Targeted programs could be formed to address urgent issues in these areas [3].

And yet we can distinguish quite thorough works of scientists such as B. Burkinsky, S. Gerasimova, L. Kruglyakova, V. Kukhar, O. Maidannyk, O. Osaulenko, V. Stepanov, O. Tsarenko, O. Cherkas, V. Shevchuk.

In the basic documents of the concept of sustainable development and in the discussions around it, there is still no place for a special analysis of the role of the political component and those political problems that arise from the need to move to sustainable development. Therefore, the aim of this article is to try to outline and analyze the problems that arise on the way to sustainable development in scientific, theoretical and practical terms from the standpoint of political science.

Recognizing the paramount importance of developing and adopting the concept of sustainable development, it is important to keep in mind that the transition to it cannot be separated from a careful assessment of the current political and economic situation in the world given the readiness for this transition. The desire of the world community to move to sustainable development in modern conditions, when the weaving becomes more complicated and the opposition of more and more of its forces and factors (due to the dynamic process of globalization, conflict of geopolitical and economic interests of international actors)

The most powerful trend of our time has been globalization. In the years since the adoption of the 21st Century Agenda in Rio de Janeiro, it has significantly increased its influence on all world processes and, in particular, on the movement towards sustainable development. A clear understanding of the nature of the link between globalization, its leading actors and sustainable development is 123helpme.me crucial to making policy-making in this area integrated, strategic and effective.

Globalization, on the one hand, provides great opportunities for sustainable development and, on the other, endangers it. In a situation where the positive and negative consequences of globalization largely depend on the policies of international financial and trade institutions, it is only a matter of wishing the latter to take into account the principles of sustainable development and increase their contribution to its provision.

Concern for the creation of favorable conditions for sustainable development in the international arena, it is first necessary to overcome the confrontational tendencies that have become companions of globalization. Among them, the main one is the inequality of relations between the subjects of the world economy, first of all between developed countries and those that are developing. The modern system of world division of labor, world trade and lending by international financial institutions is built so that developing countries have virtually no opportunity to improve their position through fair competition [1, p. 610].

In addition, transnational corporations operating in these countries tend to only worsen their situation by exploiting local resources, using methods of non-equivalent exchange and shaping national markets based primarily on their own interests. In this respect, things have only worsened since the Rio Conference, and there are no signs of sustainable development yet.

This situation is largely due to the economic paradigm under which human civilization operates. The first step towards implementing the concept of sustainable development should be to change this paradigm. Thus, according to G. Daly, the economic principle of quantitative growth, on which the modern market is based, no longer meets the objectives of development. The scientist emphasizes: “The needs of economic activity in the external ecosystem for the renewal of raw materials” at the entrance “and absorption” at the exit “should be limited to levels that can be supported by this system” [2, p. one].

Adoption of the concept of sustainable development entails the need to move to the principle of quality development and limiting market activities. It is this change that most economic and political institutions and players, whose activities are based on quantitative growth, are resisting. The market cannot satisfactorily take into account the long-term problems of intergenerational relations, as well as optimize the use of publicly owned resources. The system of market economy with its structure of production and consumption is based on competition and motivated by selfish interests [3].

Only after solving the conceptual issues of economic policy will it be possible to implement the basic elements, as well as the introduction of mechanisms of sustainable development (economic, political, social, spiritual, etc.) that would ensure the efficiency of production and economic and socio-cultural activities. This stage is associated with the adaptation of traditional mechanisms to new realities and values, so it will be very long. Only after that we can hope that the real conditions will adequately combine effective activities in all its manifestations with the interests of present and future generations [4, p. 187].

Recognition of the global nature of many issues and the movement towards global sustainable development raises the issue of managing this process on a global scale. Due to the rapid growth of interdependence between different countries, the “erosion” of state sovereignty and the need to solve complex global problems, the debate on the creation of an organization with certain functions of global government has begun. But the current situation is such that, on the one hand, humanity can no longer do without the global coordination of its activities, and on the other – the system “society – biosphere” is so complex that it is not amenable to global planning and management. Therefore, perhaps it is appropriate not to talk about the creation of a “global government” but about the formation of institutions that would coordinate the cooperation and interaction of sovereign states.

Obviously, the existing international organizations, despite their huge number, cannot effectively solve global problems. Many of them were formed long ago to solve narrower and simpler problems than those facing humanity now. Thus, the UN (with its specialized agencies and programs), once a powerful organization that has addressed a wide range of issues, and since 1992 has taken over the coordination of the implementation of the concept of sustainable development, now, unfortunately, does not enjoy the authority to effectively implement and control sustainable development policy. Circumstances dictate the need to create a world organization that would have a status and mechanisms similar to the status and mechanisms of the WTO, or to radically restructure the UN system.

The UN system, in the form of various agencies and programs, does not meet the requirements of the globalization era. The need to reform the organization has long been recognized, but not because of deep differences between the leading states, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, and those who would like to revoke this status or join the club of the elected. It’s time for a full system review. At the same time, it is important that the search for a reform option is not monopolized by the international bureaucracy. Experts and representatives of scientific circles can do a lot of useful things here. Undoubtedly, the future UN system needs to be more balanced. It will be possible to identify problem areas that require a combined approach of several specialized institutions. Targeted programs could be formed to address urgent issues in these areas [3].

The problem of sustainable development raises the question of the “most favorable” political regime for a sustainable society. Thus, proponents of sustainable development emphasize the importance of a democratic political system to address environmental and other issues. As stated in the Agenda for the XXI century, “its implementation” should be based on an approach focused on concrete actions and results, and comply with the principles of universality, democracy, openness, economic efficiency and accountability “[5, p. 340 ].

The authors of the concept of sustainable development believe that it is in democracy that there are mechanisms that can create harmonious relationships within society and between nature and society. Making all decisions in a sustainable development society implies openness of this process, free access to information. Decision-making at all levels is decentralization, the decentralization of power, which together with the principle of separation of powers is an essential characteristic of democracy and one of the conditions for balanced sustainable development.

On the other hand, democratic mechanisms have certain shortcomings that become significant given the need for an immediate transition to sustainable development.

First, decisions by democratic standards, because they are adopted by a majority, require a fairly long period of preparation. It will take much longer than to “organize” an environmental catastrophe to persuade the majority of the country’s citizens (let alone dozens of countries) to change their consumer orientation to ecological and rational ones.

Secondly, there is no certainty that the majority of the population (for example, during a referendum on sustainable development) will vote in favor of a rational solution [6, p. 143]. In fact, there are more and more situations in which democratic mechanisms prove ineffective. However, this cannot be a reason to abandon democracy as the basis for the functioning of the political system. The current situation was quite unexpected and did not allow the political system and the system of government to respond dynamically to it. Therefore, it is now necessary to think about the problem of improving democratic mechanisms and governance processes at both the national and global levels.

When considering the problems of global development management, one cannot ignore such a factor as state sovereignty. The transition to global governance entails its weakening or erosion. State sovereignty in territorial categories is now losing its force. The cross-border nature of environmental problems and the ecological transparency of political borders lead to a radical change in the functions of the state. An additional reason for the weakening of control by states are decisions made outside them on financial, economic and trade issues: setting, for example, consumer prices, interest rates, and so on.