Globalgovernance has increasingly become common sense within the political-economicsphere in the context of preaching for accountability and transparency. Thereis,however, a grey space that claims questions of what the end goal of suchcoherence is called for and who it seeks to serve. This paper shalldescriptively delve into the need for Global Governance in todays world whileenumerating its corresponding challenges and criticisms.

International solidarity is not an act ofcharity, it is an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrainstowards the same objective. The foremost of these objectives is to aid thedevelopment of humanity to the highest level possible. Samora Machel

Theinternational arena in the 21st century requires a catalyst to unify the worldbeyond borders and to build global institutions that can combat disparagementof the idea of globalisation. The resolution to this conundrum is the dilationand legitimisation of global governance. Global Governance is essentially aframework that proposes global relationship and a knit playing fieldintegrating all spheres of a society including social, economic, political,cultural, and environmental sectors to revolve issues with a collectiveconsciousness[1] as liberalistswould preach.

This ishowever unachievable without all actors in the system including, states,political figures and leaders, quasi state actors, corporate sector and institutions,NGOs,MNCs and the financial system collaborate to form a coherent structure thatcan vastly influence the grassroots of the system. This is parallel to the ideaof mega diplomacy proposed by Parag Khana, a profound specialist in internationalrelations. As Parag Khana stated, Were moving into a post Westphalian world,a world which is populated where the authoritative actors are not justgovernments. They are companies.[2] He explains howdiplomacy has widened as a tool into diverse spheres such as private mercenaryarmies, AI and technology, humanitarian agencies and non-governmentalorganizations, the educational sector; schools and universities, religiousinstitutions and organisations and much more. He believes that diplomacystretches beyond multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and theWorld bank or bilateral relations between nation states themselves. This ismore efficient as it uplifts the accountability held by state and non-stateactors. It propagates a sense of global order and global citizenship in aninterdependent world as an aftermath of proactively embracing globalisation.

While thereis no universally accepted definition of Governance, TheCommission of Global governance defines the same as the sum of the many waysindividuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs.It has posited that governance is a continuing process through whichconflicting and diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative actionmay be taken.[3] The concept ofGlobal Governance is viewed narrowly as a movement to address todays issueswhile it is fundamentally much more. As Whitman (2009:8)[4] stated,it is an instrument to help independent states reach out for help in the faceof emerging international issues and come together to create the envisagedworld of peace and harmony. This stems out of the inefficiency and the failureof global institutions. For instance, humanitarian relief having been sent toRwanda in 1994 during the genocide by the UN enforcing the Tusi military couldhave deterred the massacre at its grassroots.

Globalisationbacklash may be seen as a growing hindrance to the expansion of GlobalGovernance as states are reluctant ant towards embracing the rapidinterdependence often leading to circumstances and conflicts that arise out ofintervention. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations rightfullystated while addressing the assembly that theCentral challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positiveforce for all the worlds people, instead of leaving billions of them insqualor.[5] Whilean ambitious concept, it may serve to be counterproductive in nature. The shifttowards abandoning globalisation in neither desirable nor pragmatic. Revokingthe systemic change, it has brought about for more than a decade now wouldbring along multifaceted problems hand in hand. It goes unrecognised, that theissue isnt globalisation, but how we work around it and how it is managed. Asrightly pointed out by Stiglitz, the macroscopic problem lies in the hands ofthe global financial institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO),World Bank and The International Monetary Fund (IMF). They go beyond theirmandates to ideally sere the best interest of the developed nations as opposedto the developing unindustrialised nations.

Need for GlobalGovernance

Transnationalpolicy challenges influencing nation states on an individual level see the needfor cooperative global approaches within the contemporary world. This wouldrequire re-building of the mechanisms of global governance and its constantexpansion to address global issues that are on the rise. Globalisation, beingthe epicentre of the framework, is array of opportunities alongside challenges.While the debate on pollution persists, issues such as terrorism, drugs abuse,arms proliferation, climate change, and data security have crossed nationalborders in search of global solutions. These while picked up within thedomestic affairs of individual states within their political agendas,require integrated policy change in the international arena to be dealt with inan effective and constructive manner.

