• English
  • 日本語
  • France
  • Deutschland
  • Italy
  • España
  • Slovenia

International politics and global governance: key facts and further resources


Some key facts, organisations, books and further resources that relate to international politics and global governance issues.

Key facts

International Politics and Global Governance 

"Management of transnational issues through voluntary international cooperation has come to be referred as Global Governance. The term sounds like global government, but it is really the opposite, as it refers to management of the transnational challenges in the absence of a world government."[1] - Hakan Altinay

"Global governance is understood as a minimum framework of rules necessary to tackle global problems, guaranteed by a set of institutions, formal and informal, international and local, and representing the interests of as many stakeholders as possible."[2] - Maria Victoria Whittingham Munevar

"[Global] governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken ... At the global level, governance has been viewed primarily as intergovernmental relationships, but it must now be understood as also involving non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens' movements, multinational corporations, and the global capital market. Interacting with these are global mass media of dramatically enlarged influence."[3] - The Commission on Global Governance

How Are Decisions Made and for Whom?   

Senior global governance analysts such as Joseph Stiglitz and Boutros-Boutros Ghali argue that much of international law and policy has developed for the benefit of developed countries, and that there has been a concerted effort by the wealthiest and most powerful nations to maintain control over international decision-making and global institutions.[4]

"The real debate associated with globalisation is, ultimately, not about the efficiency of markets, nor about the importance of modern technology. The debate rather, is about inequality of power."[5] - Amartya Sen

"Not long ago I was at a gala dinner to mark an important anniversary...I discovered to my surprise that those sitting at the table next to mine were not identified simply as representatives of a particular state, as was the case of all the other tables; they were referred to as ‘permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G7 [now G8]'...A slight chill went down my spine, for I could not help observing that one table had been singled out as being special and particularly important. It was a table for the big powers. Somewhat perversely, I began to imagine that the people sitting at it were...dividing the rest of us up among themselves, without asking our opinion....I wanted to express it (to) emphasize the terrible gap that exists between the responsibility of the great powers and their hubris."[6] - Vaclav Havel

Grabbing Seats at the Top Table 

Many of the opportunities for decision-making are concentrated within the control of the most powerful and wealthy states without the scrutiny or input of poorer countries, NGOs, or civil society groups.

"The powerful, like the victorious, do not just write history. They grab the seats at the top tables, from the United Nations Security Council to the boards of the big international economic and financial institutions. They collude behind closed doors. They decide who can join their cosy clubs and expect the rest of the world to obey the instructions they hand down."[7] - The Economist

There remains a lack of broad representation within many organs of global governance. In particular, the developing countries that are most affected by many of the decisions taken by the International Financial Institutions, and the debt and development declarations of the G8 and G20, have little if any input.

"The absence of direct democratic accountability perhaps also accounts for why there is not greater concern about public perceptions ... Were these institutions worried about their political legitimacy, the lack of direct accountability would have led them to be particularly sensitive about such matters, and to be especially concerned to be open and transparent."[8] - Joseph Stiglitz

"The leaderships of the organizations [of global governance] have not been subject to direct popular election. Nor has any global governance institution had a democratically appointed legislative arm. Citizens have in most cases have been unable to take global authorities to court for redress ... True, a notional accountability chain does connect voters via national parliaments and national governments to global governance organizations, but the links have in practice been very weak.

"National political parties have rarely addressed global governance issues with any prominence in election manifestos and debates ... many disillusioned citizens have concluded that the very system of parliamentary politics does not offer adequate channels to make their democratic voice heard ... relationships between national governments and global governance agencies have mainly flowed through unelected technocrats who lack any direct connection with citizens."[9] - Jan Aart Scholte

A Tyranny Speaking the Language of Democracy?

Many international organisations lack democracy and accountability in their composition and in their decision-making processes. Critics of the global governance system claim that a lack of democracy means that there is a lack of fairness, control and consent.

