Global governance

The question of world governance arises in the context of what is known as globalization. In response to the acceleration of interdependencies on a worldwide scale, both between human societies and between humanity and the biosphere, world governance defines the elaboration of regulations on the same global scale.

Origin of the Term

Genealogy

The collapse of the Society Union in 1991 marked the end of a very long period of international history based on a policy of balance of power. Since this historic event, the planet has entered a phase of geostrategic breakdown. The national security model, for example, whilst still in place for most governments, is gradually giving way to an emerging collective conscience that extends beyond the restricted framework it represents.. The question of world governance did not arise until the early 1990s. The term interdependence was used to define management of relations between states. The post-Cold War world of the 90s saw a new paradigm emerge based on a number of issues:

• The growing importance of globalization as a significant theme and the consequent weakening of nation-states, pointing logically to the prospect of a transfer to the global level of regulatory instruments that no longer function effectively at the national or regional levels. custom essay writing
• An intensification of environmental concerns for the planet, which received multi-lateral endorsement at the Rio Earth Summit (1992). The Summit issues relating to the climate and biodiversity symbolized a new approach that soon came to be expressed conceptually by the expression Global Commons.
• The emergence of conflicts over standards: trade and environment, trade and social rights, trade and public health. These conflicts continued the traditional debate over the social effects of macro-economic stabilization policies, and posed the question of arbitration between equally legitimate objectives in a compartmentalized governance system where the major areas of interdependence are each entrusted to a specialist international institution. Although often limited in scope, these conflicts are nevertheless symbolically powerful, since they pose the question of the principles and institutions of arbitration.
• An increased questioning of international standards and institutions by developing countries which, having entered the global economy, find it hard to accept seeing industrialized countries holding on to power and giving preference to their own interests. The challenge also comes from civil society, which considers that the international governance system has become the real seat of power and which rejects both its principles and procedures. Although these two strands of criticism often have opposing beliefs and goals, they have been known to unite to oppose the dominance of developed countries and major institutions, as demonstrated symbolically by the failure of the WTO 1999 Ministerial Conference in Seattle.

For more information see: Andreani, Gilles; Gouvernance globale : origines d'une idée ; in "Politique étrangère", nº 3, 2001, pp. 549-568

Definition

In a simple and broad-based definition of world governance, the term is used to designate all regulations for organizing human societies on a global scale.

World Governance Context

• What is the context for referring to world governance?

There are those who believe that world architecture depends on establishing a system of world governance. However, the equation is currently becoming far more complicated: whereas the process used to be about regulating and limiting the individual power of states to avoid disturbing or overturning the status quo, the issue for today's world governance is to have a collective influence on the world's destiny by establishing a system for regulating the many interactions that lie beyond the province of state action. The political homogenization of the planet that has followed the advent of what is known as liberal democracy in its many forms should make it easier to establish a world governance system that goes beyond market laissez-faire and the democratic peace originally formulated by Immanuel Kant, and which constitutes a sort of geo-political laissez-faire.

• Why the need to refer to world governance?

- Because of the heterogeneity of collective preferences, which endure despite a globalization that is often perceived as an implacable process of homogenization. Americans and Europeans provide a good example of this point: they have found hardly any common ground in terms of the division between public and private spheres, tolerance for inequalities and the demand for redistribution, the attitude to risk and the conception of property rights. In certain cases, globalization even serves to accentuate differences rather than as a force for homogenization. - Due to an increase in global problems. This point is illustrated by the environmental dangers threatening the planet, but is not confined to this issue alone. It calls for the organization of collective action to be prioritized ahead of the integration of managing bilateral relations. This results in a new model for representing and managing interdependence that tends to apply to a growing number of areas. - The final significant fact is the emergence of global civic awareness, one of whose components is opposition to globalization. A rapidly growing number of movements and organizations have taken the debate to the international or global level. Although it has its limitations, this trend is patently a logical response to the increasing importance of world governance issues. It is not viable to represent the global economy as an entity undergoing rapid homogenization, nor to adhere to a traditional representation modelled economically on the principles of the Peace of Westphalia. Reasoning needs to be based on two aspects: integration — which is less all-encompassing than we think — and the solidarity born of a shared destiny.

• World governance in crisis?

Pierre Jacquet, Jean Pisani-Ferry and Laurence Tubiana assert that: "To ensure that decisions taken for international integration are sustainable, it is important that populations see the benefits, that states agree on their goals and that the institutions governing the process are seen as legitimate. These three conditions are only partially being met." The authors refer to a "crisis of purpose" and international institutions suffering from "imbalance" and inadequacy. They believe that for these institutions, "a gap has been created between the nature of the problems that need tackling and an institutional architecture which does not reflect the hierarchy of today's problems. For example, the environment has become a subject of major concern and central negotiation, but it does not have the institutional support that is compatible with its importance."

Problems of World Governance and Principles of Governance

Drawing on the many initiatives that have already been launched on other continents, at various levels of governance and in many areas of public action, the Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer and its partners have identified five principles on which to build governance. The problems of world governance can be analyzed in the light of these principles.

