The Full Wiki

Global governance: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global governance or world governance is the political interaction of transnational actors aimed at solving problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power of enforcing compliance. The question of world governance arises in the context of what is known as globalization. In response to the acceleration of interdependences on a worldwide scale, both between human societies and between humankind and the biosphere, world governanc' designates regulations intended for the global scale.


Origins of the Term


The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of a very long period of international history based on a policy of balance of powers. Since this historic event, the planet has entered a phase of geostrategic breakdown. The national-security model, for example, while still in place for most governments, is gradually giving way to an emerging collective conscience that extends beyond the restricted framework it represents.[1].

The question of world governance did not arise until the early 1990s. Up until then, the term "interdependence" had been used to designate the management of relations among states. The post-Cold War world of the 1990s saw a new paradigm emerge based on a number of issues:

  • The growing importance of globalization as a significant theme and the subsequent weakening of nation-states, pointing logically to the prospect of transferring to the global level the regulatory instruments no longer working effectively at the national or regional levels.
  • An intensification of environmental concerns for the planet, which received multilateral endorsement at the Rio Earth Summit (1992). The Summit issues, relating to the climate and biodiversity, symbolized a new approach that was soon to be expressed conceptually by the term Global Commons.
  • The emergence of conflicts over standards: trade and the environment, trade and social rights, trade and public health. These conflicts continued the traditional debate over the social effects of macroeconomic stabilization policies, and raised the question of arbitration among equally legitimate objectives in a compartmentalized governance system where the major areas of interdependence are each entrusted to a specialized international institution. Although often limited in scope, these conflicts are nevertheless symbolically powerful, as they raise the question of the principles and institutions of arbitration.
  • An increased questioning of international standards and institutions by developing countries, which, having entered the global economy, find it hard to accept that industrialized countries hold onto power and give preference to their own interests. The challenge also comes from civil society, which considers that the international governance system has become the real seat of power and which rejects both its principles and procedures. Although these two lines of criticism often have conflicting beliefs and goals, they have been known to join in order to oppose the dominance of developed countries and major institutions, as demonstrated symbolically by the failure of the WTO 1999 Ministerial Conference in Seattle.[2]


In a simple and broad-based definition of world governance, the term is used to designate all regulations intended to organize human societies on a global scale.[3]

Traditionally, governance has been associated with "governing," or with political authority, institutions, and, ultimately, control. Governance in this particular sense denotes formal political institutions that aim to coordinate and control interdependent social relations, and that have the ability to enforce decisions. However, authors like James Rosenau [4] have also used "governance" to denote the regulation of interdependent relations in the absence of an overarching political authority, such as in the international system. Some now speak of the development of "global public policy".[5]

Adil Najam, a scholar on the subject at Boston University and now at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy has defined global governance simply as "the management of global processes in the absence of global government."[6] According to Thomas G. Weiss, director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the Graduate Center (CUNY) and editor (2000-05) of the journal Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, "'Global governance'—which can be good, bad, or indifferent—refers to concrete cooperative problem-solving arrangements, many of which increasingly involve not only the United Nations of states but also 'other UNs,' namely international secretariats and other nonstate actors."[7]

These "cooperative problem-solving arrangements" may be formal, taking the shape of laws or formally constituted institutions for a variety of actors (such as state authorities, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, other civil society actors, and individuals) to manage collective affairs [8]. They may also be informal (as in the case of practices or guidelines) or ad hoc entities (as in the case of coalitions).[9]

Thus, global governance may be defined as "the complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental, through which collective interests on the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated."[10]

Context of World Governance

  • What is the context for referring to world governance?

There are those who believe that world architecture depends on establishing a system of world governance. However, the equation is currently becoming far more complicated: Whereas the process used to be about regulating and limiting the individual power of states to avoid disturbing or overturning the status quo, the issue for today's world governance is to have a collective influence on the world's destiny by establishing a system for regulating the many interactions that lie beyond the province of state action. The political homogenization of the planet that has followed the advent of what is known as liberal democracy in its many forms should make it easier to establish a world governance system that goes beyond market laissez-faire and the democratic peace originally formulated by Immanuel Kant, which constitutes a sort of geopolitical laissez-faire.

Another view regarding the establishment of global governance is based on the difficulties to achieve equitable development at world scale. "To secure for all human beings in all parts of the world the conditions allowing a decent and meaningful life requires enormous human energies and far-reaching changes in policies. The task is all the more demanding as the world faces numerous other problems, each related to or even part of the development challenge, each similarly pressing, and each calling for the same urgent attention. But "our age is the first generation since the dawn of history in which mankind dares to believe it practical to make the benefits of civilization available to the whole human race." (Arnold Toynbee cited by Javier Pérez de Cuéllar and all, 1996: 34)

  • Why is there a need to refer to world governance?

- Because of the heterogeneity of collective preferences, which are enduring despite globalization, which is often perceived as an implacable homogenization process. Americans and Europeans provide a good example of this point: they have found practically no common ground in terms of the division between the public and private spheres, tolerance for inequalities and the demand for redistribution, attitude to risk, and the conception of property rights. In certain cases, globalization even serves to accentuate differences rather than as a force for homogenization.

- Due to the increase in global problems. This point is illustrated by the environmental dangers threatening the planet, but is not confined to this issue alone. It calls for the organization of collective action to be prioritized, ahead of the integration of managing bilateral relations. This results in a new model for representing and managing interdependence that tends to apply to a growing number of areas.

- The final significant fact is the emergence of global civic awareness, one of the components of which is opposition to globalization. A rapidly growing number of movements and organizations have taken the debate to the international or global level. Although it has its limitations, this trend is patently a logical response to the increasing importance of world governance issues. It is not viable to represent the global economy as an entity undergoing rapid homogenization, nor to adhere to a traditional representation modeled economically on the principles of the Peace of Westphalia. Reasoning needs to be based on two aspects: integration—which is less all-encompassing than we think—and the solidarity born of a shared destiny.

  • Is world governance in crisis?

Pierre Jacquet, Jean Pisani-Ferry, and Laurence Tubiana argue that "[t]o ensure that decisions taken for international integration are sustainable, it is important that populations see the benefits, that states agree on their goals and that the institutions governing the process are seen as legitimate. These three conditions are only partially being met."

The authors refer to a "crisis of purpose" and international institutions suffering from "imbalance" and inadequacy. They believe that for these institutions, "a gap has been created between the nature of the problems that need tackling and an institutional architecture which does not reflect the hierarchy of today's problems. For example, the environment has become a subject of major concern and central negotiation, but it does not have the institutional support that is compatible with its importance."[11]

  • World governance and world government

Global governance is not world government, and even less democratic globalization. In fact, global governance would not be necessary, were there a world government. Domestic governments have monopolies on the use of force—the power of enforcement. Global governance refers to the political interaction that is required to solve problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power to enforce compliance. Problems arise, and networks of actors are constructed to deal with them in the absence of an international analogue to a domestic government. This system has been termed disaggregated sovereignty.