"Developing countries account for more than 80 per cent of [the] world population and contribute almost 50 per cent of world output. Yet, their influence in multilateral institutions that govern the world economy is at best limited and at worst marginal ... the existing system does not provide for equal opportunity ... democracy is not only about majority rule, but also about the protection of minority rights. The concerns of poor countries and poor people should, therefore, constitute an integral part of any democratic design for global governance."[10]

"Real democracy is efficient because it allows competition between ideas, criticism and for review within a system. But agents like the G7 or the IMF operate like fossils from a pre-democratic era. They are 17th century parodies of representative government from a time which only recognised the rights of aristocrats and big land owners."[11] - New Economics Foundation

"[Institutions of global governance] make decisions that affect us all. They do so without our consent ... We vote for an MP, and this vote is then deemed to communicate our support for his party. That is then presumed to legitimise the government, which in turn assumes the right to appoint a prime minister. He then delegates ambassadors and bureaucrats to represent us globally, and their decisions are deemed to express our wishes. With every presumed transfer of democratic consent, the imprint of our cross on the ballot paper becomes fainter...Global governance is a tyranny speaking the language of democracy."[12] - George Monbiot

Profiles - Global Governance Organisations and Political Groupings

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

The founder members of the United Nations, led by the United States, established the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in 1945 as specialized agencies of the United Nations.

According to the IMF, the body "works to foster global growth and economic stability. It provides policy advice and financing to [its 185] members in economic difficulties and also works with developing nations to help them achieve macroeconomic stability and reduce poverty."[13]

In contrast, critics of the IMF "are concerned about the conditionalities imposed on borrower countries. The World Bank and the IMF often attach loan conditionalities based on what is termed the 'Washington Consensus' policies, focusing on liberalisation-of trade, investment and the financial sector-, deregulation of domestic markets and privatisation of nationalised industries. Often the conditionalities are attached without due regard for the borrower countries' individual circumstances, and the prescriptive recommendations by the World Bank and IMF fail to resolve the economic problems within the countries."[14] - Bretton Woods Project

"IMF conditionalities may additionally result in the loss of a state's authority to govern its own economy as national economic policies are predetermined under the structural adjustment packages. Issues of representation are raised as a consequence of the shift in the regulation of national economies from state governments to a Washington-based financial institution in which most developing countries hold little voting power."[15]

There are 185 members of the IMF. Voting rights, and therefore decision-making authority, is proportionate to the member's relative size in the world economy. The IMF assigns each member a quota, which "largely determines a member's voting power in IMF decisions. Each IMF member has 250 basic votes plus one additional vote for each SDR 100,000 of quota. Accordingly, the United States has 371,743 votes (16.83 percent of the total), and Palau has 281 votes (0.01 percent of the total)."[16]

Following reforms in 2008, ‘Emerging and Developing Countries' have increased their share of the total voting power from approximately 40 to 42 percent.[17]

The Group of 8 members of richer economies (United States, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Canada, Russia) hold 47.16 percent of total votes (1,045,180 votes).[18]

The power allocation system of the International Financial Institutions is commonly referred to as "one dollar, one vote."[19]

World Bank

The World Banks states that its mission is "to help developing countries and their people reach the goals by working with our partners to alleviate poverty ... the Bank delivers technical, financial and other assistance to those most in need and where it can have the greatest impact and promote growth."[20]

"With the World Bank, there are concerns about the types of development projects funded by the [World Bank's] International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the IDA. Many infrastructural projects financed by the World Bank Group have social and environmental implications for the populations in the affected areas and criticism has centred around the ethical issues of funding such projects.

For example, World Bank-funded construction of hydroelectric dams in various countries have resulted in the displacement of indigenous peoples of the area. There are also concerns that the World Bank working in partnership with the private sector may undermine the role of the state as the primary provider of essential goods and services, such as healthcare and education, resulting in the shortfall of such services in countries badly in need of them."[21]

"[W]hat sets the IMF and the World Bank apart ... is their universality and claim to represent nearly all countries in the world. At present this character is diminished by the erosion of basic votes which are a symbol of equality with the organization ... The special character and legitimacy of the institutions is also diminished by the very slow way the institutions have adapted to a new climate of democracy and good governance."[22]

The World Bank has a weighted system of voting. Each member of the Bank is allocated 250 votes. Additional votes are based on each country's contributions to the Bank. Therefore the larger the country's share in the global economy, the greater its contribution to the Bank, and the larger its voting share and control of decisions within the Bank.