• Legitimacy of the exercise of power and its embeddedness

This principle states that "the exercise of power must be linked to a clearly expressed mandate from the people concerned as to the manner in which they are to be governed; the persons placed in positions of authority must be judged worthy of the confidence accorded to them; the limits on private freedoms must also be reduced to a minimum and clearly perceived as necessary for the common weal; the organization of society must be based on ethnic principles that are recognized and respected." Highly important decisions that effect the world economy are currently taken by a handful of international institutions that are insufficiently democratic in nature and lacking in real or full legitimacy, rather than at the level of representative institutions, such as states or smaller territorial units governed by directly elected representatives. In addition, action and coordination initiatives taken by these institutions — and concretely by the United Nations system — have proved inadequate to the task of abolishing or even significantly reducing poverty, injustice and inequality, and to taking effective action to reduce environmental damage. According to Jan Aart Scholte, a vicious circle is created between the development and legitimacy of international institutions and world governance. He says that "world governance as a whole remains inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of global public policy. The lack of morality, legal foundations, material supplies, democratic recognition and charismatic leaders has created a deficit of legitimacy within current systems." He goes on to say that: "This fragile legitimacy has constituted a major obstacle to substantial growth on the worldwide level of the regulations needed to guarantee a decent life for everyone in a globalized world. The inadequacies and lack of legitimacy that characterize world governance are therefore an impediment to mutual strengthening. According to Pierre Calame: "Current regulations don't measure up to the current interdependencies of global society. (…) any measures taken to reinforce these regulations are unlikely to meet with general approval if the legitimacy of those that already exist is questionable. This happens to be the case: the UN is often considered to be a very costly masquerade. Its democratic legitimacy is limited, stuck between the vetoing power of a few big nations in the Security Council and the hypocrisy of the principle of 'one state, one vote', that pretends to put Nepal or Burkina Faso at the same level as the USA. The same sort of crisis of legitimacy can be found at the World Bank or the IMF, both of which have become, in practice, tools that allow rich countries to impose policies on poor countries. There exist an abundance of international rules formulated by faceless authorities. The fact that they have no clear mandate, that there exists no clear-cut legal means of challenging them, saps them of their authority and efficiency and also discredits in advance efforts to formulate new rules, including in fields where major injustices and the notion of 'survival of the fittest' are denounced." On the one hand, the problem is posed by the actual exercise of the existing regulatory framework of conventions and laws, notably at the international level, as demonstrated by Rolf Künemann.. Other sources assert that certain international institutions do not actually respect human rights. On the other hand, attempts at conceptualization and the emergence of new rights are part of the theoretical and normative development of the new world governance that is beginning to take shape. One example is the concept of decent work as elaborated by the ILO and the right to water, widely championed by civil society. In terms of alternative proposals, the Charter of Human Responsibilities maintains that the secondary legal role accorded to the notion of responsibility poses a serious problem to a new model of world organization, which has to be based on sustainable development rather than on aggressive high productivity and growth. A joint legal platform should therefore act as the basis for much-needed legitimacy. This platform could be based on three key elements: the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of Human Responsibilities. The latter would be a parallel document complementing the other two that contains global human responsibilities and would be the result of an on-going participatory revision process open to all citizens.

• Conformity with the democratic ideal and with principles of citizenship

The second principle advocates the idea that "each person must feel that they are part of a shared destiny, which excludes, for example, tyranny by the majority; rights, power and responsibility must be evenly balanced; no one can exercise power without being subject to checks and balances." Civil society is fully aware of this need and has been working for many years to give a voice to citizens. According to Via Campesina: "Listening to what citizens have to say is the surest way of meeting their needs. And the organization of world governance needs to be founded on the satisfaction of these needs. The principles of citizenship are therefore a necessary condition in the creation of any new model for managing the planet." The reform of world governance is consequently indissociable from a general reform of the state apparatus and public sector, a reform that would include placing citizen participation at the heart of the decision-making process. The massive revitalisation of the participatory democracy that has characterized the last few decades (Participatory Budgeting, Citizens'Panel, etc. ) also includes proposals to make citizen participation the central element of the decision-making structure of public mechanisms. Two examples are Iniciativa Ciudadana para la Cultura del Diálogo; Citizen Involvement in the Process of State Reform and Sire-Marin, Evelyne; Martelli, Roger; The New Republic Will be Democratic and Socially Oriented.

• Competence and efficacy

According to the third principle: "The way that public and private institutions are set up, their organizational structures and the people working within them must all be reviewed to ensure that they remain pertinent, that they have the skills and the capacity required to assume the responsibility of responding to the needs of society in all its diversity." In the absence of a coherent, responsible, efficient and legitimate form of political organization of the world community, market principles dominate international relations and produce an anarchic and irresponsible world governance that fails to meet social needs and is consequently illegitimate from the political standpoint. According to Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin: "The market is a trading procedure but we must delimit its position and its conditions of legitimacy and efficiency for the same reasons as for other forms of governance. We must do all that is necessary to put the market in its place, so as to prohibit work and people from being nothing more than goods. It has now become a priority to set in terms of law the area to which the market applies. We must move beyond the reductionist ideological vision of the economy that puts the market at the center of all exchanges."

• Cooperation and partnerships

The fourth principle states that: "It is essential that everyone works together for the common weal and that governance organizes relationships and cooperation among the various types of players, whether public or private, the various levels of governance, and the administrations, in accordance with procedures established by common agreement." The increase in global interdependencies has to go hand in hand with an increase in interdependencies within the organization of public services, especially the creation of intelligent forms of partnership between public institutions, between civil society stakeholders, and between the former and the latter. Until now, most public institutions have been acting without any real degree of interpenetration, either by remaining isolated from each other or by following top-down orders, which has meant that they have failed to harness the power of their collective intelligence. A set of simple basic rules will need to be established in order to navigate in this new and complex world that reflects social diversity. Pierre Calame has already attempted to draw up a set of rules that apply jointly to the different levels of governance, based on the underlying principle of Active Subsidiarity. The key objective in constructing a legitimate and therefore democratic world governance has to be finding solutions to the serious problem of inequalities. This means that systems based on solidarity and redistribution need to be established. Proposals for a Basic Income on a national scale could be applied on the global scale, as proposed by the Global Basic Income Foundation amongst others. The many proposals for global-scale solidarity and redistribution include a Basic Food Income, the Global Marshall Plan, the Global Calling-for-Help Center, and A Global Pension Plan.

