Gilpin, R., 2002. A Realist Perspective on International Governance. Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance, 237-248.
Realist believe that the territorial state continues to be the primary actor in both domestic and international affairs. While there are other players, the state makes the most important decisions. Realist reject the popular belief that economic and technological forces have eclipsed the nation state and are creating a global economy and society in which political boundaries and national loyalties are no longer relevant. Even in a highly integrated global economy, states continue to use their power and to implement policies to channel economic forces in ways favorable to their own national interests and the interests of their citizenry. There is no evidence that a transformation in human affairs has yet occurred or is even occurring. It is unlikely that, if the state does disappear, that it will be replaced by a global governance structure. Gilpin argues that, even though econ and tech advances lead to more world order, they do not overcome the fundamental anarchic nature of the int’l system.
Three views of global governance: Focus on new medievalism. Based on the assumption that the state and the state system have been undermined by economic, technological and other developments; the state and state system are being eclipse by non-governmental actors and by the emergence of an int’l civil society.
They conclude that such changes erode hierarchical organizations and undermine centralized power structures. The once dominant hierarchic order of nation states is being supplanted by horizontal networks composed of states, non governmental organizations and international institutions.
Counter with the fact that the nation state has been around for over three centuries and that NGO activity only begin heavily two decades ago. No one can know the future nature of NGOs. Could be that there are bad NGOs that develop. The Basel accord achieved much, but it does not prove that governance can replace government. The US used the Basel Accords and drove them to their personal ends. Governance without teeth is not effective.
Showing posts with label Cosmopolitanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cosmopolitanism. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
Falk: World Order between Interstate Law and the Law of Humanity
Falk, R., 1995. World Order between Interstate Law and the Law of Humanity: The Role of Civil Society Institutions, The. International Legal Theory, 1, 14.
Richard Faulk presents a notion of world order that is situated between inter-state law and the law of humanity. Law of humanity must be understood in two senses: firstly, the transnational non-governmental sense, and secondly as the activation of peoples to pursue their emancipation from oppressive structures of governance, social movements legitimated by their aspirations being embodied in interstate law. World order is a composite reality of Inter-state law and the Law of Humanity. Law of Humanity must be distinguished from globalization, though there are connections. Throughout history, inter-state law was seen as the best vehicle by which to achieve the objectives of the law of humanity. There is an erosion of territoriality that has undermined the major premise of inter-state law and its derivative claim to operate as the guardian of human well being. Matters of vulnerability: state has lost the capacity to uphold security in light of nuclear weaponry, state cannot safeguard its territory from adverse effects of extra-terrestrial behavior (oceans; atmosphere), economic viability: can no longer provide an adequate framework for economic activity and is being superseded by an array of international regimes and the regionalization and globalization of capital markets. There is a place for the Law of Humanity to take over, thought it is only in its dreaming phase. Often, only civil society initiatives are helpful in these settings (Bosnia, Somalia) and then in ways that do not address the underlying conflict, as by providing humanitarian relief on a daily basis and seeking to identify and strengthen reconciling and democratically oriented social forces. Similar with environmentalism.
Many instances of globalization-from-above: world trade, investment, GATT, (list goes on and on). The law implications of globalization-from-above would tend to supplant interstate law with a species of global law, but one at odds in most respects with the law of humanity.
Transnational social forces provide the only vehicle for the promotion of the law of humanity. Globalization from below used to identify transnational democratic forces and their implicit dedication to the creation of a global civil society that is an alternative scenario of the future to that of the global political economy being shaped by transnational market forces.
Interstate law latently recognizes important ingredients of the Law of Humanity: Article 25 and 28 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Nuremberg principles, Preamble to the UN charter and Articles 1 and 2 of the charter. Must move from inter-state law to the Law of Humanity. Governance of environmental and market operations are two key areas.
States that UN must give greater weight to global civil society perspectives. Giver Germany and Japan permanent seats in the Security Council, possibly India, Brazil and Nigeria. Structural reform
Realizing the Law of Humanity is complex, though main energy must come from civil society.
