TOPIC 3: THE UNITED NATIONS AND Intended Learning Outcomes:

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
-Define economic globalization;
-Identify the factors that facilitate economic globalization; and
-Articulate one’s stance on global economic integration
WEEK 4  Recommended Readings & References
1. Rodriguez, R. “Global Governance and the Interstate System”. A
powerpoint presentation. June 20, 2020.

Global Governance.pdf

2. Steger, MB. “The Political Dimension of Globalization” In

Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; 2003. Pp. 56- 68.

 Supplementary Readings & Other Internet Sources

3. About United Nations. Available at:
https://www.un.org/en/about-un/
4. Stiftung, J. H. Introduction to Global Governance. Germany:
Joaquim Herz Stiftung, March, 2017. Available at:
https://www.joachim-herz-
stiftung.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Projekte/Wirtschaft/Entdecke_
Wirtschaft/G20_Modul2_final_144dpi.pdf
5. Dwivedi, Sangit Sarita. International Journal of Social Science &
Interdisciplinary Research V Available at:
http://indianresearchjournals.com/pdf/IJSSIR/2012/December/18
.pdfol.1 Issue 12, December 2012, ISSN 2277 3630.
 Video links:
1. Internationalism |International Political Community| |CSS
World|Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OegpvVCbx-o

DISCUSSION Guide Questions:

(The guide questions are intended to help you in reading and digesting the
assigned readings and topics per module. Reading hours are part of the
asynchronous learning to be employed in each module. This is to give you a deeper
exposure and understanding of each lesson as designed in this module.
Clarification and analysis of the content shall be addressed during the synchronous
online discussion or whenever it is deemed to be necessary.)

1. What is internationalism?
2. What are the differences between liberal and socialist
internationalism?
3. What is global governance?
4. How global governance is articulated by international
organizations (IOs) and the UN?
5. Do you think the United Nations is providing a semblance
of global governance?
Lecture- Political Dimension of Globalization [An excerpt] Manfred B.
Steger, (2013), Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, U.K.: Oxford
University Press, pp. 56-69.

Historical Background

Political globalization refers to the intensification and expansion of political

interrelations across the globe. These processes raise an important set of
political issues pertaining to the principle of state sovereignty, the growing
impact of intergovernmental organizations, and the future prospects for
regional and global governance.

Obviously, these themes respond to the evolution of political

arrangements beyond the framework of the nation-state, thus breaking
new conceptual ground. After all, for the last few centuries, humans have
organized their political differences along territorial lines that generate a
sense of 'belonging' to a particular nation-state.

This artificial division of planetary social space into 'domestic' and 'foreign'
spheres corresponds to people's collective identities based on the creation
of a common 'us' and an unfamiliar 'them'. Thus, the modern nation-state
system has rested on psychological foundations and cultural assumptions
that convey a sense of existential security and historical continuity, while
at the same time demanding from its citizens that they put their national
loyalties to the ultimate test. Nurtured by demonizing images of the Other,
people's belief in the superiority of their own nation has supplied the
mental energy required for large-scale warfare - just as the enormous
productive capacities of the modern state have provided the material
means necessary to fight the 'total wars' of the last century.

Contemporary manifestations of globalization have led to the partial

permeation of these old territorial borders, in the process also softening
hard conceptual boundaries and cultural lines of demarcation.
Emphasizing these tendencies, commentators belonging to the camp of
hyperglobalizers have suggested that the period since the late 1960s has
been marked by a radical 'deterritorialization' of politics, rule, and
governance. Considering such pronouncements premature at best and
erroneous at worst, globalization sceptics have not only affirmed the
continued relevance of the nation-state as the political container of
modern social life but have also pointed to the emergence of regional
blocs as evidence for new forms of territorialization. As each group
presents different assessments of the fate of the modern nationstate, they
also quarrel over the relative importance of political and economic factors.

Out of these disagreements there have emerged three fundamental

questions that probe the extent of political globalization. First, is it really
true that the power of the nation-state has been curtailed by massive
flows of capital, people, and technology across territorial boundaries?
Second, are the primary causes of these flows to be found in politics or in
economics? Third, are we witnessing the emergence of global
governance? Before we respond to these questions in more detail, let us
briefly consider the main features of the modern nation-state system.
The Origin of the Modern Nation-State System (Interstate System)
The origins of the modern nation-state system can be traced back to 17th-
century political developments in Europe. In 1648, the Peace of
Westphalia concluded a series of religious wars among the main European
powers following the Protestant Reformation. Based on the newly
formulated principles of sovereignty and territoriality, the ensuing model
of self-contained, impersonal states challenged the medieval mosaic of
small polities in which political power tended to be local and personal in
focus but still subordinated to a larger imperial authority.

