Fernando Miguel Angel Santamara Prez A01210518 Institutions and International Organizations CCM.

RI2014 Keeping Global Governance The beginning of the 21st century was extremely turbulent, but stated how fragile was the world constituted through the past century. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, 2007 financial crisis, global warming and wealth crisis, just to mention some, redefined finances, economy and global governance. This last one was questioned since mid-90, when the globalization feels strongest than ever, but with the appearance of new actors the idea of stability started to seem as an illusion. The current institutions that represents the so called global governance are obsoletes and must be reformed to influence further than economics and finances to face the new global challenges. In the next pages the weaknesses, strengths and progress of global governance (G.G.) will be analyzed. G.G. is not the same than international government or world order (that sounds as a conspiracy clich) and suggests that should respond to a sort of executive entity, but its compound by the processes and institutions, both formal and informal, that guide and restrain the collective act ivities of a group (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 101) giving coherence and parameters of how the international actors could interact between them with mutual agreements looking for an effective functionality. Theres no such thing as a manual of how G.G. exercise its influence because the many institutions that constitute it. As it is based in multiple actors that influence almost every sector, it works as a linking platform connecting local, national and international addressing problems and solutions in function that they share goals more than legal authority (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 102) Through this basic idea they create a new action framework where three spheres are relevant for the correct functioning of

this system: political domain, economic domain and civil society domain, and works in the three linking levels mentioned before1 (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 103) In order to understand G.G., globalization needs to be defined; the concept tries to be inclusive, but its merely understood just in economic terms. So the ideal of create a global network of cooperation in every way is a misconception. Nevertheless, it is the potential apertures to have any kind of transactions (cultural, economic or political) with any actor implied on the international scene what will be comprehend as global (Maytnz, R. 2002 p. 1). The first attempt to being global, in an institutional level was after World War I with the foundation of The League of Nations, and after with the creation of United Nations (UN) the basis of an international structure began to rise. But all the benefits of being global also carry a lot of new conflicts. The globalization changed the dynamics of every kind of relation between countries until the point that started to have a responsibility on the others. Because of it, the space of sovereignty of the State began to disappear, and even started to be opposite to the mentioned responsibility2. The states are most responsible of the world order. To the contractual responsibility with their citizens need to be added one that compromise them with the exterior, the environment, the peace and development (Innerarity, D., 2012 p. 18) the structure of the traditional institution that takes care about the different areas of development must be projected to function internationally, but this change brings up two problems: a. the non-politic nature of the globalization bring up a

Andreas Rasche, professor of Business in Society at Copenhagen Business School and co-author of the article Institutionalizing global governance: the role of the United Nations Compact, establish three interpretations for this model: a multiactor perspective, a multilevel perspective and a network perspective. The first one refers to observe the elements as individuals but coexisting on the frame and collaborating on the generation of policies; the second one increases the interconnection not only between the actor but also on their different levels; the last one complement the other two with the perspective of the integration vertically and horizontally in order to achieve consensus and solutions to global governance.
2

On her article The national states and global governance, the German sociologist and director emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Renate Maytnz mention that the national economies used their access to the markets of other countries adhering to international institutions an treaties. These helps to answer the pressure of being immerse in a most globalized world and also suppose a lot of benefits to their respective citizens but exposes their finances to bigger crisis. The benefits dont seem to compensate the political, economic and social restrictions that now have to follow because they belong to a more complex structure.

power empty and b. that the new international institutions could be considered non democratic. If the interaction is getting cooperative it is absurd think that the governance model followed by the states will not suffer any change; national governance had been state-centered and was based on the concept of sovereignty. The idea of give up some authority in order to get benefits it wasnt very pleasant, but when problems as poverty, hunger, terrorism, war, immigration and lack of resources started to rise dramatically since the governments closed their distances, they noticed about that cant be solved unilaterally because the missing of authority (Rasche, A., 2012, p. 102) consequence of expand virtually their frontiers. The disappearance of the power of the aisled state as has been known until now, and be subordinated to common interests reduces the influence of the governments in their countries. The concept of democracy loses terrain versus legitimacy, thanks to the reconfiguration beyond the state, and besides remarks the differences between political spaces and social spaces (Innerarity, 2012 p.16) empowers other actors not legitimized by popular election, and should be considered undemocratic generating disputes inside and outside dissolving power in little cells. What put the world governments in this kind of predicaments? Well, the development of new technologies for telecommunications creates a new perspective of how the individuals could interact and send and retrieve information. This, subsequently, changes the ways we commerce and how the countries should produce creating the adequate scenarios to bring up the political globalization. The negative effects of the different kinds of globalization have been made necessary the creation of structures that should stop the conflicts that created them in first place (Maytnz, R. 2002, p. 2). Five types of globalization could be considered as motors of the global interaction and involves the problems that need to be challenged in this era; to be considered: the global expansion of transport and telecommunication that is the base of the next four; the economic globalization because the transnationals; the ecological globalization that considers all the negatives

