By: Ira Yustika Lestari, S.H.
Legal Practitioner
Global forums such as Davos are often presented as inclusive platforms for collective problem-solving. However, Davos 2026 also highlighted a recurring concern within global governance: participation does not always equate to equal influence. For many countries in the Global South, representation within global legal and policy-making processes remains uneven.
From an international law perspective, the contemporary challenge lies less in the absence of legal norms than in the allocation of normative authority. International rules increasingly affect domestic policy areas ranging from energy transition and trade regulation to financial governance yet the processes shaping these norms are not equally accessible to all states. As a result, developing countries frequently find themselves implementing standards they had limited capacity to shape.
Discussions at Davos often frame global challenges as universal and urgent. While such framing reflects shared concerns, it also risks overlooking contextual differences among states. Uniform legal and policy standards, when applied without sufficient sensitivity to national circumstances, may constrain domestic policy space and raise questions about substantive fairness within the international legal order.
Another notable feature of contemporary global governance is the growing reliance on soft law instruments. Declarations, voluntary frameworks, and informal commitments play an increasingly influential role. These mechanisms offer flexibility, yet they also create legal ambiguity. From a legal standpoint, the absence of clear accountability and democratic oversight may weaken public trust, particularly when soft law shapes binding domestic outcomes.
For countries in the Global South, engagement with global forums must therefore extend beyond economic participation. It requires a deliberate strategy of legal engagement one that emphasizes interpretation, negotiation, and, where appropriate, principled contestation of emerging norms. International law should remain a forum for dialogue and balance, rather than a channel for unilateral policy diffusion.
Indonesia’s experience reflects this broader dynamic. Participation in global governance offers opportunities for cooperation and growth, but it also demands careful legal assessment. International commitments should be evaluated not only for economic benefit, but for their compatibility with constitutional values, social justice, and long-term development goals.
Davos 2026 suggests that the global order is moving toward greater multipolarity. However, normative influence has yet to adjust fully to this shift. The credibility of international law will depend on its capacity to adapt ensuring that legal governance reflects pluralism, equity, and shared responsibility.
Ultimately, a sustainable global legal order cannot rely solely on procedural inclusion. It must also ensure meaningful representation. For the Global South, the objective is not merely to be present in global discussions, but to contribute substantively to the development of norms that shape the future of global governance.