"Failure of International Governance and Global Gorvernmentality" (original) (raw)

Global Governance: The Next Frontier. Egmont Paper, no. 2, April 2004

In the past two decades, globalisation has proven to be not just economic. It is also a political, a cultural and a security phenomenon. Our collective ability to handle all these challenges has not progressed at the same pace as globalisation itself. Today’s rules, instruments and institutions are often inadequate and ineffective to tackle the scale of our challenges, new and old together. Notwithstanding this, serious talk about global governance has been scarce. The very word is sometimes judged divisive. Moreover, after 9/11 world attention seemed to turn to the sole issue of the combat of the threat of terrorism. Global governance suddenly seemed out of sync with today’s anxieties. But neglecting global issues today, spells trouble for tomorrow. No future is inevitable. Ultimately, our kind of future depends on the kind of choices that we are making – or not making – today. The Royal Institute for International Relations set up an informal working group with the aim of drafting...

GJ #2017, 2, Elements of a Theory of Global Governance, by David Held

After the devastation of World War II, a new international community was built, organized under the newly formed United Nations which oversaw the development of a new legal and institutional framework for the maintenance of peace and security. Maintaining global peace and stability served the purpose of limiting violence, but it was also a prerequisite for accelerating "globalisation". Even during the years of the Cold War, deep tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union facilitated, paradoxically, a deepening of interdependence and coordination among world powers. The logic of MAD ("mutually assured destruction") determined the awareness of the shared vulnerability of the globe. From the late 1940s to the beginning of the 21 st century, a densely complex and interdependent world order emerged. Global interdependence has now progressed to the point where it is beginning to undermine our ability to engage in further cooperation. The need for international cooperation has never been higher and yet effective institutionalized multilateral cooperation has stalled. It is possible to identify four reasons for this blockage, four pathways to gridlock: rising multipolarity, more difficult problems, institutional inertia and institutional fragmentation. Still, there exists a range of instances in which gridlock has not prevented effective global governance from emerging -some "pathways" out of gridlock. The following article discusses the reasons behind gridlock and the four pathways through and beyond it, in order to identify mechanisms through which effective global change can occur. This task, the search for pathways through and beyond gridlock, is a hugely significant one, if global governance is to be once again effective, responsive and fit for purpose.

The Current State and Prospectives of Global Governance

2014

Global governance consists of a set of institutions, procedures and networks that jointly influence collective decision making (agreements, regulations, specific choices) necessary to tackle global challenges. The need to manage problems of global nature – to govern globally – is generated by globalization processes. Globalization gradually but irreversibly undermines the once-exclusive position of nation states, which (voluntarily or involuntarily) surrender a substantial part of their informal as well as formal decision-making authority to superior international or supranational structures. Regional political and economic organizations, but also non-governmental organizations, the mass media and supranational economic corporations are thus gaining more influence in the international arena. The study focuses on analyzing the position of individual actors in the global governance process. It reaches the conclusion that, despite being so numerous and diverse, the above-mentioned acto...

Global Governance changes in Contemporary times

The beginning of the post-Cold War era was characterized by a rise in the hopes of many citizens: they were seeking a structural change in the way of governing the world. More than two decades later, in which ways have our rulers shifted? The aim of this essay is to argue that we have been moving from a state-centric system of global governance towards a polycentric one, in which states have not only lost autonomy, but also the exclusive sovereignty of the world. This essay has three parts: firstly, it talks about the increasingly important role of substate and suprastate public governments in global governance, according to the ideas of Acuto, Sassen and Fawcett. Secondly, it deals with the phenomena of private governance according to Scholte, and the opportunities that it supposes for the civil society, following the literature of Seligman. Finally, it highlights the new role of the state understood for Scholte. Finally, the essay concludes that civil society processes are even more important than outcomes, quoting Pavel Seifter.