externalities of the global warming; the fourth its the increasing of the violence and the fifth its the global civil society3. Solutions will be bringing as long as the affected countries starts to solve the problem for themselves. The application of policies that should concern the other member countries will push up the efforts of the region. Just think a moment about European Union or all those regional commercial treaties and organizations that, in order to expand its members, help other nations to reach and keep a level of development. The sovereignty of the states is affected when they started to consider these aspects on their policies because the international competitiveness pressures them to notice about other countries growing capital (Maytnz, R, 2002, p. 3). The main conflicts are that the social security of the population is compromised and the personal interest of certain characters that will try to take advantage of this structures. So, the problems seem to be complicated and that crushes some level of independence. Its the global governance necessary? The answer is a convincing yes because it gives better tools to the countries to get into the international scenario. In most of the international or intergovernmental institutions the way of proceed is through negotiation instead of being an authority. The international regimes constitute, clearly and openly, solutions reached through negotiations [] trying to get them from the experts [] with a high technical level (Maytnz, R, 2002 p. 4) this is actually the core of global governance. The paradox of restrictions is the most polemical characteristic. The collective decisions that can be taken inside will be guided by organisms as UN, IMF, WB or WTO4. In these cases, the states will try to push the negotiations in order to flip the restrictive ones into protector and look for their own interests (Maytnz, R., 2002, p. 5) On the other hand, as we consider that the G.G. structure comes from the state, this game of equilibrium differs a lot from region to region. It was explained before the case of the European Union, but what about Africa, for example? Most of these countries are ruled by dictators, the currency is overrated and their markets are closed to the exterior (Maytnz, R.,
3

Understanding the concept of global civil society international non -governmental societies that represents certain sectors as enterprises trying to reach goals that are part of the public interest. 4 United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization respectively.

2002, p. 6) as was established a couple of paragraphs ago, the global governance is ruled by finances and technology development, if the area has a serious lack of stability and a unified democracy. Even is just a matter of resources what has put some of these countries on the board. Lets go deeper about its democratization. The basic believe about is the base that everybody supposes for governance as an inclusive structure. What is about it is to understand the equilibrium between national and international as defy to extend democracy to new processes (Innerarity, D., 2012, p. 16).but the interactions among countries is most of the times an economic depoliticized actions and democracy couldnt not exist further national state because the process of legitimization of the global governance. It doesnt arise from a popular election so its more prone to be victim of doubts. Invariably the topic of justice needs to be touched. Does justice exist in a more complex international interaction? The same way as democracy, the justice that we know is based on the limits of the state. Talk about international justice is talk about interdependencies that establish communities beyond legal framework (Innerarity, D, 2012, p. 21) theres no more standardized procedure because dont exist a thing as an international constitution, but its based on the recognition of responsibility of the other based on cause and effect (e.g. the violation of human rights In some region will cause the immediate action) and will be guided by the international institutional framework to cooperative solutions. As has been seen, the organization of international institutions has a more complex structure than could be appear. The strengths and weaknesses of them get lost because each one, in different levels, could be both at the same time. The main problems detected were: legitimization of the organisms, democratization of them and the foundations of the authority. The reform, not only structural but conceptual, will change the ancient parameters of the organisms if we realized that most of them were founded almost eighty years ago, when the needs where merely financial and economical (or they believe that).

If the Global Governance is supposed to be the main support of the foreign affairs, it must help to solve the external problems that affect countries derivate from international negotiations that only want to hold some personal and political interests from other nations. Even when the national state keeps being the center of the political structure, the constitution of a new type, well understood and structured, is fundamental. The regionalization of the world demands partnership and dialogue. If a country decides to keep going through its own will encounter a heavy wall that will be fighting against the asymmetries of power in favor of a true global multilevel policy (Maytnz, R., 2002, p. 7). Conceptualize that is not an obligation of diminish but to change the order of the world to face the new challenges.

References Innerarity, D. (2012). La gobernanza global, de la soberana a la responsabilidad. (Spanish). Revista CIDOB D'afers Internacionals, (100), 11-23. Retrieved from:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=aa4af461-2733-4488a7fe2f5133e47322%40sessionmgr113&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=86389606. Accessed May 7, 2013. Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. (2012). Institutionalizing global governance: the role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(1), Retrieved 100-114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01642.x from:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=aa4af461-2733-4488a7fe2f5133e47322%40sessionmgr113&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3 QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=69605629 Accessed May 7, 2013. Maytnz, R. (2002) Los estados nacionales y la gobernanza global. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, (24), 1-8. Retrieved from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/clad/clad0043401 .pdf Accessed May 7, 2013.