P5 v G7: Power Structures in Global Governance

Photo via Reuters

HANNAH ABDELSHAHID: As global crises blur the lines between economics and security, the P5’s gridlock meets the G7’s growing influence, raising questions about who truly leads the world order.

In a world where institutions shape people and places, competition often arises in questioning which institutions are “better” than others. The challenge is, how does one measure whether or not an institution is successful in furthering its goal? In the post-war world order, two overlapping but distinct configurations of global power have shaped diplomacy and security: the P5—namely the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France) and the G7, a group of seven advanced economies whose members coordinate on economic, trade, security and global-governance issues.

In recent years, many have argued that the P5 structure is deserving of multiple critiques including the fact that it's outdated, underrepresentative of rising powers and prone to deadlock in the face of crises. Take the current Israel-Palestine conflict: in June 2025, the US used its veto to block a resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire”. in Gaza, even though all other 14 members voted in favour. This means that oftentimes, from a realist perspective, countries can use their position in structures such as the P5 to further their own political agendas. 

Given the relational dynamic between the US and Israel, known to be life-long allies, the US can utilize its position to voice the concerns of other countries like Israel. The G7, by contrast, is not a formal security body but a grouping of advanced economies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US) plus the EU in many of its statements. Its focus ranges from trade and climate, to infrastructure and coordinated diplomacy. 

To evaluate such institutions, one must analyze how they apply in the real world. Currently, the G7 finance ministers have agreed to maintain a united front on China’s export controls of rare earths, aiming to reduce overreliance on Chinese production and strengthen economic security through diversified supply chains. This move reflects the G7’s strategic intent to safeguard technological independence, as rare earth elements are critical components in renewable energy, defense systems and digital infrastructure. 

Elsewhere, in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine, the G7 has also coordinated sanctions to increase pressure on Russia—particularly by targeting entities that continue to purchase Russian oil, thus constraining Moscow’s financial capacity to sustain the conflict. These actions demonstrate how the G7 operates not merely as an economic forum but as a mechanism for collective geopolitical strategy, adapting traditional economic tools to modern power competition. Through these examples, it becomes evident that the G7’s influence extends beyond policymaking into shaping global norms of accountability, economic resilience and multilateral cooperation.

The reality is, though both groups differ in promoting their respective goals, they also intersect because both are key forums for global governance and often share overlapping memberships (eg US, UK, France), in that sense, the p5 members may carry their national hat and their countries into both spheres. From a liberalist sense, these non state actors are vital in maintaining world order through values of diplomacy and collaboration. Yet, though it may be more beneficial to our globalized world to have increased institutions that give space for nations to interact, a certain underlying sense of rivalry can occur in the divergence of both groups. For example, the P5 includes China and Russia, which are not G7 members; thus the G7 can move on certain fronts (e.g., export controls, supply-chain policy) without direct inclusion of China or Russia. 

In this sense, the solution may in fact be collaboration between institutions themselves, or rather inter-institutional relations. This dynamic is especially salient in the current global environment with both these institutions and many more overlapping in crises including the Ukraine War, Israel-Gaza war, Chinese rise, Iran nuclear issue, and more, which are testing institutional capacities. However, given that the P5’s effectiveness in crisis management is under scrutiny, P5 countries may not encourage this collaboration. 

A recent article noted that the UN Security Council passed its fewest resolutions since 1991, underscoring how P5 disagreement can paralyze action (Gowan 2025). At the same time, the G7 is stepping up in areas like economic statecraft: rare-earth export controls, pressure on Russian oil buyers. These are areas where economic and security interests collided. The tension between the P5’s formal seat of authority on global peace and the G7’s de-facto role as coordinator of advanced states raises questions: which forum matters more when action is required? Can they bridge their differences? 

For researchers, policymakers and observers, the interplay has several implications: Reform pressure on the UN Security Council will persist. Emerging powers (India, Brazil) and critics will point to the P5’s exclusivity and veto as blocking global governance. The G7’s growing activism in economic statecraft may mean that strategic competition increasingly plays out outside—but alongside—the UN’s formal security framework.

For global crises that straddle security and economics, having multiple overlapping frameworks offers both opportunities and friction. Ultimately, the question is: when urgent action is needed, will the P5 find common ground? Or will the G7 lead from the side? And does the existence of both forums help or hinder rapid global governance?

The P5 and G7 represent two pillars of international governance, one rooted in the post-war security architecture with formal power structures and the other in economic and democratic coordination among advanced states. As more crises emerge that blur the line between economics and security, the relationship between these two groups becomes ever more consequential. Recent events, whether it be vetoes in the Security Council to G7 supply-chain and sanctions planning reveal how global governance is continuously evolving with its role becoming increasingly significant. 

Understanding their interplay is crucial if we are to grasp how the world handles—or fails to handle—its most pressing challenges.

Hannah Abdelshahid is a Freshman majoring in International Politics in the School of Foreign Service. She is from Cairo, Egypt.