  • The consensus example

Improved global problem solving need not involve the establishment of additional powerful formal global institutions. It does involve building consensus on norms and practices. One such area, currently under construction, is the development and improvement of accountability mechanisms. For example, the UN Global Compact brings together companies, UN agencies, labor organizations, and civil society to support universal environmental and social principles. Participation is entirely voluntary, and there is no enforcement of the principles by an outside regulatory body. Companies adhere to these practices both because they make economic sense, and because stakeholders, especially shareholders, can monitor their compliance easily. Mechanisms such as the Global Compact can improve the ability of affected individuals and populations to hold companies accountable. However, corporations participating in the UN Global Compact have been criticized for their merely minimal standards, the absence of sanction-and-control measures, their lack of commitment to social and ecological standards, minimal acceptance among corporations around the world, and the high cost involved in reporting annually to small and medium-sized business[12]

World Governance Issues and Principles of Governance

Drawing on the many initiatives that have already been launched in other continents, at various levels of governance and in many areas of public action, the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind and its partners have identified five principles on which to build governance. The problems of world governance can be analyzed in the light of these principles.[13]

  • Legitimacy of the exercise of power and its rooting

This principle states that the "exercise of power must be linked to a clearly expressed mandate from the people involved as to how they are to be governed; persons placed in positions of authority must be deemed worthy of the confidence placed in them. Limits on private freedoms must also be reduced to a minimum and clearly perceived as necessary for the commons. Organization of society must be based on ethical principles that are recognized and respected."[13]

Highly important decisions affecting the world economy are currently taken by a handful of international institutions that are insufficiently democratic in nature and lacking in real or full legitimacy, rather than at the level of representative institutions, such as states or smaller territorial units governed by directly elected representatives. In addition, action and coordination initiatives taken by these institutions—and concretely by the United Nations system—have proven inadequate for the task of abolishing or even significantly reducing poverty, injustice, and inequality, and for taking effective action to reduce environmental damage.

According to Jan Aart Scholte, the development and legitimacy of international institutions, and world governance produce a vicious circle. He says that "world governance as a whole remains inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of global public policy. The lack of morality, legal foundations, material supplies, democratic recognition and charismatic leaders has created a deficit of legitimacy within current systems." He goes on to say that: "This fragile legitimacy has constituted a major obstacle to substantial growth on the worldwide level of the regulations needed to guarantee a decent life for everyone in a globalized world. The inadequacies and lack of legitimacy that characterize world governance are therefore an impediment to mutual strengthening."[14]

According to Pierre Calame, "Current regulations do not measure up to the current interdependences of global society. . . . any measures taken to reinforce these regulations are unlikely to meet with general approval if the legitimacy of those that already exist is questionable. This happens to be the case: the UN is often considered to be a very costly masquerade. Its democratic legitimacy is limited, stuck between the veto power of a few big nations in the Security Council and the hypocrisy of the principle of 'one state, one vote' that puts Nepal or Burkina Faso at the same level as the USA. The same sort of crisis of legitimacy can be found at the World Bank or the IMF, both of which have become, in practice, tools that allow rich countries to impose policies on poor countries. There exists an abundance of international rules formulated by faceless authorities. The fact that they have no clear mandate, that there exists no clear-cut legal means of challenging them, saps them of their authority and effectiveness and also discredits in advance all efforts to formulate new rules, including in fields where major injustices and the concept of 'survival of the fittest' are denounced."[15]

On the one hand, the problem is posed by the current exercise of the existing regulatory framework of conventions and laws, notably at the international level, as demonstrated by Rolf Künemann.[16]. Other sources assert that certain international institutions do not actually respect human rights.[17]

On the other hand, attempts at conceptualization and the emergence of new rights are part of the theoretical and normative development of the new world governance that is beginning to take shape. One example is the concept of decent work as elaborated by the ILO[18] and the right to water, widely championed by civil society.[19]

In terms of alternative proposals, the Charter of Human Responsibilities maintains that the secondary legal role accorded to the concept of responsibility poses a serious problem to a new model of world organization, which has to be based on sustainable development rather than on aggressive high productivity and growth. A joint legal platform should therefore act as the basis for much needed legitimacy. This platform could be based on three key elements: the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Charter of Human Responsibilities. The latter would be a parallel document complementing the other two, would contain global human responsibilities, and would be the result of an ongoing participatory revision process open to all citizens.

  • Conformity with the democratic ideal and with the principles of citizenship

The second principle advocates the idea that "[a]ll individuals must feel that they are part of a shared destiny, which excludes, for example, tyranny by the majority. Rights, power, and responsibility must be evenly balanced. No one can exercise power without being subject to checks and balances."[20]

Civil society is fully aware of this need and has been working for many years to give a voice to citizens. According to the international small-scale farmers' movement Via Campesina, "Listening to what citizens have to say is the surest way of meeting their needs. And the organization of world governance needs to be founded on the satisfaction of these needs. The principles of citizenship are therefore a necessary condition in the creation of any new model for managing the planet."[21]

Consequently, reform of world governance cannot be dissociated from general reform of the state apparatus and of the public sector, a reform that would include placing citizen participation at the core of the decision-making process. The massive revitalization of the participatory democracy that has characterized the last few decades (Participatory Budgeting, Citizens' Panel, etc.) also includes proposals to make citizen participation the central element of the decision-making structure of public mechanisms. Two examples are: Iniciativa Ciudadana para la Cultura del Diálogo (2008), "Citizen Involvement in the Process of State Reform"; and Sire-Marin, E. and R. Martelli (2008), "The New Republic Will be Democratic and Socially Oriented".

  • Competence and efficacy

According to the third principle: "The way that public and private institutions are set up, their organizational structures and the people working within them must all be reviewed to ensure that they remain pertinent, and that they have the skills and the capacity required to assume the responsibility of responding to the needs of society in all of its diversity."[22] If there is no consistent, responsible, efficient, and legitimate form of political organization of the world community, market principles will dominate international relations and produce an anarchic and irresponsible world governance that fails to meet social needs and is consequently illegitimate from the political standpoint.

According to Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin, "[t]he market is a trading procedure but we must define its place and its conditions of legitimacy and efficiency for the same reasons as for other forms of governance. We must do all that is necessary to put the market in its place, so as to prevent work and people from being nothing more than goods. It is now a priority to fix, by law, the domain in which the market applies. We must move beyond the reductionist ideological view of the economy that puts the market at the center of all exchanges."[23]

  • Cooperation and partnership

The fourth principle states: "It is essential that everyone work together for the commons and that governance organize relationships and cooperation among the various types of player, whether public or private, the various levels of governance, and the various administrations, in accordance with procedures established by common agreement."[24]

The increase in global interdependences must go hand-in-hand with an increase in interdependences in the organization of public services, especially through intelligent forms of partnership among public institutions, among civil-society stakeholders, and between the former and the latter. Most public institutions have so far been acting without any real degree of interpenetration, either by remaining isolated from one another or by following top-down orders, which means that they have failed to harness the power of their collective intelligence. A set of simple basic rules that reflects social diversity will need to be established in order to navigate in this new and complex world. Pierre Calame has already attempted to draw up a set of rules that apply jointly to the different levels of governance, based on the underlying principle of Active Subsidiarity. The key objective in constructing a legitimate and therefore democratic world governance has to be to find solutions to the serious problem of inequalities. This means that systems based on solidarity and redistribution need to be established. Proposals for a Basic Income on a national scale could be applied on the global scale, as proposed by the Global Basic Income Foundation, among others. The many proposals for global-scale solidarity and redistribution include a Basic Food Income, the Global Marshall Plan, the Global Calling-for-help Center, and A Global Pension Plan.

