Global governance is a system of principles, institutions, legal and political norms, as well as behavioral standards that define regulation on global and transnational issues in social and natural spaces. This regulation is carried out as a result of interaction between states through the formation of mechanisms and structures by them. It is also possible interaction at the level of non-governmental organizations participating in international activities. In this article we will talk about this concept, attempts to bring it to life.
The emergence of the concept
The concept of "global governance" has been actively used since the 1970s, when in the context of the formation of complex interdependence in the world, a large number of international communities of a planetary scale began to appear. This required the creation of mechanisms for joint regulation of global processes, as well as a higher degree of coordination.
There is a need for global governance. His practice and ideas have undergone significant changes to date. However, it still remains unclear which principle will nevertheless be laid on its basis.
Scientific rationale for the concept.
The first concept of global governance was the theory of political realism, formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. Its founders were American and British researchers - Carr, Morgenthau, Kennani. In their writings, they were primarily based on the conclusions made by the English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who is considered the founder of the theory of social contract.
In his monograph Leviathan, Hobbes talked about the problems of state formation. In particular, he considered a state of freedom, which he considered natural. According to him, the people abiding in it were neither subjects nor sovereigns.
Hobbes was sure that over time, people themselves came to the idea of the need to limit the state of absolute freedom. Due to the fact that human nature is inherently egocentric, this provokes violence and constant conflict. The desire to get rid of wars and disasters leads to the fact that people begin to independently limit their rights in favor of the state, concluding the so-called social contract. Its task is to ensure the safety of citizens and peace within the country.
Proponents of political realism began extrapolating Hobbes ideas to the field of international relations. They argued that interaction between the countries takes place at a chaotic level, since no model of a supranational center exists. Because of this, the ultimate goal of countries becomes personal survival.
Social contract
Arguing further, some came to the conclusion that, sooner or later, international political acts should be concluded in the form of a similar social contract that would prevent any wars, even permanent ones. Ultimately, this will lead to the possibility of global governance of the world, the creation of a world government or world state.
It should be noted that supporters of the realistic school came to the conclusion that such a development of events is unlikely. In their opinion, nationalism, which remains the strongest form of ideology, should have prevented this, since until now independent nation-states have refused to recognize any superior authority over themselves, delegating at least part of their own sovereignty to it. Because of this, the idea of strategic global management seems impossible to them.
Moreover, the emerging anarchy of international relations does not indicate that the world is always at war with "all against all." Foreign policy must necessarily take into account the interests of other entities. At a certain point, every ruler comes to this.
For the sake of realizing specific political goals, states enter into all kinds of alliances among themselves, which makes the international situation more calm. The emerging balance of forces leads to stability, which is based on an approximately equal distribution of forces between even the largest and most influential players.
The ideology of liberalism
The school of liberalism is one of the oldest in the study of international relations. Its supporters regularly discuss the possibility of global governance. In many of their positions, they stand on the opposite positions to realism.
It is noteworthy that many liberals, like realists, base their conclusions on the work of philosophers of the Enlightenment. In particular, Rousseau and Locke. Accepting the possibility of anarchy in international relations, they declare that a person is not aggressive in nature, as it is aimed at cooperation. When management reaches an international level, it turns out to be more preferable than any conflict, both ethically and rationally.
At the same time, the material dependence of states on one another is growing significantly, which is becoming one of the hallmarks of globalization, necessitating international regulation, that is, global governance.
According to liberals, international organizations contribute to the spread of stability in the world, pacifying strong states by creating new rules and norms in international politics. This is the concept of global governance. In addition, they have the ability to manage conflicts between states or to prevent them.
Summing up the views of liberals on this problem, it is worth noting that they consider economically significant trade an important component that affects the reduction in the number of possible contradictions between countries. Any phenomena and processes that enhance the interdependence of the world are considered as prerequisites for global economic governance. This concept in their view is a factor in the deployment of globalization.
Options for the existence of world government
There are several perspectives on managing global systems and processes. For example, it is proposed to form a single world government. This approach involves its creation and subsequent functioning in the image of domestic governance.
In this case, the problem of global governance is the ability to vest it with the appropriate authority, to which all countries submit equally. It is worth recognizing that at the moment this option is not considered due to its low probability.