The five largest contributors, the US, Japan, Germany, France and the UK, have 37.33 percent of voting power within the main Bank (IRDB).[23]

The World Trade Organisation

Governments established the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, as a basic set of principles and rules to guide international commence in goods between countries. Following a long negotiating period in the ‘Uruguay Round' of talks during the 1980s and early 1990s, government leaders signed a new legal treaty to supplant the GATT with the ‘World Trade Organization' in 1995. 

The Organisation now acts as a forum where governments can make agreements on tariffs, quotas and subsidy levels on a number of goods and services including: food and agricultural commodities, textiles and clothing, and trade related intellectual property. In the event of a dispute over trade, member countries can refer the case to the WTO Court, called the Dispute Settlement Body.   

According to the body itself, "the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible."[24]

"At the heart of the system - known as the multilateral trading system - are the WTO's agreements, negotiated and signed by a large majority of the world's trading nations, and ratified in their parliaments. These agreements are the legal ground-rules for international commerce. Essentially, they are contracts, guaranteeing member countries important trade rights. They also bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits to everybody's benefit."[25]

In contrast, critics decry that "the assumptions on which the rules of WTO are based are grossly unfair and even prejudiced. Those rules reflect an agenda that serves only to promote dominant corporatist interests that already monopolise the arena of international trade. The rules assume an equality of bargaining power between all the countries that engage in trade. They are also designed on the basis of a premise that ignores the fact that the greater percentage of global trade is controlled by powerful multinational enterprises. Within such a context, the notion of free trade on which the rules are constructed is a fallacy."[26]

The WTO has 153 members, and members take decisions by consensus.

"The WTO shall continue the practice of decision-making by consensus followed under GATT 1947. Except as otherwise provided, where a decision cannot be arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by voting. At meetings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, each Member of the WTO shall have one vote"[27]

The Group of 8

The G8 (formerly known as the G7 before Russia formally joined in 1997) stands for the Group of Eight. These are eight leading industrialised countries; France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Russia. The European Union also attends G8 Summits. Other nations and international organisations have attended past meetings.

The French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing founded the G8 in 1975, and the group has met annually since this date.  

"With no headquarters, budget or permanent staff, the Group of Eight is an informal but exclusive body whose members set out to tackle global challenges through discussion and action ... G8 members can agree on policies and can set objectives, but compliance with these is voluntary. The G8 has clout in other world bodies because of the economic and political muscle of its members."[28]

Commentators suggest that the "G8/G7 is criticized routinely as a wealthy club whose main concern is maintaining the global economic and political stability necessary for its members to continue accumulating wealth."[29]

"The fundamental legitimacy problem associated with the G8/G7 is not its right to exist. Rather it's the way that it has worked to promote itself as the central player in global governance-and in the process undermined the credibility of the United Nations ... [T]he G8/G7 has shown little leadership in addressing the deepening crisis of global governance. Indeed it has contributed to this crisis by supporting policy solutions that bypass the United Nations and further destructive trends in the global economy."[30]

The remit of the G8 has increasingly expanded to an agenda-setting function. The G8, unlike the G20, has a self-declared mandate to address political issues as well as economic ones.

The Group of 20 (G20)

The first meeting of the G20 (Group of 20) took place on 15-16 December 1999. Its membership includes the G8 countries, as well as the "systemically important industrialized and developing economies ... The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries [with the addition of the EU]"[31]

The G20 only has a mandate to address issues directly related to global economic security and stability. It meets annually, with rotating hosts and chairs, and has no permanent staff or headquarters.

"Together, member countries represent around 90 per cent of global gross national product, 80 per cent of world trade (including EU intra-trade) as well as two-thirds of the world's population. The G-20's economic weight and broad membership gives it a high degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy and financial system."[32]

"Achieving consensus is the underlying principle of G-2 activity ... Every G-20 member has one ‘voice' with which it can take an active part in G-20 activity."[33]

Decisions made at G20 or G8 summits are not binding, and there are no enforcement capabilities.