  • Relationships linking the local and the global, and linking the various levels of governance

We can address the problem of linking the local and global and the various levels of governance, as part of the construction of a new world governance, on three levels:

  • linking up levels of governance;
  • internal transformation of the state and evolution of its role;
  • construction of new mechanisms for coexistence between states and public institutions in general, for a better reflection of the actual links among their societies.

Adopting an effective form of world governance—not a homogeneous world governance—raises the problem of its coexistence with states, which have to accept handing over significant areas of their sovereignty to the global level as well as to other levels. The goal is to create a real linking up of competences and interaction among all levels, from the local to the global. Meeting this goal requires joint rules to be drawn up and guaranteeing that they are truly democratic; the work of the higher levels, those ensuring social cohesion up to the global level, must be founded on decisions taken at the grassroots level.

A number of authors have conceptualized the new type of state that will produce broader governance linking up the different levels. For Ulrich Beck, who champions the idea of a "cosmopolitan state," "[j]ust as it is only the areligious state that makes the practice of various religions possible in the first place, so cosmopolitan states would have to guarantee the coexistence of national and religious identities through the principle of constitutional tolerance."[25]

Another author proposes the evolution of the current world toward a "system of post-modern states" with the following characteristics:

  • breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs;
  • mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual oversight;
  • rejection of force for resolving disputes and consequent codification of self-enforced rules of behavior;
  • growing irrelevance of borders, come about both through the changing role of the state, but also through missiles, motor cars, and satellites;
  • security based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence, and mutual vulnerability.[26]

Nonetheless, "it is not that the national state will no longer be called, in the future, to play a major role. On the contrary, it will continue to embody the collective destiny of peoples, and it will certainly remain the main level for building social cohesion, providing public services, exercising the law and justice, and of redistribution and solidarity. It will however be a state designed on other bases, as a level, albeit an essential one, of governance, but one level among others, articulated with the others."[27]

Certain authors also propound the need to build at the regional level and to reform the United Nations system. For example, Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin believe that "[t]he architecture of global governance can no longer be conceived without a redefinition of national states themselves, of their role, their working procedures, and their articulation with the other political orders." They also maintain that: "It is indispensable to back the emergence of a regional level of governance, between the states and the world." And that the Security Council "should be a board made up of representatives of the regions of the world. Every region would have a rotating presidency by member states, which presidency would by the same token represent the region in international negotiations."[23]

An interconnecting and democratic world governance also implies a redefinition of the role of territories and the establishment of basic entities to encourage the emergence of a constituent citizen power. This point is addressed by a number of proposals for re-territorialization[28], with territorial communities acting as the building blocks for world governance, and by initiatives to set up Citizen Assemblies.[29]

Other World Governance Issues

  • Expansion of normative mechanisms and globalization of institutions

One of the effects of the unstoppable progress of globalization is the production of increasing numbers of rules on the global scale. Jan Aart Scholte asserts, however, that these changes are inadequate to meet the needs: "Along with the general intensified globalisation of social relations in contemporary history has come an unprecedented expansion of regulatory apparatuses that cover planetary jurisdictions and constituencies. On the whole, however, this global governance remains weak relative to pressing current needs for global public policy. Shortfalls in moral standing, legal foundations, material delivery, democratic credentials and charismatic leadership have together generated large legitimacy deficits in existing global regimes."[30]

On another level, there is need to set up, in all spheres, an increasing number of networks and institutions operating on a global scale. Proposals and initiatives have been developed at various sources: political parties,[31] unions,[32] regional authorities,[33] and members of parliament in sovereign states.[34]

  • The need for debate on the formulation and objectives of world governance

One of the conditions for building a world democratic governance should be the development of platforms for citizen dialog on the legal formulation of world governance and the harmonization of objectives.

This legal formulation could take the form of a Global Constitution. According to Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin, "[a] Global Constitution resulting from a process for the institution of a global community will act as the common reference for establishing the order of rights and duties applicable to United Nations agencies and to the other multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization."[35] As for formulating objectives, the necessary but insufficient ambition of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, which aim to safeguard humankind and the planet, and the huge difficulties in implementing them, illustrates the inadequacy of institutional initiatives that do not have popular support for having failed to invite citizens to take part in the elaboration process.

Furthermore, the Global Constitution "must clearly express a limited number of overall objectives that are to be the basis of global governance and are to guide the common action of the U.N. agencies and the multilateral institutions, where the specific role of each of these is subordinated to the pursuit of these common objectives."[35]

Calame proposes the following objectives:

  1. instituting the conditions for sustainable development
  2. reducing inequalities
  3. establishing lasting peace while respecting diversity.[36]
  • Reforming international institutions

Is the UN capable of taking on the heavy responsibility of managing the planet's serious problems? More specifically, can the UN reform itself in such a way as to be able to meet this challenge? At a time when the financial crisis of 2008 is raising the same questions posed by the climate disasters of previous years regarding the unpredictable consequences of disastrous human management, can international financial institutions be reformed in such a way as to go back to their original task, which was to provide financial help to countries in need?

Lack of political will and citizen involvement at the international level has also brought about the submission of international institutions to the "neoliberal" agenda, particularly financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Pierre Calame gives an account of this development,[27], while Joseph E. Stiglitz points out that the need for international institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO has never been so great, but people's trust in them has never been so low.[37]

One of the key aspects of the United Nations reform is the problem of the representativeness of the General Assembly. The Assembly operates on the principle of "one state, one vote," so that states of hugely varying sizes have the same impact on the vote, which distorts representativeness and results in a major loss of credibility. Accordingly, "the General Assembly has lost any real capacity to influence. This means that the mechanisms for action and consultation organized by rich countries have the leading role."[27]

Gustave Massiah advocates defining and implementing a radical reform of the UN. The author proposes building new foundations that can provide the basis for global democracy and the creation of a Global Social Contract, rooted in the respect and protection of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as in the recognition of the strategic role of international law.[38]

World Governance Themes

In its initial phase, world governance was able to draw on themes inherited from geopolitics and the theory of international relations, such as peace, defense, geostrategy, diplomatic relations, and trade relations. But as globalization progresses and the number of interdependences increases, the global level is also highly relevant to a far wider range of subjects. Following are a number of examples.

Environmental governance and managing the planet

"The crisis brought about by the accelerated pace and the probably irreversible character of the impact of human activities on nature requires collective answers from governments and citizens. Nature ignores political and social barriers, and the global dimension of the crisis cancels the effects of any action initiated unilaterally by state governments or sectoral institutions, however powerful they may be. Climate change, ocean and air pollution, nuclear risks and those related to genetic manipulation, the reduction and extinction of resources and biodiversity, and above all a development model that remains largely unquestioned globally are all among the various manifestations of this accelerated and probably irreversible impact.