Most experts are inclined to believe that modern independent states will not recognize any superior authority over themselves, much less delegate to it even a part of their authority in resolving certain issues. Therefore, global political governance based on domestic methods is not possible.
Moreover, with such a variety of political systems, levels of economic development, traditions, this looks utopian.
However, this approach is regularly discussed by supporters of all kinds of conspiracy theories. The so-called conspiracy theories endow the world government with various fictitious or real-life structures. For example, G8, United Nations, G20, Bilderberg Club, Freemasons, Illuminati, Committee of 300.
UN reform
Another approach, implying a global level of governance, is based on the reform of the existing United Nations. The essence of this idea is that the UN should become the central and key link in the management of the world. At the same time, it is assumed that its institutions will be transformed into sectoral departments and ministries.
At the same time, the Security Council would assume the function of a kind of world government, and the General Assembly would act as a parliament. The International Monetary Fund plays the role of the World Central Bank in this structure.
Most skeptics consider this form of management of global processes as unrealizable. At this point, the only truly significant reform at the UN was carried out in 1965.
In 1992, the Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary General, called on all countries to make further changes to make the organization more consistent with modern realities. This idea was actively discussed, but did not lead to anything.
According to many modern experts, the UN has now become a ramified system that more closely resembles a prototype of a civil society that is far from ideal, rather than a world government. In this regard, it is believed that in the future the UN will move and develop in this direction. Its main activity will be directed towards civil society, contacts with the national community, socially responsible business, non-governmental organizations.
US influence
Perhaps, not a single discussion devoted to world government takes place without mentioning the ever-growing hegemony of the United States in the world, which leads to an understanding of an exclusively unipolar world.
This approach is associated with the idea of monocentricity, when America leads everything as the main and only player. One of the main supporters of this model is the American sociologist and political scientist of Polish descent Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski identifies four main areas in which America occupies and should occupy a leading position in the future. This is an economic, military-political, mass and technological culture.
If you follow this concept, unlimited possibilities opened up before America at the end of the 20th century. This happened after the collapse of the socialist system led by the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact Organizations and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
Given the approximately equal strength of opponents, after the collapse of the bipolar world model, the United States became the sole owners. Globalization, which nevertheless continues to occur, is being carried out in a democratic-liberal spirit, which America is completely satisfied with. Moreover, such a model helps to increase the economic potential of the state. At the same time, the vast majority of other states do not show strong dissatisfaction with US actions.
This situation continued in the 1990s, but at the beginning of the XXI century it began to change dramatically. India and China began to play their role, as well as Western countries, which began increasingly to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of America. As a result, it is now increasingly difficult for the United States to pursue its policy without taking into account the interests, goals, and activity of other significant world powers. In this regard, more and more researchers are skeptical of the idea of US hegemony.
International policy coordination
At present, the most realistic model seems to be, as a result of which there will be a deepening and expansion of international politics in various fields. It is believed that this can happen due to the refinement and expansion of the existing agenda, as well as the involvement of new participants, which can become not only countries, but also corporations, organizations, all kinds of public institutions.
The discussion on the expediency and necessity of the international coalition has been going on since the end of the 19th century. After the First World War, it became especially active. It is in it that politicians from different countries of the world see the key to maintaining stability and peace. They, in their opinion, should become the main goals of global governance.
The search for such effective ways to coordinate this system continued throughout the 20th century. Despite some objectively hindering factors, it continues to this day.
Formats
The possibility of international coordination of policies is seen in various institutional formats. They are classified depending on the adoption of certain political decisions. They can be centralized provided that the participants delegate their powers to a single coordinating center, as well as decentralized when each delegate decides for himself.
It is assumed that decisions will be made each time on the basis of consensus and negotiations, based on previously known and agreed rules that were adopted by all participants in the obligations without exception.
Today, among influential international organizations there are those that are able to practically independently carry out centralized coordination of policies on the basis of agreements and rules that they have previously adopted. In doing so, they use delegated authority and resources. These include, for example, the World Bank.
Others coordinate the policies of other participants based on a system of negotiations and agreements, for example, the World Trade Organization. An example of decentralized coordination is the G20 summits and the like. Such coordination is based on formal agreements. A striking example is the actions of all the politicians who signed the Paris climate agreement.
