Global Governance in the Light of IR Theories - Essay Example

? Global Governance in the Light of IR Theories Does any IR theory present a convincing framework for understanding global governance? Why or why not? Discuss with reference to examples where appropriate. International relations (IR) theory is described as the theoretical study of international relations with a conceptual framework in order to develop a better understanding. This discipline was only a subsidiary part of philosophy until after the First World War. The events that led to the First World War and its consequences made academic circles realize the need to understand international politics and relations within theoretical concepts for a better understanding in a hope to avoid conflicts of such magnitude in future. The first time that the concept of IR theory as an academic discipline can be traced back to the book ‘the Twenty Years Crisis’ which was published in 1939 and was written by E.H. Carr. The publication of this book, the occurrence of the First World War and the consequent complexities on the international sphere prompted the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to set up a department dedicated to this subject (Burchill, et al., 2005). With the passage of time, conceptual models evolved in an attempt to explain the complex nature of post World War II- world and currently, several theories are present that aim to explain international politics. We now come to the second part of the question which is global governance. The concept itself is an old one but it has re-emerged in recent years by the name of globalization. Global governance refers to interaction of political nature between transnational actors aimed at solving common issues and problems in the absence of a power of enforcement. These issues and problems may be solved by arrangements which may be formal in the form of laws, treaties and constitutions involving governments, IGOs, NGOs, MNCs and civil society or it may be informal in the form of guidelines or coalitions. There are several factors which are involved in the functionality of global governance. First of all, there is the need to eliminate the complexities that globalization holds with regard to homogeneity of world population. Heterogeneity or homogeneity is not the purpose of globalization. It is only the establishment of consensus upon norms and practices that are the goals of globalization. Secondly, the benefits of globalization have to reach all levels of population so that global governance is sustainable. Thirdly, the difference between global governance and world government needs to be established. Global governance does not seek a central power for the system to work where as world government does. Global governance aims to take some power away from the state in order for global institutions to be strong, autonomous and effective. Only then can global economy, politics and culture be transparent. Global governance has several underlying themes such as a global economy, environmental concerns, democratic political legitimacy at all levels, conflict resolution, freedom of scientific, academic and communication modes and maintenance of peace and security. Successful examples have shown that this is only possible through effective interaction between state and non-state actors. While it has its own merits and demerits, global governance is a new chapter in world politics and it is worthy of being explained by at least one of the established IR theories. Of the several IR theories that are present, three will be discussed in an attempt to explain global governance in this piece of literature. They are realism, constructivism and liberalism. Realism is one of the pioneer theories of the discipline of international relations. It consists of three main components namely statism, survival and self-help. Statism refers to the belief that only state actors play a major role in world politics and all the rest of the functional elements of a political system are merely pawns. Survival refers to the belief that there the international system is based upon anarchy or absence of centre of power. As a result, international relations are basically a tug of war between major self-centric players (Snyder, 2004). Self-help refers to the belief that the survival of a state is in the hands of that state and dependence upon another state for survival is a false notion. As a theory, realism states that only sovereign states are players of international politics with their sole interest being maximum gain of resources and their relations being governed by their magnitude of power. Non- state actors such as IGOs, NGOs and MNCs do not play any character in this theory. Furthermore this theory was originally formulated to explain the offensive nature of international politics in the immediate post World War II- world. This offensive nature continued later and the theory became further divided into ‘human nature realism’ and ‘offensive/defensive realism’ (Mearsheimer, 2001). Human nature realism believes that although nations are aggressive in territorial expansion, they are hurdled by the presence of an opposing power of equal level while the offensive/defensive realism states that states are obsessed by their security and survival and invest in arms and ammunition as a result of perceiving another state of equal power as an enemy. If we take into account all the elements of the concept of global governance, it is easy to see that this phenomenon cannot be explained by realism. Global governance is indeed a power play but it has several important players that exist beyond nationalities or states but act as separate entities with their own set of interests. For them, playing a role in international politics is a major tool to safeguard their assets irrespective of whose assets or profits are being compromised. This applies particularly to MNCs who provide finances to all sectors from health to science and military to industry in an attempt to secure maximum assets and interact with governments from all over the world for this reason. The money that they provide and the opportunities that they create and foster are critical in the well being of the general population of several countries at one point in time and it is impossible for state governments to not take then into account when taking major decisions. Thus, the very first belief of realism is negated. The second component of realism holds true for the phenomenon of globalization to a certain degree. Indeed, international relations are heavily driven by the balance of power between states and their foreign policies are aimed at creating lobbies among other nations of the world in an attempt to create a more powerful