• Relationships linking the local and the global, and linking the various levels of governance

We can address the problem of linking the local and global and the various levels of governance, as part of the construction of a new world governance, on three levels:

• linking up of levels of governance;
• internal transformation of the state and evolution of its role;
• construction of new mechanisms for coexistence between states and public institutions in general, better reflecting the actual links between their societies.

Adopting an effective form of world governance, and not a homogenous world governance, raises the problem of its coexistence with states, which have to accept handing over significant areas of their sovereignty to the global level as well as other levels. The goal is to create a real linking up of competencies and interaction between all levels, from the local to the global. To meet this goal requires joint rules to be drawn up, and to guarantee that they are truly democratic, the work of the higher levels, those ensuring social cohesion up to the global level, must be founded on decisions taken at the grassroots level. A number of authors have conceptualized the new type of state that will produce a broader governance linking up the different levels. For Ulrich Beck, who champions the idea of a "cosmopolitan state", "in the same way that only an a religious state can enable the practice of several religions, a cosmopolitan state will guarantee the coexistence of national and religious identities thanks to the principle of constitutional tolerance." Another author proposes the evolution of the current world towards a "system of post-modern states" with the following characteristics:

• the suppression of the distinction between domestic affairs and foreign affairs;
• mutual interference in domestic (traditional) affairs and reciprocal monitoring;
• refusal of the use of force as a means of resolving conflicts and therefore the codification of self-applied rules of conduct;
• the gradual decline of the relevance of borders due to the changing role of the state, as well as missiles, motorized vehicles and satellites;
• security based on transparency, reciprocal openness, interdependence and reciprocal vulnerability.

However, we need to avoid the situation of "the national state being asked to no longer play a major role in the future. On the contrary, it will continue to incarnate the collective destiny of its peoples, and will certainly remain the primary level for constructing social cohesion, delivering public services, exercising rights and justice, redistribution and solidarity. But it will be a state based on other principles, forming one level of governance — even if an essential level — among others, and linked to the others. Certain authors also propound the need to construct on the regional level and reform the United Nations system. For example, Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin believe that: "The architecture of global governance can no longer be conceived without a redefinition of national states themselves, of their role, their working procedures, and their articulation with the other political orders." They also maintain that: "It is indispensable to back the emergence of a regional level of governance, between the states and the world." And that the Security Council: "Should be a board made up of representatives of the regions of the world. Every region would have a rotating presidency by member states, which presidency would by the same token represent the region in international negotiations." An interconnecting and democratic world governance also implies a redefinition of the role of territories and the establishment of basic units to encourage the emergence of a constituent citizen power. This point is addressed by a number of proposals for reterritorialization,reterritorialisation with territorial communities acting as the building blocks for world governance, and by initiatives to create Citizen Assemblies.

Other Problems of World Governance

• Expansion of normative mechanisms and globalization of institutions

One of the effects of the unstoppable advance of globalization is the production of increasing numbers of global-scale rules. But Jan Aart Scholte asserts that these changes are inadequate to meet needs: "We are seeing an unprecedented expansion of normative mechanisms governing world jurisdictions. Nevertheless, world governance as a whole remains inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of global public policy. The lack of morality, legal foundations, material supplies, democratic recognition and charismatic leaders has created a deficit of legitimacy within current systems." On another level, there is a need to create an increasing number of networks and institutions in all spheres that operate on a global scale. Proposals and initiatives have been developed by various sources: political parties,; unions, regional authorities and members of parliament in sovereign states.

• The need for debate on the formulation and objectives of world governance

One of the conditions for building a world democratic governance should be the development of platforms for citizen dialogue about the legal formulation of world governance and the harmonization of objectives. This legal formulation could take the form of a Global Constitution. According to Pierre Calame and Gustavo Marin: "A Global Constitution resulting from a process for the institution of a global community will act as the common reference for establishing the order of rights and duties applicable to United Nations agencies and to the other multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization." When considering the formulation of objectives, the necessary but insufficient ambition of the United Nations's Millennium Goalsobjectifs du millenium Nations Unies, which aim to safeguard humanity and the planet, and the huge difficulties in implementing them, is an example of the inadequacy of institutional initiatives that do not have popular support, having failed to invite citizen participation during the elaboration process. Furthermore, this global constitution "must clearly express a limited number of overall objectives that are to be the basis of global governance and are to guide the common action of the UN agencies and the multilateral institutions, whereby the specific role of each of these is subordinated to the pursuit of these common objectives."

Pierre Calame proposes the following objectives: 1. instituting the conditions for sustainable development; 2. reducing inequalities; 3. establishing lasting peace whilst respecting diversity.

• Reforming international institutions

Is the UN capable of taking on the heavy responsibility of managing the planet's serious problems? More specifically, can the UN reform itself so that it can meet this challenge? At a time when the financial crisis of 2008 is raising the same questions posed by the climate disasters of previous years about an unpredictable future, the fruit of disastrous human management, can international financial institutions reform to take on their original task of providing financial help to countries in need? The lack of political and citizen will at the international level has also caused the current appropriation of international institutions by the neoliberal agenda, particularly financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which became the World Trade Organization (WTO). Pierre Calame gives an account of this development, whilst Joseph E. Stiglitz points out that: "The need for international institutions like the IMF, World Bank and WTO has never been so great, but people's trust in them has never been so low." One of the key aspects of the United Nations reform is the problem of representativeness of the General Assembly. The Assembly operates on the principle of 'one state, one vote', so that states of hugely varying sizes have the same impact on the vote, which distorts representativeness and results in a major loss of credibility. Accordingly, "the General Assembly has lost all real capacity to influence. This means that the mechanisms for action and consultation organized by rich countries have a dominant role." Gustave Massiah advocates defining and implementing a radical reform of this institution. The author proposes building new foundations that can provide the basis for global democracy and the creation of a Global Social Contract, rooted in the respect and guarantee of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as recognition of the strategic role of international law.

