From the Archives: Global Governance 02
Collective Alignment from the Bottom-to-the-Top
by Carl Teichrib
The following is a summary. Click here to go to the original post on Carl’s substack (no subscription required)
In October 2002, I attended the Global Governance 2002 symposium in Montreal, hosted by the Forum international de Montréal (FIM). Attended by nearly 500 representatives from NGOs, governments, academia, and multilateral institutions, the conference focused on “Civil Society and the Democratization of Global Governance.” At its core, the event revealed the alignment of grassroots civil society groups with top-tier international institutions, converging on a shared vision for a restructured world order under the umbrella of global governance.
This was not my first encounter with such efforts. Two years earlier, I participated in the United Nations Millennium Forum, where over 1,800 NGOs collaborated with UN leadership in a strategic bottom-up, top-down dynamic. Montreal’s gathering echoed the same theme: empowering the United Nations and redefining sovereignty in service of a “global neighborhood.”
Global governance, as discussed at G02, is more than international cooperation—it is the pursuit of a managed global system organized around a shared values framework. The 1995 *Our Global Neighborhood* report by the Commission on Global Governance outlined key goals: a UN with taxing authority, a standing military, a judicial arm, and international law enforcement mechanisms. While stopping short of calling it “world government,” the substance implies centralized control over global affairs.
Key sessions at G02 explored reinforcing the UN, promoting the International Criminal Court (ICC), introducing global taxation through a Tobin Tax, regulating global trade and finance, and even establishing a Global Parliament. Civil society actors were urged to lobby national governments—especially the U.S.—to adopt such measures, thus catalyzing broader international buy-in through pressure and precedent.
Notably, individuals like Bill Pace of the World Federalist Movement played prominent roles, exemplifying how persistent advocacy has elevated once-marginal ideas into mainstream discussions. The ICC’s recent launch was treated as a major victory and stepping stone toward future initiatives like international taxation and world legislative bodies.
Some dissenting voices raised concerns about sovereignty and the sweeping implications of these proposals. However, most participants appeared committed to advancing a collective vision where national interests yield to global mandates framed around human rights, equity, and sustainability.
Ultimately, G02 illuminated civil society’s evolving role as an engine of global transformation. These movements are not fringe but function as incubators for initiatives with potential real-world authority. Global governance may still be unfolding, but its advocates are organized, strategic, and persistent—and they are shaping the architecture of tomorrow’s world order.
