Presentation on theme: "Global Governance: Relevant actors and coalitions on the global level Source: Karen Mingst, "The Quest for Global Governance""— Presentation transcript:
Global Governance: Relevant actors and coalitions on the global level Source: Karen Mingst, "The Quest for Global Governance"
Briefly... ● Theoretical Frameworks – Mingst uses Three major levels of analysis: 1) the international system; 2) the state; 3) the individual ● Two major issues of the twentieth century – War and strife, & the international political economy ● Fundamental dilemma of contemporary IR: increasing demands for global action (security, economics) vs. weakness of states and contemporary international organizations ● uh oh...
Why need Global Governance? ● Need new approaches to old issues: ● Security ● 2 nd generation peacekeeping activities ● Need new approaches to new issues: ● Environmental degradation ● Sustainable development ● Protection of human rights (overarching?) ● Less-developed states lack resources to address large issues domestically & contribute internationally towards global solutions
Why need Global Governance? ● The individual power of nation-states is eroding; thus, their ability to address these issues is considerably diminished ● Traditional international orgs/multilateral institutions unable to meet new demands... international peace/security vs. civil conflict trends ● Therefore, there is a power shift towards NGOS (ta-da) ● What are the differences between these old and new institutions?
Roots of International Law ● Western concept ● “the man”: Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) ● Rule of law (int'l application of) ● Hugo vs. Westphalia showdown: int'l law and order vs. state sovereignty in territorial space...eek. ● Question of compromise?
International Law and its Functions ● Accountability, order, mechanism for settling disputes, ethical functions, limit state abritrariness ● The critical difference? State law has authoritative structures, but international law does not ● This is why the realist critisizes international law: ● the state of anarchy
The Sources of International Law ● 1) Custom – codified habit ● 2) Treaties – dominant source ● 3) Formulated by authoritative bodies ● b. note: role of UN Int'l Law Commission ● 4) Courts – International Court of Justice (weak institution in many ways) ● b. National/local courts also sources of int'l law ● Universal Jurisdiction ● Enforcement: Why would states obey int'l law? ● Liberals say b/c it is moral to do so ● Others may say b/c it is in states' best interests ● How? Sanctions, boycotts, military force, reprisals
International Organizations Contending Theories... why are Int. Organizations created? ● Federalism: peace attainable at expense of state sovereignty to higher body ● States join together by surrendering a piece of their sovereignty for the greater good of eliminating war ● Functionalism: (like federalists) are liberals in idealist manner...however, functionalists believe that individuals can change (co- operation habits) vs. federalists believe in formal institutions ● War is caused by economic disparity ● Economic co-operation will spill over into political co-operation (example: the E.U.)
● Collective Goods: “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin) concept--> collective goods owned by none (therefore, no responsibility) yet used by all (thus, free rein of resources; logical to gather the most resources for yourself)
● What then? States need to create strategies to overcome this problem: such as 1) coercion, 2) positive incentives to refrain, punishments for violation, 3) change size of group (where smaller groups are more effective in exerting pressure) ● All of these approaches have inherent weaknesses: ● Federalism: what if states are unwilling to sacrifice piece of sovereignty? Who exerts control in the fed. body, and what are the tools of coercion? ● Functionalism: economic disparity unlikely as main catalyst of war; co-op may not always spill over ● Collective Goods: practical problems in fitting characteristics of collectivity
The Role of Int'l Organizations ● recall: definition of 'regimes' and LOAs ● International LOA: contribute to habits of cooperation (functionalism); dispute aid; operational activities; bargain arena ● State LOA: 'states join IGOS to use them as instruments of foreign policy... but IGOs also constrain states'; form of legitimization ● Individal LOA: socialization to international norms (ie. Diplomacy); education about national perspectives & dynamics between nation-states ● 'Charters of IGOs incorporate the norms, rules, and decisionmaking processes of regimes'
History & Development ● 19 th century events led to IGOs, especially the U.N. ● Three Major Intellectual Strains (Inis Claude): ● 1) widespread utilization of multilateral diplomacy ● 2) Hague system (1899 and 1907) for developing techniques to facilitate the prevention of war ● 3) Public International unions ● (ex. League of Nations) ● United Nations: founded on the principles of sovereign equality of states; jurisdiction extends to int'l conflicts only; int'l peace and security concerns ● Increased calls for reform of U.N. structure
Main Bodies of the United Nations ● Security Council: veto powers - China, France, Russia, UK, US; increase in power since Cold War ● General Assembly: 6 committees – regional voting blocs (ie. Group of 77); decrease since Cold War ● Secretariat: few formal powers equate to soft power and 'neutrality' (although this is compromised as secretary-general becomes more powerful) ● ECOSOC: problems w/ huge increase in economic and social issues needing to be addressed; structure ● Trusteeship Council: supervising decolonialization - so successful, it has worked itself out of a job. ● International Court of Justice: non-compulsory
Realist Views of Int'l Law/Orgs. ● Skeptical: states participate b/c of self-interest ● Int'l organizations are very weak; realists see that int'l law/orgs can prevent self-help solutions & make states dependent on weak institutions ● Doubt feasibility of collective action Radical Marxist Views of Int'l Law/Orgs. International law is a result of Western capitalist states and thus is structured to the self-interests of those states International organizations designed for the powerful Desire major change to 'overturn the contemporary international order in favor of one that distributes economic resources and political power more equitably'.
New Forms of Collective Action ● NGOs: act as advocates, mobilize mass publics ● Can add transparency to other political processes ● Political independence; versatile actors ● Trans-governmental coalitions: special role in organizing substate actors in global governance ● Transnational Communities of Experts: technical specialists from I/NGOs share knowledge/values ● International Regimes: high levels of cooperation, suggesting states possess principles of how problems should be addressed
Conclusion: Towards a new era in IR ● Mingst: “Yet for global governance to come together, for the international relations puzzle to be whole and complete, there must be a global civil society.” What do you think?
Questions for consideration: ● Can a global civil society exist while preserving state sovereignty? ● U.N. Authority--> weak or strong? Would you support the establishment of a U.N. army? ● Given the structure of the Security Council and concentration of power to the U.S. and other large states, is the U.N. really a legitimate int'l governing body? How would you structure its components? ● How do you foresee the future of IR in terms of the new system of soft power gaining influence over hard power? (Hard power needed for peacekeeping & coercion; soft power need for negotiations & diplomacy…how will these be combined effectively?)