Richard Faulk presents a notion of world order that is situated between inter-state law and the law of humanity. Law of humanity must be understood in two senses: firstly, the transnational non-governmental sense, and secondly as the activation of peoples to pursue their emancipation from oppressive structures of governance, social movements legitimated by their aspirations being embodied in interstate law. World order is a composite reality of Inter-state law and the Law of Humanity. Law of Humanity must be distinguished from globalization, though there are connections. Throughout history, inter-state law was seen as the best vehicle by which to achieve the objectives of the law of humanity. There is an erosion of territoriality that has undermined the major premise of inter-state law and its derivative claim to operate as the guardian of human well being. Matters of vulnerability: state has lost the capacity to uphold security in light of nuclear weaponry, state cannot safeguard its territory from adverse effects of extra-terrestrial behavior (oceans; atmosphere), economic viability: can no longer provide an adequate framework for economic activity and is being superseded by an array of international regimes and the regionalization and globalization of capital markets. There is a place for the Law of Humanity to take over, thought it is only in its dreaming phase. Often, only civil society initiatives are helpful in these settings (Bosnia, Somalia) and then in ways that do not address the underlying conflict, as by providing humanitarian relief on a daily basis and seeking to identify and strengthen reconciling and democratically oriented social forces. Similar with environmentalism.
Many instances of globalization-from-above: world trade, investment, GATT, (list goes on and on). The law implications of globalization-from-above would tend to supplant interstate law with a species of global law, but one at odds in most respects with the law of humanity.
Transnational social forces provide the only vehicle for the promotion of the law of humanity. Globalization from below used to identify transnational democratic forces and their implicit dedication to the creation of a global civil society that is an alternative scenario of the future to that of the global political economy being shaped by transnational market forces.
Interstate law latently recognizes important ingredients of the Law of Humanity: Article 25 and 28 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Nuremberg principles, Preamble to the UN charter and Articles 1 and 2 of the charter. Must move from inter-state law to the Law of Humanity. Governance of environmental and market operations are two key areas.
States that UN must give greater weight to global civil society perspectives. Giver Germany and Japan permanent seats in the Security Council, possibly India, Brazil and Nigeria. Structural reform
Realizing the Law of Humanity is complex, though main energy must come from civil society.
Held and McGrew: Governing Globalization
Held, D. & McGrew, A., 2002. Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance, Polity.
David Held’s theory of cosmopolitan society notes that globalization has caused an increase in social, political and economic activity across political boundaries, growth in networks and flows of finance, trace and culture, a speeding up of global interactions and a deepening of impacts from these global interactions. These four factors create a milieu that thus changes the nature and character of the nation-state. Held points out five distinct changes that globalization brings upon the nation-state:
1.) A self-determining national collectivity can no longer be simply located within the borders of a single nation-state;
2.) It cannot be presupposed that the locus of effective political power is synonymous with national governments;
3.) The practical nature of political authority and the capacity to rule are changing shape;
4.) The nurturing and enhancement of the public good increasingly requires coordinated multilateral action;
5.) Distinctions between domestic and foreign affairs, international political issues and external questions are no longer clear cut.
Held points out that, “the new circumstances of cosmopolitanism give us little choice but to consider the possibility of a common framework of standards and political action, given shape and form by a common framework of institutional arrangements (Held 2002:308)
Held goes on to point out three distinct schools of cosmopolitan thought.
The Stoics were the first to refer to themselves as cosmopolitans. This cosmopolitan thought was developed by emphasizing that we lived in two worlds: one which is local and given to us by birth and another which is “truly great and truly common.” Each person lives in a local community and a wider community of human ideals, aspirations and argument. The Stoics’ perspective does not require that we relinquish local concerns, but they must see these as morally contingent on the development as the human as a whole. The main point is that we are initially human beings in a world of human beings and secondary members of polities.
