Secrets in Global Governance: Disclosure Dilemmas and the Challenge of International Cooperation in World Politics. By Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. 362p. $99.99 cloth, $34.99 paper.

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 1043-1045
Author(s):  
Claudia Hillebrand
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-21
Author(s):  
M. M. Lebedeva ◽  
D. A. Kuznetsov

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which caused a pandemic in 2020, has posed not only a medical, economic and social threat, but also a challenge to international security and international cooperation. It is now becoming obvious that the problem of the current pandemic cannot be reduced to individual states and regions and has the potential to influence the entire political organization of the modern world. Analyzing the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in world politics, the authors rely on the concept of transformations in the system of the world political organization, as well as the concept of global governance and megatrends of world politics, the key of which is globalization. The authors of the article consider the experience of individual global and regional associations, which are considered to be the elements of global governance, whose functions, among the other, include responding to challenges of a biogenic nature, identifying several important trends, among which are the intensification of previously emerging trends, the strengthening of isolationism, the growing political fragmentation of the world, destructive influence of “coronacrisis” on globalization, but with parallel sectoral polarization in global economy, a new balancing between cooperation and competition in international relations. At the same time, it is argued that there is no alternative to international cooperation in solving problems of a global nature, which can hardly indicate the end of globalization and the triumph of disintegration and de-democratization. The authors argue about the heightened need to reform global governance, since the efforts of individual international associations cannot lead to solving global challenges, and the national-centrist approach to solving global problems proves its inefficiency and irresponsibility. As a result, we are talking about the lack of alternative to the idea of forming a system of global governance, which should be based on cooperation and interaction of states, international organizations and institutions, as well as business structures and academic communities, in other words, rely on multilateral and multilevel approach. The authors are convinced of the need to develop a project of an “ideal future” taking into account the identified trends in the transformation of the political organization of the world and the effects of megatrends, which implies the further development of scientific research and discussions, as well as a series of international negotiating forums on the future structure of the world and the corresponding pattern of global governance.


Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott ◽  
Benjamin Faude

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 14-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Biermann ◽  
Philipp Pattberg ◽  
Harro van Asselt ◽  
Fariborz Zelli

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document