Common but Differentiated Responsibilities

In the past two decades, globalisation has proven to be not just economic. It is also a political, a cultural and a security phenomenon. Our collective ability to handle all these challenges has not progressed at the same pace as globalisation itself. Today’s rules, instruments and institutions are often inadequate and ineffective to tackle the scale of our challenges, new and old together. Notwithstanding this, serious talk about global governance has been scarce. The very word is sometimes judged divisive. Moreover, after 9/11 world attention seemed to turn to the sole issue of the combat of the threat of terrorism. Global governance suddenly seemed out of sync with today’s anxieties. But neglecting global issues today, spells trouble for tomorrow. No future is inevitable. Ultimately, our kind of future depends on the kind of choices that we are making – or not making – today. The Royal Institute for International Relations set up an informal working group with the aim of drafting...

2014

Global governance consists of a set of institutions, procedures and networks that jointly influence collective decision making (agreements, regulations, specific choices) necessary to tackle global challenges. The need to manage problems of global nature – to govern globally – is generated by globalization processes. Globalization gradually but irreversibly undermines the once-exclusive position of nation states, which (voluntarily or involuntarily) surrender a substantial part of their informal as well as formal decision-making authority to superior international or supranational structures. Regional political and economic organizations, but also non-governmental organizations, the mass media and supranational economic corporations are thus gaining more influence in the international arena. The study focuses on analyzing the position of individual actors in the global governance process. It reaches the conclusion that, despite being so numerous and diverse, the above-mentioned acto...

In this course, students will review and come to understand well the concept of globalization and its implications for global governance. The course begins by offering insights into the history of globalization, and into the historical roots of contemporary global governance. Our discussions will then focus on some of the most pertinent processes associated with global governance, such as colonialism, modernization, and neoliberalism. Some of the substantive issues studied in the course will include: the structure of global economy, shifting scales in governance (such as the transition from statism to polycentrism), political processes related to the governing of mobility and citizenship in an age of globalization, emerging approaches to war and conflict, the rise of the principle of humanitarian intervention, as well as the politics of environmental challenges, and transnational networks of activism. Through an examination of various perspectives and historical traditions, students should be able to assess both the direction that global affairs is taking and the direction that global affairs ought to take.

The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals

Global Governance lead authors marianne beisheim and steven bernstein contributing authors frank biermann, pamela chasek, melanie van driel, felicitas fritzsche, carole-anne sé nit and silke weinlich Many observers expected the Sustainable Development Goals to strengthen the institutional architecture of global sustainability governance within the United Nations system and beyond. This ambition was already part of the negotiations of the goals. Here, the United Nations General Assembly had created an 'open working group' of only 30 countries, driven by fears that negotiations with universal participation would not lead to an agreement. However, when over 70 countries wanted to join this group, the United Nations found an innovative way to accommodate them by sharing the 30 seats among 'duos' and 'trios' of countries. In another innovation, the open working group first went through a 'stocktaking' process to create a common understanding of the issues and to create legitimacy among governments and stakeholders (Chasek and Wagner 2016; Dodds, Donoghue and Roesch 2016; Kamau, Chasek and O'Connor 2018). However, some studies criticized these negotiations for being 'unpolitical' and brushing over conflicts (Rivera 2017; Thérien and Pouliot 2020). The academic literature has characterized the 2030 Agenda as 'governing through goals' (Kanie and Biermann 2017: ix). Typical features include a goalsetting process that aims to be broadly inclusive; the non-legally binding nature of the goals; reliance on weak institutional arrangements to promote and implement the goals; and extensive leeway for states or other actors and institutions in responding to the goals (Biermann, Kanie and Kim 2017; Vijge et al. 2020: 256). Some studies argued that goal-setting can be impactful and that the Sustainable Development Goals encapsulate 'seeds for transformation' (Stevens and Kanie 2016). Yet, global governance through goals remains a contested strategy (Kanie et al. 2017: 6; Young 2017: 38). Legal scholars emphasize that goals that are aspirational need additional mechanisms to reach beyond the fragmented and compartmentalized system of international law (Kim 2016: 17). In principle, such mechanisms can be found in the other parts of the 2030 Agenda, especially in the sections on the means of implementation and on the follow-up and review.

International Studies Review, 2010

This forum discusses contemporary scholarship on global governance in light of various problems that have commonly been associated with the global governance concept and literature. In the first contribution, Henk Overbeek maintains that global governance talk has undergone a profound transformation. While the concept initially referred to a radical restructuring of the global economic order, it is nowadays used as a reformist concept that seeks to accommodate the interests of neo-liberal globalization with relatively marginal reforms that are seen as necessary to keep the system running. Because definitions of global governance, including that of the Commission on Global Governance, tend to presuppose rather than question the existence of common interests and the willingness to cooperate at the global level, they serve to depoliticize the debate about world order. Moreover, the concept is analytically misleading given the rise of traditional forms of interstate bargaining that followed both the global financial crisis and the rise of the BRIC states.

2006

Palgrave Communications, 2016

Globalization, the end of the Cold War and increased involvement of non-state actors in global affairs represent fundamentally shifting relations of power, speeding up national economies' integration and contributing to the convergence of policies in different issue domains. This review considers the state of global governance by presenting a variety of global governance arrangements, key challenges facing governance in an increasingly globalized context and possibilities for the future governance. Current global governance arrangements favour flexibility over rigidity, prefer voluntary measures to binding rules and privilege partnerships over individual actions. This synopsis of the state of global governance examines the evolving role that sovereignty and the enduring human struggles for power and equity are playing in shaping international relations and governance. This contribution argues that individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional complexity, international power shifts and the liberal world political paradigm will define the future of global governance. This article is published as part of a thematic collection dedicated to global governance.