Other global governance commentators state that:

"G20 membership is a somewhat uncomfortable blend of historical power, current economic heft, geographical representation and luck of the draw. There are no criteria for membership, not any basis on which to adjust the composition of the body to changing circumstances".[34] - Alex Evans

"It's no secret that G20 nations are not interested in addressing the structural causes of poverty or their impact on development and human rights, and have worked behind the scenes to undermine the creation of a broad economic decision-making framework."[35] - James Quilligan 

 "With the onset of the global recession, the G20 has been anointed the new center of global economic decision-making by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the international press and the public in the world's wealthiest nations. Yet in spite of their recent promises to tackle the current economic crisis through effective global regulation, most G20 nations are still pursuing policies of financial and capital market liberalization, deregulation and trade protectionism.[36] - James Quilligan

The Group of 77 (G77)

The Group of 77 at the United Nations (G77) was formed at the first session of UNCTAD, in 1964. Unlike the G8 and G20, the G77 represents the interests of the developing world.

"The Group of 77 is the largest intergovernmental organization of developing states in the United Nations, which provides the means for the countries of the South to articulate and promote their collective economic interests and enhance their joint negotiating capacity on all major international economic issues within the United Nations system, and promote South-South cooperation for development."[37]

However, critics suggest that the G77 has proven ineffective at promoting developing country interests because "the grouping is often fragmented or limited to playing a blocking role rather than sponsoring positive and concrete policy action. The problem was especially clear at Copenhagen [in 2009], which showed again that the G77 is unable to represent the interests of vulnerable countries".[38] - Alex Evans

The membership of the Group of ‘77' has since expanded to include 130 developing countries. Its member-states include Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa, who are also members of the G20.

Although there are annual meetings of the G77, the supreme decision-making body-the South Summit-has met every five years since 2000. The G77 does not set the global agenda, but does is the primary body for South-South cooperation, and has released joint statements on issues such as the territorial sovereignty of Iraq, the peace processes in Somalia and the Middle East, and the creation of FOMAC (the Forum for Mine Affected Countries).[39]

The Non-Aligned Movement

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is another key example of the primary negotiating, coordinating, and decision-making forums available to the Global South. It was created in 1961 as a loose union of countries that weren't directly allied to either the US or Soviet led blocs during the Cold War.[40]

NAM has held Summits among its membership approximately every three years. "Non-Aligned administration is non-hierarchical, rotational and inclusive, providing all member states, regardless of size and importance, with an opportunity to participate in global decision-making and world politics."[41]

NAM currently has 118 members, with a further 16 observer states.[42] Critics and observers claim that the Non-Aligned Movement has lost some of its significance and traditional purpose following the collapse of the Cold War.[43] Members have left NAM in the recent past to join other organisations. Malta and Cyprus left in 2004 in order to join the EU, and were highly critical of the relevance of NAM.[44] Supporters have championed a reorganisation of NAM to focus on its influence within the UN, and for its members to act as a caucus with bodies such as the Security Council.[45]

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

The OECD was formed in 1961, and currently has 30 members (and is in discussion with 10 further countries, including China, Russia and India). Member countries decide on the conditions for membership.[46] The UN has an established Secretariat, and its headquarters are based in Paris, France. In 2009, the OECD has a budget of EUR 303 million.[47]

"OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world ... The Organisation provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies."[48]

The OECD does not have policy decision-making capability. It provides statistical databases of the economic activity of its members, monitors global trends, and is a regular publisher of reports and books.

The World Economic Forum

The Forum is a not-for-profit foundation, created in 1971, which holds annual summits in Davos, Switzerland, with approximately 2,500 participants.

"The World Economic Forum is the foremost global community of business, political, intellectual and other leaders of society who are committed to improving the state of the world ... Our summits give world leaders and our members the opportunity to map out solutions to global challenges like terrorism and corporate citizenship. Developing insight on the most pressing issues also places the Forum in a unique position to mobilize people and resources to act."[49]

"Critics suggest that the World Economic Forum is an opportunity for unelected business elites to build networks and forge alliances with politicians to influence policies that will work to their benefit. One critic claims that the forum is "a fly-by-night lobby operation for the bankrupt neoliberal (free market) business model"."[50]

The Forum is based on the participation of businesses, rather than member-states. "Our members represent the 1,000 leading companies and 200 smaller businesses-many from the developing world."[51]Many senior political figures and heads of state including Ban Ki-Moon, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Vladamir Putin attend the Summit.[52]

The Annual Meeting provides opportunities for leaders to define future strategic direction, and forges core public-private partnerships through its Global Institute for Partnership and Governance. The decision-making structure of the Forum is highly informal; observers and participants mostly regard the Forum as a "high-powered talking shop."[53]

Towards Representative Global Governance

International relations commentators have suggested that there is a great need to reform global governance institutions, due in part to the greater transnational interaction between countries, the increase in global threats such as climate change, and the increased importance of non-state actors such as multinational corporations, civil society groups and terrorist networks.

