Global governance and
accountability.
MADE BY JESPER K. JENSEN
AALBORG UNIVERSITY
21/12-2011
CCG
CHARATHERS: 59016 without footnotes (24,59 pages)
63431 with footnotes (26,43)
1
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Case study.......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Theory .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Realism ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Cosmopolitanism ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Accountability .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Reflection......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Literature list: .................................................................................................................................................. 29
2
Introduction
“In today’s interdependent, globalized world, no institution – whether governmental,
intergovernmental, business, or civil society organization – can exist in isolation. Governance
implies complex, ever-changing interaction between and among various actors”1. International
organizations (IO's) have a more prominent role to play in today’s globalized world politics. From
mid-20th century till present day, the focus on IO’s has taken a bigger role in society and so have
the power they are wielding. United Nations (UN) as an example has existed for more than a half
century now and still growing in numbers.
Another example of Global governance is the organization known as G8. This is a
gathering of the 8 most powerful and influential countries in the world, except from China. G8 will
be some of the main focus in which this project will look upon when dealing with global
governance. Global governance have been defined in many ways, but a general definitions is “the
management of global political and economic space in the absence of a global state”2 .The main
issue that comes up with this quote though, is the concern of who is managing this space that is
mentioned by Roberts. International organizations have been the actor taking over the role as
guide in global politics. Furthermore, this leads us to the question of how responsible these actors
in international politics are and what are they accountable for? Can we trust sovereign nations to
deal on behalf of all others and can we afford not to sit at the table when these countries are
making decisions that are affecting all others who are not sitting and making the significant
choices? These questions and debates about the global international organizations lead me to my
main research question:
Why is there a lack of accountability within the G8 when they are performing
global governance and what situation would they be accountable?
1Hajnal,
Peter I: G8 System and the G20 : Evolution, Role and Documentation. – 2007 - Ashgate Publishing Group - Abingdon, Oxon -
UK page:122
2
McIntosh, Malcolm, Hunter, Alan (edited): New perspectives of human security – 2010 – Greenleaf publishing limited – UK –
page: 16
3
This project will use the G8 organization to look at how accountable these global
governance organizations are. Furthermore, I will use 3 theories, which are realism,
cosmopolitanism and accountability, to understanding different views upon international
government organizations. The project will take these theories and look at them together with the
G8 and try and established grounds for analyzing the accountability of international organizations
like the G8.
4
Methodology
The main goal with the project is to understand how global governance
organizations, or GGO’s, can be immense influential without having to worry about accountability.
This project will look at what makes an organization accountable and what criteria’s that is
included in the accountability of an organization.
I chose the G8 as a case study because it is a perfect example of an organization
providing global governance without having to report to any higher authority than their respective
governments. Furthermore, the G8 is an organization that acts on the behalf of governments but
do not have an existing constitution. The world is asking for more transparency and control of
international government organization and then there is an organization like the G8, which does
not answer to anyone and the only control, is what the member states choose to put on it. Over
the years the WTO and the EU have been invited to the meetings but it is still the main eight
nations who take the big decisions that very often can affect the international economic markets
and change the outcome of the global policies.
For sources this project looked into the book at the university where the library staff
was so friendly to let me borrow what I needed to do the work. Book’s that was uploaded online
was also used in the work to complete the work and answer the research question. This
information was backed up by other sources located on the internet. The project wanted to use
qualitative research with interview with people from an organization, but found due to limited
time and resources that it was not a good idea.
In this project I decided to use 3 theories to explain different sides of what scholars
think of international organizations and organizations in general. Furthermore, the project used
theory on accountability to help answer the main research question. The theories that have been
used are all in the collaboration with the concept of global governance. This is done to further try
and answer the main question.
The first part of the theory deals with the realism theory that provide the project
with a skeptic point of view and criticisms that will force the project to reflect on the problems and
limitations of global governance organizations. The second part of the theory deal with the
cosmopolitanism part of the theory. This theory is more about the morals of an organization and
5
that it believes in the basic good of all men. Moreover, this theory is positive towards international
organizations and tries to understand the positive objectives that nations might have when joining
influential global organizations. The third theory deals with the accountability in general and what
it means for an organization to be hold accountable for their actions. Furthermore, this will also be
used to set up some parameters for which will be used to look upon the accountability of
organizations in different theoretical environment.
The analysis will be based on the frame set up by the G8 and what goes on around
this organization. Furthermore, the theories will be applied on the case study to try and answer
the main research question of the degree of accountability in global governance organizations.
This will also be done looking at the theory and what organization that might work in what
theoretical situation and how much of accountability that might be expected and found in these
situations of governance.
6
Case study
After WWI the "league of nations" was formed in a time where the world needed a
combined effort to deal with the tension after WWI. The model of organization had many shortcomings, since there was no real experience with this kind of decision making. This did however
lead to the creation of the UN, where the more influential nations had their interests taken more
into consideration. "After 1945 the international system was structured in a by-polar fashion, with
each superpower retaining an interest in maintaining its status"3 .This showed a common
understanding that the threat was higher than the drawbacks from working together. But what
was more important was that the member nations now felt responsible to the UN and the other
countries in it. This was the first time where an IO was taken serious on a larger scale and the
respect that was built around it forced other nations to join to have their voices heard. After the
end of the cold war, the UN changed into a different organization without really any structural
change. This had the effect, that the ”superpowers" were not as influential as before. The result of
this was a more balanced effort by most members. At this point it was possible to see the first sign
of governance on a global scale.
