CONTEMPORARY
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
CHAPTER 5
References:
•
•
•
- Chapter 29 of textbook: “The United Nations Meets the Twenty-first Century:
Confronting the Challenges of Global Governance” by Thomas G. Weiss and
Ramesh Thakur.
-Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1996. “The Future of the State.” Development and Change
27(2): 267–278.
Intended Learning Outcome
At the end of the unit, the students must have:
• Identify the roles and functions of the United Nations(CLO3);
• Identify the challenges of global governance in the twenty first
centuries(CLOs 2,3):
• Explain the relevance of the state amid globalization. (CLO2).
INTRODUCTION OF THE TOPIC
• It tackles about the discussion of various political flows, but the main focus
is on the development and functioning of global political structures. Starting
with more traditional structures such as the nation - state, the discussion
moves on to the development of regional and global political structures,
processes and of course contemporary global governance.
POLITICAL FLOWS
•
•
•
•
The global flow of people, especially refugees and
illegal immigrants, poses a direct threat to the nation state and its ability to control its borders.
The looming crises associated with dwindling oil and
water supplies threaten to lead to riots and perhaps
insurrections that could lead to the downfall of extant
governments.
The inability of the nation - state to control economic
flows dominated by MNCs, as well as the current
economic and financial crisis that is sweeping the
world, is also posing a profound threat to the nation state (e.g. in Eastern Europe).
Environmental problems of all sorts, especially those
related to global warming, are very likely to be
destabilizing politically.
• Borderless diseases, especially malaria,
TB, and AIDs in Africa, pose a danger to
political structures.
•
War is the most obvious global flow
threatening the nation – states involved,
especially those on the losing side.
• Global inequalities, especially the
profound and growing North-South split,
threaten to pit poor nations against rich
nations.
• Terrorism is clearly regarded as a threat
by those nations against which it is
waged (hence the so - called “war on
terrorism” in the US).
GLOBAL PROBLEMS
• Many of which (e.g. trade protection
and liberalization; efforts to increase
political transparency and
accountability) are political in nature.
• Finally, political structures (e.g. nation
- states, the UN) initiate a wide range
of global flows (e.g. the violence
sponsored by Robert Mugabe ’ s
government in Zimbabwe that led to
the mass migration of millions of
people from the country).
The Nation State
•
•
•
•
•
Nation: Social group linked through common
descent, culture, language, or territorial contiguity.
National identity: A fluid and dynamic form of
collective identity; members of the community
believe that they are different from other groups.
Nationalism: is a doctrine and (or) political
movement that seek to make the nation the basis
of a political structure, especially a state.
State: Organizational structure outside other
socioeconomic hierarchies with relatively
autonomous office - holders.
Nation - state: Integrates sub - groups that define
themselves as a nation with the organizational
structure of the state.
Threats to the Nation – State
The nation - state is especially threatened by the global economy and global
economic flows.
Example
•
•
In terms of the global economy, nation - states have become little more than bit
actors”(Ohmae, 1996: 12). It refers to the borderless global economy that nation states are unable to control.
B. The decline of the nation - state is linked to technological and financial changes,
as well as to “ the accelerated integration of national economies into one single
global market economy ” (Strange 1996 : 13 – 14). While nation - states once
controlled markets, it is now the markets that often control the nation - states.
2. Other factors threatening the autonomy of the nation – state
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A. including flows of information,
B. illegal immigrants,
C. new social movements,
D. terrorists,
E. criminals,
F. drugs,
G. money (including laundered money, and other financial instruments),
H. sex- trafficking and much else.
Many of these flows have been made possible by the development and continual refinement of
technologies of all sorts. The nation - state has become increasingly porous. While this seems
to be supported by a great deal of evidence, the fact is that no nation - state has ever been
able to control its borders completely (Bauman 1992: 57). Thus, it is not the porosity of the
nation - state that is new, but rather what is new is a dramatic increase in that porosity and
the kinds of flows that are capable of passing through national borders.
International Human Rights
•
Another threat to the autonomy of the nation - state is the growing interest in international human rights
(Elliott 2007: 343 – 63; Chatterjee 2008; Fredman 2008 ).
Human Rights
•
•
defined as the “entitlement of individuals to life, security, and well being” (Turner 1993: 489 – 512; 2007 : 591), has emerged as a major
global political issue. It is argued that because these rights are
universal, the nation - state cannot abrogate them. As a result,
global human rights groups have claimed the right to be able to
have a say about what is done to people within (for example,
torture of terror suspects) and between, illegal trafficking in
humans [Farr 2005] sovereign states.
Thus, in such a view, human rights are a global matter and not
exclusively a concern of the state (Levy and Sznaider 2006 :657 –
76). Furthermore, the implication is that the international
community can and should intervene when a state violates human
rights or when a violation occurs within a state border and the state
does not take adequate action to deal with the violation.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
For example, according to Article 13:
• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within
the borders of each State.
•
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.
