Global Governance Just Won Big —  As The U.S. Left The Room

As it happened – how the vote went at the International Maritime Organisation. Image from @joshgabbatiss.bsky.social

On April 11, 2025, the world achieved something rare: a legally binding global climate agreement. The United States didn’t vote—they walked out, warning others to follow or face consequences. But 63 nations stayed. And they passed the deal. That’s not just diplomacy. That’s global governance, alive and kicking.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body that regulates global shipping, approved new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions across the maritime sector—one of the most polluting and least regulated industries on Earth. The deal mandates a trajectory to net-zero emissions by 2050, backed by financial penalties and a structured compliance framework.

This is not just another pledge. It’s a legally binding agreement with enforcement. Shipowners who fail to meet emissions reduction targets will pay up to $380 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, feeding into a new Net-Zero Fund to support the transition and ensure climate justice within the sector.

It’s a milestone. But it’s also something more: a proof of concept for a world hungry for functioning international cooperation and governance.

A Success for Global Governance

The IMO’s decision-making process avoids the paralyzing requirement for consensus that plagues climate COPs. When Saudi Arabia and a coalition of fossil fuel-aligned nations raised objections, they could not veto the outcome. Instead, the chair called for a vote—country by country, alphabetically.

The result? 63 countries voted in favor. Only 16 opposed. Even North Korea, at one point, seemed to say “yes, no” before clarifying.

One of the most notable dissenters was the United States, which withdrew from the negotiations just before the final vote. A diplomatic note called the proposed emissions fee “blatantly unfair” and warned of “reciprocal measures,” citing concerns over sovereignty, competitiveness, and disproportionate impact on U.S. shipping. It even urged others to walk out. But the deal passed anyway.

Why such strong opposition? Almost half of all commercial ships transport oil, coal, and gas. The new emissions fee delivers a double blow to fossil fuels: it raises the cost of transporting them—while accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels used to power the ships themselves. The economic implications were clear, and so was the resistance from fossil fuel-aligned countries.

But this time, they lost. The outcome wasn’t just a win for climate policy—it was a rare and timely victory for global governance itself.

Resistance Means Global Governance Is Working

The instinct is to view U.S. withdrawal and Saudi resistance as signs of failure. But in fact, the opposite may be true.

“Resistance is not failure—it’s evidence that you’re shifting the system,” said Maja Groff, international lawyer and convenor of the Climate Governance Commission, in an interview on the very same day.

Power rarely resists what it doesn’t fear. The backlash against global climate cooperation may feel destabilizing, but it’s also a signal that change is finally reaching the centers of entrenched influence.

What happened at the IMO shows that, when structured right, global governance can withstand that resistance—and deliver.

Meanwhile in Hamburg: Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance

That very same day, several hundred kilometers away in Hamburg, another moment of transformation quietly unfolded. At a meeting hosted by The New Institute, a diverse group of governance experts, civil society leaders, academics, and business representatives gathered to address a broader question: How do we redesign global governance to meet the scale of the planetary emergency?

While not formally connected to the IMO talks, the Hamburg meeting reflected the same global momentum: a readiness to move from pledges to enforceable, systemic solutions.

The event included representatives from the MEGA initiative (Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance)— a growing coalition working to strengthen existing environmental governance structures and champion new institutional frameworks. Among MEGA’s key objectives is the creation of a Global Environment Agency—a centralized institution to coordinate global action on climate and ecological risks.

“We’re aggregating key and comprehensive international climate and environmental governance proposals in one place,” Groff explained.

“And we’re moving into implementation.”

Implementation means launching targeted campaigns, supporting institutional reform, and building strategic coalitions between governments, businesses, and civil society actors.

A Business Case for Better Governance

The Hamburg meeting didn’t just include policy insiders. Leaders from major business associations participated, and the mood was urgent. The climate crisis is increasingly being recognized not just as an ecological risk—but as a systemic economic threat.

“We were discussing recent studies showing potential GDP losses of 19%, or even up to 50%, if we stay on our current trajectory,” Groff said.

“And the insurance industry is already ringing the alarm bell. If things become uninsurable, it could trigger massive economic instability.”

The message: the private sector is ready to act. But it needs stronger international governance frameworks to align markets, manage risks, and avoid collapse.

MEGA aims to provide that structure, with platforms for business, civil society, and policymakers to align around shared goals—and move fast.

What Global Governance Actually Means

Global governance is often misunderstood. It’s not about creating a centralized world government. It’s about cooperating across borders to manage the problems that no nation can solve alone—climate change, pandemics, biodiversity loss, cyber threats.

And when it works, the results are real:

• The Montreal Protocol eliminated ozone-depleting substances that exposed billions to dangerous ultraviolet radiation—raising cancer risks, damaging crops, and threatening entire ecosystems. Thanks to a legally binding agreement to phase them out, the ozone layer is now healing. Through its Kigali Amendment, the treaty now also targets powerful climate-warming gases.
• CITES continues to regulate international wildlife trade, curbing the exploitation of endangered species and protecting biodiversity across the planet.
• COVAX delivered nearly 2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to 146 economies—and helped avert an estimated 2.7 million deaths during the pandemic.

Each of these shows that, when structured with legitimacy and accountability, global governance can deliver—even in turbulent times.

What Comes Next

Meeting the scale of the planetary crisis will require going beyond national commitments. It demands robust international governance mechanisms—ones that are enforceable, transparent, and widely legitimate.

The recent IMO agreement offers a compelling template: sector-specific, globally negotiated, and—crucially—not dependent on full consensus but on majority voting. Just as importantly, it moves beyond voluntary pledges to legally binding commitments—creating the accountability needed to drive real change.

Initiatives like MEGA aim to scale this model to other sectors and issues, showing that global cooperation is still possible—even in a time of geopolitical turbulence.

The resistance is already here—and that’s not a reason to retreat. It’s a signal that the shift is real. Systems built on power, fear, and control are reacting because their grip is beginning to loosen.

No nation can meet the challenges ahead alone. But together—through enforceable, equitable agreements and shared purpose—we still have the chance not just to build a livable future, but a prosperous one for all.