This impact is the factor, in the framework of globalization, that most challenges a system of states competing with each other to the exclusion of all others: among the different fields of global governance, environmental management is the most wanting in urgent answers to the crisis in the form of collective actions by the whole of the human community. At the same time, these actions should help to model and strengthen the progressive building of this community."[39]

Proposals in this area have discussed the issue of how collective environmental action is possible. Many multilateral, environment-related agreements have been forged in the past 30 years, but their implementation remains difficult. There is also some discussion on the possibility of setting up an international organization that would centralize all the issues related to international environmental protection, such as the proposed World Environment Organization (WEO). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) could play this role, but it is a small-scale organization with a limited mandate. The question has given rise to two opposite views: the European Union, especially France and Germany, along with a number of NGOs, is in favor of creating a WEO; the United Kingdom, the USA, and most developing countries prefer opting for voluntary initiatives.[40]

The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposes a "reform agenda" for global environmental governance. The main argument is that there seems to exist an unspoken but powerful consensus on the essential objectives of a system of global environmental governance. These goals would require top-quality leadership, a strong environmental policy based on knowledge, effective cohesion and coordination, good management of the institutions constituting the environmental governance system, and spreading environmental concerns and actions to other areas of international policy and action.[41]

Governance of the economy and of globalization

The 2008 financial crisis exploded, once again, the myth that the all-powerful free-market forces will correct all serious financial malfunctioning on their own, as well as belief in the presumed independence of the economy. Lacking in transparency and far from democratic, international financial institutions have proven incapable of handling the market's critical breakdown.

Free-market economy is incapable of meeting the population's needs on its own. Without regulation and without consideration of social and environmental externalities, free-market capitalism turns into an uncontrollable machine that produces more and more wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, leading the global community into a head-on collision with disaster and chaos. Its capacity to produce is not in doubt: the problem is absence of redistribution, which is the result of absence of political and citizen will to change the rules of the game.

Nonetheless, the debate on the failings of the system has begun to turn in the academic world into solution seeking, which is a step in the right direction. According to Tubiana and Severino, "refocusing the doctrine of international cooperation on the concept of public goods offers the possibility . . . of breaking the deadlock in international negotiations on development, with the perception of shared interests breathing new life into an international solidarity that is running out of steam."[42]

Stiglitz, on his part, argues that a number of global public goods should be produced and supplied to the populations, but they are not, and a number of global externalities should be taken into consideration, but they are not. On the other hand, he contends, the international stage is often used to find solutions to completely unrelated problems under the protection of opacity and secrecy, which would be impossible in a national democratic framework.[43]

On the subject of international trade, Susan George states that ". . . in a rational world, it would be possible to construct a trading system serving the needs of people in both North and South. . . . Under such a system, crushing third world debt and the devastating structural adjustment policies applied by the World Bank and the IMF would have been unthinkable, although the system would not have abolished capitalism."[44]

Political and institutional governance

Building a responsible world governance that would make it possible to adapt the political organization of society to globalization implies establishing a democratic political legitimacy at every level: local, national, regional and global.

Obtaining this legitimacy requires rethinking and reforming, all at the same time:

  • the fuzzy maze of various international organizations, instituted mostly in the wake of World War II; what is needed is a system of international organizations with greater resources and a greater intervention capacity, more transparent, fairer, and more democratic;
  • the Westphalian system, the very nature of states along with the role they play with regard to the other institutions, and their relations to each other; states will have to share part of their sovereignty with institutions and bodies at other territorial levels, and all with have to begin a major process to deepen democracy and make their organization more responsible;
  • the meaning of citizen sovereignty in the different government systems and the role of citizens as political protagonists; there is a need to rethink the meaning of political representation and participation and to sow the seeds of a radical change of consciousness that will make it possible to move in the direction of a situation in which citizens, in practice, will play the leading role at every scale.

The political aspect of world governance is discussed in greater detail in the section Problems of World Governance and Principles of Governance

Governance of peace, security, and conflict resolution

Armed conflicts have changed in form and intensity since the Berlin wall came down in 1989. The events of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and repeated terrorist attacks all show that conflicts can become lethal for the entire world, well beyond the belligerents directly involved. The warmongering leaders of a handful of major powers, starting with the biggest of all, the United States, have used war as a means of resolving conflicts and may well continue to do so. It is very likely, however, that fundamentalist Muslim networks will continue to launch attacks in the United States, Europe, Africa, and Asia.

At the same time, civil wars continue to break out across the world, particularly in areas where civil and human rights are not respected, such as Central and Eastern Africa and the Middle East. These and other regions remain deeply entrenched in permanent crises, hampered by authoritarian regimes, reducing entire swathes of the population to wretched living conditions. The wars and conflicts we are faced with have a variety of causes: economic inequality, social conflict, religious sectarianism, disputes over territory and over control of basic resources such as water or land. They are all illustrations a deep-rooted crisis of world governance.

The resulting bellicose climate imbues international relations with competitive nationalism and contributes, in rich and poor countries alike, to increasing military budgets, siphoning off huge sums of public money to the benefit of the arms industry and military-oriented scientific innovation, hence fueling global insecurity. Of these enormous sums, a fraction would be enough to provide a permanent solution for the basic needs of the planet's population hence practically eliminating the causes of war and terrorism.

Andrée Michel argues that the arms race is not only proceeding with greater vigor, it is the surest means for Western countries to maintain their hegemony over countries of the South. Following the break-up of the Eastern bloc countries, she maintains, a strategy for the manipulation of the masses was set up with a permanent invention of an enemy (currently incarnated by Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea) and by kindling fear and hate of others to justify perpetuating the Military-industrial Complex and arms sales. The author also recalls that the "Big Five" at the UN who have the veto right are responsible for 85% of arms sales around the world.[45]

Proposals for the governance of peace, security, and conflict resolution begin by addressing prevention of the causes of conflicts, whether economic, social, religious, political, or territorial. This requires assigning more resources to improving people's living conditions—health, accommodation, food, and work—and to education, including education in the values of peace, social justice, and unity and diversity as two sides of the same coin representing the global village.

Resources for peace could be obtained by regulating, or even reducing military budgets, which have done nothing but rise in the past recent years. This process could go hand in hand with plans for global disarmament and the conversion of arms industries, applied proportionally to all countries, including the major powers. Unfortunately, the warlike climate of the last decade has served to relegate all plans for global disarmament, even in civil-society debates, and to pigeonhole them as a long-term goal or even a Utopian vision. This is definitely a setback for the cause of peace and for humankind, but it is far from being a permanent obstacle.

International institutions also have a role to play in resolving armed conflicts. Small international rapid deployment units could intervene in these with an exclusive mandate granted by a reformed and democratic United Nations system or by relevant regional authorities such as the European Union. These units could be formed specifically for each conflict, using armies from several countries as was the case when the UNIFIL was reinforced during the 2006 Lebanon War. On the other hand, no national army would be authorized to intervene unilaterally outside its territory without a UN or regional mandate.