• It is clear in this Declaration and its Articles is that human rights take
precedence over the nation - state and that the UN is seeking to exert control
over the state, at least on these issues.
UNITED NATIONS
• The United Nations (UN), in spite of its myriad problems, is the premier
global organization in the realm of politics.
•
ROLES AND FUNCTIONS of the UNITED
NATIONs
UN stands in opposition, at least in general, to those who argue that globalization
has brought about, or is bringing about, the demise of the (nation - )state. The UN
is a global setting in which nation - states meet and deliberate.
However, the UN is not merely a setting in which nation - states meet; it is also an
independent actor.
•
The two best - known state - based organs in the UN:
1.the Security Council- UN ’ s main deliberative body and
2.the General Assembly responsible for the maintenance of
international peace and security
The UN 4 broad areas.
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.Military issues- The UN was envisioned as a major force in managing peace and security,
especially in inter - state relations. However, it was marginalized during the Cold War 1
largely because in the Security Council both the US and the Soviet Union could veto
proposed interventions.
A turning point in the military role of the UN was the 1991 authorization by the Security
Council of the use of force todeal with Iraq ’ s invasion of Kuwait. Throughout the 1990s the UN
engaged in a wide variety of actions that were not anticipated by its founders and which had
been regarded previously as the province of states. These included:
A. interventions in civil wars in less developed countries;
B. election and human rights monitoring,
C. disarmament,
D. and even the assumption of state functions (in Cambodia and East Timor,for example) ”
(Weiss and Zach 2007 : 1219). However, the expansionism of the UN in these areas was
tempered by failures in the 1990s in Somalia and Yugoslavia. In the military realm it is also
important to mention the fact that the UN has been actively involved in arms control and
disarmament.
• 2.Economic issues - promote actions that would lead to reductions in global
inequality.
• 3.Environmental issues- (e.g. pollution, hazardous wastes) which are dealt
with primarily through the United Nations Environment Programme.
•
4.Human protection -A variety of UN - sponsored human rights treaties and
agreements have protected human rights around the world.
The Relevance of State amidst globalization
1.With globalization, the nation - state faces
innumerable challenges, leading to a significant
loss of control over economic flows and
transnational organizations.
2.Although the role of the nation - state has
declined, it is still an important political structure.
However, in the global age, the “ porosity ” of the
nation - state, the increasing global flows through
it, should be a focal concern.
Benedict Anderson’ s “ imagined community”
• is an important idea in thinking about the nation - state. As a result of the
development of “ print capitalism, ” it came to be conceived of as being
actively constructed, socially and politically, by people who identify with the
community that is represented by the nation - state. This concept is
extended further by examining how the nation - state transcends its
geographic boundaries in the face of rapidly developing technology and
increasing immigration flows. Emphasis is placed on the “ re - imagining ” of
the nation - state in the light of such global flows.
Changing Geo - Political Scenario
The world can be seen as evolving through
three stages :
•
bipolar (during the Cold War),
•
unipolar (ascendancy of the US),
•
and finally, to a tri - polar future with the US,
EU, and China as the three centers of power.
Also examined is the emergence of the
United Nations, as well more specific
organizations such as UNCTAD, UNESCO,
and IAEA.
GLOBAL
• What is a Global Governance?
• --is a movement towards political integration of transnational actors aimed
at negotiating responses to problems that affect more than one state or
region. It tends to involve institutionalization. These institutions of global
governance—the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the
World Bank, etc.—tend to have limited or demarcated power to enforce
compliance. The modern question of world governance exists in the context
of globalization and globalizing regimes of power: politically, economically
and culturally. In response to the acceleration of interdependence on a
worldwide scale, both between human societies and between humankind
and the biosphere, the term "global governance" may also be used to name
the process of designating laws, rules, or regulations intended for a global
scale.
New Forms of Governance
• The first is governance without government (Rosenau and Czempiel 1992),
governance without government management. For example, various
matters are managed within the nation - state without the involvement of
state government. Thus, locales and regions within the nation - state may
manage themselves.
• The second is governance through various public policy networks. At the
global level, this involves government by various international institutions
as well as INGOS (International Non - Governmental Organizations; see
below) and private sector organizations of various sorts.
• Finally, governance at the global level can be normatively mediated and
moderated. Included here are efforts driven by values including the
Commission on Global Governance as well as the “Global Compact” created
by former UN Secretary - General, Kofi Annan.
CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IN THE
21ST CENTURY
•
•
•
The increasing “premigration” of the global order. This reflects increasing global
diversity as well as the array of contradictory forces that have been unleashed as a
result. Among those contradictory forces are globalization and localization,
centralization and decentralization, and integration and fragmentation
(premigration).
The declining power of nation -states. If states themselves are less able to handle
various responsibilities, this leaves open the possibility of the emergence of some
form of global governance to fill the void.
The vast flows of all sorts of things that run into and often right through the
borders of nation - states. This could involve the flow of digital information of all
sorts through the Internet. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a nation - state to
stop such flows and in any case it is likely that such action would be politically
unpopular and bring much negative reaction to the nation – state involved in such
an effort. For example, China’ s periodic efforts to interfere with the Internet have
brought great condemnation both internally and externally.