The second view of cosmopolitan society that Held proposes is that of the weltburger, the Enlightenment and specifically Kant’s writings. Kant specifically combined cosmopolitanism with the idea of “the public use of reason”. This view of reason can then generate a critical vantage point from which to scrutinize civil society. The advance of this goal was the escape from dogma and un-validated authority while also removing the constraints on “the public use of reason”. People were asked to step outside of the realm of “dictatorial authority.” This then asked the individual to learn to think of themselves as participants in a dialogue, through which they come to an understanding with others about the nature and appropriateness of the demands made upon them. (Held 2002:310) He advocated a cosmopolitan right to enter into un-coerced dialogue. Cosmopolitan right transcends the particular claims of nations and states and extends to all in the universal community.
The third view is that of Beitz, Pogge and Barry, among others. There are three key elements: Egalitarian individualism: the ultimate unit of moral concern are individual human beings. Reciprocal recognition: the status of equal worth should be acknowledged by everyone. If people are marginalized or fall outside this framework they suffer disadvantage not primarily because they have less than others in this instance, but because they can participate less in the processes and institutions that shape their lives. Impartialist reasoning: reasoning from the point of view of others. Each person should enjoy the impartial treatment of their claims – that is, treatment based on principles upon which all could act.
David Held’s theory of cosmopolitan society notes that globalization has caused an increase in social, political and economic activity across political boundaries, growth in networks and flows of finance, trace and culture, a speeding up of global interactions and a deepening of impacts from these global interactions. These four factors create a milieu that thus changes the nature and character of the nation-state. Held points out five distinct changes that globalization brings upon the nation-state:
1.) A self-determining national collectivity can no longer be simply located within the borders of a single nation-state;
2.) It cannot be presupposed that the locus of effective political power is synonymous with national governments;
3.) The practical nature of political authority and the capacity to rule are changing shape;
4.) The nurturing and enhancement of the public good increasingly requires coordinated multilateral action;
5.) Distinctions between domestic and foreign affairs, international political issues and external questions are no longer clear cut.
Held points out that, “the new circumstances of cosmopolitanism give us little choice but to consider the possibility of a common framework of standards and political action, given shape and form by a common framework of institutional arrangements (Held 2002:308)
Held goes on to point out three distinct schools of cosmopolitan thought.
The Stoics were the first to refer to themselves as cosmopolitans. This cosmopolitan thought was developed by emphasizing that we lived in two worlds: one which is local and given to us by birth and another which is “truly great and truly common.” Each person lives in a local community and a wider community of human ideals, aspirations and argument. The Stoics’ perspective does not require that we relinquish local concerns, but they must see these as morally contingent on the development as the human as a whole. The main point is that we are initially human beings in a world of human beings and secondary members of polities.
The second view of cosmopolitan society that Held proposes is that of the weltburger, the Enlightenment and specifically Kant’s writings. Kant specifically combined cosmopolitanism with the idea of “the public use of reason”. This view of reason can then generate a critical vantage point from which to scrutinize civil society. The advance of this goal was the escape from dogma and un-validated authority while also removing the constraints on “the public use of reason”. People were asked to step outside of the realm of “dictatorial authority.” This then asked the individual to learn to think of themselves as participants in a dialogue, through which they come to an understanding with others about the nature and appropriateness of the demands made upon them. (Held 2002:310) He advocated a cosmopolitan right to enter into un-coerced dialogue. Cosmopolitan right transcends the particular claims of nations and states and extends to all in the universal community.
The third view is that of Beitz, Pogge and Barry, among others. There are three key elements: Egalitarian individualism: the ultimate unit of moral concern are individual human beings. Reciprocal recognition: the status of equal worth should be acknowledged by everyone. If people are marginalized or fall outside this framework they suffer disadvantage not primarily because they have less than others in this instance, but because they can participate less in the processes and institutions that shape their lives. Impartialist reasoning: reasoning from the point of view of others. Each person should enjoy the impartial treatment of their claims – that is, treatment based on principles upon which all could act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