While viewedas transnational, the effects of global governance have a direct influencewithin the domestic there of each individual state. As Halabi (2004:23)[6] stated,that the framework of global governance is best suited to manipulateglobalisations forces, control its detrimental negative effects and recognisesthat globalization cannot lead to global governance like cooperationcorrespondingly may not be facilitated by the anarchy that prevails in theinternational system. In the anarchic system, the challenge stands as statesseek authority, power and control. While this collective consciousness isimperative for change, the thirst for power breaks down the cooperation andleads to violations in search for a state of hegemony. While offensive realistswould argue that this is natural, this state of neutrality is least beneficialfor the scale of change that meets the eye. A multilateral approach istherefore the only possible explanation which not only levels the playing fieldfor all but also doesnt compromising on valuing the voices of each of itsstake holders from time to time.

While the framework sounds equitable, it is impossibleto isolate domestic values in a multilateral setting. Deliberation and debatemay still lead to decision making that isnt convincingly adhered to by allstates. Hence, policy development needs to be holistic in nature.

Challenges

One of themain challenges to Global Governance is state sovereignty. Stemming from thewidely accepted grassroots of the Westphalian system that today UN carriesforward in its mandate stated, theconcept of nation-state sovereignty based on two principles: territoriality andthe exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures .[7] GlobalGovernance can be maximised in the state of absence of state governments and acollective sense of shared sovereignty to create a cohesive internationalcommunity.

The abilityfor nations to contribute to change may diversely vary corresponding to theirstanding and their state capabilities. As Halabi (2004:24)[8]recognises,while global governance seeks to resolve disputes and issues, it does notrestrict states in continuing to pursue wealth within the created structure oftheir own. Hence, we need a global interface that can pool in these independentcapabilities and empower international actors to foster change.

Dominationand subordination of states hinders the process of global governance. Aspointed out by Mehta (2007:4)[9], the idea ofinternational is often perceived as the G8 or the G20. The G8[10], whileprimarily focusing on economic issues are seen to represent and speak for theentire international community as they guide the forces of response to globalissues and challenges. From an economic lens, the G8 as one might multilateralinstitution concentrates the power to manipulate the procedures of worldeconomics. This prevailing hierarchy in the system therefore deters thecomprehensive bridge between the rich and poor states, further breaking downthe cooperation.

Limits of GlobalGovernance

Some of thefundamental limits to the idea go Global Governance includes the forcesability to comply with international rules, to maintain transparency, to beable to create win-win resolutions that are mutually beneficial in interstatedisputes, and its ability to empower international organisations to deliverrequired international aid in terms of services and public goods for allnations to thrive in an equitable system. All nations have an intrinsic need tojoin these international organisations and institutions to prove theirinternational legitimacy within the global community.

Thesechallenges have been witnessed prominently in many spheres of transnationalissues. The United States non-cooperation in the environmentalprotect through the implementation of the targets to reduce CO2 emissions thatwould help curbing global warming in accordance to the Kyoto protocol[11] is anapt example of the same. The target of global poverty reduction has promptedinternational economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund andthe World Bank to strengthen their policies through the launch of CDF(Comprehensive Development Framework) and PRSPs (Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers). Yet, the need for radical reformation persists. A report by the IFIAC,also known as the Maltzer Commission[12] deduces theinefficiency of the World Bank by pointing out the inconsistency in itsassistance provided to the social programs for the rural as its administrativework overlaps significantly with the domestic and regional developmental bankshence leading to low performance of the institution as a unit. The commissioncalled for a privatisation of the World Banks lending operations leading toits conversion into a World Development Agency.

The field ofhuman rights has been widely debated due to the lack of coherence andinconsistencies in policies that are adapted to the domestic affairs of eachstate. Human rights for the moral compass for global governance as violationproliferate across the globe. The asymmetry of information enables institutionsand states to exercise policies that impede several rights that individuals arefundamentally entitles to. The use of policing, coercion and torture violaterights including their rights to food, health care, housing and many more. Theconundrum of capital punishment and its violation to the fundamental right tolife has been debated for decades. The implementation and an ability to upholdand maintain this moral compass of human rights is a test of the potential ofGlobal Governance.

The breakdownof trade agreements highlights the over reliance and dependance of developingnations on the export of commodities that carry the brunt of collapsing prices.Such disputes and inequities within investment and trade may also be seen amonglarge and advanced nations that seek to uphold leverage against one anothersuch as the persisting trade conflict between USA and China. The shift in focusis therefore now on the diversification of exports that may be facilitated ifGlobal Governance can effectively manage the forces of globalisation andstreamline it through new international agreements supporting the price ofcommodities.

Last but notthe least, the uprise of civil society conflicts and revolutions are grosslymismanaged. The recent measures taken by the United Nation of disputes such asthe ongoing Syrian Civil War and unrest have led to questioning the legitimacyof the proposals passed through the Security Council and the body itself. Whilefunding for the institution is always constituted as a fundamental issue, noconstructive measure to rectify the same has been collectively formed by themember states of the international organisation.

