truth, misinformation, and partial truths.

The essential task is to develop students’ capacity for independent judgement: the ability to critically evaluate information, formulate meaningful questions, and produce rigorous analysis. Their own intellectual curiosity and judgement remain the primary sources of inquiry, enabling them to discover new perspectives, identify emerging patterns, and contribute original insights to the understanding of complex phenomena.”
— Martin Zubko

Core Principles

1. Authority without Hierarchy: Global governance operates through dispersed and overlapping forms of authority. International organisations, states, regional institutions, corporations, civil society, and transnational networks collectively shape rules, norms, and policy outcomes through negotiation, coordination, competition, and contestation. Governance therefore emerges from complex institutional relationships in which authority is shared, fragmented, and continuously renegotiated.

2. Analytical Pluralism: No single theoretical framework fully captures the complexity of global order. Competing perspectives illuminate different dimensions of governance, revealing particular dynamics and leaving others less visible.

3. Epistemological Reflexivity: All interpretations of global governance are historically situated, reflecting distinct intellectual traditions, institutional interests, and geopolitical contexts. The study of global governance therefore requires critical attention both to governing structures and to the assumptions and forms of knowledge through which they are understood.

Global governance refers to the ensemble of institutions, regimes, norms, and formal and informal arrangements through which collective problems are addressed in the absence of a central global authority. It encompasses international organisations, treaty systems, financial architectures, regulatory frameworks, and transnational networks that shape cooperation, competition, and conflict across borders.

This course examines global governance as a contested system of authority embedded within broader structures of power, hierarchy, and inequality in the international system. Students explore how international organisations, regional institutions, states, corporations, non-governmental actors, and transnational networks collectively shape global order, respond to crises, and compete over legitimacy, authority, and influence. The course examines how global governance operates, whose interests it serves, where it succeeds and fails, and how it may transform as the political, economic, technological, and ecological conditions underpinning the contemporary international order continue to evolve.

Course Content Structure

This 12-week course is organised around a multi-level analytical framework that moves from foundational questions of authority, power, and hierarchy in global order, through institutions and regime complexity, to the global political economy of governance. The final modules integrate these perspectives by examining international law and normative authority, crisis responses, and the future transformation of global governance.

MODULE I: Foundations of Global Governance

Week 1: What is Global Governance?

Week 2: Power and Hierarchy in Global Order

MODULE II: Institutions and Regime Complexity

Week 3: International Organisations and Authority

Week 4: Regime Complexity and Fragmentation

Week 5: Collective Action and Global Public Goods

MODULE III: Global Political Economy of Governance

Week 6: Trade Governance and Economic Order

Week 7: Global Finance and Monetary Power

Week 8: Development and Global Inequality

MODULE IV: International Law and Normative Authority

Week 9: International Law and Compliance

Week 10: Human Rights Governance

MODULE V: Crisis and the Future of Global Governance

Week 11: Crisis Governance

Week 12: Futures of Global Governance

Analytical Proposition

Global governance operates as a fragmented and uneven architecture of authority shaped by asymmetries of power, institutional design, and historical path dependence, not as a unified system of cooperative problem-solving. Its structures reflect ongoing tensions between collective coordination and political contestation, between formal equality and substantive inequality, and between institutional authority and state sovereignty.

Three structural dynamics define its operation:

1. Hierarchies of Influence: Formal sovereign equality among states coexists with significant disparities in political, economic, technological, and institutional capacities. These asymmetries shape the ability of actors to set agendas, define norms, influence decision-making processes, and determine patterns of compliance within global institutions.

2. Regime Complexity: Global governance is characterised by overlapping and intersecting institutions that regulate similar policy domains through multiple rules, actors, and decision-making forums. This institutional density generates fragmentation, encourages forum shopping, and creates opportunities for strategic competition among states and non-state actors seeking to advance their interests.

