scholarly journals The global governance complexity cube: Varieties of institutional complexity in global governance

Author(s):  
Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni ◽  
Oliver Westerwinter
Author(s):  
Fariborz Zelli

This chapter explores the consequences of legitimacy in view of the growing institutional complexity of global governance. Global governance institutions do not operate as autonomous entities, but are entwined in dense patchworks of institutions with partly overlapping and competing mandates. The chapter suggests potential causal consequences of the legitimacy of a global governance institution for the institutional complexity of its issue field. Specifically, the analytical framework set out in the chapter theorizes the consequences of legitimacy crises for three dimensions of institutional complexity: the degree of complexity of the institutional architecture, the effectiveness of the institution within this architecture, and the modes of governance used by the institution to navigate this architecture. The chapter illustrates the potential of this framework with examples relating to climate change, energy, and trade governance.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Marielle Papin

A review of the studies on institutional complexity reveals that the many definitions of institutional complexity and related concepts share similarities with the understanding of complexity and complex systems of complexity science. Yet few publications on institutional complexity engage explicitly with complexity science. Most observers still confuse complicated and complex systems, for instance. Furthermore, the variety of definitions may create disarray regarding what institutional complexity and its related concepts are and what they imply. Highlighting the similarities between institutional complexity and complexity science in global governance, this think piece offers a conceptual and operational definition of institutional complexity using a complexity science lens. It highlights the attributes and properties of institutional complexity. It also presents the benefits of such an approach. Besides offering advantages in terms of concept clarification, this approach aims to engage theoretically, epistemologically, and methodologically with the complexity of global governance, as well as propose a way to answer remaining questions on this crucial topic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Benjamin Faude

This paper asks how institutional complexity affects the resilience of global governance. By drawing on sociological differentiation theory, it interprets growing levels of institutional complexity as a process of institutional differentiation which allows the “political system of world society” to mirror the increasing complexity of its social environment. More precisely, the paper suggests that growing levels of institutional complexity enhance the resilience of global governance by providing states with a more diverse set of governance tools and by making backup governance tools available. Against this backdrop, it makes two interrelated contributions to the literature on global governance. First, by applying the concept of resilience to global governance, the paper provides the conceptual basis for a novel research agenda on the ability of contemporary global governance to operate under stress. So far, the analytical toolbox of global governance researchers does not contain a concept that enables a theory-driven analysis of international institutions’ ability to facilitate cooperation when confronted with high levels of stress. Second, it offers a sense of how the central structural feature of contemporary global governance—institutional complexity—affects its resilience. With these two interrelated contributions, the paper seeks to start a scholarly conversation on the resilience of contemporary global governance.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.


Author(s):  
Annegret Flohr ◽  
Lothar Rieth ◽  
Sandra Schwindenhammer ◽  
Klaus Dieter Wolf
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
pp. 4-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Grigoryev ◽  
A. Kurdin

The coordination of economic activity at the global level is carried out through different mechanisms, which regulate activities of companies, states, international organizations. In spite of wide diversity of entrenched mechanisms of governance in different areas, they can be classified on the basis of key characteristics, including distribution of property rights, mechanisms of governance (in the narrow sense according to O. Williamson), mechanisms of expansion. This approach can contribute not only to classifying existing institutions but also to designing new ones. The modern aggravation of global problems may require rethinking mechanisms of global governance. The authors offer the universal framework for considering this problem and its possible solutions.


Author(s):  
Matthew Bagot

One of the central questions in international relations today is how we should conceive of state sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty—’supreme authority within a territory’, as Daniel Philpott defines it—emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as a result of which the late medieval crisis of pluralism was settled. But recent changes in the international order, such as technological advances that have spurred globalization and the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect, have cast the notion of sovereignty into an unclear light. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the current debate regarding sovereignty by exploring two schools of thought on the matter: first, three Catholic scholars from the past century—Luigi Sturzo, Jacques Maritain, and John Courtney Murray, S.J.—taken as representative of Catholic tradition; second, a number of contemporary political theorists of cosmopolitan democracy. The paper argues that there is a confluence between the Catholic thinkers and the cosmopolitan democrats regarding their understanding of state sovereignty and that, taken together, the two schools have much to contribute not only to our current understanding of sovereignty, but also to the future of global governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document