Conclusion

While GlobalGovernance seeks to benefit all, it is over ambitious and idealistic. There areseveral reforms that are imperative to its efficient implementation. Firstly,it is important to modify how states perceive state sovereignty and dismiss thethreat that global governance poses to it. It is crucial to sustain herepresentation of state governments to retain the democratisation of globalinstitutions. With that said, the international community has a heavy relianceon national governments as opposed to weakening them. Weak states carrying acontrasting perception are not only a threat to themselves but also to theframework of Global governance. Weak legitimacy in nations that may categorisedas rogue states, fake democracies or quasi authoritarian states have a highdegree of threat on their efficiency and potential. This is however enhanced instates that exercise more liberty and freedom, where the civil societyrepresentation is high.

Secondly,global governance requires an accountable and moral structure. These twoelements must be universally recognised as backbones of the framework that areessential and uncontested. Subsequently, regional governance and domesticaffairs must be trusted and respected to maintain development and management ofstate infrastructure and the preservation of natural resources. Emergingregional powers must refrain from dominating the playing field and facilitatetrade and regional agreements to foster global governance by mobilising people,boosting imports and exports, and effectively managing resources.

Correspondingly,the needs to be an urgent democratisation of international economicinstitutions such as the UN, World Bank, WTO and IMF to filter and check theviability of proposals and measures taken. There needs to be a reiterated callfor conformity of these revolutionary and policy making bodies with the causeof strengthening global governance, enabling them to efficiently respond tocurrent and emerging global challenges. There needs to be an expansion of theSecurity Council that restricts the veto power in the hand of a few elitistnations and a reformation of the mandate of the UN enabling it to target shortterm goals making it more effective.

Lastly, thelegal structure require reform. The international judiciary and legal system needto be strengthened adhering to the globalised relationships between states thatsupersede domestic dynamics of legal frameworks within states. Internationalcourts such as the ICJ and the ICC must take cognizance of the changing worldthat the seek to serve.

The globalcommunity must in tandem minis the unilateral rule and isolate the quest forhegemony to create a system of cooperation and enable the upliftment ofsubordinated sections of societies such as women, children, indigenous people,underprivileged, refugees and many more. The structure should encompass allstate and non-state actors to help developing nations in the society meet theMillennium Developmental Goals to ensure peace, harmony, uphold human rights,reduce the detrimental effect of global warning on climate change, combatterrorism, curb migration and nuclear proliferation alongside fostering growthin the international, regional and individual state level. Global Governance isthere a vital instrument that seeks to intertwine global interests and lookbeyond domestic foreign policies to form a global knit community that envisagesa world of peace and harmony. Yet the question prevails, is global governancean answer to the echoing anarchy or a mere euphemism of a global government?

[1](n.d.). Retrieved from http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/collectiveconsciousness.htm.

[2]Bigthinkeditor. (2018, October 5). ParagKhanna on the Rise of Mega Diplomacy. Retrieved fromhttps://bigthink.com/big-think-edge/parag-khanna-on-the-rise-of-mega-diplomacy.

[3]Hgel, P. (2011). GlobalGovernance. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0015

[4]Whitman, J. (2009). Conclusion: The globalGovernance Prospect. Palgrave Advances in Global Governance, 189203.

[5]Speeches. (2019, February 13). Retrieved fromhttps://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/topics/speeches/.

[6]Halabi, Y. (2004). The Expansion of GlobalGovernance into the Third World: Altruism, Realism, or Constructivism?International Studies Review, 6(1), 2148.

[7]Timberman, T., & Timberman, T. (n.d.).The Peace of Westphalia and its 4 Principles for Interstate Relations IsntFailing. Retrieved fromhttps://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-peace-of-westphalia-and-its-4-principles-for-interstate-relations-isnt-failing.

[8]Halabi, Y. (2004). The Expansion of GlobalGovernance into the Third World: Altruism, Realism, or Constructivism?International Studies Review, 6(1), 2148.

[9]Mehta, M. D. (2007). Good Governance.Encyclopedia of Governance.

[10]Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,Russia (suspended), the United Kingdom and the United States.

[11]What is the Kyoto Protocol? (n.d.).Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol.

[12]International Financial Institution AdvisoryCommission. (2016, December 23). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Financial_Institution_Advisory_Commission.

Related

Read the rest here:

Impunity in the Time of Corona(virus) - Modern Diplomacy