So within the last century several thousand International Organizations found its way
to the surface and this also included the G8. Some more influential than others, but all playing
some part in running the international scene. “the total number may now exceed twenty or thirty
thousand. The list includes a wide range of memberships and purposes, and they vary in
significance from Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission to the World Bank”4 .This
demonstrates how you cannot say one organization without mentioning all of them in to some
extent. The sheer number of organizations, playing even the tiniest role, can and will make an
impact on the bigger organizations like the G8 and United Nations.
When mentioning the number, the function also comes into play. If an IO has to play
a role on a global scale and in controlling world politics, it needs to have the right functions and
design to make an impact on both governments and other controlling organizations. A
3
Diehl, Paul F. (edited) :The politics of global governance- 2001 – Lynne Rienner publishers – UK – page: 4
4
Diehl, Paul F. (edited) :The politics of global governance- 2001 – Lynne Rienner publishers – UK – page: 5
7
membership of an IO can either be global or local. By this I mean, either all countries in the world
can have a chance to join or only some countries will have the criteria’s filled. An example could be
the European Union. There would be no point for South Africa to be in that organization and so it
functions and acts locally. “Most international organizations are nongovernmental entities in the
limited membership, specific purpose category”5.
Furthermore, there are two types of organizations that also have played a dominant
role in global governance. “two other types of international organizations have played increasingly
important roles in global governance: nongovernmental organizations(NGO’s), such as the
International Red Cross, and regional organizations, such as the European Union”6. This illustrates
how there is several main categories of IO’s that play a role when dealing with a global governance
controlled outside governments. NGO's have the issue in this case that they are not bound under
the same restrictions that for example the European Union is under. These examples of how
international organizations have developed over the years since world war two, leads me to the
case study that this project is focus upon. This project will be looking into the role and
accountability of the G8 organization and what it stands for in world politics today.
“As members of civil society increasingly demands to be involved in shaping the
world in which they live, the leaders they have elected must be even more accountable to those
they ultimately serve. Given the importance of trade in the daily life of all citizens, accountability
in global governance is particularly necessary within the forums that influence the world’s
economy. These include the G8, consisting of the heads of state and government from the largest
democratic market economies and the WTO”7.
The G8, a powerful organization of what is usually called the major industrial
democracies -Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States – first met in a leaders’ summit in 1975 in Rambouillet, France as G6 (without Canada that
year), then as G7 until 1998 when Russia’s full membership changed the group to G8. Several
economic shocks and other major events in the early 1970s led to the emergence of the group.
Among these developments were the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system based on
5
Diehl, Paul F. (edited) :The politics of global governance- 2001 – Lynne Rienner publishers – UK – page: 6
6
Diehl, Paul F. (edited) :The politics of global governance- 2001 – Lynne Rienner publishers – UK – page: 6
7
Fratianni, Michele Savona, Paolo Kirton, John J, (edited): Corporate, Public and Global Governance : The G8 Contribution – 2007 –
Ashgate publishing group – UK – page: 99
8
fixed exchange rates, with the IMF and the World Bank unable to set up the necessary reforms;
and the first oil crisis, when OPEC placed an embargo on oil supplies after the October 1973 Yom
Kippur war, followed by disagreements among Western countries about how to respond to the
embargo and to the resulting sharp price increases.8
The group’s role and functions have also expanded. The main roles today, according
to John Kirton, are deliberation, direction-giving, and decision-making as well as global governance
and domestic political management functions. The summit allows the attending heads of state and
government to exercise political leadership, reconcile domestic and international concerns,
develop collective management, and integrate economics and politics in their negotiations and
decisions. Because the G8 is not based on a founding charter – unlike the UN Charter or similar
constitutive intergovernmental agreement – there are no built-in institutional mechanisms to set
out or regulate the nature of interaction with other actors. Nor does the G8 have a secretariat,
although G8 member countries do have their own administrative structures related to the G8; so
there can be no structured, continuing machinery through which civil society and other non-state
players can interact with the G8.
“The impact of the G7/8 on multilateral trade negotiations has been so significant as
to merit the term ‘Rambouillet effect’ for describing its ability to bring about incremental progress
during negotiations by having the leaders make the critical political decisions”9. This illustrates
how this organization has an immense effect on its surroundings and creates its mark on the world
order today. During the Evian summit of 2003, the French president Jacques Chirac outlines four
objectives that the G8 had to try and live up too: responsibility, democracy, solidarity and security.
Each of these four objectives was to enhance the accountability of the G8 and the further
openness of this global governance organization. Furthermore, these four objectives are
benchmarks on which that can be analyzed also.
8
Putnam, Robert – Bayne, Nicholas: Hanging Together: Co-operation and Conflict in the Seven- Power Summits – 1987 - Harvard
University Press - Cambridge, Mass – USA – based on page: 25-27
9 Fratianni, Michele Savona, Paolo Kirton, John J, (edited): Corporate, Public and Global Governance : The G8 Contribution – 2007 –
Ashgate publishing group – UK – page: 100
9
Theory
There are three main theories which will be used in this project. This will also mean
that the analysis will be based upon these theories and they will all be taken into consideration
when the conclusion of the project will be written in the end. The three main that will be used in
this project to analyze global governance will be realism, cosmopolitanism and the last is
accountability.