World Governance Themes

In its initial phase, world governance was able to draw on themes inherited from geopolitics and the theory of international relations, such as peace, defence, geostrategy, diplomatic relations and trade relations. But as globalization progresses and the number of interdependencies increases, the global level is highly relevant to a far wider array of subjects. Below are a number of examples.

Environmental governance and managing the planet

"The crisis created by the accelerated and probably irrevocable character of the impact that human activities have on nature calls for collective responses from governments and citizens. Nature is oblivious to political and social barriers, and the global scale of the crisis cancels out the effects of actions initiated unilaterally by individual governments or institutions, however powerful they may be. This accelerated and no doubt irrevocable impact takes a variety of forms, including climate change, pollution of the seas and air, nuclear risks and the dangers of genetic engineering, the reduction and extinction of resources and biodiversity and, most especially, a development model that goes almost entirely unchallenged on the global scale. In the context of globalization, this impact is the most important factor in challenging the system of states that compete against each other to the exclusion of all other considerations. Management of the environment is the aspect of world governance that most urgently needs solutions in the form of collective actions launched by the entire human community. These actions should also help to model and strengthen the gradual construction of this community." In terms of proposed solutions, the question of how collective environmental action is possible has been raised. A number of multilateral agreements on the environment have been forged over the last thirty years, but their implementation remains difficult. There is also discussion on the possibility of creating an international organization which would centralize the issues of international environmental protection, along the lines of the proposed World Environment Organization (WEO). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) could play this role, but it is a small-scale organization with a limited mandate. This question has given rise to two opposing views: the European Union, especially France and Germany, along with a number of NGOs, is in favour of creating a WEO; the United Kingdom, the USA and most developing countries prefer opting for voluntary initiatives. The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposes a "reform programme" for global environmental governance. The main argument is that there seems to exist an unspoken but powerful consensus on the essential objectives of a system of global environmental governance. These goals centre on high calibre leadership, knowledge based on a strong environmental policy, efficient coherence and coordination, properly managed institutions that form the environmental governance system, and the incorporation of environmental concerns and actions within other areas of international policy and action.

Governance of the economy and globalization

The 2008 financial crisis exploded the myth of the all-powerful market, capable of correcting all the serious financial malfunctions by itself, as well as belief in the presumed independence of the economy. Lacking in transparency and far from democratic, international financial institutions have proved incapable of handling the market's critical breakdown. The market economy is incapable of meeting the population's needs by itself. Free of regulation and without taking account of social and environmental externalities, liberal capitalism has become an out-of-control machine producing more and more wealth concentrated in just a few hands, leading the global community into a head-on collision with disaster and chaos. The system's capacity to produce is not in doubt, it is the absence of redistribution, the result of an alarming and shameful absence of political and citizen will to change the rules of the game, that is the issue. Nevertheless, we are seeing a positive step forward, as debate over the system's failings begins to spread from the academic world and initiate a search for solutions. Tubiana and Severino state that: "The doctrinal refocusing of international cooperation on the concept of public goods offers the possibility (...) of breaking the deadlock in international negotiations on development, with the perception of shared interests acting to breath new life into an international solidarity that is running out of steam." Stiglitz feels that: "Certain global public goods must be produced and supplied to the populations, but they are not, and certain global externalities should be taken into consideration, but they are not. (…) On the other hand, the international stage is often used to find solutions to problems that are unrelated and that the players in these institutions attempt to resolve under the protection of opacity and secrecy, which they justifiably could not do in the national democratic context." On the subject of international trade, Susan George states that: "In a rational world, it would be possible to construct a trading system serving the needs of people in both North and South. (…) Under such a system, crushing third world debt and the devastating structural adjustment policies applied by the World Bank and the IMF would have been unthinkable, although the system would not have abolished capitalism."

Political and institutional governance

Constructing a responsible word governance whereby the political organization of society can be adapted to globalization implies establishing a democratic political legitimacy on every level: local, national, regional and global.

Legitimacy of this kind requires simultaneously rethinking and reforming:

• the loose configuration formed by the various international organizations, mostly created in the wake of the Second World War. They need to make way for a system of international organizations with more resources and greater capacity to intervene, and that are more transparent, fair and democratic;
• the Westphalia system, the very nature of states, the role they play towards other institutions, and the relations between them. States should share some of their sovereignty with institutions and bodies on other territorial levels as well as undergoing a major process of intensifying democracy and taking on more organizational responsibility;
• the meaning of citizen sovereignty in the different government systems, and the role of citizens as political protagonists. There is a need to rethink the meaning of representation and political participation, and to sow the seeds of a radical change of consciousness that will encourage progress towards a situation where citizens will play a key, and real, role at all levels.

