For the fourth year in a row, conference room XXII in the Palais des Nations in Geneva changes guard and the delegate seats usually assumed by States are filled in by Mayors. While the act of mimicking the procedural rituals of inter-state meetings may project an image of an effective integration of cities into the multilateral setting, the debates reveal a more complicated encounter between cities and the international plane.
This year, the Forum was dedicated to thinking more explicitly about the place of cities in the future of global governance and multilateralism. The discussions that unfolded show a perceptible discursive move away from the current transnational governance activities of cities to a call for a more formal international role embedded in multilateral structures. In this blog, I unpack this international turn of cities, situate the unique role of the Forum in such an effort and draw attention to some challenges that come with the process. Before I proceed, I would like to clarify that I use the term ‘city’ very loosely and refer to its ordinary meaning as a local administrative unit. Therefore, I purposefully leave aside debates pertaining to the varying nature of powers and functions of cities (especially vis-à-vis the State and other administrative units within the State) across the globe or other definitional debates like, for example, the blurry distinctions between cities and regions.
Situating the City in the Global Governance
Even though cities are still largely absent from the catalogue of actors usually discussed by international lawyers, their presence on the global stage is visible and their sphere of influence growing. The absence could be partially attributed to the nature of their globally oriented activities. Mayors have been organizing in various city-focused or multistakeholder networks and initiatives which span many global issues including climate, health, human rights, refugees and migration, and digital technologies. These networks, which are constantly proliferating, are mostly horizontal in terms of organisation, they are often topic-specific, and produce various types of normative outcomes (such as guidelines, action plans, best practices, etc). The nature of their organisation and membership puts them squarely within the broad realm of transnational activities.
However, despite the success and growth of the global activities of cities, it seems like mayors are seeking entryways to the international world as well. The ‘internationalisation of the city’ is still a rather new development. In coining the term, Nijman referred to the observation that cities are increasingly using international law as an instrument to pursue various goals. I borrow the term to describe a broader but closely related process, which is the prospect of granting cities a formalised role in international multilateral fora. By extension, this carries consequences for their participation in the making of international law and global policies.
Nijman sees the transnational and international efforts of cities as enmeshed and part of the larger turn of cities to the global arena. A similar dynamic was described by Helmut Aust in studying the emerging authority of cities in international law which is produced by various bottom-up and top-down processes and spanning across various shades of formality. I agree with Nijman and Aust that the two are closely related and, in fact, the development raises questions about the wider dynamic of transnationalisation of international law where the transnational and international forms of activities and authority are interacting and enmeshing. Their factual interlinkage is best demonstrated by various existing networks which are created, maintained, or otherwise connected to the UN system, such as the United for Smart Sustainable Cities initiative by multiple UN agencies, or WHO’s Healthy Cities Network.
However, although not fully abandoning the existing transnational structures, the Forum of Mayors seems to be actively seeking a different kind of engagement – it is finding ways to craft and potentially institutionalize a formal role for cities in the international system in addition to the existing activities. Fundamentally, this is what I mean by internationalisation of the city in this blog. The notion reflects and accounts for a key discursive shift perceptible in the Forum, namely the call to grant cities a more formalised role in international multilateral processes – i.e. getting a seat at the negotiation table – while building on but not being limited to existing channels of activities and influence. In other words, there are signals that cities should be brought from the existing margins into the centre of international affairs and multilateralism of the future. With this move, the key question that arises is how to integrate cities and their activities into international law-making and global governance processes.
The Forum of Mayors – a Platform for Internationalisation of Cities?
The Forum of Mayors itself is a relatively new mechanism. What essentially started as a one-off ‘Day of Cities’ event in 2019 morphed and developed into a subsidiary organ of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (‘UNECE’) Committee on Urban Development, Housing and Land Management in 2022. With this new status, the Forum became a stable channel for cities to ‘internationalise’ their efforts and concerns and, importantly, to develop capacities to engage with other international bodies. The Forum, therefore, has a double function in the internationalisation efforts.
First, it could be seen as a type of training ground or incubator for cities – which are mostly represented by mayors or other city government officials – to gain the necessary competences to engage with the United Nations and international multilateralism. For example, at each Forum cities are invited to reflect on how their projects give expression to various Sustainable Development Goals, and thus how they are learning the language of the United Nations and understanding how their local actions link to the global normative goals and agendas. At other times, cities are asked to reflect on how they already comply with existing international legal agreements, such as the Paris Agreement. Whether SDGs or international legal agreements ‘proper’, the Forum is building the international (legal) consciousness and capacities of cities, and it is keeping the forward momentum of the internationalising efforts.