Another issue that is worth addressing concerns the legitimate conditions for the use of force and conduct during war. Jean-Réné Bachelet offers an answer with the conceptualization of a military ethics corresponding to the need for a "principle of humanity." The author defines this principle as follows: "All human beings, whatever their race, nationality, gender, age, opinion, or religion, belong to one same humanity, and every individual has an inalienable right to respect for his life, integrity, and dignity."[46]

Governance of science, education, information, and communications

The absence of a strong will to build a world governance intended to meet people's needs and to establish social justice has, since the mid-1990s, opened to door to a different plan: the World Trade Organization's (WTO) agenda of liberalizing public goods and services related to culture, science, education, health, living organisms, information, and communication. This plan has been only partially offset by the alter-globalization movement, starting with the events that took place at the 1999 Seattle meeting, and on a totally different and probably far more influential scale in the medium and long term, by the astounding explosion of collaborative practices on the Internet. However, lacking political and widespread citizen support as well as sufficient resources, civil society has not so far been able to develop and disseminate alternative plans for society as a whole on a global scale, even though plenty of proposals and initiatives have been developed, some more successful than others, to build a fairer, more responsible, and more solidarity-based world in all of these areas.

Public goods and services are those that are multiplied when shared: knowledge, intelligence, and experience. These goods should therefore be part of a collective and free sharing process rather than of a market-based approach, the development of which favors only the richest and most powerful and is therefore bound for self-destruction.

As far as science is concerned, "[r]esearch increasingly bows to the needs of financial markets, turning competence and knowledge into commodities, making employment flexible and informal, and establishing contracts based on goals and profits for the benefit of private interests in compliance with the competition principle. The directions that research has taken in the past two decades and the changes it has undergone have drastically removed it from its initial mission (producing competence and knowledge, maintaining independence) with no questioning of its current and future missions. Despite the progress, or perhaps even as its consequence, humankind continues to face critical problems: poverty and hunger are yet to be vanquished, nuclear arms are proliferating, environmental disasters are on the rise, social injustice is growing, and so on.

Neoliberal commercialization of the commons favors the interests of pharmaceutical companies instead of the patients', of food-processing companies instead of the farmers' and consumers'. Public research policies have done nothing but support this process of economic profitability, where research results are increasingly judged by the financial markets. The system of systematically patenting knowledge and living organisms is thus being imposed throughout the planet through the 1994 WTO agreements on intellectual property. Research in many areas is now being directed by private companies."[47]

On the global level, "[i]nstitutions dominating a specific sector also, at every level, present the risk of reliance on technical bodies that use their own references and deliberate in an isolated environment. This process can be observed with the 'community of patents' that promotes the patenting of living organisms, as well as with authorities controlling nuclear energy. This inward-looking approach is all the more dangerous that communities of experts are, in all complex technical and legal spheres, increasingly dominated by the major economic organizations that finance research and development." [27]

On the other hand, several innovative experiments have emerged in the sphere of science, such as: conscience clauses and citizens' panels as a tool for democratizing the production system; Science shops; and Community-based research. Politically committed scientists are also increasingly organizing at the global level.[48]

As far as education is concerned, the effect of commoditization can be seen in the serious tightening of education budgets, which has an impact on the quality of general education as a public service. The Global Future Online report reminds us that ". . . at the half-way point towards 2015 (author's note: the deadline for the Millennium Goals), the gaps are daunting: 80 million children (44 million of them girls) are out of school, with marginalized groups (26 million disabled and 30 million conflict-affected children) continuing to be excluded. And while universal access is critical, it must be coupled with improved learning outcomes—in particular, children achieving the basic literacy, numeracy and life skills essential for poverty reduction."[49]

In addition to making the current educational system available universally, there is also a call to improve the system and adapt it to the speed of changes in a complex and unpredictable world. On this point, Edgar Morin asserts that we must "[r]ethink our way of organizing knowledge. This means breaking down the traditional barriers between disciplines and designing new ways to reconnect that which has been torn apart." The UNESCO report drawn up by Morin contains "seven principles for education of the future": detecting the error and illusion that have always parasitized the human spirit and human behavior; making knowledge relevant, i.e. a way of thinking that makes distinctions and connections; teaching the human condition; teaching terrestrial identity; facing human and scientific uncertainties and teaching strategies to deal with them; teaching understanding of the self and of others, and an ethics for humankind.[50]

The exponential growth of new technologies, the Internet in particular, has gone hand in hand with the development over the last decade of a global community producing and exchanging goods. This development is permanently altering the shape of the entertainment, publishing, and music and media industries, among others. It is also influencing the social behavior of increasing numbers of people, along with the way in which institutions, businesses, and civil society are organized. Peer-to-peer communities and collective knowledge-building projects such as Wikipedia have involved millions of users around the world. There are even more innovative initiatives, such as alternatives to private copyright such as Creative Commons, cyber democracy practices, and a real possibility of developing them on the sectoral, regional, and global levels.

Regional Views of World Governance

The recent and growing interest that different regional players are showing in world governance gives it a regional dimension that goes beyond egocentric reasoning, turning questions like "What can the world bring to my country or region?" into "What can my country or region bring to the rest of the world?"


Often seen as a problem to be solved rather than a people or region with an opinion to express on international policy, Africans and Africa draw on a philosophical tradition of community and social solidarity that can serve as inspiration to the rest of the world and contribute to building world governance. One example is given by Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gathseni when he reminds us of the relevance of the Ubuntu concept, which stresses the interdependence of human beings.[51]

African civil society has thus begun to draw up proposals for governance of the continent, which factor in all of the dimensions: local, African, and global. Examples include proposals by the network "Dialogues sur la gouvernance en Afrique" for "the construction of a local legitimate governance," state reform "capable of meeting the continent's development challenges," and "effective regional governance to put an end to Africa's marginalization."[52]

United States

Foreign-policy proposals announced by the recently elected President Barack Obama include restoring the Global Poverty Act, which aims to contribute to meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals to reduce by half the world population living on less than a dollar a day by 2015. Foreign aid is expected to double to 50 billion dollars.[53] The money will be used to help build educated and healthy communities, reduce poverty and improve the population's health.[54]

Another measure that has been announced is the participation of the North American people in foreign policy decisions via citizen meetings at the municipal level to discuss the fundamental aspects of policy.

In terms of international institutions, The White House Web site advocates reform of the World Bank and the IMF, without going into any detail.[55]

Below are further points in the Obama-Biden plan for foreign policy directly related to world governance:[56]

  • strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
  • global de-nuclearization in several stages including stepping up cooperation with Russia to significantly reduce stocks of nuclear arms in both countries;
  • revision of the culture of secrecy: institution of a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective;
  • increase in global funds for AIDS, TB and malaria. Eradication of malaria-related deaths by 2015 by making medicines and mosquito nets far more widely available;
  • increase in aid for children and maternal health as well as access to reproductive health-care programs;
  • creation of a 2-billion-dollar global fund for education. Increased funds for providing access to drinking water and sanitation;
  • other similarly large-scale measures covering agriculture, small- and medium-sized enterprises and support for a model of international trade that fosters job creation and improves the quality of life in poor countries;
  • in terms of energy and global warming, Obama advocates a) an 80% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 b) investing 150 billion dollars in alternative energies over the next 10 years and c) creating a Global Energy Forum capable of initiating a new generation of climate protocols.