Some commentators suggest the need for regional and formal groups to address threats and challenges, while others call for a fully funded and functional United Nations as the essential forum.

Many proposals address the need for a more democratic voice for both poorer countries, and also actors that are often excluded from global decision making, such as civil society groups. "The thing they all have in common is bridging the gap between purely representative democracy-a cross in a box once every five years if you are lucky-to truly participative democracy."[54] - New Economics Foundation

Some campaigns promote cooperation on transnational issues like the protection of the global commons, and the regulation of the global economy, such as Simpol. Others urge the reform of international institutions to incorporate global democratic voting systems. E-Parliament seeks to create databases and coalitions of elected legislators and form a virtual parliamentary body. The Global Vote encourages participation through shadow voting on key global issues to create an international online expression of global public opinion.

Many developing countries support proposals to place the United Nations at the centre of international policy making:  "We reiterate the importance of the United Nations as the central forum for dialogue and negotiations on issues relating to international cooperation for development. The G-77 Chapters attach high political importance to the strengthening of the role of the United Nations in promoting international cooperation for economic and social development. We strongly believe that the United Nations should be allowed to develop its full potential in the field of international economic cooperation."[55] - Group of 77

"Problems which can only be solved effectively at the global level are multiplying. The requirement of political governance is increasingly extending beyond state borders ... Applying democratic principles to international institutions must be an essential component of any reform or global governance ... A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly-a global body of elected representatives-could invigorate our institutions of global governance with unprecedented democratic legitimacy, transparency, and accountability."[56] - Boutros Boutros-Ghali

 "Unlike the G20, the G8 and all the other G's, the UN General Assembly, or G192, alone has the legal Charter-the Charter of the United Nations-to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian nature and to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the achievement of these common ends."[57] - Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann

"All around we see the principles of the UN subverted, sidelined and suppressed ... Nevertheless the United Nations as an institution can hardly be blamed for the appalling behaviour of its member states. Without the UN, wars would have been even more frequent; they would have gone on longer; there would have been a greater number of victims, and many more refugees living without hope. The UN is the only arena in which all countries sit side by side. For all its weakness, it retains an unmatched legitimacy in world affairs."[58]

Further resources 







[1] Hakan Altinay, The State of Global Governance: An Audit, Yale Global, 26 January 2010

[2] Maria Victoria Whittingham Munevar, Old and New Challenges for Global Governance, 2003.

[3] The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood: Chapter One-A New World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995

[4] Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Reinventing UNCTAD, Submitted to the Panel of Eminent Persons on Enhancing UNCTAD's Impact, South Centre, July 2006

[5] Amartya Sen, cited in Bernard Crick, In Defence of Politics, Continuum International Publishing Group: London and New York, 2005

[6] Vaclav Havel, cited in Andrew Simms et al, It's Democracy Stupid, New Economics Foundation/World Vision, 2000

[7] The Economist, Who Runs the World? Wrestling for Influence, 3 July 2008

[8] Joseph Stiglitz, The Future of Global Governance, Chapter 14 in Narcis Serra and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Consensus Reconsidered',  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008

[9] Jan Aart Scholte, Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004 , pp. 211-212

[10] Deepak Nayyar and Julius Court, Governing Globalization: Issues and Institutions, The United Nations University/WIDER, 2002

[11] Andrew Simms et al, It's Democracy Stupid, New Economic Foundation/World Vision, 2000

[12] George Monbiot, We Need a Directly Elected Assembly, The Guardian, 24 April 2007

[13] International Monetary Fund, Overview, <www.imf.org>

[14] Bretton Woods Project, Background to the Issues, <http://old.brettonwoodsproject.org/background/index.shtml>

[15] Bretton Woods Project, What are the main concerns and criticism about the World Bank and IMF?, 23 August 2005

