scholarly journals International courts and global democratic values: Participation, accountability, and justification

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan W. Kuyper ◽  
Theresa Squatrito
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Global Democracy ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
National Governments ◽  
Second World

AbstractIn a post-Cold War era characterised by globalisation and deep interdependence, the actions of national governments increasingly have an effect beyond their own territorial borders. Moreover, key agents of global governance – international organisations and their bureaucracies, non-state actors and private agents – exercise pervasive forms of authority. Due to these shifts, it is widely noted that world politics suffers from a democratic deficit. This article contributes to work on global democracy by looking at the role of international courts. Building upon an original dataset covering the 24 international courts in existence since the end of the Second World War, we argue that international courts are able to advance democratic values and shape democratic practices beyond the state. They can do so by fostering equal participation, accountability, and public justification that link individuals directly with sites of transnational authority. We contend that the ability of international courts to promote these values is conditioned by institutional design choices concerning access rules, review powers, and provisions regarding judicial reason-giving. We canvass these design features of different international courts and assess the promises and pitfalls for global democratisation. We conclude by linking our analysis of international courts and global democratisation with debates about the legitimation and politicisation of global governance at large.

scholarly journals Measuring institutional overlap in global governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Z. Haftel ◽  
Tobias Lenz
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Data Set ◽  
International Authority ◽  
Potential Applications ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
And Performance

AbstractOver the past decade, an increasingly sophisticated literature has sought to capture the nature, sources, and consequences of a novel empirical phenomenon in world politics: the growing complexity of global governance. However, this literature has paid only limited attention to questions of measurement, which is a prerequisite for a more comprehensive understanding of global governance complexity across space and time. In taking a first step in this direction, we make two contributions in the article. First, we propose new quantitative measures that gauge the extent of complexity in global governance, which we conceptualize as the degree to which global governance institutions overlap. Dyadic, weighted, directed-dyadic, and monadic measures enable a multifaceted understanding of this important development in world politics. Second, we illustrate these measures by applying them to an updated version of the most comprehensive data set on the design of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs): the Measure of International Authority (MIA). This allows us to identify cross-sectional and temporal patterns in the extent to which important IGOs, which tend to form the core of sprawling regime complexes in many issue areas, overlap. We conclude by outlining notable implications for, and potential applications of, our measures for research on institutional design and evolution, legitimacy, and legitimation, as well as effectiveness and performance. This discussion underscores the utility of the proposed measures, as both dependent and independent variables, to researchers examining the sources and consequences of institutional overlap in global governance and beyond.

Unequal power and the institutional design of global governance: the case of arms control

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 505-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAROLINE FEHL
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Recent Trend ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
Institutional Legacies ◽  
Institutional Order

AbstractIR scholars have recently paid increasing attention to unequal institutional orders in world politics, arguing that global governance institutions are deeply shaped by power inequalities among states. Yet, the literature still suffers from conceptual limitations and from a shortage of empirical work. The article addresses these shortcomings through a study of the historical evolution of global arms control institutions since 1945. It shows that in this important policy area, the global institutional order has not been marked by a recent trend toward deeper inequality, as many writings on unequal institutions suggest. Instead, the analysis reveals a pattern of institutional mutation whereby specific forms of institutional inequality are recurrently replaced and supplemented by new forms. This process, the article argues, is driven by states' efforts to adapt the regime to a changing material and normative environment within the constraints of past institutional legacies.

From meditation to action – a research agenda for studying informal global rule-making: remarks on ‘Cosmopolitanism, publicity, and the emergence of a “global administrative law”’

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Institutional Architecture ◽  
Global Law ◽  
Rule Making ◽  
Law Making

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.

Constructing Identity in “Glocal” Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-106
Author(s):  
M. A. Muqtedar Khan
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Socioeconomic Conditions ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Important Concept ◽  
Construction Of Identity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This paper seeks to understand the impact of current global politicaland socioeconomic conditions on the construction of identity. I advancean argument based on a two-step logic. First, I challenge the characterizationof current socioeconomic conditions as one of globalization bymarshaling arguments and evidence that strongly suggest that along withglobalization, there are simultaneous processes of localization proliferatingin the world today. I contend that current conditions are indicative ofthings far exceeding the scope of globalization and that they can bedescribed more accurately as ccglocalization.~H’2a ving established thisclaim, I show how the processes of glocalization affect the constructionof Muslim identity.Why do I explore the relationship between glocalization and identityconstruction? Because it is significant. Those conversant with current theoreticaldebates within the discipline of international relations’ are awarethat identity has emerged as a significant explanatory construct in internationalrelations theory in the post-Cold War era.4 In this article, I discussthe emergence of identity as an important concept in world politics.The contemporary field of international relations is defined by threephilosophically distinct research programs? rationalists: constructivists,’and interpretivists.’ The moot issue is essentially a search for the mostimportant variable that can help explain or understand the behavior ofinternational actors and subsequently explain the nature of world politicsin order to minimize war and maximize peace.Rationalists contend that actors are basically rational actors who seekthe maximization of their interests, interests being understood primarilyin material terms and often calculated by utility functions maximizinggiven preferences? Interpretivists include postmodernists, critical theorists,and feminists, all of whom argue that basically the extant worldpolitical praxis or discourses “constitute” international agents and therebydetermine their actions, even as they reproduce world politics by ...

scholarly journals Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott ◽  
Benjamin Faude
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Structural Difference ◽  
Functional Differentiation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
The Core ◽  
Institutional Strategies