Latin America

The twenty-first century has seen the arrival of a new and diverse generation of left-wing governments in Latin America. This has opened the door to initiatives to launch political and governance renewal. A number of these initiatives are significant for the way they redefine the role of the state by drawing on citizen participation, and can thus serve as a model for a future world governance built first and foremost on the voice of the people. The constituent assemblies in Ecuador and Bolivia are fundamental examples of this phenomenon.

In Ecuador, social and indigenous movements were behind the discussions that began in 1990 on setting up a constituent assembly.[57]. In the wake of Rafael Correa's arrival at the head of the country in November 2006, widespread popular action with the slogan "que se vayan todos" (let them all go away) succeeded in getting all the political parties of congress to accept a convocation for a referendum on setting up the assembly.

In April 2007, Rafael Correa's government organized a consultation with the people to approve setting up a constituent assembly. Once it was approved, 130 members of the assembly were elected in September, including 100 provincial members, 24 national members and 6 for migrants in Europe, Latin America and the USA. The assembly was officially established in November. Assembly members belonged to traditional political parties as well as the new social movements. In July 2008, the assembly completed the text for the new constitution and in September 2008 there was a referendum to approve it. Approval for the new text won out, with 63.9% of votes for compared to 28.1% of votes against and a 24.3% abstention rate.[58]

The new constitution establishes the rule of law on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER). It transforms the legal model of the social state subject to the rule of law into a "constitution of guaranteed well-being" (Constitución del bienestar garantizado) inspired by the ancestral community ideology of "good living" propounded by the Quechuas of the past, as well as by twenty-first century socialist ideology. The constitution promotes the concept of food sovereignty by establishing a protectionist system that favors domestic production and trade. It also develops a model of public aid for education, health, infrastructures and other services.

In addition, it adds to the three traditional powers, a fourth power called the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control, made up of former constitutional control bodies and social movements, and mandated to assess whether public policies are constitutional or not.

The new Bolivian constitution was approved on 25 January 2009 by referendum, with 61.4% votes in favor, 38.6% against and a 90.2% turnout. The proposed constitution was prepared by a constituent assembly that did not only reflect the interests of political parties and the elite, but also represented the indigenous peoples and social movements. As in Ecuador, the proclamation of a constituent assembly was demanded by the people, starting in 1990 at a gathering of indigenous peoples from the entire country, continuing with the indigenous marches in the early 2000s and then with the Program Unity Pact (Pacto de Unidad Programático) established by family farmers and indigenous people in September 2004 in Santa Cruz.[59]

The constitution recognizes the autonomy of indigenous peoples, the existence of a specific indigenous legal system, exclusive ownership of forest resources by each community and a quota of indigenous members of parliament. It grants autonomy to counties, which have the right to manage their natural resources and elect their representatives directly. The latifundio system has been outlawed, with maximum ownership of 5,000 hectares allowed per person. Access to water and sanitation are covered by the constitution as human rights that the state has to guarantee, as well as other basic services such as electricity, gas, postal services, and telecommunications that can be provided by either the state or contracting companies. The new constitution also establishes a social and community economic model made up of public, private, and social organizations, and cooperatives. It guarantees private initiative and freedom of enterprise, and assigns public organizations the task of managing natural resources and related processes as well as developing public services covered by the constitution. National and cooperative investment is favored over private and international investment. The "unitary plurinational" state of Bolivia has 36 official indigenous languages along with Spanish. Natural resources belong to the people and are administered by the state. The form of democracy in place is no longer considered as exclusively representative and/or based on parties. Thus, "the people deliberate and exercise government via their representatives and the constituent assembly, the citizen legislative initiative and the referendum . . ."[60] and "popular representation is exercised via the political parties, citizen groups, and indigenous peoples."[61] This way, "political parties, and/or citizen groups and/or indigenous peoples can present candidates directly for the offices of president, vice-president, senator, house representative, constituent-assembly member, councilor, mayor, and municipal agent. The same conditions apply legally to all. . . ."[62]

Also n Latin America: "Amazonia . . . is an enormous biodiversity reservoir and a major climate-regulation agent for the planet but is being ravaged and deteriorated at an accelerated pace; it is a territory almost entirely devoid of governance, but also a breeding place of grassroots organization initiatives."[63]. "Amazonia can be the fertile field of a true school of 'good' governance if it is looked after as a common and valuable good, first by Brazilians (65% of Amazonia is within Brazilian borders) and the people of the South American countries surrounding it, but also by all the Earth's inhabitants."[64] Accordingly, "[f]rom a world-governance perspective, [Amazonia] is in a way an enormous laboratory. Among other things, Amazonia enables a detailed examination of the negative effects of productivism and of the different forms of environmental packaging it can hide behind, including 'sustainable development.' Galloping urbanization, Human Rights violations, the many different types of conflicts (14 different types of conflicts have been identified within the hundreds of cases observed in Amazonia), protection of indigenous populations and their active participation in local governance: these are among the many Amazonian challenges also affecting the planet as a whole, not to mention the environment. The hosts of local initiatives, including among the indigenous populations, are however what may be most interesting in Amazonia in that they testify to the real, concrete possibility of a different form of organization that combines a healthy local economy, good social cohesion, and a true model of sustainable development—this time not disguised as something else. All of this makes Amazonia 'a territory of solutions.'"[65]

According to Arnaud Blin, the Amazonian problem helps to define certain fundamental questions on the future of humankind. First, there is the question of social justice: "[H]ow do we build a new model of civilization that promotes social justice? How do we set up a new social architecture that allows us to live together?" The author goes on to refer to concepts such as the concept of "people's territory " or even "life territory" rooted in the indigenous tradition and serving to challenge private property and social injustice. He then suggests that the emerging concept of the "responsibility to protect," following up on the "right of humanitarian intervention" and until now used to try and protect populations endangered by civil wars, could also be applied to populations threatened by economic predation and to environmental protection.[66]


The growing interest in world governance in Asia represents an alternative approach to official messages, dominated by states' nationalist visions. An initiative to develop proposals for world governance took place in Shanghai in 2006, attended by young people from every continent. The initiative produced ideas and projects that can be classified as two types: the first and more traditional type, covering the creation of a number of new institutions such as an International Emissions Organization, and a second more innovative type based on organizing network-based systems. For example, a system of cooperative control on a worldwide level among states [67] and self-organization of civil society into networks using new technologies, a process that should serve to set up a Global Calling-for-Help Center or a new model based on citizens who communicate freely, share information, hold discussions, and seek consensus-based solutions. They would use the Internet and the media, working within several types of organizations: universities, NGOs, local volunteers and civil-society groups.[68]

Given the demographic importance of the continent, the development of discussion on governance and practices in Asia at the regional level, as well as global-level proposals, will be decisive in the years ahead in the strengthening of global dialog among all sorts of stakeholders, a dialog that should produce a fairer world order.