Realism
The first theory this project will deal with is the realist perspective on global
governance. To fully understand the idea of realism in international politics, you first need to make
some assumptions clear of the nature of realism in international politics. First of all, anarchy is the
overruling factor in the world’s political sphere. According to realism there are no overall
international control and states and the only thing controlling the direction of international affairs.
“the state is the primary actor in international affairs, realism does not ignore the importance of
such non-state actors as multinational firms, international organizations and non-governmental
organizations in the determination of international affairs”10. So it shows that realism is not
ignoring the fact that there are actors who have a larger role in international politics, it upholds
the idea that the state will always be the main focus when decisions are being taken.
The main concerns that are presented in realism are that the interests of the state
are always national and disregard the common international good. Furthermore, this makes the
idea of global governance very weak because an international community, where all the actors are
only focused on their own purposes, will fail in its decision making practically every time. Realists
do recognize that the international sphere upholds a great deal of opportunities and power, but
the weakness is still the national hunger for own interests.
10
Gilpin, Robert – Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA –
page: 238
10
“Many scholars and others believe that economic and technological forces have
eclipsed the nation-state and are creating a global economy and society in which political
boundaries and national loyalties are no longer relevant; the realist interpretation of international
affairs rejects that popular belief”11. This quote illustrates how realists do not believe that global
governance is a valid concept and the globalization of the international community will never
occur. Realists do believe that there might be an international monetary coalition and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) but the difficulties there lie in creating and maintain this
organization will, according to realists, most likely collapse and the world will be in economic
anarchy again. By anarchy this project still means that any nation-state think first and foremost of
its self. Now the question presents itself in this project, about whether or not according to realists
global governance will ever be a valid form of governance? Furthermore, since realists believe that
any nation-state always will be selfish, then it is unlikely that they would agree on being under any
kind of governance, much less a larger international government like the European union or
similar.
As sovereign nation-states are growing in number, so does the independence of
these states. Decisions are weight long and hard in the respective governments and the impact it
has on their own countries are taken into consideration. Nationality and nationalism is growing
together with globalization is taking over the world and the idea of nation-states thinking about
themselves more than considering what is the common good is expanding in the minds of the
people. Countries who are struggling because of the global economy crisis are withdrawing from
the international scene in hope of finding their answers from within their own borders in their
own economy. This all is as the realism theorists are predicting. But at the same time, the
international community is developing a deeper bond and dependency to each other in
international organizations and economic relationships.
11
Gilpin, Robert – Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA –
page:239
11
Cosmopolitanism
This project will be focusing more on cosmopolitanism since it deals with the moral
aspect of people in general and it relates to the responsibility international organizations have to
respect the community no matter the cost.
The first part of cosmopolitanism deal with the individual responsibility to the
common good. That we all have to do our part to make sure the best possible result for all that it
might affect. It was the Stoics who made this first work and basic written idea of cosmopolitanism.
Most of the traditional ideas are based to some extend of them after they declared themselves as
the first real cosmopolitalists. “The basic idea of classical cosmopolitanism involves the notion that
each person is ‘a citizen of the world’ and owes a duty, above all, to the world community of
human beings”12. This quote shows also how cosmopolitanism focuses on the common good and
not on the individual case. Furthermore, it expresses how the every person owes to their neighbor
to do the best for all, a sort of collective responsibility. Moreover, all should not only take
responsibility but also make sure that all will help to contribute to get to the outcome needed and
wanted.
“That there were, in the first instance, human beings living in a world of human
beings and only incidentally members of polities…………………….The individual belongs to the wider
world of humanity; moral worth cannot be specified by the yardstick of a single political
community”13. This illustrates how this part of the theory has a strong focus on the world as a very
basic idea. People are people and nothing can interrupt them if they choose to take any action or
to take any decision no matter the consequences that might occur to these people. Another
relevant point the quotation shows is that before there were politics, governments and
organizations there were people who were functioning without considering about borders and
politics.
The more critical view on this part of the theory is its connection to teleological
thinking. This means that that the theory is also meant as people should return to nature and
respect what comes from it. So all people do in the name of the “common good” is something to
12
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 309
13
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 309
12
improve the capabilities of nature. The main problem with this way of thinking is the progress that
has been done in today’s modern society. Technological advances and global development, for not
to mention globalization, have made it easier for people to take advantage of the pleasures that
do exist in a modern world. “Going back to nature” will according to modern thinking be a
complicated task.
The second part of this theory was introduced in the late eighteenth century and it is
regarding the term “world citizen”. It was Kant who made the most important work about this part
of the cosmopolitanism and opened up the ideas of individual thinking in a public situation.
“Kant argued; do not have the opportunity to explore fully the nature and limits of
existing rules, prejudices and beliefs. But people are also, if only potentially, members of a
‘cosmopolitan society’, and as members of this society they can ‘enjoy’ a right to the free and
unrestricted public use of their reason. Individuals can step out of their entrenched position in civil
and political life and enter a sphere of reason free dictatorial authority”14.
With this quote Kant is telling explaining how people can learn to think for
themselves when they are participating in dialogs with other people. At this point in time Kant also
presented what he called ‘the cosmopolitan right’. “Cosmopolitan right connoted the capacity to
present oneself and be heard within and across political communities; it was the right to enter
dialogue without artificial constraints and delimitations”15. This illustrates that it is every person’s
right to communicate within a political sphere. Furthermore, since it is possible for people to have
open unrestricted dialogs, then it is also to everyone’s interest to make decisions while having
these open dialogs and therefor it becomes better to have more people for these discussions.