•
•
•
The mass migration of people and their entry, often illegally, into various nation states. If states are unable to control this flow, then there is a need for some sort of
global governance to help deal with the problem. The flow of criminal elements, as
well as their products (drugs, laundered money, those bought and sold in sex
trafficking, etc.), is a strong factor in the call for global governance.
Horrendous events within nation - states that the states themselves either foment
and carry out or are unable to control. For example, in Darfur, Sudan, perhaps
hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions of people displaced and the
lives of many more disrupted in a conflict that dates to early 2003.
Then there are global problems that single nation - states cannot hope to tackle on
their own. One, of course, is the global financial crises and panics (including the
current one) that sweep the world periodically and which nations are often unable
to deal with on their own. Indeed, some nations (e.g. the nations of Southeast Asia)
have often been, and are being, victimized by such crises. Unable to help
themselves, such nations are in need of assistance from some type of global
governance.
International non – governmental organizations
(INGOs):
• International not - for – profit organizations performing public functions but
not established or run by nation - states.
• The first modern INGOs are traceable to the nineteenth century (the
International Red Cross was founded in Switzerland in 1865), but they have
boomed in recent years.
• Turning point in the history of INGOs occurred in 1992 when a treaty to
control the emission of greenhouse gases was signed as a result of the
actions of a variety of groups that not only exerted external pressure, but
were actually involved in the decision - making process.
• international treaty spearheaded by the International Campaign to Ban
Landmines (ICBL). The treaty was signed in 1997 by 122 nations which
agreed to stop selling and using landmines.
Negative sides to the growth of INGOS (and civil
society)
•
Fundamentally, INGOs are special interest groups and therefore they may not take into consideration wider sets of concerns and issues.
•
In addition, they are not democratic, often keep their agendas secret, and are not accountable to anyone other than their members.
•
They are elitist (many involve better - off and well - educated people from the North) – that is, undemocratic – organizations that seek to impose
inappropriate universal plans on local organizations and settings.
•
Thus, they have the potential to be “loose cannons” on the global stage.
•
They are seen as annoying busybodies that are forever putting their noses in the business of others (Thomas 2007: 84 – 102).
•
•
They often pander to public opinion and posture for the media both to attract attention to their issues and to maintain or expand their power and
membership.
As a result, they may distort the magnitude of certain problems (e.g. overestimating the effects, and misjudging the causes, of an oil spill) in order
to advance their cause and interests.
•
•
•
•
•
Their focus on one issue may adversely affect the interest in, and ability to deal with, many
other important issues.
The nature of the focus, and indeed the very creation, of an INGO may be a function of its
ability to attract attention and to raise funds. As a result, other worthy, if not more worthy,
issues (e.g. soil erosion, especially in Africa) may fail to attract much, if any, attention, and
interest.
In some cases, well - meaning INGOs conflict with one another, such as those wishing to
end certain practices (e.g. logging) versus those that see those practices as solutions (e.g.
logging producing wood as a sustainable resource that is preferable to fossil fuels).
The North’ s control over INGOs has actually increased, leading to questions about their
relevance to the concerns of the South.
However, perhaps the strongest criticism of INGOs is that they “seem to have helped
accelerate further state withdrawal from social provision” (Harvey 2006 :52). In that sense
they can be seen as neo - liberalism’ s “Trojan horses, ” furthering its agenda while seeming
to operate against some of its worst abuses.
Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
• --are organizations such as the UN that are international in scope.INGOs
stand to gain from such formal associations in various ways.
There are symbolic gains such as:
•
•
•
greater legitimacy associated with being involved with such an internationally visible
organization.
There are also the more material gains since such an organization might provide badly
needed funding to various INGOs;
work may even be sub - contracted to INGOs and they can earn income for performing
the required tasks.
Dangers to INGOs
• They can easily become co - opted by the IGO involved.
•
•
•
•
Less extremely, INGOs may need to become more rationalized, bureaucratized, and
professionalized in order to deal with the needs and demands of the IGO. This, in turn,
can lead to a more subtle change of orientation, and a decline in radicalism, in an
INGO.
Other possible changes in INGOs include a loss of flexibility (as they must satisfy the
demands of the IGO which, after all, may well be the source of badly needed funds), a
decline in capacity to act quickly, and, perhaps most troubling, a loss of autonomy and
perhaps even identity.
For their part, IGOs are affected by the involvement of INGOs. They, too, can gain
symbolically and increase their legitimacy through the involvement of high - minded
INGOs. Further, they can gain in a material sense because of the fact that less
bureaucratized INGOs can perform tasks that would be much more costly, and done
much more slowly and inefficiently, were they performed by IGOs.
INGOs may also share a symbiotic relationship with inter - governmental organizations
(IGOs), which, while being beneficial in symbolic and material terms, creates challenges
for the INGOs in terms of loss of radicalism and autonomy.