Global Governance
Governance ist die Gesamtheit der zahlreichen Wege, auf denen Individuen sowie öffentliche und private Institutionen ihre gemeinsamen Angelegenheiten regeln. Es handelt sich um einen kontinuierlichen Prozess, durch den kontroverse oder unterschiedliche Interessen ausgeglichen werden und kooperatives Handeln initiiert werden kann
Normative principles justifie the exercise of authority in the global governance system (global = transplanetary unit!)
State and non-state actors hold authority
Rudimentary notion of the global common good
Generalized belief in the possibility of international authority (no direct hierarchy but also no anarchy)
Specific institutions exercise authority in different issue areas
international/transnational institutions
target: create convergence between the different intersts of the relevant actors, built up a red line of reaction towards certain problems = enable to act, achieve/secure common good/ act in field where otherwise would be a conflict, resistance
Inputs from different kinds of actors are transformed into regulations, decisions, treaties
Interaction between authorities
expose fundermental legitimation problems
weak seperation of power, lack of judical supervision supports that
Limits of sectoral/technocratical justification, international authorities lack means to implement decisions themselves
In how far does the concept of Global Governance reflect the specific context of the 1990s?
1990s was a time in which the world really felt that there are “global problems” which couldn’t be solved by a single country e.g. climate change, global economic crisis -> those needed global solutions
(Transnational) Non-states actors increasingly appeared with increasingly power in the scene
International measures or institutions or even a single world institution weren’t found to be adequate and too limited to govern the planet
GG seemed to be one of the best terms to discribe the reality of a growing complexity and the change in how authority has to or can be exercised.
Koenig-Achibugi
GG includes a large social steering but without implying a hierarchical nature it’s more the possibility of a non-hierarchical order that goes beyound classical concepts of action through national states
"! Concept fit to the time BUT it didn’t offer clear or defined means to address the corresponding problems!
Please comment on Michael Zürn’s definition of Global Governance as “points to the exercise of authority across national borders justified with reference to common goods or transnational problems” (2018).
There are different understandings of GG
Weiss/Wilkinson: “… institutions that help all actors - states, NGOs, civil society, and TNCs - identify, understand, and address trand-boundary problems”
refers to GG as“cooperation paradigm”
Zürn rather stresses GG as a hypocritical concept and shows concerns about the interests/motivation of the actors in solving global problems, their legitimacy to do so and particularly stresses that there is a modus of authority
This authority is powerful because it exercises across national borders
Following one governance style always excludes another one
The legitimacy is not clear because the justification doesn’t have to be truthful and there is a disproportionality of power in international institutions
Exercise might not necesserily serve the common good or solving those big problems
Zürn questions whats is ment by the “common good”? Is it really a common good like climate change or clean air or are the American interests blurred ad common goods?
Illustrate the concept of Global Governance by examples of what it is and what it is not!
What GG is
Assessment of states’ creditworthiness by rating agencies
To assess if it’s worthy to invest there (plays also an importan role for financial development cooperation)
International contracts, such as an arms or nuclear weapon control contract between great powers or a trade cooperation agreement
It is a communicative act
What is GG not
Nothing that is supposed to kept in secret and not justified in public Hitler-Stalin-Pakt
negotiations that happens behind closed doors
Free trade agreements
multinational corporations that agree on prices
What are the underlying normative principles of the Global Governance approach?
Double constituency
states with souvereignty and conditional authority + societal actors who enjoy the right to address international authorities (GG is not objective)
Presupposition that the common good exists
common good = no exclusion + no revilary, is that possible in this world? Even stars belong to somebody
Often private goods are protected e.g. American interests covered as “common good” (justification doesn’t have to be true)
Generalized believe in the possibility of international authority
In the case that states and non-states actors cover their own interests as common goods and individual rights, they are favouring their interests, so there is a form of power and hierarchy and no anarchy
Institutions in GG
International IMF vs transnational Amnesty
Target: create convergence between the different intersts of the relevant actors, built up a red line of reaction towards certain problems = enable to act, achieve/secure common good/ act in afield where otherwise would be a conflict, resistance
Generalized belief in the possibility of internation authority (no direct hierarchy but also no anarchy)
Authority
Always sector specific, different types with diefferent levels of commitment
political authority: produces decisions that are mandatory for the actors
epistemic authority: produces non-binding guidelines for states to act on (SDGs)
Politically asigned and epistemic authority: produces guidelines on the basis of the delegated power from states which are expected to be followed OECD
Instituionalism
Institutionalist Theory
“institutions matter”
states are still seen as central actors BUT international institutions are given a more important role in the shaping of the global political system
Institutions:
formal arrangements, informal patterns, regulatory patterns
affect states’ behaviour towards each other and enables cooperation in matters where otherwhise conflictual potential would be
Its’s about possibilities of inter-state cooperation and creation of convergence in a certain problem field
Different forms of international institutions - Most prominent form: international regimes:
Institutions founded on principles, norms, rules and decisionmaking procedures to regulate the expected reactions to certain global issues
In which regard does Global Governance go beyond the institutionalist school in International Relations?
