Global Governance 

About: Global Governance is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Global governance & International law. Over the lifetime, 316 publications have been published receiving 7149 citations.

Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics

Abstract: In one of the first issues of Global Governance, Larry Finkelstein observed that “‘Global Governance’ appears to be virtually anything.” A decade later, the concept of global governance has become ever more popular—and confusion about its meaning ever greater. While we do think that some flexibility in the use of concepts is both theoretically desirable and practically unavoidable, we believe that the current disarray is a hindrance to more fruitful discussions and to the goal of developing more coherent theories of global governance. We therefore argue that a more careful use of the term global governance is necessary to overcome the current confusion spawned by the variation in uses of the concept. After clarifying the basic function of concepts in social science and reviewing the different uses of global governance in the current literature, we use the term as an analytical concept that provides a perspective on world politics different from the more traditional notion of “international relations.” KEYWORDS: global governance, world politics, international relations, use of concepts.

Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance?

Abstract: Understanding the impact of regime complexes on global governance calls for creative policy thinking. This introduction provides a new and more precise definition of the concept of regime complex. It also suggests spe cific tools to characterize regime complexes and analyze their impacts on global governance. The articles in this issue deepen the analytical under standing of complexes by examining concrete examples in various domains of global governance such as piracy, taxation, energy, food security, emis sions reduction, carbon sinks, biosafety, and refugee governance. In addi tion to providing an in-depth description of a variety of different regime complexes, this issue is innovative on three accounts: (1) it presents com plexes as both barriers and opportunities for global governance and gives explanations for these diverse outcomes; (2) it shows how a broad spec trum of actors is necessary for understanding the creation and evolution of complexes; and (3) it qualifies former claims to the effect that only pow erful actors can impact regime complexes. KEYWORDS : regime complexes, networks, institutional centralization, institutional fragmentation, institu tional density. A GROUP OR A SYSTEM HAS PROPERTIES THAT DIFFER FROM THOSE OF ITS constitutive parts. Galaxies do not rotate at the same speed as stars; ecosys tems evolve in a more stable manner than their biological components; crowds are usually more impulsive than individual human beings; and H 2 O quenches thirst much better than two spoonfuls of hydrogen and one of oxygen. There is nothing new about this observation. Scientists have known for a long time how important it is to distinguish systems from their com ponents. Yet scholars of international relations often fail to seriously con sider systems populated with international institutions. In earlier times, most intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and multilateral treaties were relatively independent from one another. But as the number of new treaties has grown at an exponential rate and existing intergovernmental organizations have crept into neighboring issue areas, global governance has become denser. It is no longer possible to negotiate new arrangements on a clear institutional table. One of the most recent multilateral environmental agreements, the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to

Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name?

Abstract: This article surveys and analyzes twenty-four governmental and intergovernmental bodies that are currently active in peacebuilding in order to, first, identify critical differences in how they conceptualize and operationalize their mandate, and, second, map areas of potential concern. We begin by briefly outlining the various terms used by different actors to describe their peacebuilding activities and correlate these terms with differing core mandates, networks of interaction, and interests. We then identify the divisions regarding the specific approaches and areas of priority. Thus far most programs have focused on the immediate or underlying causes of conflict—to the relative neglect of state institutions. We conclude by raising concerns about how peacebuilding is institutionalized in various settings, including at the UN’s Peacebuilding Commission. KEYWORDS: peacebuilding, postconflict reconstruction, peacekeeping, United Nations.

International norm dynamics and the "end of poverty": Understanding the millennium development goals

Abstract: THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT AS A GLOBAL OBJECTIVE REQUIRING INTERNATIONAL cooperation can and has been defined in many ways. Such definitions depend on how political leaders envision important normative goals for the world; how economists, philosophers, and political scientists theorize the process of development; and how these ideas are utilized and adopted by key stakeholders. A significant evolution in recent years has been the emergence of a broad consensus on ending poverty as the overarching objective of development. This consensus is institutionalized in the UN Millennium Declaration adopted in 2000 and in the widespread use of the global targets that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In previous decades, international development objectives were not so clearly defined nor did they focus on poverty and poor people. Although concern with widespread poverty has been a major factor for keeping development on the international agenda since the 1950s, strategies have been dominated by economic objectives ranging from building infrastructure, human capital and an industrial base in the 1960s and 1970s, to economic liberalization in the 1980s and 1990s, to institutional and governance reforms since the 1990s. (1) Civil society advocates and academics have consistently criticized these national and international strategies for their neglect of poverty and the human dimension. (2) This new consensus has important implications for the international political economy of development. As Charles Gore argues, the consensus was achieved at the expense of replacing the prioritization of building national capacities for development. (3) While the MDGs are usually seen as desirable, Ashwani Saith points out that "the MDG phenomenon carries the potential for distorting meaningful intellectual and research agendas, and could function as the catalyst and vehicle for a fundamental realignment of the political economy of development at the global level." (4) How did this normative shift take place? Was it driven by ethical considerations? What was the role of key individuals and institutional stakeholders? What were the strategic instruments deployed? The aim of this article is to explain how the MDGs emerged and became established and to analyze the trajectory of the antipoverty norm itself. We draw on documentary material and interviews conducted with over 100 individuals who were involved in the framing and implementation phases of the Millennium Declaration and MDGs. We use the model of international norm dynamics set out by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. (5) But we propose elements to extend and refine that model in this context. We argue that the MDGs brought specificity and concreteness to the idea of ending global poverty, and explain the dynamics of that process by extending the conceptual apparatus of Finnemore and Sikkink. We introduce two new concepts: the "supernorm," a cluster of interrelated norms grouped into a unified and coherent framework, and the "message entrepreneur," as distinct from the "norm entrepreneur." (6) The Supernorm of Ending Global Poverty In this article, we treat the MDGs as a vehicle to communicate and promote the objective of ending global poverty. Legislatively the MDGs originated in goals set in the Millennium Declaration, a political declaration signed by 189 countries, including 145 heads of state or government, that commits to ending poverty as a key goal for the twenty-first century along with peace, human rights, and democracy. The development chapter of the Millennium Declaration is entirely focused on poverty rather than other dimensions of development. It starts with the statement: "We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected." (7) While the Millennium Declaration included clearly defined objectives and specific quantitative goals, these were further clarified into a form that could be monitored more effectively in the Road Map presented by the UN Secretary-General a year later. …

Governance and the global water system: A theoretical exploration

Abstract: Public policy on water has long been approached in the context of a locality, a country, or a river basin. However, scientific evidence now provides compelling arguments for adopting a global perspective on water management. This article argues that water governance today needs a multilevel design, including a significant global dimension. The discussion defines global water governance, highlights the implications for multilevel governance, and examines global water governance through the lens of governance typologies. The analysis along the categories of globalization/regionalization, centralization/decentralization, formality/informality, and state/nonstate actors and processes reveals that current global water governance is a fragmented, mobius-web arrangement. The article concludes by considering possible future trajectories of global water governance.