Also, if people have a right for open dialogs, then it will be to all nations’ interests to have these
talks in international organizations where you can be heard without constraints and delimitations.
The main issue with this situation is that there is rarely any international organization
where a person or nation can communicate without some sort of control of what is being said to
the international community. “where all relationships, political and social, should be bound by a
willingness to enter into dialogue and interaction constrained only by elementary principles of
reason, impartiality and the possibility of intersubjective agreement”16. Here it shows how that
14
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 309
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 310
16 Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 310
15
13
there should not just be a forum where it is possible for people to express their opinions but
correspondingly an agreement that all should be open to reason and do not let their own goals
stand in the way of listening and understanding people’s dialog.
This ideas lead to his point about how people can be if they can communicate openly
and honest in an international sphere where you will be heard by your pears. “ ….individuals can
be citizens of the world as well as of existing states; citizenship can become an attribute not just of
national communities but of a universal system of ‘cosmopolitical’ governance in which the
freedom of each person underpins the freedom of all others”17. This illustrates how people can, if
they remember that they should not repress other people, become a world citizen without losing
their sense of nationality. Furthermore, an organization that provides global governance can be a
positive thing for development where one person’s liberation and progress can mean
advancement for other nations as well.
The third part of cosmopolitanism is the more modern way of thinking that was
published in the late seventies by Beitz, Pogge and Barry. This idea is trying to take what it can
from firstly the classical concepts of belonging to the human community above all others and also
the Kantian thinking of testing all interaction between people whether or not it is unforced and
open. This third part of cosmopolitanism divides it into three parts which all is key elements in this
theory.
Part A of this theory involves the idea that people are fundamentally good and they
are having a moral that will lead them to do the right thing in any given situation. “…..the ultimate
units of moral concern are individual human beings, not states or other particular forms of human
association”18. Here it shows that people have moral concerns that drive them to do the best for
all. This also means that in an international organization the elementary human morals will guide
people to do what is right and help others in their time of need and despair. Moreover, this
principle is called the principle of egalitarian individualism. “The principle of egalitarian
individualism is the basis for articulating the equal worth and liberty of all humans, wherever they
were born or brought up”19. This principle demonstrates how people will have to be just and
17
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 310
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 310
19 Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 311
18
14
morally good to provide all people with the same rights in a situation of governance and global
governance. If they keep the common goal in mind then the organizations could provide political
sphere where people could believe that all objectives were morally just.
Part B says that not only should people experience equal worth but it should be
recognized by all other people at the same time. “Each person has an equal stake in this universal
ethical realm and is, accordingly, required to respect all other people’s status as a basic unit of
moral interest”20. This quotation illustrates how there should be an implied mutual respect among
people when dealing with any matter however important or insignificant it might be. This also
implies in dealing with international relations where a mutual respect is required to have any
success in reaching results that all members of the international organization can agree to. An
agreement of how the daily decision-making should occur is also what comes out of this mutual
respect principle.
“If people are marginalized or fall outside this framework, they suffer disadvantage
not primarily because they have less than others in this instance, but because they can participate
less in the processes and institutions that shape their lives”21. This illustrates how people have to
keep within this framework of mutual respect for each other and moral standards to be able to
conduct the political work that is needed to uphold the international organizations influence in the
international community’s work and life. The problem with this principle is that it is depending on
that all parties of the international community uphold these laws of mutual respect and
understanding. Furthermore, an ideal community might rarely happen in modern times. On the
other hand, if the majority of the nations involved respected and enforced this conduct of
communication, then it might force the remaining parties into acting like other. This again does go
against the first idea of cosmopolitanism, that no one should be forced or pressured into having a
certain dialogue or opinion.
Element c of the contemporary cosmopolitanism opens up the idea that all people
should be heard in the same equal matter. “….equality of status and reciprocal recognition require
that each person should enjoy the impartial treatment of their claims” 22. This can also be seen as a
20
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 311
Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 311
22 Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 – Blackwell publishers inc. – USA – page: 311
21
15
criticism since it is difficult for an organization of global size to listen and take into consideration
all members at the same importance.
Accountability
The third theory this project will be dealing with is the idea of accountability. There
are immense concerns with global organizations that have great influence. Industries and civil
society are just some of the concerned actors worrying when decision will be taken that will
influence their possibilities for progress. A basic definition this project is using to understand the
concept of accountability is: “a process by which individuals and organizations are answerable for
their actions and consequences that follow from them”23. This illustrates a simple understanding
of what the terminology accountability is and how it will be used in this project. We will elaborate
further on the term to get a more clear understanding and to use it for further analysis in the
analysis section of the project. ”An unaccountable government is seldom, if ever, thought to be
legitimate”24. This quotation demonstrates that any organization that has government-like
characteristics and functions but do not have to be accountable for their actions will almost never
be recognized as have legitimate status in the international community.
Two major criteria’s is assumed to be met to even be considered as legitimate; “the
requirements of normative legitimacy and the interest-based demands of the governed”25. The
normal standards of legitimacy and following the basic demands of the people you govern. This is
the basic minimum for finding some sort of legitimacy in a global governance organization.
Furthermore, if an organization is not found legitimate, then there will be no respect around the
decisions that might be constructed.