While the emergence of the Westphalian model did not eclipse the
transnational character of vast imperial domains overnight, it nonetheless
gradually strengthened a new conception of international law based on
the principle that all states had an equal right to self-determination.
Whether ruled by absolutist kings in France and Prussia or in a more
democratic fashion by the constitutional monarchs and republican leaders
of England and the Netherlands, these unified territorial areas constituted
the foundation for modernity's secular and national system of political
power. According to political scientist David Held, the Westphalian model
contained the following essential points:

1. The world consists of, and is divided into, sovereign territorial

states which recognize no superior authority.
2. The processes of law-making, the settlement of disputes, and law
enforcement are largely in the hands of individual states.
3. International law is oriented to the establishment of minimal
rules of co-existence; the creation of enduring relationships is an
aim, but only to the extent that it allows state objectives to be
met.
4. Responsibility for cross-border wrongful acts is a 'private matter'
concerning only those
affected.
5. All states are regarded as equal before the law, but legal rules do
not take account of asymmetries of power.
6. Differences among states are often settled by force; the principle
of effective power holds sway. Virtually no legal fetters exist to
curb the resort to force; international legal standards afford only
minimal protection.
7. The collective priority of all states should be to minimize the
impediments to state freedom.

The centuries following the Peace of Westphalia saw the further

centralization of political power, the expansion of state administration, the
development of professional diplomacy, and the successful
monopolization of the means of coercion in the hands of the state.
Moreover, states also provided the military means required for the
expansion of commerce, which, in turn, contributed to the spread of this
European form of political rule around the globe.

The modern nation-state system found its mature expression at the end of
World War I in US President Woodrow Wilson's famous 'Fourteen Points'
based on the principle of national self-determination. But his assumption
that all forms of national identity should be given their territorial
expression in a sovereign 'nation-state' proved to be extremely difficult to
enforce in practice. Moreover, by enshrining the nation-state as the ethical
and legal pinnacle of his proposed interstate system, Wilson unwittingly
lent some legitimacy to those radical ethno-nationalist forces that pushed
the world's main powers into another war of global proportions.

Yet, Wilson's commitment to the nation-state coexisted with his

internationalist dream of establishing a global system of collective security
under the auspices of a new international organization, the League of
Nations. His idea of giving international cooperation an institutional
expression was eventually realized with the founding of the United
Nations in 1945. While deeply rooted in a political order based on the
modern nation-state system, the UN and other fledgling
intergovernmental organizations also served as catalysts for the gradual
extension of political activities across national boundaries, thus
undermining the principle of national sovereignty.

As globalization tendencies grew stronger during the 1970s, it became

clear that the international society of separate states was rapidly turning
into a global web of political interdependencies that challenged the
sovereignty of nation-states. In 1990, at the outset of the Gulf War, US
President George H. W. Bush effectively pronounced dead the
Westphalian model by announcing the birth of a 'new world order' whose
leaders no longer respected the idea that cross-border wrongful acts were
a matter concerning only those states affected. Did this mean that the
modern nation-state system was no longer viable?

Political Globalization and Global Governance

Political globalization is most visible in the rise of - institutions and

associations held together by common norms and interests. In this early
phase of global governance, these structures resemble an eclectic network
of interrelated power centers such as municipal and provincial authorities,
regional blocs, international organizations, and national and international
private-sector associations.

1. An example of international cooperation on the municipal level is

the rise of powerful city networks like the World Association of
Major Metropolises that develop cooperative ventures to deal
with common local issues across national borders. 'Global cities'
like Tokyo, London, New York, and Singapore tend to be more
closely connected to each other than they are to many cities in
their home countries.
2. On the regional level, there has been an extraordinary
proliferation of multilateral organizations and agreements.
Example: membership in the European Union (EU).
3. On a global level, governments have formed a number of
international organizations, including the UN, NATO, WTO, and
OECD.

Finally, the emerging structure of global governance is also shaped by

'global civil society', a realm populated by thousands of voluntary, non-
governmental associations of worldwide reach. International NGOs like
Amnesty International or Greenpeace represent millions of ordinary
citizens who are prepared to challenge political and economic decision

On Internationalism and Globalization

Internationalism |International Political Community| |CSS

World|Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OegpvVCbx-o

WHAT IS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE?

Suslov, D. “Understanding International Relations Theory: What is
Globalization”. Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs,
Center for European and International Studies. National Research
Unversity

[What is Globalization? Understanding International Relations Theory.

Coursera. Available at: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/international-
relations-theory/what-is-global-governance-PXyaE?authMode=signup
Video Transcript:

Hello. Today we will talk about a very complex partly contested, but
nevertheless extremely important topic which is global governance.

What is global governance?

Global governance in a very general understanding is collective

management of common transnational or global problems, which are
those problems that were created, or exacerbated by globalization, and the
problems which cannot be managed at the level of the nation state, by the
nation state. So, global governance is inseparable from globalization.

And management of these problems is provided through a very highly

complicated, flexible, and loose systems of rules, institutions and
processes, and involving huge number of both states and non-state actors.

So, just to summarize this very general understanding of global

governance, it is the management of problems which are created by
globalization, management of the problems through rules, institutions and
processes, and management which involves both state and non-state
actors.

