What is particularly interesting about President Xi’s speech is that he locates the foundations of the post-WWII order not in Bretton Woods (the U.S.-dominated monetary arrangement) but in the establishment of the United Nations in San Francisco. China was the first signatory of the UN Charter.

The US’s veto power on the UN Security Council has in effect made the UN a toothless institution; it cannot fulfill its mandate if one country has full control over its functioning. Interestingly, a more powerful China may create the conditions for a system of international law that has greater legitimacy and adherence around the world because it’s not seen as the instrument of only one global power. This is some kind of “decentralization”—but is it enough to ensure world peace?

In other words, it is not the virtue of any particular country in the UN that lends it legitimacy (the perceived “goodness” of the U.S., China, or any other country), but the balance of power *between* countries that does so.

But major outstanding questions remain:

What is the actual *mandate* of the UN?

How is its scope defined so that it can actually execute effectively against that mandate?

How is membership in the UN reconcilable with the sovereignty of member nations?

Is it possible to have international institutions that aren’t captured by the interests of one or more super powers?

These questions all demand new thinking in political theory and the foundations of relationships between human collectives.