The political aspect of world governance was looked at in more detail in the section Global_Governance#Problems_of_World_Governance_and_Principles_of_Governance Problems of World Governance and Principles of Governance

Governance of peace, security and conflict resolution

Armed conflicts have changed in form and intensity since the Berlin wall came down in 1989. The events of 11 September 2001, the wars in Afghanistan then Iraq and repeated terrorist attacks all show that conflicts can become lethal to the entire world rather than only the respective belligerents. The bellicose leaders of a handful of major powers, starting with the biggest of them all, the USA, have used war as a means of resolving conflict and may well continue to do so. But it is highly likely that the networks of fundamentalist Muslims will continue to launch attacks in the USA, Europe, Africa and Asia. At the same time, civil wars continue to break out across the world, particularly in areas where civil and human rights are not respected, such as Central and Eastern Africa and the Middle East. These and other regions remain deeply mired in permanent crises, hampered by authoritarian regimes, with entire swathes of the population reduced to wretched living conditions. The wars and conflicts confronting us have a variety of causes: economic inequalities, social conflicts, religious sectarianism, territorial disputes and disputed control over basic resources such as water and land. They all illustrate a deep-seated crisis of world governance. The bellicose climate created by these actions imbues international relations with competitive nationalism. In rich and poor countries alike, it serves to increase military budgets and siphon off huge sums of public money to the arms industry and military-oriented scientific innovation, and thus acts to fuel global insecurity. These are enormous sums, only some of which would be enough to permanently solve the basic needs of the planet's population and help to drastically reduce the causes leading to war and terrorism. Andrée Michel maintains that: "The arms race is not only proceeding with greater vigour but it is the surest means for Western countries to maintain their hegemony over countries of the South. Following the break-up of the East bloc countries, a strategy for the manipulation of the masses was set up with the permanent invention of an enemy (incarnated at present by Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea) and by maintaining fear and hate for the other to justify perpetuating the IMC (Industrial Military Consortiums) and the sale of arms." The author reminds us that "the Big Five at the United Nations who have the right of veto are responsible for 85% of arms sales on the planet." Proposals for governance of peace, security and conflict resolution are begin by addressing prevention of the causes of conflicts, whether they be economic, social, religious, political or territorial. This requires assigning more resources to improving people's living conditions — health, accommodation, food and work — and to education, including education in the values of peace, social justice and unity and diversity as two sides of the same coin representing the global village. These resources for peace could be obtained by regulating or even reducing military budgets, which have risen over recent years. This process could go hand in hand with plans for global disarmament and the conversion of arms industries, applied proportionally to all countries, including the major powers. But unfortunately, the warlike climate of the last decade has served to relegate all plans for global disarmament, including within civil society debates, and to pigeonhole them as a long-term goal or even utopian vision. This is a setback for the cause of peace and for humanity, but far from being a permanent obstacle. International institutions also have a role to play in resolving armed conflicts. Small international rapid deployment units could intervene in the corresponding region with an exclusive mandate granted by a reformed and democratic United Nations system or, by default, by relevant regional authorities, such as the European Union. These units could be formed specifically for each conflict, using armies from several countries, as was the case when the UNIFIL was reinforced during the 2006 Lebanon War. On the other hand, no national army would be authorized to intervene unilaterally outside its territory without a UN or regional mandate. Another issue that is worth addressing concerns the legitimate conditions for the use of force and conduct during war. Jean-Réné Bachelet offers an answer with a conceptualization of military ethics that corresponds to the need for a "principle of humanity." The author defines this principle as follows: "All human beings belong to a human community and they all have the right to respect for their lives, integrity and dignity."

Governance of science, education, information and communication

The absence of any strong desire to construct a world governance with the goal of meeting people's needs and for social justice has, since the mid-1990s, left the door open to a different plan: the WTO agenda of liberalizing public goods and services linked to culture, science, education, health, living organisms, information and communication. This plan has been only partially checked by the alternative globalization movement, starting with the events linked to the 1999 Seattle meeting, and on a totally different and probably far more influential scale in the medium and long term, by the astounding explosion of collaborative practices on the Internet. However, lacking political and widespread citizen support as well as sufficient resources, civil society has not so far been able to develop and disseminate alternative plans for society as a whole on a global scale. Although enough proposals and initiatives do exist, some more successful than others, for constructing a fairer, more responsible and more solidarity-based world in each of the areas concerned. The public goods and services concerned are those that multiply when shared: knowledge, intelligence and experience. This means that these goods should be part of a collective and free sharing process rather than a market-based approach whose development favours only the richest and most powerful and is therefore heading for self-destruction. As far as science is concerned: "Research increasingly bows to the needs of financial markets, with the commoditization of skills and knowledge, flexibilization and casualization of its personnel, contracts based on goals and profitability that benefit private interests and compliance with the principle of competition. The directions that research has taken over the last two decades and the changes it has undergone have taken it drastically far from its initial missions (producing skills and knowledge, maintaining independence) without any questioning of its current and future missions. Humanity faces crises and problems thanks to, or despite, this progress: poverty and hunger have still not been vanquished, nuclear arms are proliferating, environmental disasters are increasing, social injustice is on the rise, and so on. Neoliberal commoditization favours the interests of drugs companies rather than of patients, food processing companies rather than farmers and consumers. Public research policies have merely supported this process of economic 'enhancement', wherein research results are increasingly judged by the financial markets. The system of systematically patenting knowledge and living organisms is thus imposed throughout the planet via the 1994 WTO agreements on intellectual property. Private businesses now direct research in many areas." On the global level: "Institutions that dominate a specific sector also, on every level, present the risk of reliance on technical bodies that use their own references and deliberate within an isolated environment. This process can be observed with the 'community of patents' that promotes patenting of living organisms, as well as with the authorities that control nuclear energy. This inward-looking approach is even more dangerous considering that communities of experts are, in all the complex technical and legal spheres, increasingly dominated by the big economic organizations that finance research and development." On the other hand, several innovative experiments have emerged in the sphere of science, such as conscience clauses, citizens' panels, as a tool for democratizing the production system, [Science shops and Community-based research. Politically committed scientists are also increasingly organizing themselves on the global level. As far as education is concerned, the affect of commoditization can be seen in the serious tightening of budgets that has an impact on the quality of general education as a public service. The Global Future Online report reminds us that: "At the half-way point towards 2015 (author's note: the deadline for the Millennium Goals), the gaps are daunting: 80 million children (44 million of them girls) are out of school, with marginalized groups (26 million disabled and 30 million conflict-affected children) continuing to be excluded. And while universal access is critical, it must be coupled with improved learning outcomes – in particular, children achieving the basic literacy, numeracy and life skills essential for poverty reduction." In addition to making the current educational system available universally, there is also a call to improve the system and adapt it to the speed of changes in a complex and unpredictable world. On this point, Edgar Morin asserts that we must: "Rethink our way of organizing knowledge. This means breaking down the traditional barriers between disciplines and conceiving new ways to reconnect that which has been torn apart." The UNESCO report drawn up by Morin contains "seven principles for education of the future": detecting the error and illusion that have always parasitized the human spirit and human behaviour; the principles of pertinent knowledge, i.e. a way of learning that distinguishes and connects together; teaching the human condition; teaching earth identity; confronting human and scientific uncertainties and teaching strategies to deal with them; teaching understanding of the self and others, and ethics for the human genre. The exponential growth of new technologies, the Internet in particular, has gone hand in hand with the development over the last decade of a global community for producing and exchanging goods. This development is permanently altering the shape of the entertainment, publishing, music and media industries, amongst others. It is also influencing the social behaviour of an increasing number of people along with the way that institutions, businesses and civil society are organized. Peer-to-peer communities and collective knowledge-building projects like wikipédia involve millions of users round the world. Even more innovative initiatives also exist, such as alternatives to private copyright like creative commons, cyber democracy practices and the real possibility of developing them on the sectorial, regional and global levels.

