A key feature of transnationally organized governance elites is that their claim to authority is based on an already presumed universal validity. This is so, at least for those with a claim to authority that is epistemic in character, because there is a general belief that the institution of science produces findings that transcend national borders. Thus, for example, medical doctors from different countries can agree to engage in governance activities based on a shared epistemological framework. I have elsewhere (Sending 2014) compared the emergence of a transnational field of population governance driven by demographers with the emergence of the international governance of the UN Secretariat. Both follow distinct trajectories. Actors that are part of transnational elites compete for positions of authority, but they do so within a shared register in which national borders do not count as prima facie valid grounds on which to dismiss any particular claim about the issues at stake in these fields, be they health, population, or economic governance. This is in contrast to the field of international governance, where competing claims are assessed within a shared epistemological framework in which national borders are the key rationale for the respective actors’ position and differentiation from others. For students of international politics, an important yet seriously understudied case in this regard is the emergence …