Is global governance a chimera in a world of states, or is there as Keohane suggests, limited global governance in a partially globalized world, or is global governance an effective form of western hegemony? Is global governance a chimera in a world of states, or is there as Keohane suggests, limited global governance in a partially globalized world, or is global governance an effective form of western hegemony? 'Many of the problems and issues facing humankind have dramatic global dimension' . This constitution by Guido Bertucci is today considered as an evidence in world politics. Issues like 'the internationalization of the problem of human rights and democracy, previously thought of as issues for states to deal with within their own boundaries' , are now seen as global issues; and nobody can deny anymore the global impact of environmental changes. Global seems to be the new fashionable term in political studies. But what does global mean? Does it mean 'what has been signified by international, intergovernmental, or even often, transnational' , as wonders Finkelstein?
[...] Bibliography Books Amstrong, D., Lloyd, L., and Redmond, J., International organisation in world politics (New York, Palgrave Macmillan, third edition, 2004) Archer, C., International Organizations (London, Routledge, third edition, 2001) Baylis, J., and Smith, S., The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations (New York, Oxford University Press, third edition, 2005) Held, D., Democracy and the global order: from the modern state to cosmopolitan governance (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1995) Keohane, R., and Nye, J., Governance in a globalizing world (Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press, 2000) Knight, A., A changing United Nations: multilateral evolution and the quest for global governance (New York, Palgrave, 2000) Weiss, T., and Gordenker, L., NGOs, the UN and global governance (London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996) Journals Bertucci, G., 'Setting the agenda for global governance', in Asian Review of Public Administation, Vol. [...]
[...] However there is no doubt that managing everything from a global point of view would be a threat for the cultures of the nations, with uniformity taking over. Some issues should be resolved globally, some should not. According to the leading contemporary international relations theories, the international system is anarchical. Therefore, 'it is inconsistent to see ''states'' as coherent entities, while asserting anarchy exists at the global level. We can be consistent by accepting the existence of systems at all levels of world politics'[28]. Moreover, they add that the system organisation proves that they are politically significant and 'that global politics cannot be reduced to ''inter-state'' relations'[29]. [...]
[...] 'While the UN has no doubt contributed to progress in multilateral cooperation, its future impact on this process is currently in doubt and could depend n the extent to which the organization is able to demonstrate ''relevance'' in dealing with the emerging demands of the international community'[42]. More and more voices are heard asking for a reform, especially of the Security Council, and let in other nations, especially non-western nations like Brazil, India or Japan. But that contestation of the hegemony is not new. [...]
[...] Except in cases when they are willing to yield up some sovereignty, the state remains the sole decision-taker of its domestic and international policies. The extent to which states enjoy that power is, alongside with David Held's opinion, 'underexplored'. If they always have the choice, the pressure of globalization is extremely important and the states left-out might crucially suffer from it. However, states have 'enduring capacities'. 'Not all states, for example, are equally integrated into the world economy; thus while national political outcomes will be heavily influenced by global processes in some countries, in others regional or national forces might well remain supreme'[7]. [...]
[...] The first category of non-state actor that could be examined is composed of the international organizations and other intergovernmental organizations and arrangements[12]. Finkelstein stated that 'governance should be considered to cover the overlapping categories of functions performed internationally'[13]. Indeed, international organizations transcend the borders of the states and can have a major influence on the governmental actors composing them[14]. International organisations are important, and so is the process that leads to their creation. All international organisations are based first on a normative foundation relevant to their subject of governance, then rules are agreed on in order to give a juridical shape to the organisation, and finally a structure is created in order to monitor en enforce compliance with the agreed rules[15]. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