block. However the aim of these states is to create powerful institutions capable of enforcing compliance according to the concept of global governance whereas realism dismisses any such existence or even an intention to create such a focus by the states. The third component of realism is self-help. This is a clear contradiction to what is happening in Europe for example. With the very existence of economies of Greece and Cyprus being under threat due to the current financial European meltdown, Germany has come to the rescue of these states in an attempt to stabilize the Euro. This is an attempt to safeguard Germany’s own assets but due to the presence of a common currency and several treaties of financial assistance under the European Union, an example of survival of a state being dependent upon another state has been set. Interdependence for survival is the key here. This is an example of how global governance sees financial interactions between all the states. Although the two subsidiary branches of realism explain the behaviour of particular states in the current scenario, they do not explain the entire picture of global governance as we see it today. Constructivism is the second theory that will be seen in an attempt to explain global governance. Constructivism believes that international relations are governed by non-tangible components such as persuasive ideas, collective values, culture and social identities. These components define the dynamics of international community and state as well as non-state actors play around with these dynamics and eventually run the international relations (Barnett). Thus human cognition lies at the centre of international relations and has the power to turn tables against materialistic concerns. Human cognition is a collective form for fears, ideals, identity and all other perceptions about reality that the human mind possesses. It does not see the absence of a centre of focus of power or only material forms to be dictating the path of international relations. Some of these events like the fall of the Wall of Berlin and the rise of communism in Eastern Europe have no explanation in either the theory of realism or liberalism. Constructivism, on the other hand provides the best explanation of these events (Walt, 1998). When we try to see the phenomenon of global governance through the lens of constructivism, it only explains part of this phenomenon. The idea of global governance is to address the problems of heterogeneity of resources, environmental concerns, dispersion of scientific knowledge and research and conflict resolution through trans-state dialogue and treaties. Part of the idea is to incorporate all the states involved in an issue in the process of decision making and reach a resolution that is binding upon all members whether it is through signing of treaties or forming unions. There are isolated examples of implementing this idea. For instance, the new Bolivian constitution was formulated in 2009 and involved the representatives of Bolivia’s political parties, the elites, the indigenous people and the social movements. This was after a long struggle started in 1990 by the indigenous people of Bolivia. The new Bolivian constitution scraps the Latifundio system and permits no one to hold more than 5,000 hectares of land. It allows indigenous people to have a reserved quota in the parliament and makes each state autonomous with regard to its own resources while encouraging national and co-operative ventures instead of private and international ones. It also makes the state responsible for the provision of all the basic needs of life to all populations and gives equal freedom to candidates from all sections of society to be nominated for all elected posts in the government including the presidency (Bolivian Constitution, 2009). Another example is that of the Amazon. All the Latin American countries that constitute the Amazon see it as a reservoir of biodiversity, an environmental agent for the planet and a breeding ground for initiatives by grassroots organizations (IBase, 2008). These initiatives have come from all sections of the local population and from all the countries that comprise the Amazon and provide a working model for the possibility of co-existence of a flourishing local economy, sound social integration and sustainable development. Thus, it is the idea of formal and informal agreements between the nations of South America on issues of common interest that has allowed a flexible and unique system of governance over an area that is one of the most geographically and culturally diverse areas of the world. However, constructivism only offers explanation for such isolated instances. When we talk about global governance, we talk about diversity of much greater magnitude and levels. Often the difference of opinion among states is due to resources or ideals and can take form of conflicts which may be armed or unarmed. On several occasions, the difference over material form has rendered the human cognition and beliefs to be unimportant. This has been the case in all the instances where the global community has been involved. For instance, the Millennium Goals of UNO have met with disappointing results in spite of the fact that all of its components are agreed upon by all the countries of the world and all the nations on this planet would have benefitted from them but although the political will of all the countries was present, the monetary requirements of this project could not be met. This was so because the richer countries fail to see the whole world as a community and instead of extending monetary aid to third world countries through UNO, they prefer to create markets and secure allies through directly funding the governments of these countries. The perception of gain of the governments of third world countries overrides that of the perceptions of the general population. This conflict of perception should technically stop the progress of global governance and yet, the world continues to be globalized and global governance continues to spread. Realism and liberalism have been the closest theoretical explanations of international relations for the longest period of time but constructivism has been the biggest challenge to these theories in explaining some major events that have shaped the international politics of post World War II-world (Hopf, 1998). However, the above argument clearly shows that constructivism is not the best explanation of global governance. Let us now look at a theory that provides the most convincing framework for explaining global governance. Liberalism is the third theory that we will be looking at. Liberalism traces its roots to realism and several critical realists such as E.H.Carr (Schmidt, 1998) have laid the foundations of this theory. This theory suggests that international relations between states are not only dependant on state actors but also non-state actors such as IGOs, NGOs and MNCs. Liberalism implies that states are interdependent and their relations should go beyond military needs and into the realm of culture and economics through formal or informal agreements. It also implies that foreign policy of a state should be made according to its preferences and not according to its capabilities. Thus, it relies on the inherent goodness and autonomy of an individual and a state to develop interdependence upon other states to create opportunities and make absolute gains. This theory has several off-shoots such as the democratic peace theory, neoliberalism and post-liberalism. The democratic peace theory suggests that liberal democracies do not enter into armed conflicts with one another due to the public pressure of economic reforms and well—being which needs trade based- interdependence between states and this interdependence prevents armed conflicts (Copeland, 1996). Neoliberalism or neo-liberal institutionalism (Sutch, 2006) proposes that this prevention of armed conflict has to do with structural reasons rather than the form of government in a particular country. Post-liberalism is a more modern approach and it implies that from a military point of view, interdependence is unavoidable if the security and sovereignty of all states are to be protected. From an economic point of view, all states are to co-operate, form international organizations and be accountable to them for a global economy to function. All of this can be achieved at the price of voluntarily surrendering some rights for autonomy and sovereignty by all the states (Chandler, 2010). Liberalism shares its key elements with those of global governance. Of all the underlying themes of global governance, the most important and alarming one is environmental. There have been several arguments over how global environmental governance may be run and the soundest proposed line of action is the establishment of a World Environment Organization (WEO) which will be an autonomous, large-scale organization. However the world is divided over this with Europe along with most prominent environmental NGOs insisting on making it mandatory upon all members of UN to be a part of this while the US, UK and third world countries support voluntary steps. Another way of managing environmental issues is to run these issues under WTO so as to be able to apply legal pressure upon non-abiding countries (Biermann, 2001). With the economic crisis of 2008 still looming on the horizon, there is no doubt that free-market economy has failed to redistribute its profits and as a result the whole global economy has fallen into a crisis that even international financial institutions have failed to manage owing largely to the limited amount of autonomy given to these institutions. Effective global governance requires partial abandonment of sovereignty by every state for such international bodies to run effectively. This is very similar to the model of international relations according to liberalism. On the brighter side, most of the researches pertaining to all strata of life are being funded by MNCs in most parts of the world and while the state drops its guard to allow MNCs to provide employment opportunities and gather information, MNCs spend their finances and gain new markets. With interests of multiple countries being vested in a single venture, the likelihood of an armed conflict is very less. In 2006, young leaders from all over the world met at Shanghai to discuss what liberalism calls low politics, the trans-state relations related to culture and economy in the age of globalization. One of the most innovative and popular of the proposals was the establishment of a network-based system for co-operative control between states by organizing civil society into networks that communicate freely and provide consensus-based solutions. Internet, media, NGOs, local volunteers and local authorities would play key roles in this system which was to gather the member states into a global community. This is an example of global governance that involves multiple players with all the players compromising their security to gain absolute benefits. There are many more IR theories that can be reflected upon the phenomenon of global governance. Explanations can be sought and may even be provided over isolated instances. Even when we consider only the three theories that have been discussed earlier, namely realism, constructivism and liberalism, there is considerable overlap between them over how each theory explains the phenomenon of global governance. It is needless to say that the international relations between countries today are governed by beliefs and materials to an equal extent and trans-state interactions have expanded beyond the realm of state actors and have involved non-state actors to a considerable extent. Global governance is actually interaction based upon these two principles and the theory that provides the most convincing framework for global governance is liberalism. Works Cited Barnett Micheal Social Constructivism [Book Section] // The Globalisation of World Politics / book auth. Baylis Smith and Owens. - Vol. 4.p.162 Biermann F The emerging debate on the need for a World Environmental Organization: a commentary [Book Section] // Global Environmental Politics,. - 2001.p.45-55 Bolivian Constitution . - 2009.article 224 Burchill Scott and Linklater Andrew Introduction [Book Section] // Theories of International Relations / book auth. Burchill Scott. - 2005.p.6 Chandler David International Statebuilding - The Rise of the Post-Liberal Paradigm [Book]. - [s.l.] : Routledge, 2010.p.43-90 Copeland Dale Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations [Journal]. - [s.l.] : International Security, 1996. - 4 : Vol. 20.p.5-41 Hopf Ted The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory [Journal]. - [s.l.] : Internatioanal security, 1998. - 1 : Vol. 23.p.171 IBase What Amazonia Does the World Need? // FnGM. - Rio de Janeiro : [s.n.], 2008.p.16 Mearsheimer John The Tragedy of Great Power Politics [Book]. - New York : W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.p. 25-26 Schmidt Brian The political discourse of anarchy: a disciplinary history of international relations [Book]. - 1998.p.219 Snyder Jack One World, Rival Theories, Foreign Policy [Book]. - 2004. - Vol. 145.p 55 Sutch Pete International Relations: The Basics [Book]. - [s.l.] : Routledge, 2006.p.11 Walt Stephen Foreign Policy, No. 110 [Book Section] // Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge. - 1998.p.41 Read More