International Organisation: The UN system

Résumé du document

Is global governance a chimera in a world of states, or is there as Keohane suggests, limited global governance in a partially globalized world, or is global governance an effective form of western hegemony? Is global governance a chimera in a world of states, or is there as Keohane suggests, limited global governance in a partially globalized world, or is global governance an effective form of western hegemony? 'Many of the problems and issues facing humankind have dramatic global dimension' . This constitution by Guido Bertucci is today considered as an evidence in world politics. Issues like 'the internationalization of the problem of human rights and democracy, previously thought of as issues for states to deal with within their own boundaries' , are now seen as global issues; and nobody can deny anymore the global impact of environmental changes. Global seems to be the new fashionable term in political studies. But what does global mean? Does it mean 'what has been signified by international, intergovernmental, or even often, transnational' , as wonders Finkelstein?

Extraits

[...] Is it only a chimera, an artificial creation of scholars? Do we still live in a world managed exclusively by states? The debate still exists as noted by David Held: '''Globalization' is a much contested word. On the one hand, there are those who claim that we live in an integrated global order. According to this view, social and economic processes operate predominantly at a global level [ . On the other hand, there are those people who are very sceptical about the extent of globalization and who still think the national state is as integrated and robust as it ever was[4]. [...]

[...] International relations theorist Robert Keohane indeed suggests that currently only limited global governance is implemented in a partially globalized world. According to Keohane, the processes of globalization are undeniable, but remain 'far from complete'. He enounces that 'we live in a partially globalized world'[25]. He also adds that 'globalization depends on effective governance', and that effective governance 'is more likely to take place through interstate cooperation and transnational network than through a world state'[26]. Andy Knight also supports that idea: 'at the present historical juncture, we cannot speak as though we have arrived at any coherent, or viably aggregated, form of ''global governance'''[27]. [...]

[...] 'Not all states, for example, are equally integrated into the world economy; thus while national political outcomes will be heavily influenced by global processes in some countries, in others regional or national forces might well remain supreme'[7]. The states also have a strong influence over the international organizations and other regimes they are members of. When the United States acts unilaterally, the United Nations is said to be failing, and when France withdrew in 1965 its representatives from the European Economic Community, European integration was slowed down for ten years[8]. [...]

[...] After examining the most important forces in the global system, it seems obvious that we do not live in a 'world of states'. Moreover, 'the move from the state-centric to a pluralist model, in which governments and transnational actors interact with each other bilaterally and multilaterally, depends on rejecting a static unidimensional concept of power'[22]. Following this statement by Baylis and Smith, some 'envisage a ''neomedieval'' order in which authority is dispersed among many agents: states, markets, transnational corporations, IGOs and NGOs'[23]. [...]

[...] Its politics are organised depending on levels, from the local to the European level. In order to describe an effective way of global governance, it might be interesting to take a principle used in the European Union: the principle of subsidiarity. James Rosenau seems to support this idea: 'taken broadly, the concept of governance should not be restricted to the national and international system but should be used in relation to regional, provincial and local governments, as well as to the other social systems such as education and the military, to private enterprises and even, to the microcosm of the family'[30]. [...]