This presents the major problem with GGO’s. How to make either your members
happy or the people your decisions will affect happy? “….puts GGO’s in an awkward position
23
Fratianni, Michele Savona, Paolo Kirton, John J, (edited): Corporate, Public and Global Governance : The G8 Contribution – 2007 –
Ashgate publishing group – UK – page: 99
24
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 32
25
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page:32
16
betwixt normative expectations and practical interest-based demands. Satisfying the latter will, at
times, require violation of the former, and vice versa”26. This illustrates that it is complicated for
an organization to meet ‘the peoples’ demands even though the decisions might have a major
impact on the people. This also gives the organization in question immense moral issues since
economy very easily becomes a factor.
“The many meanings of accountability as a virtue can be grouped into five broad
categories: transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility and responsiveness”27. This
illustrates how there are different factors to analyze when dealing with a Global Governance
Organization. The five categories each represents a part of the issues that an organization can face
in the decisions-making process.
First factor transparency “requires that accountable individuals or organizations are
reviewed and questioned regularly”28. Second factor liability is that “individuals and organizations
must face consequences for performance, punishment for malfeasance and reward for success” 29.
Third factor Controllability is “ if X can induce the behavior of Y, it is said that X controls Y – and
that Y is accountable to X”30. The fourth factor responsibility is “Fidelity to principle and law as the
most straightforward manifestation of responsibility-type accountability”31. The fifth factor
responsiveness is “responsiveness focusses attention on the demands of the constituencies being
served”32. These five factors of accountability create a sphere where people can check on the
26
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 32
27
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 34
28
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 35
29
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 36
30
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 37
31
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 38
32
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance – 2010 – university of
Chicago press – USA – page: 39
17
GGO’s that make decisions which influences them. This should make international government
organizations more accountable towards its citizens but the question will be here, how much they
are accountable and how much do they respond to pressure if they have no set accountability?
These five factors do generate a set of parameters on which the organizations can be checked to
some extend but the challenge will be to see if they follow it or even allow the people to check on
them.
18
Analysis
In the analysis I will be using the theories described in the theory to determine the
accountability in the project case study which is the G8. This will be done by looking at some
classical approaches to global governance and relate them to how this influential organization is
constructed. Furthermore, this project will look upon whether or not accountability can be found
according to the main theories but also according to the 5 concepts of accountability itself. First
the project will look upon realism and global governance and how an international organization
can be accountable according to this way of thinking. Then the project will look into the opposing
idea with cosmopolitanism and how an organization can be accountable there. The next part of
the project will deal with the idea of accountability itself and trying to establish if an organization
like the G8 can be accountable according to the general idea in this project.
When looking upon a realism point of view, the main idea is that all nations are
basically selfish and all national interests are the first and foremost objectives that a government
is driven by. A government is ruled in an anarchistic world where the objectives of the many never
overshadow the goal of the one. According to the case study, then the G8 consists of the eight
largest economies in the world and thereby also the economies that are most influential on a
global scale. Moreover, this gives the G8 a substantial influence and control over most of the
economies in the world. This also provides these countries with a certain degree of global
governance when they can dictate how the economic markets could shift from one place to
another if it fit the eight nations.
So who would control that this shift in the economy is made with the best of
intentions? According to the realist point of view, then all these nations organized these changes
with the sole purpose of enhancing their own interests on the global markets. This also means that
there would be no accountability according to the realists because the objectives would be in
national interest anyways, so there would most likely be no thought to what this would do on a
global scale. One the other hand, these eight nations are also aware that if they make significant
changes in their own economic and political structures, then because of their size and influence,
they would make a severe impact on the international markets and most likely bring immense
consequences.
19
If realists have to look upon the four categories that were provided by the French
President Jacques Chirac: responsibility, democracy, solidarity and security, then it is interesting to
look upon what these factors, that global governance organizations are supposed to live up in the
modern society. Is it possible for a realist to see the G8 as accountable in according to these
factors? Realism does show that they understand the use of international government
organizations and that this use can be for some common good. The problem occurs when decision
has to be made that affect more than just them, which is the case with an organization like the G8
and with similar groups of nations. Here a few nations can have global effects and even though
they might express they are responsible and cautious with their choices, then realists believe that
all of the members involved will first of all consider their own interests and not have much
responsibility to others. On the other hand, as stated before, realists do understand that
international organization are vital and play their part in the global order, they just still believe
that in the end a nation will make decisions purely from a selfish perspective.
A decision taken on the basis of democracy is for a realist mainly when it fits to
democratic progress in its own nation. Furthermore, this means that it will almost never be
decisions made purely on the basis of spreading democracy. Realism can be supporting almost any
decision made to promote democratic progress due to the fact that it very often helps the nation
in question also. Realists will most likely ignore the need for collaborating in global governance
organizations and would not mean that they could ever be legitimate due to the nationalistic focus
in their goals. A realist would also have democracy as one of the biggest criticisms of the G8. The
lack of elected representatives and members provides the organization with a large hole in its
accountability, because how can an organization be legitimate if they first of all don’t have a
founding charter set and voted by members, but also the nations who are making the decisions
are not elected, they are taken due to their economic stature as a leading economy in the world.
When it comes to solidarity a realist would participate as long as it does not hurt
their own interests. Furthermore, solidarity means to set the needs of the many over needs of the
few and this could never be acceptable for a realist. It could probably be possible for a realist to go
along with decisions being made for the greater good of the other participating members, but the
realist would always have in mind that any nation have their own national interests at heart as the
20
first thing and at any sign of complication all nations would do what serve them greatest. So this
would mean that it would be pointless for a person who is with the realism thinking to accept any
act on the reason for solidarity. On the other hand, there would probably be times where an act of
solidarity would benefit the one nation, so it would be closer to a selfish focused solidarity than
believing in the group could perform greater than the one.