Regional Positions on World Governance

The recent and growing interest that different regional players are showing in world governance gives it a regional dimension that goes beyond egocentric reasoning, transforming questions like "What can the world bring to my country or region?" into "What can my country or region bring to the rest of the world?"

Africa

Often seen as a problem to be solved rather than a people or region with an opinion to express on international policy, the Africans and Africa draw on a philosophical tradition of community and social solidarity which can inspire us and contribute to constructing world governance. One example is given by Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gathseni when he reminds us of the relevance of the Ubuntu concept, which stresses the interdependence of human beings.ref>Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gathseni; Giving Africa Voice within Global Governance: Oral History, Human Rights and the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council</ref> African civil society has thus began to draw up proposals for the governance of the continent that take into account all dimensions: local, African and global. Examples include proposals by the network "Dialogues sur la gouvernance en Afrique" for "the construction of a local legitimate governance", a reform of states "capable of meeting the continent's development challenges", and "effective regional governance to put an end to Africa's marginalization."

North America

Barack Obama's election as president of the USA in 2008 will surely trigger deep-reaching changes in world governance and the direction taken by international policy in the years to come. The new US president has shown himself to be in favour of including his country in a new multilateral order with the UN playing a more important role. Innovative and significant international policy proposals announced by Obama include restoration of the Global Poverty Act, which aims to contribute to meeting the UN Development Millennium Goals on reducing by half the world population living on less than a dollar a day by 2015. Foreign aid will double to reach 50 billion dollars. The money will be used to help build educated and healthy communities, reduce poverty and improve the population's health. Another innovative measure that has been announced is the participation of the North American people in foreign policy decisions via citizen meetings at the municipal level to discuss the fundamental aspects of policy. In terms of international institutions, Obama's website advocates reform of the World Bank and the IMF, without going into any detail.

Below are listed further points in the Obama-Biden plan for international policy that directly concern world governance:

• strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
• global denuclearization in several stages including stepping up cooperation with Russia to significantly reduce stocks of nuclear arms in both countries;
• revision of the culture of secrecy: institution of a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective;
• increase in global funds for AIDS, TB and malaria. Eradication of malaria-related deaths by 2015 by making medicines and mosquito nets far more widely available;
• increase in aid for children and maternal health as well as access to reproductive healthcare programmes;
• creation of a 2-billion-dollar global fund for education. Increased funds for providing access to drinking water and sanitation;
• other similarly large-scale measures covering agriculture, small- and medium-sized enterprises and support for a model of international trade that fosters job creation and improves the quality of life in poor countries;
• in terms of energy and global warming, Obama advocates a) an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 b) investing 150 billion dollars in alternative energies over the next 10 years and c) creating a Global Energy Forum capable of initiating a new generation of climate protocols.

