When we talk about the future of global governance, we tend to start with the world we inherited – not the one we’re building. And the world we inherited was largely shaped by an idea born in 1648, at the signing of the Peace of Westphalia: the nation-state. It was a radical organizing principle for its time – one territory, one government, one sovereignty. This model didn’t just define borders; it defined identity, allegiance, and the rules of the game for centuries.

While the Peace of Westphalia is often credited with birthing the nation-state, some historians argue that its role has been mythologized in hindsight – shaped more by 19th-century interpretations than 17th-century intent. Still, over time, the nation-state became the dominant frame through which governance, diplomacy, and citizenship were understood.

For hundreds of years, this structure worked – or at least worked well enough to provide a coherent framework for law, trade, and geopolitical order. It assumed that the most powerful and capable actor in the global arena was the state itself. That assumption is now under strain.

Why the Conversation Is Happening Now

In the 21st century, power is leaking out of the traditional state container. Cities are now economic engines in their own right, producing most of the world’s GDP and driving climate action at a scale that often outpaces the national governments they belong to. Technology companies control critical infrastructure – cloud platforms, AI systems, satellite networks – that transcend borders and shape global norms. And artificial intelligence is beginning to make operational and strategic decisions at speeds bureaucracy can’t match.

The challenges we face – climate change, pandemics, cyberattacks, fragile supply chains – are too big, too fast, and too interconnected for any one nation to manage alone. These crises have become governance stress tests, revealing the limitations of a model built for a slower, less entangled world.

The Key Threads in the Debate

1. Cities as Global Actors
The mayors of the world’s largest cities increasingly operate like heads of state. New York, Seoul, Paris, Dubai, Singapore – these are not just population centers; they are strategic hubs of innovation, finance, culture, and climate action. Networks like C40 Cities and the Global Covenant of Mayors allow them to coordinate directly, bypassing the slow lanes of national diplomacy. When Los Angeles commits to net-zero targets or Shanghai pilots a new public health surveillance system, the ripple effects reach far beyond their borders. In some cases, these city alliances have proven more agile than national governments, moving from idea to implementation in months rather than years.

2. Corporate Sovereignty
Global tech companies now exert influence that rivals, and sometimes exceeds, that of many countries. Amazon controls logistics networks spanning continents. Google and Microsoft own the infrastructure that keeps much of the internet running. SpaceX operates more satellites than any national space agency. These companies set de facto global standards for cybersecurity, AI ethics, and climate reporting. Their platforms shape political discourse, public health messaging, and market stability – without going through any democratic process. As they take on roles once held by governments, questions arise: Who holds them accountable? And in a world where their decisions can sway billions of lives, what happens when corporate interest and public interest diverge?

3. AI in Governance
The speed and scope of AI decision-making are pushing the boundaries of how governance is defined. AI systems already manage energy grids, optimize traffic flows, and detect cyber threats faster than human teams can. In disaster response simulations, AI can identify the most effective resource allocations in seconds – a process that might take human agencies days.

The global race to define AI norms underscores the stakes. The EU’s AI Act emphasizes human rights and risk mitigation; China’s model prioritizes centralized control and surveillance; and the U.S. continues to favor innovation-first approaches with looser guardrails. These competing visions aren’t just regulatory – they’re philosophical, reflecting different ideas about who should control intelligent systems and why.

4. Multi-Pole Governance
What’s emerging is not a replacement of the nation-state but a more complex power ecosystem — where cities, corporations, NGOs, and AI systems share overlapping spheres of authority. This creates new possibilities for tackling borderless challenges, but also new tensions. Whose priorities prevail when city climate targets clash with national economic policy? What happens when a corporation’s AI system governs infrastructure that a national regulator wants to control? The answers will determine whether this shared governance model becomes a source of innovation – or a source of instability.

A New Era of Shared Power

The debate over the future of governance isn’t a theoretical exercise – it’s unfolding in real time. Every climate pact signed by a coalition of cities, every corporate-led satellite network that shapes global connectivity, every AI system that quietly manages essential services is a signal that power is becoming more distributed.

The nation-state will remain a central actor, but it is no longer the only actor capable of shaping the global agenda. The 21st century will be defined by how effectively these new centers of influence – urban networks, corporate platforms, and intelligent systems – can work alongside traditional governments without deepening fragmentation or fueling mistrust.

We are moving toward a world where legitimacy, authority, and problem-solving capacity are earned, not assumed by historical precedent. The question is no longer who has the right to govern, but who can actually get the job done. The sooner we adapt our thinking to that reality, the better chance we have of meeting the challenges ahead.