As regards to the final objective for a greater accountability, security would be
something a realism thinker could support on the surface at least. Any country that wants to
protect its own interests would be pleased to put as much focus as possible on to the security on
their nation as they can. However, if security is more helping the countries that are in trouble,
then a realist thinker would have to think of what could be the end result, before anything. Since
security is dealing immensely with terrorism in the G8, then it will almost always be to anyone’s
interest to keep concentration on the matter at hand even though it is something that pulls
nations closer together. According to realism any act that would bring you closer to an
organization without having an agenda is wrong. So it is clear that even in the security issue, a
realist would prefer not to get involved. They might even believe that other nations would try and
undermine their internal control if the organization would begin to offer too many ideas and
opportunities to the people.
Realism does primarily believe that anarchy is the main drive force of international
politics and that all nations, who participate in these global governance organizations, are only
steered by selfish goals. This also does that realism thinkers believe that most nations would not
produce a viable result when they are working together to find some common solutions that
might support all members in the organization. On the other hand, since realism does not ignore
the nationalistic progress that can be accomplished in these GGO’s, they are not closing off all
ideas. One of the main criticisms is that they find is that there is very little accountability since
nations are self-focused. How can a nation provide the people with promise of accountability if
they are hoping to help themselves before all others? On the other hand a lot of decisions that is
taken in GGO’s are done in consideration of the member states and also the global market, so
everything is officially not purely for a few nations benefit.
21
Cosmopolitanism deals with the notion of mutual respect and understanding within a
global governance organization. The first part of cosmopolitanism deals with the classical idea of
this theory. Everyone should be responsible for how their neighbor is doing and acting. This means
a social responsibility is needed to live up to these parameters. Furthermore, this also means that
nations should have a responsibility to their neighbors and global governance organizations should
make sure that both the member nations and the neighbor nations are doing as prosperous as it is
possible.
On a more global scale, members of international government organizations should
take care of each other and make sure all are working to support each other. A good example of
this idea is how the European Union is taking action to help the other members financially so all
nations will prosper. Nevertheless, members of the EU do help each other just as much because
they fear it will hurt their own nations if a country goes bankrupt. So it is still to some extent of
national interest to keep all member states thriving well. One part of the G8 accountability is also
the ability for the member nations to pay attention to how their neighbors are developing. If the
eight most influential economies in the world exclusively consider their own national interests as
the main goal, then some of the lesser nations might get left behind. Even though the G8 is a
powerful organization and have strong economies, they are also dependent on trading partners
and nations buying their goods. Furthermore, it is also in the interest of the G8 that there is kept a
stable security and safety infrastructure so the G8 members will not have to deal with uprising in
the lesser influential countries.
As regarding the G8, there is a close relationship with the WTO and the EU, so the
member nations are aware of that all are dependent on each other. The question might be now, if
their neighbor responsibility is a part of what give or do not give the G8 legitimacy and therefor
makes them accountable? As we have stated before the member nations of the G8 do help their
neighbors develop. But on the other hand, they are mainly doing this because it is in their own
national interest to gain resilient trading partners. Furthermore, in the war on terror the larger
economies needs to ensure they have as member supporters as possible and not a large group of
angry nations left behind without any influence.
22
When we look upon the Kantian view on cosmopolitism where all people from all
nations should be free to enter in dialog without restriction and in free forum, then it is interesting
to look upon the G8 where the most important meetings are done between few nations affecting
many. Furthermore, the idea says that it should be viable to be both a national citizen and also a
world citizen. So how much does the G8 promote the concept of world citizen together with
national citizen? The organization do take decision that affect people as world citizens as well as
national citizens, so in that case it does it does treat people the same. However, this is mainly due
to the fact that the decisions that are taken by the members of the G8 are for national interests
but since they are the world’s most influential economies, a large part of the world will be affected
by the decisions being made.
The third part, which is the modern view on cosmopolitism, is divided into three
parts. The first part deals with the idea that the focus for moral justice is always the person and
never any institution or organization. However, people who are representatives of an organization
will then also have a good moral. If it is the situation where all leaders of the member nations of
the G8 have a good moral motive, then the organization would easily be able to be legitimate and
the world could see it as accountable to its actions. In this case, then they would most likely also
provide support to any nation outside the G8 who needed it without asking for anything in return.
However, this is a very optimistic ideology and hardly any nation would provide financial assistant
without expecting something in return.
The interesting idea behind this is that since all humans are morally good and no one
is interested in making the other any worse, then it provides equilibrium in the world where all
people would be at the same position. On one hand there might not be a need for international
organizations since all are equal so nothing should hinder people in walking to the place in the
world they felt best provided for. On the other hand, the trade and international migration that
might occur in a situation like this should be controlled or overviewed to distribute goods for
people wherever they might be. This discussion however, is for another project entirely.
The second part of this idea is that people should have equal respect for each other
as well as nations should respect each other equally. This would provide the G8 with
accountability due to the fact, that they would be treating all non-members of the organization in
23
the same matter as they treat each other. However, the deals they would be making in the G8
would not be so lucrative for the member nations so there might soon be some debate about the
relevance of the organization in its self. Furthermore, it is not very certain that the member
nations of the G8 would take such action to provide all with an equal right, since they do not have
the same influence as each other in the organization.