3. Compliance Without Sovereignty: States frequently accept and implement externally generated rules that they did not directly authorise through domestic democratic processes. Such compliance reflects a complex balance between sovereignty, interdependence, strategic calculation, and the practical necessity of participating in systems of global coordination.

Integrated Learning Stages

Each week of this 12-week course is structured around three integrated learning stages designed to develop theoretical understanding, comparative analysis of global governance systems, and critical reflexivity regarding authority, power, and institutional change.

1. Preparation: Engaging with Concepts, Frameworks, and Evidence
   Before each session, students engage with foundational readings, theoretical texts, institutional documents, policy reports, and empirical case materials to develop familiarity with key concepts, analytical frameworks, and contemporary debates in global governance. Preparation establishes the basis for examining how institutions, norms, actors, and power relations shape patterns of cooperation and contestation in the international system.

2. Discussion-Based Lecture: Applying Theory to Global Governance Challenges
   Class sessions combine theoretical engagement with structured analytical discussion. Students examine competing theoretical approaches, apply conceptual frameworks to empirical cases, and evaluate how different perspectives explain institutional behaviour, governance failures, power asymmetries, and transformations in global order. Discussions emphasise comparison across cases and critical assessment of how global governance arrangements operate in practice.

3. Research Lab: Developing Analytical Skills Through Applied Investigation
   The research lab develops practical analytical capabilities for studying global governance systems. Students work with empirical evidence, institutional data, policy documents, and comparative case studies to analyse governance structures, map actor relationships, assess institutional effectiveness, and examine the political assumptions that underpin different interpretations of global order.

Foundational Texts

• Edkins, Jenny, Maja Zehfuss, and Timothy Gregory. 2025. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 4th ed. Taylor & Francis.

• Karns, Margaret P., Teri Johnson, and Karen A. Mingst. 2024. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. 4th ed. Lynne Rienner.

• Kissinger, Henry. 2015. World Order. Penguin.

• Mazower, Mark. 2013. Governing the World: The History of an Idea, 1815 to the Present. Penguin.

• Pease, Kelly-Kate S., and Diego Belo. 2025. International Organizations: Perspectives on Global Governance. 7th ed. Routledge.

• Weiss, Thomas G., and Rorden Wilkinson, eds. 2023. International Organization and Global Governance. 3rd ed. Routledge.

Research articles do not appear in the bibliography above. This is intentional. Each week, students are expected to identify a peer-reviewed article relevant to that week’s topic, bring it to the seminar, and share it with the group. The lecturer contributes selections alongside the class. This practice develops independent literature-searching habits, exposes the seminar to a wider range of scholarly perspectives than any fixed reading list could provide, and keeps the course in sustained contact with current debates in the field.

Learning Outcomes

1. Analyse institutional structures, power relations, and governance complexity
   Evaluate the composition, authority, and functioning of global governance institutions, regimes, and networks. Students will analyse how formal and informal power asymmetries shape decision-making, norm creation, and policy outcomes, while examining how overlapping governance arrangements generate fragmentation, coordination challenges, and strategic competition across global policy domains.

2. Apply and critically evaluate theoretical frameworks
   Deploy major International Relations and global governance approaches—including liberal institutionalism, realism, constructivism, critical political economy, and critical theories of global order—to explain variation in institutional authority, legitimacy, cooperation, and contestation. Students will assess the analytical strengths and limitations of each framework and consider how theoretical perspectives can reproduce or challenge existing assumptions about power, hierarchy, and inequality in global governance.

3. Produce rigorous, evidence-based analysis of global governance challenges
   Develop professional analyses of contemporary global governance problems through the integration of empirical evidence, institutional knowledge, and theoretical argument. Students will demonstrate the ability to evaluate governance effectiveness, identify competing interests and sources of authority, assess reform proposals, and critically examine whose interests global governance arrangements advance, constrain, or exclude.