Latin America

The 21st century has seen the arrival of a new and diverse generation of left-wing governments in Latin America. This has opened the door to initiatives to launch political and governance renewal. A number of these initiatives are significant for the way they redefine the role of states by drawing on citizen participation, and can thus serve as a model for a future world governance built first and foremost on the voice of the people. The constituent assemblies in Ecuador and Bolivia are fundamental examples of this phenomenon. In Ecuador, social and indigenous movements were behind the discussions that began in 1990 on the creation of a constituent assembly.. In the wake of Rafael Correa's arrival at the head of the country in November 2006, widespread popular action with the slogan "que se vayan todos" (let them all go away) succeeded in getting all the political parties of congress to accept a convocation for a referendum on creating the assembly. In April 2007, Rafael Correa's government convoked a consultation with the people to approve setting up a constituent assembly. Once it was approved, 130 members of the assembly were elected in September, including 100 provincial members, 24 national members and 6 for migrants in Europe, Latin America and the USA. The assembly was officially established in November. The assembly members belonged to traditional political parties as well as the new social movements. In July 2008, the assembly completed the text for the new constitution and in September 2008 there was a referendum to approve it. Approval for the new text won out, with 63.9% of votes for compared to 28.1% of votes against and a 24.3% abstention rate. The new constitution establishes the rule of law on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER). It transforms the legal model of the social state subject to the rule of law into a "constitution of guaranteed well-being" (Constitución del bienestar garantizado) inspired by the ancestral community ideology of "good living" propounded by the Quechuas of the past, as well as by 21st century socialist ideology. The constitution promotes the concept of food sovereignty by establishing a protectionist system that favours domestic production and trade. It also develops a model of public aid for education, health, infrastructures and other services. In addition, it supplements the three traditional powers with a fourth power called the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control, made up of former constitutional control bodies and social movements, and mandated to assess whether public policies are constitutional or not. The new Bolivian constitution was approved on 25 January 2009 by referendum, with 61.4% votes for, 38.6% against and a 90.2% turnout. The proposed constitution was prepared by a constituent assembly that did not only reflect the interests of political parties and elites but also represented the indigenous peoples and social movements. As in Ecuador, the proclamation of a constituent assembly was demanded by the people, starting in 1990 at a gathering of indigenous peoples from the entire country, continuing with the indigenous marches in the early 2000s and then with the Pact of Programmatic Unity (Pacto de Unidad Programático) established by peasants and indigenous peoples in September 2004 in Santa Cruz. The constitution recognizes the autonomy of indigenous peoples, the existence of a specific indigenous legal system, exclusive ownership of forest resources by each community and a quota of indigenous members of parliament. It grants autonomy to departments, which have the right to administer their natural resources and directly elect their representatives. The latifundio system is outlawed, with a maximum ownership of 5,000 hectares allowed per person. Access to water and sanitation are covered by the constitution as human rights that the state has to guarantee, as well as other basic services such as electricity, gas, postal services and telecommunications that can be provided by either the state or contracting companies. The new constitution also establishes a social and community economic model made up of public, private and social organizations and cooperatives. It guarantees private initiative and freedom of enterprise, and assigns public organizations the task of managing natural resources and related processes as well as developing public services covered by the constitution. National and cooperative investment is favoured over private and international investment. The "unitary plurinational" state of Bolivia has 36 official indigenous languages along with Spanish. Natural resources belong to the people and are administered by the state. The form of democracy in place is no longer considered as exclusively representative and/or based on parties. Thus, "the people deliberate and exercise government via their representatives and the constituent assembly, the citizen legislative initiative and the referendum (…)" and "popular representation is exercised via the political parties, citizen groups and indigenous peoples." In this way, "political parties, and/or citizen groups and/or indigenous peoples can put forward candidates directly for the posts of president, vice-president, senators, deputies, constituent assembly members, councillors, mayors and municipal agents. The same conditions apply legally to all. (…)" Also n Latin America: "Amazonia is an enormous biodiversity reservoir and a major climate-regulation agent for the planet but is being ravaged and deteriorated at an accelerated pace; it is a territory almost entirely devoid of governance, but also a breeding place of grassroots organization initiatives.". "Amazonia can be the fertile field of a true school of 'good' governance if it is looked after as a common and valuable good, first by Brazilians (65% of Amazonia is within Brazilian borders) and the people of the South American countries surrounding it, but also by all the Earth's inhabitants." Accordingly: "From a world-governance perspective, (Amazonia) is in a way an enormous laboratory. Among other things, Amazonia enables a detailed examination of the negative effects of productivism and of the different forms of environmental packaging it can hide behind, including 'sustainable development.' Galloping urbanization, Human Rights violations, the many different types of conflicts (14 different types of conflicts have been identified within the hundreds of cases observed in Amazonia), protection of indigenous populations and their active participation in local governance: these are among the many Amazonian challenges also affecting the planet as a whole, not to mention the environment. The hosts of local initiatives, including among the indigenous populations, are however what may be most interesting in Amazonia in that they testify to the real, concrete possibility of a different form of organization that combines a healthy local economy, good social cohesion, and a true model of sustainable development — this time not disguised as something else. All of this makes Amazonia 'a territory of solutions.'" According to Arnaud Blin, the Amazonian problem helps to define certain fundamental questions on the future of humanity. Firstly is the question of social justice: "How do we build a new model of civilization that promotes social justice? How do we set up a new social architecture that allows us to live together?" The author goes on to refer to concepts such as the notion of "people's territory " or even "life territory " rooted in the indigenous tradition and serving to challenge private property and social injustice. He then suggests that the emerging concept of the "responsibility to protect", following on from the "right of humanitarian intervention" and until now used to try and protect populations endangered by civil wars, could also be applied to populations threatened by economic predation and to environmental protection."

Asia

The growing interest in world governance in Asia represents an alternative approach to official messages, dominated by states' nationalist visions. An initiative to elaborate proposals for world governance took place in Shanghai in 2006, attended by young people from every continent. The initiative produced ideas and projects that can be classified as two types: the first and more traditional type, covering the creation of a number of new institutions like an International Emissions Organization, and a second more innovative type based on organizing network-based systems. For example, a system of cooperative control on a worldwide level between states and self-organization of civil society into networks using new technologies, a process that should serve to set up a Global Calling-for-Help Center or a new model based on citizens who communicate freely, exchange information, discuss and look for consensus-based solutions. They would use the Internet and the media, working within several types of organizations: universities, NGOs, local volunteers and civil society groups. Given the demographic importance of the continent, the development of governance discussions and practices in Asia at the regional level as well as global-level proposals will be decisive in the years ahead in the strengthening or otherwise of global dialogue between all sorts of stakeholders, a dialogue that should produce a fairer world order.