Officially there might be written that all members should have an equal right to
determine decisions, but the fact is that larger economies will have more leverage behind their
words. Moreover, the G8 does not have written a founding charter so the member nations that
are unhappy with the decisions might not be as inclined to follow the directions of the
organization. Then we can ask ourselves if there is any forum where all member-nations are
viewed as equals?
The third part of the idea is that all people should have the right to be heard equally
with equally respect and attention. This idea would certainly provide the G8 with a solid reason for
accountability due to the fact that all member and non-member would be heard with equal
attention and respect. Furthermore, it would create a situation of global governance where
leaders could defend in their own congresses that they were following the decisions being taken in
the organization. In modern times the nations are far too dependent on their economy and
internal stability for this to occur. Superpowers like the USA would never be able to defend that
they are following decisions that would hurt more than assist them. However, the USA does
recognize that once they close off one small nation, more will follow in their footsteps and soon
they might lose bigger trading partners. More influential nations would also argue that it would be
unfair for all to have equal right since not all is taking the same risks.
When looking upon cosmopolitanism it makes a clear idea that it deals immensely
with the moral perspectives of the international community. The world should according to this
theory be a perfect place where people are in the center of focus and international economies are
a side product of the main objectives; to build a better world where we can all live together
ignoring national interests and beliefs. This would also mean that the global governance
organizations would have an easy time making decisions, since all resolutions would be beneficial
for the majority of the people. Moreover, Cosmopolitanism does provide a support for the usage
24
of more international organizations. It is defending that people are basically good and that we
should all demonstrate support for the GGO’s, which will help the world’s population to benefit
from each other’s assistance.
This provides the project with some of the criticism, even though not all of them
count for all situations. However, most of the nations in the world are not ignorant and do
understand that they are suffering from a lack of participation within the G8 organization.
Decisions that are affecting nations are being made without the participation of the nations in
question. Major economic changes are being implemented without the influence of smaller
nations who can have their political structure changed due to these changes. The advantage
smaller nations have while living under the control of the G8 today though, does that they are
often provided with a “security net” should their bigger neighbor make decisions that will affect
them.
Another criticism is that the world view provided by cosmopolitanism is too trusting.
In the real world no G8 member is there to only provide for other nations. A major economical
factor like the G8 members, have joined the international organization in order to gain influence
over where the world markets shift too and how decisions on a global are made. If it was
according to cosmopolitanism then global governance organizations would have more influence
and help make the world a more equal place for all to live in. As regards to legitimacy, this theory
would most likely provide them with some degree of legitimacy, but this would also be
overshadowed with the doubt that that this could ever occur in the real world. The G8 is an
organization that is built without a founding charter and then we can ask ourselves that if they will
not create this, then how can they defend they are a legitimate governance organization?
Furthermore, the G8 cannot fulfill most of the criteria set up for cosmopolitanism as morally good
if they will keep making decision that is with national interests more than international.
Accountability is the next part of the theory this project will be dealing with. In the
analysis there is a question which becomes very relevant in this project; “How to make either your
members happy or the people your decisions will affect happy?” To answer this we also need to
look into if an organization lives up to the legitimacy required by their members and by the people
who is be governed. The problem with this is very often that these two participants are with
25
conflicting interests and it becomes hard for an organization to please everyone. The G8 members
have immense economic influence and therefor the decisions being made there will very often be
to promote the interests of the member states mainly. Furthermore, these often provide a conflict
when ignoring a non-member’s wishes since the decision might conflict with the smaller nation’s
interests.
According to the theory it is necessary for an organization to make both its memberstates and the people being governed happy just to achieve the most elementary form of
legitimacy. However, this is a very complicated situation because most of the time, there will be
some nation that will feel left outside and ignored and their interests forgotten. This will
unavoidably happen at some point and then the G8 will have to deal with the situation to the best
of their abilities.
Another issue with accountability is if the G8 can live up to some or any of the
categories that was set up in the theory: transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility and
responsiveness. Since the G8 has multiple small groups of organizations assigned to check if
everything is going right you might say on one side that the G8 do possess some degree of
transparency. The meetings and discussions are being kept under strict control by independent
organization, which unfortunately is hired by the member-states themselves. However, since
there is no real secretary, apart from the nations own staff, it lacks certain elements to illustrate
real transparency. Furthermore, for global governance organization to only have eight real
members that participate in all meetings and summits does not illustrate transparency. An
organization that affect many but decisions are taken by few seems closed and isolated from the
rest of the world. The lack of transparency is also one of the main critiques that the G8 is
experiencing.
The next objective for the G8 to fulfill is liability. When the G8 is taking decisions they
affect more than just themselves due to the magnitude of their economy. Furthermore, when they
take decisions that have a very negative effect on other nations they do not have to face the
consequences as they would have to in for example the European Union. This is mainly because
the choices being made are something that mainly is meant to change their own national
economies and interests. However, the G8 do recognize that the smaller nations face
26
consequences of their actions, so they try and assist the best possible way they can. But then
again, member-states of the G8 most likely know what will be an advantage or disadvantage for
them before they change any decision.
The third objective for the G8 is controllability. This presents itself as a problem due
to the lack of a founding charter. In the basic principle, no member-nation can be forced to
participate in anything they disagree with. This is something that does happen often because of
the conflict in interests between Russia and the USA. Non-member nations can complain to the G8
and try and gain control over what they intend to do but this is often a losing battle due to the
self-interests member nations have. Even though decisions being made often provides control
from a member-state over a non-member state, there presents itself very little control over what
is implemented and what is not.