GG has its roots in institutionalist theory
GG goes far beyond putting the focus on states and the question of how to enable inter-state cooperation
classical I ignores the contribution of non-state actors
includes non-state actors e.g. transantional networks or public-private partnerships
NGOs shaped human rights, gender equality
Business actors become global themselves or forms of self-governance
IGO (intergovernmantal organisation) used their autonomy to sponsor research, advise, raise topics
Which problems of legitimacy do international institutions face?
International institutions e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation, G7
Global Governance and it’s institutions formally act as if there is no central authority
But interaction and the way how its tried to creat convergence is often managed by informal “meta authorities” like G7 that are highly exclusive
they are figuring out how to solve GLOBAL problems or how to face them but they don’t reflect the global unity BECAUSE
Power is often disproportionately distributed in international institutions + a judical supervision is often missing
“the loudest gets heared”
Most international authorities don’t have the means (Mittel) to implement decisions by themselves so they need the powerful states
also powerful states can be understood as “lighthouses” as their commitment would underly the importance/legitimation of the decision
This “gives” powerful states the privilege to shape the normative order of the global governance sytsem substantially !!common good!! questions
What does the term politicization mean with regard to Global Governance? Illustrate your answer with one or two examples!
Pro-active usage of the field of global governance especially international authorities like international institutions to achieve certain/own political goals
especially non-state actors use this means to criticise international authorities (e.g. G7)
but also state actors like parties use this means (european selection -> increase regulatory, reduce inter-state cooperation EU-critics, Donald Trump “America First”)
Process of politisation can highlight lacks the two legitimacy problems for authority of international institutions
How has Global Governance contributes to the transformation of the state? What are the underlying mechanisms?
Global Governance is substantially working through the transformation of the state ( to a mor international state)
Due to global governance, “world politics” is no longer an inter-state concept rather takes place at the local level
politicisation of international institutions puts global governance directly on the political agenda in national elections
States adapt global standards - SDGs
But also feel the authority of international institutions and if they don’t agree on them they try to change them which also affects their own regulatory
Liberal scholars view is positiv
government’s function is now regulatory
Critical scholars
transformation as political projection that serves certain interests (disproportionality of power in II)
Three Mechanisms of State Transformation
transboundary networking of states e.g. transnational governance arrangements. They have eroded state authority and strengtened international regulations
the acquisition of powerful state agencies of governance functions beyond their borders e.g. interventionist techniques in the field of immigration FRONTEX
the production of ‚meta-governance‘ by international institutions undermines the operative role and strenghtens a coordinative role of the state
Which assumptions of the paradigm are still relevant, which ideas have to be revised or are no longer valid?
Which assumption are still relevant
There are global problems that can’t be solved by single states rather need a high degree of cooperation and commitment = climate change
Global cooperation still is important to secure peace, wealth and security and democracy
Which ideas have to be revised or are no longer valid
It’s more than “international authority”
Governance need authority
Problem often the power belongs to the actors with most power don’t always have to be the states e.g. trade treaties, sufficiency vs economic growth
Definetly global sytsem doesn’t takes international organisations much in account
so it’s not really a multiafected concept of governance as it involves selected and not divers actors and issues
Has the time for Global Governance ended with the current „New Cold War“ and the re-emergence of geopolitical thinking?
Challenges of our time especially the russian offensive war in the Ukraine challenges global governance
fronts, including differents alliances of states are built up, many states voted against action against putin including influential states as China and India, there is a possibility that states will differentiate in “friend and enemy” and that there will be a global seperation again
BUT Russia is a nuklearpower so we definetly have to stay with cooperation
But states invest a lot in arming which leads to the consequens that there is a budget leakage in other fields, e.g. in Germany for development cooperation
Still the global challenges are there and they still have to be solved
especially during the Corona pandemic wealth-inequalities rose significantly
so in this way global governance is more topical than ever
But the societies are thretened so they are easy to manipulative and elections don’t stop in those times
politisation of the global governance systems’ international organisation make things worse and let parties raise that block global governance (e.g. potentially in the netherlands)
In how far does the analytical strength of Global Governance differ with regard to different policy fields?
Reformist criticise that there are missing categories that shrinks the analystical strength.
suggests to take a closer look on the influence of the variable of the power of the state and non-state actors
Emphasise the need to undertsand the motives and interest that drive the exercise of those actors, how thes are developed and how they shape the international system
Zuletzt geändertvor 10 Monaten