On September 1, at the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus” Meeting in Tianjin, Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled a sweeping new proposal for the future of world order: the Global Governance Initiative (GGI). The framework is articulated through five principles—sovereign equality, respect for international rule of law, multilateralism, people-centered approach and real actions.

For decades, global governance has been a contested concept—alternatively championed, undermined or reshaped by shifting great-power dynamics. Xi’s proposal arrives at a moment of intensifying geopolitical rivalry, eroding trust in existing institutions, and deepening divides over security, technology and development. The GGI represents both continuity and change: Continuity in China’s longstanding advocacy for a community with a shared future for humanity, and change in that Beijing is openly putting forth a structured governance framework on the international stage. Let us unpack the meaning of the GGI, examine its potential significance, and explore the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

Five principles

The first principle is sovereign equality. At its core, this insists that all nations, regardless of size, wealth or military might, deserve respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity. It echoes the founding spirit of the United Nations Charter but also responds to contemporary anxieties among the Global South about domination by larger powers. For many developing nations, sovereignty is not an abstract concept but a daily struggle. From small island states confronting climate change to African countries resisting exploitative trade terms, the imbalance in global influence remains stark. Xi’s reaffirmation of sovereign equality signals Beijing’s desire to be perceived as a defender of fairness in international politics, especially among states historically sidelined by Western-led institutions. Critics may point out that sovereignty, if absolutized, risks becoming a shield for authoritarian regimes. Yet for China and many others, the principle is a necessary foundation for any equitable order. Without it, rules and norms are skewed in favor of the powerful. The GGI’s emphasis on sovereignty reflects a counterpoint to interventions—military or political—that have destabilized many regions in the name of values interpreted through a Western-centric lens.

The second principle, abiding by international rule of law, touches on one of the most contentious issues in world affairs. China has long criticized what it sees as “double standards” in how rules are applied. When international law is invoked against adversaries but ignored when inconvenient for powerful states, trust in global governance erodes. By stressing rule of law, the GGI seeks to reinforce predictability and fairness in international affairs. It implies that treaties, conventions and UN resolutions should be applied universally—not selectively. The message is directed not only at Western powers but also at regional actors who bend rules when expedient. Whether the GGI can move beyond rhetoric to practical mechanisms—such as strengthening international courts, arbitration or rule-making processes—remains to be seen.

The third principle is multilateralism, which stands at the heart of the GGI. This reflects a critique of unilateralism and bloc politics, particularly those perceived as being led by the U.S. The era of one-sided sanctions, trade wars and alliance-based containment strategies has destabilized global markets and fractured cooperation. In contrast, multilateralism—when practiced genuinely—offers inclusivity, shared responsibility and broader legitimacy. By positioning itself as a champion of this approach, Beijing hopes to rally support among countries weary of zero-sum geopolitics. The broader truth is that no single nation, East or West, can resolve global crises—from pandemics to climate change—without multilateral coordination. The GGI reframes this as a strategic imperative: Cooperation is not optional, but existential.

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the GGI is its people-centered orientation. It argues that governance must prioritize human welfare rather than abstract power politics. This echoes China’s domestic narrative of development as a “people first” project, now extended globally. In practice, a people-centered approach means prioritizing poverty alleviation, healthcare access, education and environmental sustainability in global cooperation frameworks. It aligns with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, but with an emphasis on equity rather than charity. The framing appeals strongly to developing countries, where ordinary citizens often experience the failures of governance most acutely. And in China’s case, the people-centered approach is real. The record of lifting hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty, investing in public health infrastructure, and building resilient communities is a powerful domestic precedent that the GGI now seeks to globalize.

The fifth principle is real results, which addresses one of the most chronic frustrations in global governance: dialogues without implementation; declarations failed to yield practical results. The GGI emphasizes action orientation and underscores the need for concrete, measurable outcomes. This could take many forms: joint infrastructure projects under multilateral frameworks, coordinated climate financing, technology-sharing for public health or cooperative disaster relief. The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative has been both praised and criticized, but it undeniably demonstrates Beijing’s preference for action over empty promises. The GGI seems to embed that ethos into a broader governance philosophy. If implemented credibly, this principle could differentiate the initiative from the often stagnant pace of existing multilateral institutions. But it also raises expectations: action must not be merely selective or symbolic, but systemic and sustained.

Vision and credibility

The GGI represents more than just a policy announcement. It reflects China’s commitment to be not merely a participant in, but a shaper of, global governance norms. For decades, the architecture of international order was largely Western-designed. Now, Beijing is explicitly offering its own blueprint. The GGI could appeal strongly to nations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East that seek a more balanced system less dominated by Western powers. It may also resonate with publics disillusioned by inequality and inaction on global challenges. Yet it will also face resistance. The U.S. and its allies are likely to interpret the initiative as an attempt to dilute Western-centric norms and expand Chinese influence. Critics may argue that behind the lofty rhetoric lies a strategic effort to realign global governance in China’s favor. The test of the GGI will be whether it can build inclusive coalitions that transcend bloc politics, or whether it becomes another fault line in the great-power rivalry.

Meeting the challenges of global governance requires both vision and credibility. The inclusiveness of this initiative will be proven by its transparency and consistent behavior. Convincing skeptical nations that the GGI is not just a geopolitical tool but a true platform for fairness will be critical. Implementation capacity is another test. Turning principles into practical mechanisms requires resources, institutions and coordination. China has already demonstrated this capacity through the Belt and Road Initiative and its domestic development programs. The GGI extends that experience to a global context, showing that the tools for action are already in place. Another task is working with existing frameworks. The GGI will work closely with the UN, the World Trade Organization, the Group of 20 (G20) and other major international organizations, and it explicitly seeks to abide by those organizations’ rules. This ensures partnership rather than confrontation. Finally, there is the question of linking domestic and international practice. The people-centered approach is real, and China’s track record at home offers credibility. If this ethos is translated into global projects that improve lives, skepticism abroad will diminish over time. In this sense, the challenges are not obstacles but opportunities for China and the international community to partner with one another in pursuit of a more effective system.

Ultimately, the GGI reflects a broader vision that has been articulated for years: building a community with a shared future for humanity. The GGI attempts to codify this vision into actionable principles, offering an alternative to unilateralism and power politics. Whether it succeeds will depend not only on China’s diplomacy but also on how the international community responds. If embraced, it could mark a significant step toward a more equitable and effective system. If dismissed, it may deepen global divides. The world today faces challenges that no nation can solve alone—climate crises, pandemics, cyber threats and inequality. Global governance is no longer a theoretical concept; it is a matter of survival. The initiative is a reminder that the debate is not about whether governance is needed, but about what kind—and who gets to define it.

The author is president of the America China Public Affairs Institute.