Europe

According to Michel Rocard, Europe does not have a shared vision, but a collective history that allows Europeans to opt for projects for gradual political construction such as the European Union. Drawing on this observation, Rocard conceives of a European perspective that supports the development of three strategies for constructing world governance: reforming the UN, drawing up international treaties to serve as the main source of global regulations, and "the progressive penetration of the international scene by justice." Rocard considers that there are certain "great questions of the present day" including recognition by all nations of the International Criminal Court, the option of an international police force authorized to arrest international criminals, and the creation of judicial procedures to deal with tax havens, massively polluting activities and states that support terrorist activities. He also outlines "new problems" that should foster debate in the years to come over questions such as a project for a Declaration of Interdependence, how to rebalance world trade and WTO activities, and how to create world regulations for managing collective goods (air, drinking water, oil, etc.) and services (education, health, etc.).

Stakeholder Position on World Governance

It is too soon to talk of a general stakeholder position. However, interest in world governance is on the rise on the regional level, and we will certainly see different types of stakeholders and social sectors that work to varying degrees on the international level taking a stand on the issue in the years to come.

Institutional and state stakeholders

• Members of parliament

The World Parliamentary Forum, open to members of parliament from all nations and held every year at the same time as the World Social Forum, drew up a declaration at the sixth forum in Caracas in 2006. The declaration contains a series of proposals that express participants' opinion on the changes referred to.

• The Military

The International Alliance of Military for Peace and Security is a platform of expression and exchange of ideas and positions on various topics affecting security and stability" whose goal is to "discuss issues of security and defense, as well as ways of promoting a new 'Consciousness of Security and Defense' to citizens, which allows them to better understand the risks and opportunities inherent in international relations within a globalizing world and to participate actively in the definition of conditions to ensure the stability of international relations and peace." The Alliance is made up of members of the military and other people interested in issues relating to human security. Some of the member organizations of the Alliance of Military have drawn up a Charter for the Promotion of an "European Security and Defence Awareness. This document is written for public opinion and formulates objectives, tasks and the conditions for adhering to and setting up European-level reinforced military cooperation. One of the Alliance's key goals is promote the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) to a broader public, without wanting to call into question the transatlantic partnership and the role of the UN. The actions of national governments and European institutions in the areas of security and defence must be founded on the adherence of European citizens.

• Regional organizations

The European Commission referred to global governance in its Governance White Paper. It contends that the search for better global governance draws on the same set of shared challenges humanity is currently facing. These challenges can be summed up by a series of goals: sustainable development, security, peace and equity.

Non-state stakeholders

The freedom of thought enjoyed by non-state stakeholders enables them to formulate truly alternative ideas on world governance issues, but they have taken little or no advantage of this opportunity. Pierre Calame believes that: "Non-state actors have always played an essential role in global regulation, but their role will grow considerably in this, the beginning of the twenty-first century. Non-state actors play a key role in world governance in different domains. To better understand and develop the non-state actors' role, it should be studied in conjunction with the general principles of governance. (…) Non-state actors, due to their vocation, size, flexibility, methods of organisation and action, interact with states in an equal manner; however this does not mean that their action is better adapted."

Proposals for a New World Governance

Several stakeholders have produced lists of proposals for a new world governance that is fairer, more responsible, solidarity-based, interconnected and respectful of the planet's diversity. Some examples are given below. Joseph E. Stiglitz proposes a list of reforms concerning the international institutions' internal organization and external role in the framework of global governance architecture. He also deals with global taxation, the management of global resources and the environment, the production and protection of global knowledge, and the need for a Global legal infrastructure. (...) A number of further proposals are contained in the World Governance Proposal Paper: give concrete form to the principle of responsibility; accord civil society more involvement in drawing up and implementing international regulations; accord national parliaments more involvement in drawing up and implementing international regulations; rebalance trade mechanisms and adopt regulations to benefit the southern hemisphere; speed up the creation of regional bodies; extend and specify the notion of common good; define proposal and decision-making powers in order to restructure the United Nations; develop independent observation, early warning and assessment systems; diversify and stabilize the basis for financing international collective action, and engage in a wide-reaching process of consultation, a new Bretton Woods for the United Nations.

This list provides more example of proposals:

• the security of societies and its correlation with the need for global reforms — a controlled legally-based economy centring on stability, growth, full employment and North-South convergence;
• equal rights for all, implying the creation of a global redistribution process;
• the eradication of poverty in all countries;
• sustainable development on a global scale as an absolute imperative in political action at all levels;
• the fight against the roots of terrorism and crime;
• coherent, efficient and fully democratic international institutions;
• a Europe that shares its experience in meeting the challenges of globalization and adopts genuine partnership strategies in constructing a new multilateralism.

Dr. Rajesh Tandon, president of the FIM (Montreal International Forum) and of PRIA (Participatory Research in Asia), prepared a framework document entitled Democratization of Global Governance for the Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies (G05) conference. He used the do cument to present five principles that could provide a basis for civil society actions: "Global institutions and agenda should be subjected to democratic political accountability."

• Democratic policy at the global level requires legitimacy of popular control through representative and direct mechanisms.
• Citizen participation in decision making at global levels requires equality of opportunity to all citizens of the world.
• Multiple spheres of governance, from local to provincial to national to regional and global, should mutually support democratization of decision making at all levels.
• Global democracy must guarantee that global public goods are equitably accessible to all citizens of the world.

See also

Internal links

(in French)

• Governance
• Legitimate governance
• Territorial governance
• Stakeholder
• Active subsidiarity