AbstractMost issue areas in world politics today are governed neither by individual institutions nor by regime complexes composed of formal interstate institutions. Rather, they are governed by “hybrid institutional complexes” (HICs) comprising heterogeneous interstate, infra-state, public–private and private transnational institutions, formal and informal. We develop the concept of the HIC as a novel descriptive and analytical lens for the study of contemporary global governance. The core structural difference between HICs and regime complexes is the greater diversity of institutional forms within HICs. Because of that diversity, HICs operate differently than regime complexes in two significant ways: (1) HICs exhibit relatively greater functional differentiation among their component institutions, and hence suffer from relatively fewer overlapping claims to authority; and (2) HICs exhibit greater informal hierarchy among their component institutions, and hence benefit from greater ordering. Both are systemic features. HICs have characteristic governance benefits: they offer good “substantive fit” for multi-faceted governance problems and good “political fit” for the preferences of diverse constituents; constrain conflictive cross-institutional strategies; and are conducive to mechanisms of coordination, which enhance substantive coherence. Yet HICs also pose characteristic governance risks: individual institutions may take on aspects of problems for which they are ill-suited; multiple institutions may create confusion; HICs can amplify conflict and contestation rather than constraining them; and the “soft” institutions within HICs can reduce the focality of incumbent treaties and intergovernmental organizations and forestall the establishment of new ones. We outline a continuing research agenda for exploring the structures, operations and governance implications of HICs.

scholarly journals The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 14-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Biermann ◽  
Philipp Pattberg ◽  
Harro van Asselt ◽  
Fariborz Zelli
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Governance Architecture

Most research on global governance has focused either on theoretical accounts of the overall phenomenon or on empirical studies of distinct institutions that serve to solve particular governance challenges. In this article we analyze instead “governance architectures,” defined as the overarching system of public and private institutions, principles, norms, regulations, decision-making procedures and organizations that are valid or active in a given issue area of world politics. We focus on one aspect that is turning into a major source of concern for scholars and policy-makers alike: the “fragmentation” of governance architectures in important policy domains. The article offers a typology of different degrees of fragmentation, which we describe as synergistic, cooperative, and conflictive fragmentation. We then systematically assess alternative hypotheses over the relative advantages and disadvantages of different degrees of fragmentation. We argue that moderate degrees of fragmentation may entail both significant costs and benefits, while higher degrees of fragmentation are likely to decrease the overall performance of a governance architecture. The article concludes with policy options on how high degrees of fragmentation could be reduced. Fragmentation is prevalent in particular in the current governance of climate change, which we have hence chosen as illustration for our discussion.

Accelerating democratic global state formation

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Chase-Dunn ◽  
Hiroko Inoue
Keyword(s):  
State Formation ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International System ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Global State ◽  
World State ◽  
Global Democracy ◽  
15Th Century ◽  
Historical Processes

This article discusses the evolution of the international system and global governance within the Europe-centred modern world-system since the 15th century in the context of a comparative framework that includes interpolity systems since the Stone Age. The evolution of the modern system includes the emergence of the European system of sovereign national states and colonial empires, the extension of the Westphalian system to the non-core by succeeding waves of decolonization, the rise and fall of successively larger hegemons, the deepening of global capitalism in waves of globalization, the emergence of weak international regulatory institutions and the prospects for and the rapid emergence of global democracy. It is not claimed that a global state has already emerged, but the authors see the long-term processes as the early stages of the emergence of a world state, and consider how these processes might be accelerated within the next few decades. The need for democratization of the institutions of global governance is also discussed. However, in this article, the focus is more on real geo-historical processes than normative questions, outlining the evolution of interpolity institutional orders, describing the challenges in thinking about global state formation, and discussing some of the technological and political forces that might accelerate the long-term trend toward global state formation.

“It’s the End of the World as We Know It”

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-576
Author(s):  
Matthias Hofferberth ◽  
Daniel Lambach
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Punk Rock ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
The World ◽  
New Energy ◽  
End Of The World

Abstract This article contends that practices of, and reflections on, global governance are diversifying without any particular teleology. Therefore, it proposes a “postgovernance” perspective to capture and make sense of the multiplicity of concurrent developments. Just like post-punk followed punk rock and provided new energy, postgovernance provides opportunities to revitalize debates on world politics. Postgovernance allows both scholars and practitioners to consider the persistence of “traditional” forms of global governance as well as the simultaneous emergence of new approaches. This article thus proposes postgovernance as a mode of world politics in a postparadigmatic world that is dynamic yet inconsistent. We advance this argument by outlining what postgovernance entails, by taking stock of current debates from a postgovernance perspective, and by discussing how these can be advanced from a postgovernance point of view.

scholarly journals Contemplating Cosmopolitan Global Governance in Postcolonial Discourse Analysis

Federalism-E ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-76
Author(s):  
Ajnesh Prasad
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
World Politics ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Clash Of Civilizations ◽  
End Of History ◽  
The End Of History ◽  
Postcolonial Discourse ◽  
The Cold War

“The international community is at a crossroads” (Held, 1995a: 96). Since the conclusion of the Cold War and with the elimination of the bipolar world thereafter, many scholars have attempted to theorize, if only to evaluate, the transformations that have taken place within the realm of world politics in the last decade and a half. From Francis Fukuyama’s argument, the “End of History” (1992), to Samuel Huntington’s thesisclaim, the “Clash of Civilizations” (1993), there have been categorizing, and ultimately limiting, understandings of international affairs in the postcommunist period. Consequently, discursive and explicit interstices of antagonistic tension continue to prevail and manifest into graphic demonstrations of hegemonic aggression and parochial actions of daily resistance. The international interstices of antagonistic tension continue to threaten immeasurable tragedy at the most globalized landscape. Remnants of these present tensions go so far as to predicate the aggressive and resistant temperament of events like the aircraft attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. [...]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document