Assessment

Graded Assessment Components

Assessment 1: Institutional Governance Analysis (35% | 2,500 words)
Select one global governance institution, regime, or regulatory arrangement. Produce a critical analysis of its authority structure, institutional design, and distributional effects. Examine formal decision-making, informal influence, and power asymmetries. Apply at least two theoretical frameworks and assess whose interests are represented or excluded.  

Submission Deadline: End of Week 7.

Assessment 2: Capstone Global Governance Futures Report (55% | 5,000–6,000 words)
Produce a scenario-based report on a major contemporary global governance challenge. Identify key actors, institutional dynamics, and structural constraints. Apply multiple theoretical perspectives and develop three distinct long-term scenarios (20-year horizon). Critically evaluate existing arrangements and alternative institutional possibilities.  

Submission Deadline: Sunday of Week 14 (Formal Assessment Period, following the conclusion of Week 12 teaching).

Assessment 3: Participation and Analytical Engagement (10% | Ongoing)
Participation is assessed throughout the semester based on the quality of students’ engagement with the analytical objectives of the course. Assessment considers contributions to Discussion-Based Lectures and Research Labs. Students are expected to demonstrate the ability to apply theoretical concepts to empirical cases, engage critically with different interpretations, use evidence effectively, and respond constructively to alternative arguments. Attendance is required. Marks are awarded for the quality of intellectual engagement.

Grading Scale (%) and Performance Standards

• 80–100: Exceptional
  Outstanding analytical ability, originality, and intellectual independence. The work develops a sophisticated, tightly integrated argument that combines theory, evidence, and method with exceptional precision. It critically evaluates competing explanations, exposes underlying assumptions and limitations, and produces insights that approach professional analytical standards.

• 70–79: Excellent
  Advanced analytical skills and strong theoretical understanding. The work presents a clear, well-supported argument and engages critically with relevant debates and alternative explanations. Minor limitations may remain in originality, depth, or full integration of perspectives.

• 60–69: Good
  Solid command of key concepts, literature, and analytical approaches. Theories are applied appropriately and the argument is coherent. Limitations typically appear in originality, critical depth, methodological sophistication, or engagement with competing interpretations.

• 50–59: Satisfactory
  Adequate understanding of core concepts and empirical material. The work engages with the course content but remains largely descriptive or summary-based, with limited analytical depth, theoretical application, or critical evaluation.

• 40–49: Marginal Pass
  Basic understanding of course requirements is present, but analysis is underdeveloped, heavily descriptive, and insufficiently supported by evidence or theoretical reasoning.

• Below 40: Fail
  Does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of key concepts, analytical approaches, or evidence. The work lacks a coherent argument and fails to meet minimum academic standards.

Submission, Formatting Requirements and Academic Integrity

• All written work must be submitted as a PDF file.

• Use 12-point Aptos or Arial font. Number all pages. On the first page include your name, student number, course name, assignment title, and word count. A separate cover page is not required.

• The stated word count is a guide. Stay within 10% above or below it. The word count includes the main text and in-text citations, but excludes the reference list, tables, figures, and appendices.

• Use the Chicago Author-Date citation style throughout. Examples: (Yergin 2020) or Yergin (2020) argues that… For direct quotations include the page number: (Yergin 2020, 47). Place the reference list at the end, organised alphabetically by surname. Footnotes may be used sparingly for substantive clarifications only; do not use them for routine citations.

• Formal policies regarding academic integrity and the use of AI tools vary by institution and will apply in full. Beyond these formal requirements lies a deeper educational principle: the purpose of assessment is not merely to demonstrate completion of tasks, but to develop genuine understanding, analytical capability, and intellectual independence. A qualification represents not only the work submitted, but the knowledge and skills that work is designed to cultivate. This course is built on meaningful engagement with scholarship, practitioners, and professional perspectives that extend beyond the formal syllabus. The value students gain depends on a shared commitment to curiosity, preparation, critical thinking, and responsible academic practice.

Detailed Module Descriptions

MODULE I: Foundations of Global Governance

Week 1: What is Global Governance?

Core Question
How is collective order produced without a world government?