[16] International Monetary Fund, Membership, <www.imf.org >

[17] Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Reforming Country Representation at the IMF, International Monetary Fund, 29 April 2008

[18] International Monetary Fund, IMF Members' Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors, 5 June 2019

[19] Christian Aid, Options for Democratising the World Bank and IMF, February 2003

[20] World Bank, Challenge: Working for a World Free of Poverty, <www.worldbank.org>

[21] Bretton Woods Project, Background to the Issues,<http://old.brettonwoodsproject.org/background/index.shtml>

[22] Ngaire Woods, Governance in International Organization: The Case for Reform in Bretton Woods Institutions, International Financial and Monetary Issues: United Nations Development Programme, 1998

[23] International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Subscriptions and Voting Power of Member Countries,  April, 2009

[24] World Trade Organisation, The WTO in Brief, <http://www.wto.org>

[25] World Trade Organisation, The WTO in Brief, <http://www.wto.org>

[26] J. Oloka-Onyango and Deepika Udagama, The Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Globalization and Its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, Report prepared for the United Nations Economic and Social Council, June 2000

[27] WTO Marrakesh Agreement, Article IX, <http://www.wto.org>

[28] BBC News, Profile: G8 , 17 September 2008

[29] Tom Barry, G8/G7 and Global Governance, Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 6, No. 27, 2001

[30] Tom Barry, G8/G7 and Global Governance, Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 6, No. 27, 2001

[31] United Kingdom 2009, About G-20>What is the G-20, <www.g20.org>

[32] United Kingdom 2009, About G-20>What is the G-20, <www.g20.org>

[33] United Kingdom 2009, ‘About G-20>FAQ', <www.g20.org>

[34] Alex Evans et al., Confronting the Long Crisis of Globalization; Risk, Resilience and International Order, (Washington DC: Brookings Institute/Centre for International Cooperation), January 2010

[35] James Quilligan, G20 Leaders to the Global South: "Stimulate This!", Share The World's Resources, July 2009

[36] James Quilligan, G20 Leaders to the Global South: "Stimulate This!", Share The World's Resources, July 2009

[37] G-77, ‘About the Group of 77', <www.g77.org>

[38] Alex Evans et al., Confronting the Long Crisis of Globalization; Risk, Resilience and International Order, (Washington DC: Brookings Institute/Centre for International Cooperation), January 2010

[39] G-77, ‘Doha Declaration', Second South Summit, 12- 16 June 2005, <www.g77.org>

[40] Nick Childs, ‘Non-Aligned: For What, against What?', BBC News, 1 September 1998

[41] The Non-Aligned Movement, ‘Background Information', <www.nam.gov.za>

[42] The Non-Aligned Movement, ‘Members of NAM (by regions)', <www.cubanoal.cu>

[43] Thalif Deen, Non-Alignment Survives Despite End of Cold War, IPS News, 7 September 2006

[44] Department of Information-Malta, On Neutrality and Security, Business Weekly, 1 April 1999

[45] The Non-Aligned Movement, Structure, <www.cubanoal.cu>

[46] OECD, Members and Partners, <www.oecd.org>

[47] OECD, About OECD, <www.oecd.org>

[48] OECD, ‘About OECD'<www.oecd.org>

[49] World Economic Forum, Frequently Asked Questions, <www.weforum.org>

[50] Susanne Leutenegger cited in Gustavo Capdevila, World Economic Forum: Davos Under Fire, IPS News, 30 January 2009  

[51] World Economic Forum, Frequently Asked Questions, <www.weforum.org>

[52] Flickr, World Economic Forum's Photostream, <www.flickr.com>

[53] BBC News, Q&A: World Economic Forum 2009, 26 January 2009

[54] Andrew Simms et al, It's Democracy Stupid, New Economic Foundation/World Vision, 2000, p. 7

[55] Group of 77, Final Communique, 2002, <www.g77.org>

[56] Boutros Boutros-Ghali, The Missing Link of Democratization', OpenDemocracy, 9 June 2009

[57] Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, President of the United Nations General Assembly, Q&A: UN's Enormous Potential Being Marginalised, Thalif Deen, Inter-Press Service, 23 June 2009

[58] Charter 99, A Charter for Global Democracy, One World Trust, <www.oneworldtrust.org>