Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The need for a new world governance in light of the changing global landscape and the limitations of the Westphalian system. It identifies the interdependence between states in various areas such as the economy, environment, and health issues, and the need for increased cooperation and international solidarity. The document also highlights the importance of collective responsibility, equity, and sustainability in global relations.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 12
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Biocivilization for the Sustainability of Life and the Planet in the run-up to the Rio+20 Conference Rio de Janeiro, 9 to 12 August 2011
I – Introduction 1 Processes active in the development and emergence of a new world governance
resolutions in history, since it put an end to the religious wars that had been poisoning Europe for over a century. But the Peace of Westphalia accomplished far more: it put a stop to the church's interference in affairs of state; it introduced a code of conduct for states by establishing an international law that has continued to expand ever since; it set out the limits to organized violence by defining the legitimacy of the use of force and regulating the practice of war; it placed the issue of human rights at the centre of inter- state relations by establishing the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in countries' internal affairs; it protected as far as possible the integrity of small states against the rapacity of larger nations, and proposed a system of counterbalancing forces designed to prevent the more ambitious states from attempting to seize power. The Westphalian system began to fall apart in the late 18th century and was in its death throes in the 20th and 21st. Mainly because it was conceived for Europe and not the entire world, for monarchies and not republics, for a heterogeneous geopolitical and cultural system. Nevertheless, the spirit of the Westphalian system continues to guide us in our quest for a new world governance: the development of international law, defence of human rights, limitation of violence and regulation of the use of force, search for lasting peace and establishment of opposition forces still underpin governance in the 21st century. But just as the 17th century’s break from the past called for a political revolution, the 21st century’s world of globalization, environmental threats and the problem of inequalities and sustainability needs fast and real change. Today's governance is planetary, the world system heterogeneous and diverse. The nation-state, once capable of regulating just about everything unaided, now needs to call on other actors with other skills. New opposition forces need to be established, including those that prevent the abuse of new sources of power. The defence of human rights needs to be rethought, particularly in terms of the problem of interference and respect of national sovereignty. In short, the death of the Westphalian system should spark a process of reflection: the process of establishing a new world governance can only benefit by drawing on the Westphalian approach while shaking off the sometimes oppressive legacy of the past that, still today, prevents us from moving forwards. Globalization requires an architecture that both incorporates and transcends the nation-state Paradoxically, the fall of the final empire, the Soviet Union, coincided with the emergence of the idea, if not the necessity, of formulating a transnational governance: “world
governance”. The issue of war and peace has of course always triggered deliberations on relations between political entities, commonly termed international relations, but such thinking has tended to stay centred on the state. Furthermore, the first attempt to go beyond traditional methods for managing international relations was state-based: the League of Nations and its offspring, the United Nations. These bodies comprised —and continue to comprise in the case of the UN —an association of states, which explains the limits inherent to their basic structure. The G8 and G20, whose original architecture dates back to the 1970s, are also organized on a state basis. They have a simpler architecture than the League or UN and, although more recent, a more archaic philosophy, since they have turned from the UN's semi-democracy to adopt an aristocratic political model. Today's major revolution, and it truly is one, is rooted in two simultaneous and partially interconnected events. The first is globalization. Globalization is not a new phenomenon, but by the end of the 20th century reached a critical threshold where the various phenomena that define and spring from the globalization process went far beyond states' powers to control them, particularly since these states continue to function according to the national interest principle, including within the European Union. The second phenomenon initially emerged in the 1950s with the threat of nuclear catastrophe, then was given fresh impetus in the 1980s by the first indicators of rapid and troubling environmental damage. The phenomenon is a growing awareness that the industrialization of the last two centuries, and all the accompanying excesses, have led to a critical stage in history when humans are not only likely to self-destruct as a species, but also to destroy the planet. The urgent and complex nature of problems is out of step with our governance mechanisms Globalization and this growing awareness point to a harsh reality: on the one hand, we are facing entirely new, extremely complex and urgent problems, including migrations, financial crises and ecological imbalances; on the other hand, we do not have the governance mechanisms we need to solve these problems. The 1992 Rio Summit and the summits that followed did, to an extent, respond to the first aspect by setting out the nature of the problem and alerting humanity to the urgency of these issues, whilst identifying them systematically and with precision.
Factors promoting and hindering the emergence of a new world governance In the wake of the Second World War and with the creation of the UN, the Westphalian concept of the state —in internal terms as a unique entity with a legitimate monopoly of power, and in external terms as a self-contained, rational and sovereign actor —was strongly challenged. The two main arguments were the demand for increased representation of non-state actors in the international system, and the gradual awareness of the impossibility of dividing up the environmental issue between internal and external political spheres. This undeniable interdependence between states in several areas —such as the economy, the environment and health issues —and supremacy of the principle of collective general interest require not only greater cooperation within the international system but also recognition of the key role played by international solidarity and its actors during decision- making processes. Despite the capacity to adopt agreements and enhance cooperation produced by the creation of international organizations, the huge shortfall between these organizations and the challenges facing humanity is clear for all to see. As far as civil society is concerned, years of commitment and mobilization in the fight against social inequalities, climate change and the erosion of biological diversity as well as demands for a fairer distribution of wealth have led to real progress in terms of development. However, the situation facing our planet and most of the world's population remains highly unstable, as illustrated by phenomena such as famines, lack of access to essential services, human rights violations and ecosystem devastation. This shameful situation was only exacerbated by the financial crisis that broke out in 2008. A vast operation using public funds to save financial institutions and, to a lesser degree, investments and thereby trigger global economic recovery was set up without any preliminary analysis of the real causes behind the crisis: the design of the system itself. Furthermore, competition law governing economic activities has become the benchmark for settling international disputes. The World Trade Organization is currently the only international organization with a binding system for settling differences. This leads it to take decisions in areas other than trade. The lack or incapacity of arbitration authorities means that the WTO establishes jurisprudence that defines international relations without preliminary negotiations and gives trade a dominant position in international law.