The second internationalising function is the growth of a support network – a social ecosystem – which aids in the internationalising efforts and acts as an ally in the process. This social ecosystem now includes various stakeholders such as UN agencies, businesses, but also city-specific actors such as the United Cities and Local Governments or the increasingly more visible and vocal Global Cities Hub which resides in the heart of ‘International Geneva’. The growing social ecosystem around cities in the UN further solidifies the position of the Forum and signals that the efforts to include cities and local governments in the international arena is here to stay. It also provides further evidence about the importance of partnerships and coalition-building in international law, as was highlighted by other authors writing on international institutions more broadly.
Bridging the Gap Between the Transnational and International City Efforts
Having a well-developed ecosystem of supporters and backers and the increasing international legal consciousness of cities could partially explain the perceptible discursive shift of this year’s Forum. The agenda signalled a move away from what has been in previous years a characteristically ‘technical’ type of discourse – such as the exchange of best practices about road safety improvements or urban parks – to what could be traditionally considered a more politically-charged discourse. This included topics such as the role of cities in reforming global governance or the importance of decentralisation as a key to democratisation. The discursive shift found expression in the core topic of the Forum, which was the recently adopted Pact for the Future (‘the Pact’) and what the instrument means for the political and legal status of cities in the future of multilateralism. Despite openly expressing disappointment with the ambition of the Pact vis-à-vis cities, mayors and their allies are turning the Pact into such a hook.
It is difficult to say whether the discursive shift was a one-off diversion or a new road for cities. It is also impossible to say whether the Pact will become the magic hook which will accelerate the internationalisation of cities if that is indeed the new direction. However, there are certain signs which point to the direction that the efforts are here to stay. The Forum invites mayors from beyond the UNECE region and included representatives from the African continent, the Americas, as well as Asia. The geographical expansion and inclusion of new city voices could be read as a move to create legitimacy for the Forum and its effort to carve out an international role for the cities. Moreover, while the politically charged debates about the future of global governance had a scarcer participation, it highlighted that the Forum and its ecosystem already empowers and equips some cities to be well-versed in the language of multilateralism and the UN system. Representatives from Glasgow, Tallin, or the Hague are notably embracing this turn and nudging other cities to take greater initiative in these topics as well.
While cities become proficient in adopting the form and language of international meetings and they might have found a hook through which they can link to the international, the process did not defuse some problematic assumptions about the prospect of cities as actors of global governance and international law. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that resolution of the problematic aspects is key for the successful internationalisation of cities and essential to answering the questions of how to include cities as international actors. I want to highlight two such tensions.
The first problematic element is the assumption that due to their physical proximity to its citizens – referred to in the Outcome Statement of the Forum as ‘the closest level of government to the population’ – cities are attuned to the needs of their inhabitants and can aid with the democratic deficit in the global system. In making this argument, cities are wittingly evoking the democratic deficit in the UN system and global governance more broadly. However, it is questionable whether the proximity results in increased democratisation and participation of all people. While cities are investing in securing better participation of excluded inhabitants, as was demonstrated during the Forum’s debate on the inclusion of youth or migrant communities, the automatic correlation between proximity and increased democratisation should be continuously scrutinised. This is especially so if cities are truly committed to transforming global governance and not merely gain a formal seat at the table.
The second aspect, closely related to the first one, is the opaque role of private corporations and interests behind the city’s appeal as a more responsive, innovative, and democratic actor. In the Outcome Statement of the Forum, the lion’s share of argumentation for granting cities a formal capacity in multilateral processes is based around their self-perception as actors possessing knowledge and capabilities to respond to the global polycrisis. It is true that cities are key theatres of climate change, pandemics, or wars, and this reality forces cities to be quick to adapt and think about solutions. However, this often comes with an (over)reliance on the private sector which is embedding itself deeper into the governance fabric of cities. The issue of privatisation of public functions is a serious concern at the level of cities, perhaps more so than at other levels of governance. That is because city administrations tend to rely on the capacities and help of the private sector to compensate for their tight budgets combined with the need to address complex problems. The combination of financial constraints and the need to address complex problems results in deep entanglement of the private and the public sphere in urban governance. Therefore, if cities want to participate in creating a better and more democratic version of global governance and multilateralism, careful attention should be paid to whose interests are represented when a city speaks.
To conclude, the internationalisation of cities comes with a promise of reforming global governance and international law. The Forum of Mayors and its ability to quickly respond to and utilise potential openings as hooks through which they can link to the international (as was the case with the recently adopted Pact for the Future) could be a crucial conduit for the internationalisation of the city in global governance and international law. However, in order to fulfil the promises of expertise and democratisation that cities bring to the table, we should remain vigilant to what type of city is assuming the international place card and whose interests it is speaking on behalf of.

Jana Šikorská is a PhD researcher in international law and a Teaching Assistant in the LL.M. Programme at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Jana’s research expertise and interests are in the areas of the urban in international law and global governance, authority in international law, and international environmental law and governance. |