Preparation
English School / international society theory (Bull's account of order without government), introduced alongside liberal institutionalism as a contrasting baseline for the rest of the course.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Definitions of governance; authority beyond sovereignty; multilateralism; legitimacy in international order; formal versus informal governance structures. Who defines what counts as a "global problem" in the first place?

Research Lab
Groups of 3–4, each assigned a different issue area (health, trade, or climate). Each group produces a one-page actor map categorising relevant actors into states, international organisations, private/corporate entities, and informal networks, with brief annotations (200 words total). Groups present their map in a 10-minute seminar slot.

Additional Literature 

• • Bull, Hedley. 2012. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing.

  • Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.

Week 2: Power and Hierarchy in Global Order

Core Question
Is global governance a cooperative system or a structured hierarchy?

Preparation
Neo-Gramscian international political economy and critical approaches to global governance (Cox’s distinction between problem-solving and critical theory), introduced alongside Strange’s concept of structural power as a framework for analysing how influence operates beyond formal decision-making authority.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Definitions of power in global governance; structural versus relational power; agenda-setting and knowledge production; institutional inequality; veto power; informal hierarchy within international organisations; informal empire and mechanisms of institutional capture. How do formal principles of sovereign equality coexist with unequal capacities to shape global rules? Who has the authority to define legitimate policy agendas? Does formal equality between states conceal deeper and more persistent hierarchies of power in global governance? 

Research Lab
Pairs select one major international organisation (e.g., the IMF, the World Bank, or the UN Security Council). Each pair produces a comparative table examining formal representation or voting arrangements against observed agenda-setting influence for four or five member states, supported by brief empirical evidence. The table is accompanied by a 300-word analytical paragraph explaining the relationship between institutional design, power distribution, and policy outcomes. Pairs deliver a two-minute presentation of their findings during the seminar.

Additional Literature 

• • Cox, Robert W. 1987. Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. Columbia University Press.

  • Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Cornell University Press.

  • Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press.

MODULE II: Institutions and Regime Complexity

Week 3: International Organisations and Authority

Core Question
How do international organisations shape state behaviour?

Preparation
Principal-agent theory of delegation, introduced alongside Barnett and Finnemore’s constructivist account of international organisations as autonomous bureaucratic actors capable of exercising authority, producing norms, and developing institutional pathologies.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Definitions of authority in international organisations; delegation and control mechanisms; bureaucratic autonomy; principal-agent problems; compliance and enforcement mechanisms; treaty systems and legal bindingness; the limits of coercive enforcement in international governance. Why do states delegate authority to institutions, and under what conditions do international organisations move beyond the preferences of their creators? Why do states comply with rules and institutions they did not fully design or control?

Research Lab
Individually, students construct a comparative matrix analysing two international regimes of their choice according to mechanism type, legal binding force, enforcement or sanctioning capacity, and observed patterns of compliance. Students then produce a 250-word analytical assessment evaluating which regime’s enforcement body operates most like an independent agent relative to its state principals. Submissions are used to structure seminar discussion.

Additional Literature

• • Barnett, Michael, and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Cornell University Press.

  • Hawkins, Darren G., David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson, and Michael J. Tierney, eds. 2006. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge University Press.

  • Weaver, Catherine. 2008. Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform. Princeton University Press.

Week 4: Regime Complexity and Fragmentation

Core Question
What happens when multiple institutions govern the same issue?

Preparation
Regime complexity theory, introduced through Alter and Raustiala’s analysis of overlapping legal and institutional authority, alongside Keohane and Victor’s concept of regime complexes as fragmented governance structures composed of partially overlapping and non-hierarchical institutions.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Definitions of regime complexes and institutional fragmentation; overlapping mandates; strategic forum shopping; institutional competition and cooperation; norm conflict; regime clashes; legal fragmentation; and the political consequences of governance without a central coordinating authority. Does institutional overlap undermine effective governance, or does it create opportunities for states and non-state actors to pursue alternative strategies? Is fragmentation a failure of global governance, or a strategic resource that enables powerful actors to pursue preferred outcomes?

