Recently, republicans have been increasingly arguing that the ideal of non-domination can ground both a more plausible account of global justice and better insights for global institutional design than liberal egalitarianism does. What kind of global institutions, however, does non-domination require? The paper argues that a global institutional blueprint based on the republican ideal of non-domination is a multi-faceted endeavor. Republican institutions should aim to fulfil three different desiderata: 1) avoiding excessive concentration of power; 2) bringing informal asymmetrical power under institutional control; 3) furthering an active, vigilant citizenry. The three desiderata often pull in different directions. At the global level in particular, they do not converge on a verdict over whether we should switch to a cosmopolitan institutional order, stick to a world of states, or opt for something altogether different. As a result, there is no straightforward pathway leading from the vindication of non-domination as the central principle of global justice to a clear vision for a global institutional order. The issue is, instead, a matter of careful balancing.