The author examines the diversity, interaction and combination of basic institutional forms of global governance: the United Nations and international organisations within the UN system and works under its auspices (such as the WTO, WHO, IMF and World Bank), regional organisations (eg, the African Union, OAS, ASEAN and SCO), and finally, informal networks and forums leading countries (G7, G20, BRICS).
The author admits that while global governance is ineffective, fragmented and internally contradictory, global problems are not solved or dealt badly, and the basic contradiction between the global nature of the threats and the national nature of the responses to them are not settled.
Considering the advantages, disadvantages and prospects of each of the institutional forms of global governance, the author concludes that all of them are needed and play a unique role and objectively can not replace each other. In particular, regional institutions can not replace the vacuum control, as a consequence of the increasing ineffectiveness of the UN and other universal institutions, as well as regionalisation, by definition, can not be the way to solve problems, the nature of which is global. The author convincingly shows that in some cases the regional institutions play a destabilizing role and worsen global governance. Therefore, as Ramesh Thakur points, relatively effective global governance can only be done by maintaining the current diversity of the international institutional architecture, as well as the development of modalities and conditions for their more effective interaction.