According to Michel Rocard, Europe does not have a shared vision, but a collective history that allows Europeans to opt for projects for gradual political construction such as the European Union. Drawing on this observation, Rocard conceives of a European perspective that supports the development of three strategies for constructing world governance: reforming the UN, drawing up international treaties to serve as the main source of global regulations, and "the progressive penetration of the international scene by justice."[69]

Rocard considers that there are a number of "great questions of the present days" including recognition by all nations of the International Criminal Court, the option of an international police force authorized to arrest international criminals, and the institution of judicial procedures to deal with tax havens, massively polluting activities, and states supporting terrorist activities. He also outlines "new problems" that should foster debate in the years to come on questions such as a project for a Declaration of Interdependence, how to re-equilibrate world trade and WTO activities, and how to create world regulations for managing collective goods (air, drinking water, oil, etc.) and services (education, health, etc.).[70]

Stakeholders' Views on World Governance

It is too soon to give a general account of the view of world-governance stakeholders, although interest in world governance is on the rise on the regional level, and we will certainly see different types of stakeholders and social sectors working to varying degrees at the international level and taking a stand on the issue in the years to come.

Institutional and state stakeholders

  • Members of parliament

The World Parliamentary Forum, open to members of parliament from all nations and held every year at the same time as the World Social Forum, drew up a declaration at the sixth forum in Caracas in 2006. The declaration contains a series of proposals that express participants' opinion on the changes referred to.[71]

  • The Military

The International Alliance of Military for Peace and Security is a platform of expression and discussion of ideas and positions on various topics affecting security and stability, the goal of which is to "discuss issues of security and defense, as well as ways of promoting a new 'Consciousness of Security and Defense' to citizens, which allows them to better understand the risks and opportunities inherent in international relations within a globalizing world and to participate actively in the definition of conditions to ensure the stability of international relations and peace." The Alliance is made up of members of the military and other people interested in issues related to human security. Some of the member organizations of the Alliance of Military have drawn up a Charter for the Promotion of an "European Security and Defence Awareness. This document is written for public opinion and formulates objectives, tasks, and the conditions for adhering to and setting up European-level reinforced military cooperation. One of the Alliance's key goals is to promote the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) to a broader public, without wishing to call into question transatlantic partnership and the role of the UN. The actions of national governments and European institutions in the areas of security and defense must be founded on the adherence of European citizens.

  • Regional organizations

The European Commission referred to global governance in its White Paper on European Governance. It contends that the search for better global governance draws on the same set of shared challenges humanity is currently facing. These challenges can be summed up by a series of goals: sustainable development, security, peace and equity (in the sense of "fairness").[72]

Non-state stakeholders

The freedom of thought enjoyed by non-state stakeholders enables them to formulate truly alternative ideas on world-governance issues, but they have taken little or no advantage of this opportunity.

Pierre Calame believes that "[n]on-state actors have always played an essential role in global regulation, but their role will grow considerably in this, the beginning of the twenty-first Century . . . Non-state actors play a key role in world governance in different domains . . . To better understand and develop the non-state actors' role, it should be studied in conjunction with the general principles of governance." "Non-state actors, due to their vocation, size, flexibility, methods of organization and action, interact with states in an equal manner; however this does not mean that their action is better adapted."[73]

Proposals for a New World Governance

Several stakeholders have produced lists of proposals for a new world governance that is fairer, more responsible, solidarity-based, interconnected and respectful of the planet's diversity. Some examples are given below.

Joseph E. Stiglitz proposes a list of reforms related to the internal organization of international institutions and their external role in the framework of global-governance architecture. He also deals with global taxation, the management of global resources and the environment, the production and protection of global knowledge, and the need for a global legal infrastructure.[74]

A number of other proposals are contained in the World Governance Proposal Paper: giving concrete expression to the principle of responsibility; granting civil society greater involvement in drawing up and implementing international regulations; granting national parliaments greater involvement in drawing up and implementing international regulations; re-equilibrating trade mechanisms and adopting regulations to benefit the southern hemisphere; speeding up the institution of regional bodies; extending and specifying the concept of the commons; redefining proposal and decision-making powers in order to reform the United Nations; developing independent observation, early-warning, and assessment systems; diversifying and stabilizing the basis for financing international collective action; and engaging in a wide-reaching process of consultation, a new Bretton Woods for the United Nations.[75]

This list provides more examples of proposals:

  • the security of societies and its correlation with the need for global reforms——a controlled legally-based economy focused on stability, growth, full employment, and North-South convergence;
  • equal rights for all, implying the institution of a global redistribution process;
  • eradication of poverty in all countries;
  • sustainable development on a global scale as an absolute imperative in political action at all levels;
  • fight against the roots of terrorism and crime;
  • consistent, effective, and fully democratic international institutions;
  • Europe sharing its experience in meeting the challenges of globalization and adopting genuine partnership strategies to build a new form of multilateralism.[76]

Dr. Rajesh Tandon, president of the FIM (Montreal International Forum) and of PRIA (Participatory Research in Asia), prepared a framework document entitled "Democratization of Global Governance for Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies (G05) conference." He used the document to present five principles that could provide a basis for civil society actions: "Global institutions and agenda should be subjected to democratic political accountability."

  • Democratic policy at the global level requires legitimacy of popular control through representative and direct mechanisms.
  • Citizen participation in decision making at global levels requires equality of opportunity to all citizens of the world.
  • Multiple spheres of governance, from local to provincial to national to regional and global, should mutually support democratization of decision making at all levels.
  • Global democracy must guarantee that global public goods are equitably accessible to all citizens of the world.[77]

Vijaya Ramachandran, Enrique Rueda-Sabater and Robin Kraft also define principles for representation of nations and populations in the system of global governance. They propose a "Two Percent Club" that would provide for direct representation of nations with at least two percent of global population or global GDP; other nations would be represented within international fora through regional blocs.[78]