Research Lab
Groups of four construct a regime-complex diagram for one governance domain (climate or trade), representing key institutions as nodes and areas of overlapping authority or jurisdiction as connections. Each group produces a 300-word analytical memo identifying one forum-shopping opportunity generated by institutional overlap, explaining which actors benefit from the fragmented institutional landscape and why. 

Additional Literature

• • Alter, Karen J. 2014. The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. Princeton University Press.

  • Biermann, Frank, and Philipp Pattberg, eds. 2012. Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered. MIT Press.

  • Drezner, Daniel W. 2007. All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton University Press.

Week 5: Collective Action and Global Public Goods

Core Question
Why are global public goods persistently under-provided?

Preparation
Rational-choice approaches to collective action, introduced through Olson’s theory of group behaviour and the problem of free-riding, alongside broader debates on the provision of global public goods and Ostrom’s analysis of institutional solutions to collective action dilemmas.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Definitions of global public goods; collective action problems; free-riding incentives; burden-sharing disputes; cooperation dilemmas in shared resource systems; and the tension between national interests and collective outcomes. How do states respond when the benefits of cooperation are widely distributed but the costs are concentrated? Can institutional arrangements overcome persistent incentives to under-provide collective goods? Can a “global interest” exist independently of national interests?

Research Lab
Individually, students analyse a provided dataset comparing national emissions pledges with global temperature targets. Each student produces a 350-word analytical assessment applying free-rider and burden-sharing frameworks to explain the gap between national commitments and collective climate objectives. 

Additional Literature

• • Kaul, Inge, Isabelle Grunberg, and Marc A. Stern, eds. 1999. Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press.

  • Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

MODULE III: Global Political Economy of Governance

Week 6: Trade Governance and Economic Order

Core Question
How are rules of global trade produced and enforced?

Preparation
Embedded liberalism as a theoretical framework for understanding the post-war trade order, focusing on Ruggie’s argument that international economic openness was constructed through a political compromise between market liberalisation and domestic social protection.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The evolution of the global trade regime; the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO); dispute settlement and legal enforcement; trade rules and state sovereignty; the political economy of protectionism; unequal gains from trade liberalisation; and debates over the legitimacy and effectiveness of global trade governance. How do trade institutions balance commitments to open markets with competing domestic political and economic pressures? Is free trade a universal principle, or a negotiated political settlement reflecting particular distributions of power and interests?

Research Lab
In pairs, students prepare a case brief on a contemporary WTO dispute. Each brief identifies the parties involved, relevant legal provisions, dispute settlement findings, and the broader political economy context shaping the conflict. Pairs deliver a five-minute case briefing supported by a written summary of approximately 400 words. 

Additional Literature

• • Hoekman, Bernard M., and Michel M. Kostecki. 2009. The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.

  • Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. Routledge.

  • Wilkinson, Rorden. 2014. What’s Wrong with the WTO and How to Fix It. Polity.

Week 7: Global Finance and Monetary Power

Core Question
How is global financial stability governed?

Preparation
Structural power approaches to international finance, drawing on Strange’s analysis of the relationship between states and markets, alongside dependency-theory critiques of financial governance and conditional lending practices.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The architecture of global financial governance; the roles of the IMF and World Bank; the geopolitics of the international monetary system; the centrality of the dollar; financial conditionality; crisis management; emergency lending; and debates over sovereignty and policy autonomy in borrower states. How do international financial institutions balance crisis intervention with the political and economic consequences of imposing reform conditions? Does global financial governance reproduce historical dependency structures between the Global North and Global South?

Research Lab
Individually, students construct a comparative table analysing IMF or World Bank lending conditions attached to two borrower states. The analysis should identify key policy requirements, institutional rationales, and domestic political consequences. Students then produce a 300-word reflection assessing whether these lending arrangements reproduce or challenge North–South dependency dynamics. Submissions form the basis for seminar discussion.