The fourth objective is responsibility. This objective deals with the most basic fidelity
towards principles and law. For an organization to be accountable according to this belief there
has to be a deeper understanding and respect for the laws that is stated in the international
communities. As mentioned earlier in the project, the G8 is without an official constitution which
also means that the most basic laws the G8 should follow does not exist. However, the G8 does
still have to follow the general rules and regulations that is the norms in international politics, so
on the very basic level the organization does live up to some of the principles that would make
them legitimate. One of the main critiques with this is that the member nations can still chose not
to follow these laws and basic principles. Moreover, there is not much point in general guidelines
if they have the choice to ignore them if they should not fit to their needs and wants.
The fifth objective of an organization that wants to be seen as accountable is
responsibility. The interesting part about this objective is that it focused on nation’s demands
being met. Furthermore, this also put the member-nations in the spotlight where they have to
show that they care more about the common good than only their own economic state. Here the
member states needs to understand what consequences their decisions make and be ready to
take whatever fall back that might occur. The G8 do focus on global progress combined with
fulfilling national interests, so to some extend they do satisfy the objective of responsibility
27
towards the people. However, if the member-states could progress on the cost of a smaller nation,
then they would not hesitate to push forward.
Conclusion
According to realism the reasons for the lack of accountability would be that the
world is anarchistic and all nations act selfish in the end. Furthermore, this also creates a situation
where other nations cannot trust each other and all would really change into anarchy. Realism
does present the member-states with an opportunity to gain accountability because if they would
gain the trust of the people as an organization, there would be really good reasons for it.
Moreover, it is also in the member-states interests to convince the smaller neighbor states that
they are willing to sacrifice to become accountable. However, the basic idea of realism will
primarily calculate the risks and possible gains and take the decision that will benefit them as
much as possible. Realism’s explanation to the lack of accountability is the immense focus from
member states on their own national interests. There could be a situation where the G8 could be
seen as accountable legitimate organization, and that would be if the nations could look past own
interests and focus more on who and what their decisions influence.
Cosmopolitanism does embrace the ideas for an organization to become
accountable. Furthermore, it tries to convince people that all men are created with rights to speak
and be heard. Moreover, Cosmopolitanism illustrate how important it is for the people on top of
the food chain, to be moral just and serve the people they govern as preeminent as possible.
However, there are some immense problems with the moral justice that member-states will have
to have and furthermore, non-member states will never be heard with same equal right and
respect as a member-state will. The nations sitting at the table and making the hard decisions,
they are the ones who have the influence on each other. It will almost never be a small nation that
makes the agenda for the G8, and if it would be, then it will mainly because of major changes in
that nation. Cosmopolitanism provides the G8 organization with all the necessary opportunities to
arrange for accountability. Furthermore, if non-member states suddenly got convinced that all
members should be morally just and give the right to non-members to speak and be heard, then
they could eventually become accountable and recognized as a legitimate governance
28
organization. However, it is very unlikely that this situation would ever occur since the memberstates have too many internal responsibilities to really change towards the helping others.
When looking at accountability as a concept and understanding that an organization
needs to be treated as legitimate before gaining accountability, it is hard to see how the G8 should
gain this status. The five objectives illustrated in both the theory and analysis makes for some
clear criteria’s to what provides the organization with accountability. Furthermore, with the G8, it
is not complicated to find faults with these five objectives. One of the reasons why there is lack of
accountability within the G8 is that the member nations are too dependent of each other and gain
too much from only focusing on their national goals. Furthermore, it becomes too costly to take
too many of the non-member states into consideration even though it has immense consequences
for other states when decisions are being made within the G8. The civil society could most likely
get the member-nations of the G8 to act morally with better integrity, but this would most likely
require a situation where it would have massive consequences for at least one state in the G8. This
project does believe that the G8 is working with some degree of accountability and that they will
be kept responsible with their decisions over time. At the present time, there is just no motive for
the G8 to accept any demand for accountability due to the major influence they possess.
Reflection
When looking back at the process of writing this project I believe I could have spent
more time finding relevant theories and working in more detail with these. This project do also
understand that with more time and resources I could have interviewed an official from the G8 or
listened to more speeches to gain a larger information background.
Literature list:
29






Diehl, Paul F. (edited) :The politics of global governance- 2001 – Lynne Rienner publishers – UK
Fratianni, Michele Savona, Paolo Kirton, John J, (edited): Corporate, Public and Global Governance :
The G8 Contribution – 2007 – Ashgate publishing group – UK
Gilpin, Robert – Held, David & McGrew, Anthony (edited): Governing globalization – 2002 –
Blackwell publishers inc. – USA
Hajnal, Peter I: G8 System and the G20 : Evolution, Role and Documentation. – 2007 - Ashgate
Publishing Group - Abingdon, Oxon - UK McIntosh, Malcolm, Hunter, Alan (edited): New
perspectives of human security – 2010 – Greenleaf publishing limited – UK
Koppell, Jonathan G. S: World Rule : Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global
Governance – 2010 – university of Chicago press – USA
Putnam, Robert – Bayne, Nicholas: Hanging Together: Co-operation and Conflict in the SevenPower Summits – 1987 - Harvard University Press - Cambridge, Mass – USA
30