Coronavirus will lead to more robust international institutions

The argument

The world will emerge from Covid-19 with a much stronger need for international institutions. A pandemic is the clearest possible demonstration that some problems cannot be solved within borders: a virus is indifferent to jurisdiction, and no country can secure itself against one by acting alone, however competent its own response. Importantly, as the virus breaks down the fabric of society and reveals our strengths and our weaknesses, we will also come out with an understanding of how to improve those institutions, because the failures have been visible in a way that failures of international coordination usually are not. Never before has co-operation between states been so important. States must work together in times of serious crisis, and the argument for building that capacity now rather than later is that the machinery cannot be assembled in the middle of an emergency — it has to exist beforehand. Experts suggest that the coronavirus may be the first of several global crises this century, and that we are now in the midst of one has hit home in a way no forecast could. Governments need to embolden international institutions and coordinate responses so that we are prepared when the next crisis strikes. The reform this implies is specific rather than utopian, and it comes with its own constraint. As Nick Timothy writes in the New Statesman, "As coronavirus has showed, we need better international mechanisms to promote collaboration in scientific research, information sharing about public health and the coordination of national policies. But to maintain democratic legitimacy and public support, multilateral organisations need to remain intergovernmental and not supranational." The strengthening that follows the pandemic will therefore be a strengthening of cooperation between governments rather than a transfer of authority away from them — which is precisely what makes it achievable, and why the international order will be re-imagined rather than abandoned.

Context

The shape of globalisation is shifting. The crisis has highlighted weaknesses in the existing system for dealing with issues of this scale, and where change is needed. As Will Hutton writes in The Guardian, "one form of unregulated, free-market globalisation with its propensity for crises and pandemics is certainly dying. But another form that recognises interdependence and the primacy of evidence-based collective action is being born."

Premises

Counter-arguments

This argument takes a rose-tinted view of state behaviours and motivations. Much of this will hinge on the time it takes to solve the crisis, produce a vaccine, and allow normal life to resume. It is just as likely that the virus will give rise to stronger forms of nationalism. Countries such as Hungary, are already experiencing a growth in inward-looking policies focused on the nation. As Ian Goldin writes, "Far from empowering the United Nations, the world is governed by divided nations, who prefer to go it alone, starving the institutions designed to safeguard our future of the necessary resources and authority. The WHO shareholders, not its personnel, have failed dismally to ensure it can exercise its vital mandate to protect global health."

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The virus does not require international institutions to be overcome