At the end of 2024, the G20 placed the proposal for global governance reform at the center of international debate. Under Brazil’s presidency, the meeting held in October in Rio de Janeiro served as a formal invitation to the world’s largest economies to rethink the current rules that govern the international system—rules that are unequal and, in particular, unjust toward countries of the Global South. However, since then, the issue has lost prominence on the global agenda.

While Brazil has maintained its commitment to promoting this debate—now within the framework of its presidency of the BRICS—Global North economies have shown little interest in advancing it. The return of Donald Trump to the White House, the escalation of the trade war between the United States and China, the cooling of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and Israel’s ongoing offensive against Gaza have left little room for discussion about an international restructuring guided by justice and equity.

Even so, it is essential to understand what this global governance reform represents, especially for the Global South countries that actively advocate for it. Broadly speaking, it is a proposal to reconfigure the operating rules of international institutions such as the UN, the World Bank, and the IMF. The goal is to revise the system of checks and balances that structures state action within these spaces, correcting historical imbalances and redistributing power. This system was originally designed in the post–World War II context, when economic and political dynamics were vastly different from today’s.

Today, the global landscape has changed. States that once occupied peripheral positions in the international system now play strategic roles in the global economy and politics. Global governance reform seeks to reflect this new reality, rethinking the international financial architecture, lending models, and development aid mechanisms—often structured in ways that perpetuate dependency relationships between the Global North and South, rather than fostering genuine cooperation.

In 2024, some Global North countries expressed—at least rhetorically—their support for this reform. France acknowledged the need for change, and Germany began promoting adjustments in financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Under the banner of a more balanced international system, less marked by colonial legacies, some governments incorporated feminist agendas to support narratives of equity and global justice.

However, the contradictions in these commitments soon became evident. While progressive and feminist rhetoric is used to legitimize the need for structural reform, the economic practices of these countries continue to support a financial model that sustains the hierarchical nature of Global North–South relations.

This inconsistency was analyzed by the Observatory for Inclusive Feminist Foreign Policy (OPEFI) in a study showing how countries like Germany and Canada recognize the need for changes in the norms and practices of the UN, IMF, and World Bank—but avoid making effective commitments that could lead to concrete transformations. Moreover, although under more progressive governments—such as Justin Trudeau’s in Canada and Scholz’s in Germany, with Annalena Baerbock overseeing foreign policy—both countries adopted feminist perspectives in their development policies with narratives focused on more just and equitable actions in the international system, they continued to reproduce mechanisms of financial, political, and social dependency.

In the current context of political and economic instability, progressive discourses and stances have lost strength. This is evident, for example, in the countries analyzed by the OPEFI study, which, due to electoral changes, have gradually abandoned the “feminist” label—along with the narratives that, although often contradictory and weak in practical terms, supported participation in multilateral dialogue spaces and the proposals for reform coming from Global South countries.

The global reorganization seen with the rise of far-right governments, Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, and constant threats to democracy has increasingly limited progress and support for global governance reform. Now, in 2025, the issue has all but disappeared from the agenda of developed countries. Preoccupied with increased defense spending and the tariff war imposed by the United States, European Union countries and Canada show little interest in the harmful impacts of the current global financial architecture on the Global South.

While the current crisis is a symptom inherent to the structure of the international system—which perpetuates inequality and instability—the demand for justice and the redistribution of opportunities continues to be sidelined by those with the greatest capacity to drive change. As international institutions repeatedly fail to meet their objectives, those who could initiate reform remain inert, prioritizing the maintenance of a status quo that benefits them and is far removed from any principle that could be considered truly feminist.

_{*Machine translation proofread by Janaína da Silva.}