Additional Literature

• • Helleiner, Eric. 1994. States and the Reemergence of Global Finance: From Bretton Woods to the 1990s. Cornell University Press.

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton.

  • Strange, Susan. 2004. States and Markets. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Week 8: Development and Global Inequality

Core Question
How does global governance shape development outcomes?

Preparation
World-systems and dependency approaches to global development, introduced alongside post-development critiques that question the assumptions, categories, and power relations embedded in dominant understandings of “development”.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The evolution of international development regimes; bilateral and multilateral aid systems; development institutions and knowledge production; debt governance; structural adjustment programmes; the institutional legacies of neoliberal reform; and debates over who defines development priorities. How do global governance structures shape economic opportunities, policy choices, and development pathways across different regions? Who defines “development”, and with what authority?

Research Lab
Groups of three produce a comparative profile of two regional development frameworks (for example, the African Continental Free Trade Area compared with a Bretton Woods-aligned regional development programme). Using a structured comparison grid, groups analyse institutional objectives, policy assumptions, financing mechanisms, and governance structures. Each group produces a 300-word synthesis evaluating how competing models conceptualise development and distribute authority. The exercise prepares students for the comparative analytical approach required in Assessment 3.

Additional Literature

• • Escobar, Arturo. 2011. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.

  • Rodney, Walter. 1972. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.

  • Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

MODULE IV: International Law and Normative Authority

Week 9: International Law and Compliance

Core Question
What makes international law effective?

Preparation
Managerial compliance theory, introduced through Chayes and Chayes’ argument that compliance failures often result from ambiguity, limited capacity, and institutional constraints rather than deliberate violations. This approach is examined alongside rational-choice and constructivist accounts of compliance, which emphasise incentives, reputation, and socialisation.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The nature and authority of international law; enforcement limitations in a decentralised international system; reputational costs; compliance mechanisms; legal legitimacy; socialisation processes; and the relationship between sovereignty and international obligation. How do states justify compliance and non-compliance, and under what conditions do international legal rules influence state behaviour? Is international law a binding authority, or a structured set of expectations that states use strategically to pursue their interests?

Research Lab
Individually, students conduct a short compliance audit of three or four documented compliance or non-compliance episodes within a single legal regime. Each audit identifies the relevant legal obligation, the state’s behaviour, and the legal or political justification provided. Students produce an approximately 350-word analysis evaluating whether compliance was driven by legal obligation, strategic interest, reputational concerns, or social pressures.

Additional Literature

• • Chayes, Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1998. The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Harvard University Press.

  • Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks. 2013. Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights through International Law. Oxford University Press.

  • Guzman, Andrew T. 2008. How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory. Oxford University Press.

Week 10: Human Rights Governance

Core Question
How are universal norms implemented in a sovereign system?

Preparation
Constructivist approaches to norm diffusion, focusing on Finnemore and Sikkink’s “norm life cycle” framework, examined alongside Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) critiques of the historical and political conditions shaping the application of international human rights norms.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The development of the international human rights regime; universal norms and state sovereignty; treaty monitoring and reporting mechanisms; international human rights institutions; the politicisation of rights; selective enforcement; state exceptionalism; and debates over the legitimacy of external scrutiny. How do human rights norms gain authority, and why are they applied unevenly across different political contexts? Can the principle of universality survive geopolitical selectivity in the enforcement of human rights?

Research Lab
In pairs, students compare the treaty reservations entered by three or four states to a single human rights instrument (for example, CEDAW or the ICCPR). Each pair produces a 300-word analytical assessment identifying patterns in reservations, explaining their possible political, cultural, legal, or regional foundations, and evaluating what these patterns reveal about the negotiation between universal norms and state sovereignty.

Additional Literature

• • Anghie, Antony. 2005. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge University Press.

  • Hopgood, Stephen. 2013. The Endtimes of Human Rights. Cornell University Press.

