Notes from Chapter 7: The Role of States in Global Governance in Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst "Internation...
[email protected]
Chapter 7: The Role of States in Global Governance In: Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst (Eds.). International organizations: the politics and processes of global governance/ 2nd ed.
Notes:
Despite the development of multilateral regimes, states remain central actors in global governance; the international system remains fundamentally a system of sovereign states States and global governance o States’ relative power matters o IGO’s often favour the powerful Power privileges (e.g. 5 permanents in the Security Council, weighting in the WB and IMF) Funding is a powerful leverage o Studying global governance requires understanding of interaction between states and other pieces of global governance IGOs can only exist when states delegate authority to them through agreements o Sovereignty Unfettered right to act But also responsibilities: State is a servant of its people, not otherwise Domestic sovereignty – ability to exercise control over internal issues Power doesn’t make a state more or less sovereign limited by international law (customary and treaty) and increasingly by multilateral regimes The role of the US o A hegemon, played a central part in shaping the post-war developments o Stimulated establishment of many IGOs Incl. UN, IMF, WB, IAEA, NATO, WTO o UN charter, for example, blatantly congruent with the US interests, served as an extension of the national politics Used to legitimate the Gulf War (1990), the Korean War (1950), Afghanistan (the aftermath of 9/11) o But also abstained from building certain multilateral regimes League of Nations, proposed International Trade Organization, UN convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), CTBT, ILO, UNESCO (1978-1980) o Ambiguous approach to multilateralism Assumed a dubious stance towards the UN, especially after the failure of the missions in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia; caused its financial crisis by withdrawing funding Rejection of the ICC (1998), Kyoto protocol (1997), landmines ban (1997), undermined the Geneva convention by exempting its secret detention facilities Failure to secure consensus on the war in Iraq (2003) The Bush government’s unilateral turn
1
[email protected]
Often bullied weaker countries into granting the US a veto power or a proportional advantage Undermined legitimacy of multilateral regimes, caused frustration in allies o After 9/11, acknowledgement of the need to address certain issues multilaterally Championing of WTO and NATO, promoting Non-proliferation o Dynamic factors US power in the international system Hegemony Exceptionalism, exemptionalism o US norm and values regarded as unique and universal, to be promoted elsewhere and left unconstrained in the US Little internalization of international norms Domestic politics The relation between the legislative and the executive Domestic pressure groups, public opinion Characteristic of the pieces of global governance The US embraced certain regimes easier than other ones o The financial liberalization under the orchestration of the WTO easily accepted o Multilateralism on the issues of economic, social and environmental policies, however, not so much o “The US has the power to act alone, but by acting unilaterally it undermines the very multilateral system it established, the system that is congruent with the US interests 95% of the time” 261 IOs act as the chief legitimizing agents in the global politics. When undermined, the whole international order is in jeopardy Other powerful states o Permanent UN security members: US, Russia, China, GB, FR o The Soviet Union/Russia Competing hegemonic power during the Cold war The Warsaw pact (response to NATO) Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON – response to Marshall’s plan) Often blocked the working of the UN Collapse in 1991 Since 1999 (Putin) expansion of multilateralism OSCE, G8, partnership with NATO A distinct regional power offering alternative economic and military arrang. Bypassing IGOs, undermining of multilateral regimes (e.g. Georgia 2008) o Great Britain and France Both continue to occupy positions of global importance disproportionate to their size and economic resources Major players in IMF, WB, UN, NATO Keep nourishing their formerly colonial ties 2
[email protected]
o
o
o
Commonwealth, Francophonie Britain Key positions in ECOSOC, ICJ, ILO, WHO France Key positions in UNESCO, IMF, WB, IAEA Integration of Europe Indicated their importance by addressing the 2008 financial crisis Rising China Nuclear state, potentially huge economy, aid donor in Africa, borrower from WB Expected not to comply easily with current western leaning international standards In 1977 multilateral opening in China, entering UN Still remained relatively isolated until 1980s; 1980s – joining multiple I(N)GOs Since mid-1990s china pioneered IO in the east Asian region APEC, ASEAN+3 forum, ASEAN FTA, Shanghai CO 2000 on – rise in power and confidence Personnel in UN peacekeeping operations Has been supporting the contemporary international regime when weakened Implementation of international norms into the domestic body of law o ‘Socialization into the int’l community’ Selective multilateralism Human rights and labour standards Deliberate failure to enforce certain standards (e.g. intellectual property) Chinese multilateralism Multipolarism Responsible great power Germany and Japan Defeated factions in the WWII Underrepresented in the executives of IOs, but economically important Large financial contribution spend their way into political decision-making Germany Strong drive towards multilateralism, supporting the unification of Europe Both dedicated to championing environmental issues India and Brazil India + Brazil + Russia + China = BRICs – growing influence in the world economy India world’s largest democracy, but not a permanent member of the UN SC founder of the Non-Aligned Movement and the G77 large contributor to the UN, but problems with Pakistan, a nuclear rebel favours underdogs over the superpowers o together with China blocked the Doha rounds Brazil Oil reserves Pan-Americanism, Free trade area of the Americas 3
[email protected] o
Middle-power states (in terms of power and size) E.g. Canada – specialized services for the UN Nordic countries, Australia and the New Zealand, … Specialized tasks, consensus-brokering, often well-represented in IGOs o Small states, developing states Coalition building, issue linkage strategies Multilateral agreements to constrain powerful states Can have large impact in world politics if skilled enough; at the same time they often lack resources and expertise to participate efficiently State strategies o Forum shopping: Multiplicity of forums creates overlaps, countries choose forums where they can expect the most favourable reception o Coalition building Pooling of power of the like minded o Ad-hoc multilateralism Usually no charter, no precise operating procedures, easily dissolve and change Security Groups of states often forming group to inquire into a certain issue and assist the UN Secretary-general in its solution Finance E.g. G20 Explaining state policies and state strategies o Systemic factors The structure of the international system and the state’s relative position within it Hegemonic theory (realist) the existence or absence of international organization can be derived from interests of dominant powers Most of the IOs crafted in the 20th century reflect US/European norms Distribution of power explains a country’s ability to use range of policies, tools and forums Dependency theory Dependent states locked in the periphery of the world system “Dependency is a condition, not a choice” System ‘shocks’ Can encourage experimentation and new institution building Can also lead states to withdraw from int’l commitments to protect themselves o Domestic politics (liberals, constructivists) E.g. authoritarian states shun interference into domestic issues, ideological congruence of policies Mobilization of civil societies 4
[email protected] o
Characteristic of the pieces of global governance Formal/informal Autonomous/dependent Scope of jurisdiction; (non)binding? May induce penalty, exert authority? o Why do countries to give up autonomy and seek IO? Predicament of functional division of labour and specialization Expertize, information gathering, non-partisanship Challenges to multilateral diplomacy o Cultural differences Mind-systems, modes of thought High-context/low context o Leadership and facilitating agreement E.g. preference of consensus-making over voting Power-steering – agreement within a group of key states, then extension Leadership makes a difference – favours skilled over simply powerful
5