What kind of problems does global governance deals with? What are
these problems which are created, or exacerbated by globalization?

Examples:

1. global climate change and pollution of the environment,

2. poverty and management over economic development,
3. deficit of fresh water in the world,
4. financial instability and management of financial markets,
5. global economic crisis and recessions,
6. management of global trade and investment,
7. global energy markets and the instability of global energy,
 8. global migrations,
9. pandemics such as the Ebola virus,
10. transnational terrorism,
11. transnational organized crime, and so on and so forth.
And indeed some of those problems are direct products of globalization,
such as transnational terrorism, proliferation of extremist ideas and
ideology, instability of global financial markets, global economic crisis, and
so on and so forth. These problems could not simply exist, be in the era
before globalization, they were created by globalization. It is globalization
who make them possible.

The other problems that I've mentioned, have different origin, but they
become real problems of IR, of international relations and security in
conditions of globalization such as; poverty, starvation, or even civil,
regional, and local wars. Indeed before globalization, poverty for instance,
or civil wars had low importance except for those who were directly
involved in them, or impacted by them.

Starvation in Africa, poverty in Latin America, civil wars, and local wars in
some remote lands, it didn't really bother the others, especially great
powers.

But now, in conditions of globalization these same phenomena can have,

and do have very dangerous repercussions for everyone, for everyone in
the world including most powerful nations. Even most powerful nations
cannot resist those trends, and these threats and challenges can result
for instance in pandemics, which conditions over intense trans-border
travel can reach other continents in hours.

These problems can result in the spread of political extremism, which can
in its own term result in Islamic terrorism including the so-called
catastrophic terrorism, which is the terrorism with the use of nuclear
weapons, or weapons of mass destruction, and so on and so forth.

Moreover, these problems are interconnected both geographically and

across the problem areas. For instance, the geographical
interconnectedness is this, that extremism in one area spills over into
extremism in the other areas. The rapid spread of Arab Spring, and the rise
of Islamist extremism in the Western European countries as a result of the
existence of ISIS, Islamic State thousands of miles away, is a good
illustration of this phenomena. People from Europe go to fight in Iraq and
Syria at the side of Islamic State, and then they return home, and spread
the same ideology in the streets of Paris, or London, or Moscow.

But problems are also interconnected across problem areas. For instance,
poverty which is the essential economic problem could result in terrorism
and Islamic extremism. Water deficit and conditions of globalization can
result in regional conflicts, which in their turn also result in the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, political
extremism, and so on. Once again, Arab Spring can be a very vivid example
of this interconnectedness with one of the reasons for instance, of the
Arab Spring was hot summer of the year 2010. Which in its turn is the
result of the climate change, and this climate change resulted in the
collapse of states of the non-monarchical Arab States in the Middle East
and triggered the instability of the Arab Spring.

And as these problems have become common, or global, or transnational

in conditions of globalization, they can no longer be tolerated and
require collective action to be managed. What is common to all those
problems that I have enumerated before, or mentioned before, is that
they cannot be dealt with, they cannot be managed at the national level
by individual states acting alone.

No state acting alone can resolve the turbulence of global economy and
water economic crisis. No state acting alone can overcome terrorist
challenge, or fully protect itself from the transborder diseases.

No state, except for instance with North Korea, cannot protect itself
from the spread of dangerous ideas and extremist ideologies. Thus, what
is needed is collective action, collective management of these problems,
and this collective management is basically global governance. So, we
can make a conclusion that global governance is only about managing
problems and issue areas related to globalization, and the consequences,
and ethics of globalization.

Global governance is not about managing traditional problems of world

economy, or international relations. It is not about for instance,
adversarial relations among states. It is not about regional and local
conflicts as such, and so on and so forth.

James N. Rosenau which is one of the founding fathers of global

governance concept, exemplifies this phenomenon in a phrase which is
that we are living in, "A bifurcated world." Right.

A bifurcated world of global governance co-existing with the world of

traditional international relations. So, we leave in a bifurcated world
meaning that we leave both in the world of states and international
relations, where powers compete, promote interest, fight for power and
prestige, and so on and so forth, and traditional international relations
and global politics takes place.

And there is the world of all actors, not just states, but also non-state
actors and global governance. And this world of global governance belongs
to management of globalization, and to globalization as such, and is about
management of the problems of globalization.

Just to make it very vivid for instance, the traditional great power
competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not about global
governance. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about global governance.
The contradictions between Russia and NATO, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, or the problems of arms control between Russia and the
United States of America are not about global governance. They are
traditional problems of international relations, whereas climate change, a
transnational terrorism, transnational extremist ideology, water deficit,
and other problems that I have enumerated before, they are about global
governance
And of course, we also need to keep in mind that some repercussions of
the traditional conflicts and problems of international relations, can
become problems of globalization. The problems which are created and
strengthened by globalization such as; transnational terrorism, political
radicalization, transnational criminal network, they do fit into the realm of
global governance.