Globalisation or internationalisation is the expansion of all those parameters (economy, communication, etc.), which until a few decades ago were exercised restrictively within states. The parameters that tend to be projected beyond the borders of each state following globalisation include communication, social structure, technology, culture, political system, knowledge, etc. After the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, which has brought the whole planet to a state of emergency, a new dimension of globalisation has emerged: the spread of epidemic diseases. Individual states now need to concern themselves with global pandemics. Thus, the pros of globalisation are now mixed with the cons. Since we cannot reverse the conditions that have led to the present disastrous situation, constructive reflection needs to be directed to a way of managing the already existing crisis in all its dimensions.

                Why have we been unable to better manage this global crisis so far? The reason is the following: while globalisation is accompanied by generalised situations, the actions undertaken to address the pandemic were fragmentary and unilateral. This fragmentation and one-sidedness delays, and in many cases hinders, the implementation of solutions on a global level. An ideal solution for the rapid and effective response to the negative consequences of globalisation would be the management of the crisis by a single efficient body or, at least, the universal acceptance of the same strict rules of conduct enforced by all states and citizens. It is clear, however, that the institutions established after the two world wars, the League of Nations after WW1 and the United Nations after WW2, were equipped with minimal decision-making powers and meager financial means. This is why the global interventions of these institutions so far have brought few positive results. It seems that humanity is still far from fully integrating individual and societal interests and even further from integrating national and transnational aspirations. For this reason, under the present circumstances, we can only reflect on the defective management of the negative situations created by globalisation.

                Since the founding of the League of Nations in 1920 and the United Nations in 1945, several organisations of supranational activity have been gradually formed, closely or loosely associated with each other: the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, UNICEF (an organisation for children), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). If one wants to delve into their goals and areas of activity by studying their founding acts, one will find that the potential for effective interventions is weak and that the possibilities for generalised actions are very limited. The limitation of their potential for action is exacerbated even more by their meagre or selective funding, which is usually associated with terms and conditions that serve their sponsors. There are many reasons that limit the capability of these organisations to undertake universal interventions which would benefit the whole human race: the pathogenesis associated with their founding acts, their limited and selective funding and the rigidity caused by their bureaucratic structure and operation, designed mainly for the benefit of their high-level executives. Under these circumstances, the practical possibilities for generalised emergency assistance that could be provided to countries in times of need, such as the new pandemic, are significantly reduced.

                To this defective mode of operation of the international organisations has now been added a global (hence the name “pandemic”) threat to the health of all human societies on the planet: the new corona virus. If an independent observer analyses the actions taken so far in order to combat the pandemic, he/she will clearly see their fragmentary and closely micromanaged nature. With this new virus, which in the course of its spread and mutation does not recognise barriers and state borders, the control policies undertaken so far are limited to maximizing the protection measures within the internal borders of each state. International economic organisations and multinational industries are moving quickly in order to maintain their own rights and maximise their profits from the growing need for measures to tackle the pandemic. But are such behaviours acceptable? Should those who profit the most from the generalised benefits of globalisation refuse to contribute to tackling global misfortunes? Or, more specifically, should health industries ultimately benefit by increasing their profits with the new forms of vaccines required by emerging new coronavirus mutations, which are mainly due to the limited number of vaccinated citizens in third world countries?

                Let us hope that the long-term traumatic experience of humanity from the current new pandemic will help improve the conditions for the creation of a globalised efficient structure, with the sole purpose of preventing and protecting the health of the members of the human society as a whole, from any pandemics that may occur in the future.