See also

Internal links


  1. ^ Blin, Arnaud ; Marin, Gustavo ; "Rethinking Global Governance"
  2. ^ For greater discussion, see: Andreani, Gilles; "Gouvernance globale : origines d'une idée"; Politique étrangère, Nº 3, 2001, pp. 549-568.
  3. ^ Forum for a New World Governance (FnWG); Reasons for this Forum for a new World Governance
  4. ^ James Rosenau, "Toward an Ontology for Global Governance," in Martin Hewson and Timothy J. Sinclair (eds.), Approaches to Global Governance Theory (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999).
  5. ^ Diane Stone, "Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities and their Networks," Journal of Policy Sciences, 2008.
  6. ^ Saba Riazati, "A Closer Look: Professor Seeks Stronger U.N.," The Daily Bruin, October 18, 2006.
  7. ^ The UN and Global Governance
  8. ^ Pawel Zaleski Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector, [in:] Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr [ed.]: "Civil Society in the Making", IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006.
  9. ^ Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004).
  10. ^ Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur, The UN and Global Governance: An Idea and Its Prospects, Indiana University Press, forthcoming.
  11. ^ Pierre Jacquet; Jean Pisani-Ferry; Laurence Tubiana; À la recherche de la gouvernance mondiale
  12. ^ A Global Ethic Now!; UN Global Compact Under Criticism
  13. ^ a b FnWG; The Principles of Governance: A Guide to the Development of Proposals for World Governance
  14. ^ Scholte, Jan Aart; "Civil Society and Legitimation of Global Governance" CSGR Working Paper No. 223/07. March 2007.
  15. ^ Calame, Pierre; "La Démocratie en miettes. Pour une révolution de la gouvernance"; Ed. Charles Léopold Mayer, Ed. Descartes et cie., 2003, p. 155-6
  16. ^ Künemann, Rolf; "The Extraterritorial Scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR"
  17. ^ Toussaint, Eric; "The IMF, the World Bank, and Respect of Human Rights."
  18. ^ Rodgers, Gerry; "Decent Work as a Goal for the Global Economy."
  19. ^ Windfuhr, Michael; "The Human Right to Water."
  20. ^ FnWG; "The Principles of Governance: A Guide to the Development of Proposals for World Governance"
  21. ^ Via Campesina; "Small-scale sustainable farmers are cooling down the Earth"
  22. ^ FnWG;The Principles of Governance: A Guide to the Development of Proposals for World Governance
  23. ^ a b Calame, Pierre ; Marin, Gustavo; Main Points for the Discussion with the United Nations Secretariat", under "Reforming the U.N. and Redefining Global Governance"
  24. ^ FnWG; The Principles of Governance: A Guide to the Development of Proposals for World Governance
  25. ^ Beck, Ulrich; The Cosmopolitan State, originally published in Der Spiegel
  26. ^ Cooper, Robert; "The Post-modern State"
  27. ^ a b c d Calame, Pierre; "Pour une gouvernance mondiale légitime, efficace et démocratique"
  28. ^ Peemans, Jean-Philippe; "Territories and Globalization: The Stakes of Development"
  29. ^ Marin, Gustavo; On the Road to a Citizens Assembly
  30. ^ Scholte, J.A. (2007), "Civil Society and the Legitimation of Global Governance", CSGR Working Paper No. 223/07
  31. ^ Sehm-Patömaki, K. and M. Ulvila (2006), "Dialogues on Party Systems and Global Democratization"
  32. ^ Howard, S. (2006), "Organising Globally"
  33. ^ Forum de réseaux de régions du monde (2007), "Déclaration des régions sur leur participation à la gouvernance de la mondialisation"
  34. ^ Lipietz, A. (2005) "À quoi sert le Forum Parlementaire Mondial ?"
  35. ^ a b Calame, P. and G. Marin (2005), "Main Points for the Discussion with the United Nations Secretariat", in "Reforming the U.N. and Redefining Global Governance"
  36. ^ Calame, P. (2003), La démocratie en miettes. Pour une révolution de la gouvernance, Ed. Charles Léopold Mayer, Ed. Descartes et cie. p. 145
  37. ^ Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2006), "Global public goods and global finance: does global governance ensure that the global public interest is served?", in Jean-Philippe Touffut, (ed.), Advancing Public Goods, Paris, pp. 149/164
  38. ^ Massiah, G. (2005), "La réforme de l'ONU et le mouvement altermondialiste"
  39. ^ Pelayo, G. (ed.) (2008, "Environmental Governance and Managing the Earth"
  40. ^ Tubiana, L.; Martimort-Asso, B. (2005), "International Environmental Governance: The next steps", in Synthèses N°02/2005. Iddri, 2005. 4 p.
  41. ^ Najam, A., M. Papa and N. Taiyab (2007), "Global Environmental Governance: Elements of a Reform Agenda", in Cleveland , C.J. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Earth, Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C.
  42. ^ Tubiana, L. and J.-M. Severino (2002), "Biens publics globaux, gouvernance mondiale et aide publique au développement", in Jacquet P., J. Pisani Ferry and L. Tubiana, Gouvernance mondiale, La Documentation française, Les Rapports du CAE, N°37, pp. 349-373.
  43. ^ Stiglitz, J.E. (206), "Global public goods and global finance: does global governance ensure that the global public interest is served?" in Touffut, J.-Ph. (ed.), Advancing Public Goods, Cournot Centre for Economic Studies, Paris, pp. 149/164.
  44. ^ George, S. (2007), "Alternative finances", Le Monde Diplomatique, January.
  45. ^ Michel, Andrée (1999), Surarmement, pouvoirs, démocratie; L'Harmattan, Paris.
  46. ^ Bachelet, Jean-René; Military Ethics for a Better World
  47. ^ "Atelier de la Fondation Sciences citoyennes au Forum social mondial"
  48. ^ Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Research; Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Research
  49. ^ Can we close the education gap? in "Global Future", 2, 2007
  50. ^ Morin, Edgar; Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future
  51. ^ Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gathseni; Giving Africa Voice within Global Governance: Oral History, Human Rights and the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council
  52. ^ Network "Dialogues sur la gouvernance en Afrique"; Changeons l’Afrique, 15 propositions pour commencer...
  53. ^ "Record $49B foreign aid budget clears House" in Politico, July 9, 2009
  54. ^ "In Defense of Aid" in Foreign Policy in Focus, July 17, 2009.
  55. ^ "A Turning Point" April 2, 2009
  56. ^ "Foreign Policy" in Organizing for America
  57. ^ Servicio Informativo "Alai-amlatina"; Asamblea Constituyente (Ecuador)
  58. ^ Asamblea Constituyente Ecuador 2008; Nueva Constitución del Ecuador
  59. ^ Hacia una Asamblea Constituyente soberana y participativa
  60. ^ 2009 Bolivian Constitution, article 4. 1
  61. ^ 2009 Bolivian Constitution, article 222
  62. ^ 2009 Bolivian Constitution, article 224
  63. ^ IBase; FnGM; What Amazonia Does the World Need?, Rio de Janeiro, 2008, p. 16
  64. ^ IBase; FnGM; Ibid. p. 6
  65. ^ IBase; FnGM; Ibid. p. 34-41
  66. ^ IBase; FnGM; Ibid.
  67. ^ Youth Innovation Competition on Global Governance; Conference for Climate Change
  68. ^ World Team E. Youth Innovation Competition on Global Governance; Greenhouse-gas Emissions and Global Mitigation Efforts
  69. ^ Rocard, Michel ; World Governance. A Personal European View
  70. ^ Rocard, Michel; Ibid.
  71. ^ World Parliamentary Forum, "Final Declaration of the Sixth World Parliamentary Forum - Caracas 2006"
  72. ^ "Global governance: contribution of the European Union"
  73. ^ Calame, Pierre ; "Non-state Actors and World Governance"
  74. ^ Stiglitz, J.E. (2004), "The Future of Global Governance", in Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), IPD Working Paper.
  75. ^ Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World, "Redefining Global Governance to Meet the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century"
  76. ^ Groupe de réflexion "Europe-Mondialisation"; For Global Reform, a Social Democratic Approach to Globalization
  77. ^ Montréal International Forum Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies (G05) Conference Report
  78. ^ Vijaya Ramachandran, Enrique Rueda-Sabater and Robin Kraft, "Rethinking Fundamental Principles of Global Governance: How to Represent States and Populations in Multilateral Institutions", Governance 22.3 (July 2009):341-351

External links

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address