What are the aspects, strengths and weaknesses of one theoretical approach to global governance?
Global governance deals with world politics or foreign administration therefore compelling the performance of actors (state and non-state) in the international political system’s administration. It is an important field in the study of international relations and been defined differently but ultimately geared towards the sense of international political administration.
The World Health Organisation defines Global Governance can be defined as the different ways organisations, institutions, businesses, and governments manage their affairs, further explaining that it refers to the way in which global affairs are managed, and it involves a range of actors including states, as well as regional and international organisations (World Health Organisation [WHO] 2015).
Global Governance emerged due to interdependence and globalisation, proliferation of non-state actors (Weiss 2013, pp. 10 - 13),
…show more content…
In both, community and a sense of common values are preconditions for stability. Thus, Classical Realism gives us insight as to why violence has decreased dramatically since the beginning of the 20th century. Classical Realists contend that the decreased violence is the result of identity shifts through liberal democracies ' forceful integration of states into the liberal democratic "world community." In contrast to Liberalism, Classical Realism asserts that the deterring of conflict is not correlated to the material effects of economic integration. Instead, it has to do with the shared feeling of community within the liberal democratic states. Democracies and advocates of liberal economies tend to expand and sustain this community through exercising their power in the name of justice and differentiating themselves from
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Valaskakis, K. (1998). The challenge of strategic governance: Can globalization be managed? Optimum, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 26-40.
There is no question that states used to be the building blocks of the international system in the past because they had the sovereignty in the political, security, and social areas. However, with globalization, states are subjected to external influences and it is becoming questionable if states are still the fundamental actors of the international system. Cooperation is becoming a key motivation in the international system nowadays. ()This implies that states may have to sacrifice their policies to maintain universal standards of living or the international peace. Although states are still the ultimate power source, it is important to accept the fact that the idea of sovereignty is changing with globalism.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
Due to fast-spreading information and technology, globalization is rapidly affecting states. The end of the Cold War heralded a change in hierarchical structure so that states no longer the primary actors in international politics. Non-state actors are not new to the international system; rather, they have just grown in number and strength since the 1950s. These actors include transnational organizations, which are organizations that transcend state boundaries and operate across many different states.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye discuss interdependence and transnationalism in their first publication, ‘Power and Interdependence’ released in 1977. The release coincided with the United Nations (UN) decade of development where states pushed towards economic growth and social advancement. The 70’s was also a particularly quiet time during the Cold War and was when the European Community (EC) really came to fruition. The world was moving forward at a substantial rate and the old schools of thought seemed less and less relevant in understanding world politics. Keohane and Nye pointed to organisations such as the EC and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) stating that these along with the rise of multinational corporations and intergovernmental organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, destroyed the old schools of thought, they no longer applied to this new international system.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?
There has been a long debate whether globalization is undermining the monopoly of local power of a sovereign state. This debate is due to the fact that the term globalization itself is subjective and broad. There are two distinct approaches in this debate. Hyper globalists argue that the demise of the state sovereignty is the product of globalization. On the other hand, sceptics reject the idea of the “globaloney” of the globalization: they emphasize on the importance of the sovereign state in the international politics (McGrew, 2011). This essay examines the arguments which justify the hyper globalists’ position. We will firstly define the terms globalization and sovereignty. Secondly, we will pinpoint on which aspects of the sovereign state has been undermined by the process of globalization. Then , we will conclude by analysing the various strategies a state can implement to respond to the globalization challenges.
But the decelerating of commercial development that grasped most Western states commencing in the mid-1970s gave a weighty trial to present liberalism. By the conclude of that decade commercial inactivity, joined alongside the price of maintaining the communal benefits of the welfare state, shoved powers increasingly in the direction of politically untenable levels of taxation and climbing debt. Equally fretting was the fact that the Keynesian economics rehearsed by countless powers seemed to lose its effectiveness. Powers endured to expend money on plans aimed at invigorating commercial development, but the consequence too frequently was increased inflation and ever-smaller drops in joblessness rates. Most international countries today have benefited positively for liberalism as it contributed in building the economies of different states (Fawcett, 2015:402).Peace and security, this large subject span, the established core agenda of global relations, is oftentimes perceived as tear amid realism and liberalism. Realism provides the framework for standard protection studies, liberalism for ‘alternative’ ways such as concord research. The preceding, crudely speaking, is distressed alongside maintaining order across coercion, the latter with ascertaining the underlying fights by coordinating governmental existence
Krain, Matthew (2005), “AP Comparative Government and Politics Briefing Paper: Globalization,” [http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap05_comp_govpol_glob_42253.pdf], accessed 15 May 2012.
There is no doubt of the importance of international organizations, and the cooperative effects that they have on states around the world. International organizations, through their unique prospects of centralization and independence, have a mainly neutral, but leading place in international politics (Abbott and Sindal 1998). This ability to act independently, with the power to do so, and often decisively, distinguishes IOs as a vital and unique position. They handle everything from money, to disease, to human rights. Regulations and standardized norms end up playing a large role in the formation of international laws, actions, and the way that states conduct themselves domestically as well. I agree with the general notion that the world will
In recent years, particularly during the late twentieth century, the world has witnessed significant growth in its number of international organizations, accompanied by an increase in global interdependence (Weiss, Seyle, & Coolidge, 2013). This growth has contributed to a shift in the dynamics of global politics that includes greater involvement of non-state actors in global problem-solving and policymaking (Falkner, 2011). This involvement, however, may not necessarily be sufficient or effective. For exampl...