  • Pease, Kelly-Kate S., and Diego Belo. 2025. International Organizations: Perspectives on Global Governance. 7th ed. Routledge.

MODULE V: Crisis and the Future of Global Governance

Week 11: Crisis Governance

Core Question
How do global institutions respond to systemic shocks?

Preparation
Institutionalist approaches to crisis response, focusing on emergency governance, institutional adaptation, and punctuated institutional change. The week examines how global governance arrangements respond when existing rules, procedures, and coordination mechanisms are challenged by sudden and large-scale disruptions.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The governance of systemic crises; pandemics, financial contagions, and climate-related shocks; emergency coordination mechanisms; institutional adaptation; the suspension of normal decision-making procedures; and debates over resilience and failure in global governance. How do crises reshape institutional authority, and why do some governance systems adapt while others experience coordination breakdowns? Do systemic crises strengthen global governance architectures, or do they reveal their fundamental limitations?

Research Lab
Groups of four reconstruct an annotated timeline of one major global crisis (for example, COVID-19 or the 2008 financial crisis). Each timeline identifies key events, institutional responses, decision points, and coordination mechanisms. Groups then produce a 300-word analytical assessment identifying where institutional coordination succeeded or failed, and explaining the political and structural reasons behind these outcomes.

Additional Literature

• • Drezner, Daniel W. 2014. The System Worked: How the World Stopped Another Great Depression. Oxford University Press.

  • Helleiner, Eric. 2014. The Status Quo Crisis: Global Financial Governance after the 2008 Meltdown. Oxford University Press.

  • Kamradt-Scott, Adam. 2015. Managing Global Health Security: The World Health Organization and Disease Outbreak Control. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Schwab, Klaus, and Thierry Malleret. 2020. COVID-19: The Great Reset. World Economic Forum.

Week 12: Futures of Global Governance

Core Question
Is global governance fragmenting or evolving?

Preparation
Minilateralism and network governance approaches, focusing on the emergence of flexible coalitions, informal institutional arrangements, and transgovernmental networks as alternatives or complements to traditional multilateral institutions. The week examines whether contemporary changes represent institutional decline or adaptation within a more complex world order.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The transformation of global governance under conditions of multipolarity; institutional drift; the rise of minilateral forums and parallel governance clubs; network-based coordination; declining reliance on formal multilateral treaties; and competing visions of the future international order. How do new forms of cooperation reshape authority, legitimacy, and accountability in global governance? Is global governance still a coherent concept in a fragmented and multipolar world order?

Research Lab
Extended two-hour workshop. Groups of four to five construct a scenario for the global governance architecture of 2035–2050. Each group produces a 500-word scenario narrative and a one-page scenario matrix identifying key actors, institutions, sources of power, risks, and possible pathways of institutional change. 

Additional Literature

• • Acharya, Amitav. 2018. The End of American World Order. 2nd ed. Polity.

  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton University Press.

  • Weiss, Thomas G., and Rorden Wilkinson, eds. 2023. International Organization and Global Governance. 3rd ed. Routledge.

Office Hours and Consultation 

I welcome students to discuss course material, assessment questions, research ideas, or analytical challenges during consultation hours. To ensure that all requests are received and can be scheduled appropriately, please use the contact form provided for booking consultations.

I will respond with available times and confirmation of the meeting arrangement.

*** This course is designed to be adaptable across different higher education contexts. The weekly structure, assessment components, and reading requirements can be adjusted to meet the needs of particular institutions, programmes, or individual teaching contexts, and can be scaled appropriately for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. While the course’s analytical framework and intellectual objectives remain consistent, the structure presented here should be understood as a flexible model rather than a fixed template.

Updated – June 2026

I have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and coherence of this course design, but if you identify any errors, omissions, or areas for improvement, I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Academic work is always strengthened through careful review and constructive engagement. Additionally, if you are aware of any outstanding publications that could further enrich the course, I would welcome your recommendations.

Contact Form