Greater recognition of the key role played by non-state actors has again, and more insistently, raised the question of transparency and the democratization of international organizations. Civil society actors, often also operational actors in international cooperation actions, contribute to these organizations' decision-making proceedings from the sidelines. In addition to a lack of attachment to national interests that offers it greater legitimacy when tackling cross-border questions, civil society also brings grassroots expertise to the table. Although development issues remain crucial, there is currently no arena for international negotiation on this subject. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) does not manage to play its role as coordinator of UN development activities. Similarly, the Commission on Sustainable Development failed to establish a link between the various economic, social and political aspects of sustainable development. A first and vital step: what sort of world society do we want? This is why it is vital that formulation of a brand new system of world governance goes further and asks the question of how to build a fair and responsible world society. But how can ‘good’ be defined? How can we define a good (world) society? This ethical and cultural aspect is crucial. We will only learn to manage our differences by exploring our capacities and our limits. And it is only by establishing the ethical basis of a world governance that we will be able to answer the fundamental question: is the other separate from us or part of us? In practical terms, the great ethical and cultural question we need to answer before endeavouring to build true world governance is the following: how can we rebuild the universal using civilisations as our building blocks? If we tackle these difficult but fascinating questions without any preconceptions, we will really be able to take a step forwards. Rio+20 provides us with the opportunity to do so. In a world where the effects of globalization and environmental threats transcend the framework of national policies, it is vital to redefine the rules of conduct for states. To do so, we need to lay down the ethical foundations of the practice of international relations that defends general and collective interests, for all and with the participation of all, rather than national interests. The application of moral standards to international relations takes the form of a model that advocates multilateralism over unilateralism, cooperation over coercion, defence of human
Multi-Stakeholder Forums, comprising all actors in a given sector or domain, are a promising innovation. The advantage of this type of structure is that it can reach beyond the purely territorial framework. It strengthens the local roots of actors, workers, business leaders and local authority leaders, but by positioning itself in the global framework of the sector, it extends across territories since it promotes actors in their environment, from local context to global network. This two-tiered territorial/multi-stakeholder forum structure could be the keystone of a new architecture for effective world governance. Second is the question of geopolitical world governance groups. It would seem logical for major regional or multi-continental groups to play a key role in the new construct that is world governance.
One of the key features that already marks the new architecture for world governance is the reconfiguration of territories at the regional, sub-continental level. It questions borders, although the context is not yet ripe to ask for borders to be removed. However, we can already clearly see the circulation of human, economic, trade and technological flows that ignore borders. It is difficult to talk of the specific features of these processes in general terms, since they are highly diverse. The European Union, UNASUR in South American, ASEAN in Asia and the African Union are groups with varying economic and political dimensions, but we now know that the new regional groups are more flexible, doing more to adapt to the market configuration and political or diplomatic alliances. The transnational reconfiguration of territories also corresponds more closely to the new renewable energy formats, centred on linking several sources that require an integrated system for supplying wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, tidal and biomass energy, and with an ‘energy territory’ extending far beyond borders. The key to strengthening these new economic, political, cultural and ecological territories will be to find other mechanisms, looking beyond states alone, but without overlooking them. The concept of indicators or indexes is highly controversial. It is a fact that indicators, including the IMF and World Bank versions, are exploited for often dubious ends. Without going into the way in which indexes are used, they need to be designed and executed with great caution. Despite the many flaws that go hand in hand with the batteries of indicators covering every field, they can nevertheless be put to good use.
Initiatives promoting new indicators for wealth, production and sustainable development have already been launched. We need to develop world governance indicators using the same approach. This task will require a great deal of work and thought, particularly in developing transnational indicators that look beyond national data, practically the only figures currently available. The World Governance Index (WGI) could eventually become the key benchmark in this sphere. We need to develop existing international regulations, or even establish supranational regulations, both to provide a legitimate definition for a climate order and the norms to ensure that it endures, and to regulate the various conflicts resulting from the disposal of limited resources in terms of energy, water and fertile land.
The need to impose restrictions that are accepted and respected by the various parties entails establishing legal norms that are perceived as legitimate and accepted as such. Even if national states succeed in agreeing on new regulations that establish obligations to be respected by all nations and companies on the planet, for example, in areas such as greenhouse gas emissions, pollution or energy consumption, this global law will still need to be obeyed. To do so, monitoring bodies need to be set up to observe who is and is not enforcing the rules. Furthermore, supranational police and justice bodies need to have the power to penalize states or companies, both national and transnational, that feel able to flout rules laid down by global law. The need for a world armed force, capable of putting a stop to wars currently being waged and new wars that are brewing not just in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, but on every continent, has become truly urgent. This need is particularly strong for populations who are the victims of bloody conflicts, but it affects the whole world community, which needs such a force to avoid wars and, quite possibly, prevent its own self-destruction (for example, if nuclear power is fully unleashed).
