Putin’s Mongolia Visit: A Red Flag for the Future of Global Governance?

Adèle Chatelard is a 1st-year BSc politics and international relations student.

Introduction

When Vladimir Putin visited Mongolia in September 2024, he didn’t just spark regional buzz; he highlighted a mounting crisis in the international justice system. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have struggled for credibility, especially with high-profile leaders like Putin avoiding accountability. For the West, this isn’t merely a regional hiccup—it’s a sign that the mechanisms meant to uphold global norms are cracking. Emerging nations are no longer willing to stand by quietly, often challenging what they view as a biased, Western-dominated order, creating new rifts in international relations.

Two theories underpin the global tug-of-war of the 21st century we’re seeing. Liberalism, with its faith in cooperation and democracy, finds that international peace stems from interconnected democracies and institutions like the UN and NATO. Scholars John Oneal and Bruce Russett, in The Kantian Peace, argue that democracy, economic ties, and global institutions dramatically lower the odds of conflict, saying, “Democracy, economic interdependence, and international organisations have strong and statistically significant effects on reducing the probability that states will be involved in militarised disputes.” Liberalism’s central thesis suggests that shared values and open institutions bring stability and peace.

However, realism, articulated by Hans Morgenthau in Politics Among Nations, counters this notion. Morgenthau paints a picture of nations focused on strategic interests, which leads to power plays and shifting alliances as they scramble for global advantage. Realism argues that the world is in a state of anarchy, and the states prioritise power and survival above all else. To realist scholars, institutions work only as long as they align with a nation’s goals—a stark view that resonates in today’s world as countries pursue self-interest with unprecedented openness.

Why the UN Is Losing Its Global Appeal

Today’s disillusionment with the UN-led system largely stems from a perceived hypocrisy, particularly from the West. Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003—despite UN objections, the U.S. proceeded, claiming strategic necessity. For many nations, this move was evidence of selective adherence to international norms. France - a “rights for freedom champion” - has faced criticism for interventions contradicting its pro-UN rhetoric. These instances have given rise to distrust among countries observing the West’s tendency to pick and choose when to respect international mandates.

Along with that, there’s the issue of exclusion. Emerging economies and the Global South feel sidelined by institutions like the UN Security Council, where power remains concentrated in the hands of a few, mostly Western, nations. While countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa have lobbied for a seat at the table, reforms remain stalled. This power imbalance is evident in the geographic placement of UN headquarters—in New York, Paris, and The Hague—reinforcing the notion that Western voices dominate global governance.

A Shift to Alternative Alliances

Feeling overlooked, many nations are seeking representation outside the Western-centric UN framework. This shift is evident in organisations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), where Russia and China spearhead alternative approaches to governance. The recent BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, underscored this trend, as Putin and other leaders openly criticized Western dominance in global institutions. While Russia leads these criticisms, China supports BRICS with its vast economic influence, quietly fueling a push toward multipolarity, for countries in these alliances, sovereignty and self-determination outweigh imposed international norms, marking a clear divergence from the UN’s cooperative model.

East Asia, particularly China, has made moves to position itself as an alternative to the UN system, capitalising on economic prowess and diplomatic initiatives. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), for example, extends economic aid and infrastructure projects to countries worldwide, especially across Africa, Latin America, and even parts of Europe. Through the BRI, China builds diplomatic bridges based on non-interference and respect for sovereignty—values that resonate with nations wary of Western interventionism.

Considering Mongolia's clear disregard for ICJ and ICC mandates and its warm reception of the Russian president, might we interpret this as a shift toward realist foreign policy? Inspired by China’s increasing global influence, could this suggest a movement among non-Western nations to challenge and potentially reshape the existing international order? 

Could this growing Chinese influence in East Asia create an alternative system that might one day rival the UN? It’s possible. China’s increased role in global institutions like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reflects a desire to reshape global governance. For emerging nations, China’s leadership in these organisations represents a step toward an inclusive model that respects non-Western perspectives. 

The Fragmentation of Global Order

However, competing world orders risk creating a loophole for “rogue states,” enabling them to flout international norms with minimal repercussions. Countries like Sudan and Myanmar exemplify a growing resistance to international mandates set by the ICC and ICJ. In Sudan, officials accused of severe war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur continue to evade.

ICC arrest warrants, allowing impunity to persist and human rights abuses to go unpunished. Meanwhile, Myanmar, under military rule, blatantly ignores international mandates addressing the Rohingya crisis, with the junta perpetrating widespread atrocities and refusing to take accountability for what has been deemed ethnic cleansing.  In a world without a cohesive enforcement mechanism, international law risks becoming toothless in areas controlled by powerful states that remain insular to global norms.

A Path to Inclusivity

For the international system to survive, it needs inclusivity—true, meaningful participation from all global regions, especially those historically marginalised. The UN has recognised this, taking steps to increase representation for the Global South. The “Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative,” a UN-backed platform, elevates the voices of developing countries within the UN structure. By fostering economic development and championing issues that resonate in the Global South, this initiative aims to ensure emerging nations play a central role in decision-making processes.

Another promising initiative is the UN’s “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This agenda calls for equitable economic and social development worldwide, prioritising issues like poverty eradication, infrastructure, and gender equality—concerns that are crucial to the Global South. By addressing the root causes of inequality, the 2030 Agenda provides a way for these nations to influence global priorities, emphasising that sustainable development requires the participation and leadership of all nations.

On a regional level, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA) offers a glimpse of how emerging regions can strengthen themselves outside traditional Western-dominated frameworks. AFCFTA aims to create a unified market across Africa, fostering economic collaboration and self-reliance. As regional initiatives like AFCFTA gain traction, countries in the Global South can leverage these alliances to demand reforms within global institutions, balancing the scales of power.

Building a Multicultural International System

Ultimately, the UN and similar institutions must embrace reforms that align with today’s shifting geopolitical landscape. Symbolic gestures are not enough; these bodies need to take tangible steps to incorporate and amplify the voices from underrepresented regions, establishing a system that prioritises diversity and equal power distribution. Integrating emerging powers and historically sidelined nations as decision-makers isn’t simply a matter of fair representation; it’s a strategic move to bolster trust in cooperative governance. Engaging nations like Mongolia more directly in ICC or ICJ processes could be a valuable step, extending an invitation to a country that has often been overlooked by the international system.

In a world of competing alliances and emerging power blocs, a cohesive and impartial international framework is essential to holding leaders accountable, managing conflicts, and building a future grounded in respect for the sovereignty of all nations.