ASEAN+3: The Failure of Global Governance and the Construction of Regional Institutions

2004 ◽  
pp. 215-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Nabers
Author(s):  
Nida Alahmad

This chapter argues that, while we can conceive of a ‘global’ or a ‘regional’ governance structure, a ‘critical regional perspective’ is not possible for three reasons. First, there is a problem of governance as a technology of ordering the world that requires the production of abstracted forms of knowledge; second, the problem of determining what a critical ‘regional’ perspective on global governance might be; and third, a critical perspective that would account for the daily lives of people cannot be produced by regional institutions, which are rarely representative of popular democratic movements. In the Middle East, the Arab League has historically been weak, reflecting turbulent regional power relations. As such, it is difficult to identify a regional perspective based on the League’s governance practices. If a regional political counter-perspective to global governance is not possible (as in the Middle East), one cannot speak of a cultural (counter) perspective on governance.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 294-298
Author(s):  
Maria Sapignoli

Under the banner “AI (artificial intelligence) for good,” new technologies are becoming more and more central to the agendas of global and regional institutions, as technologies to be embraced and regulated at the same time. This is indicated by the 2018 UN Secretary General's Strategy on New Technology, and by the most recent European Commission proposal to regulate artificial intelligence systems. In this essay, I discuss how anthropology and its ethnographic method could contribute to our understanding of the AI-turn in global governance, by shedding greater light on the effects that the use of this technology has for society, the work of institutions, and the production and application of international law. I argue that engaging ethnographically with AI techniques and knowledge could also bring about a transformation in governance, policy-making, and anthropological theory.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Paris

For many students of global governance who explore the myriad institutions, rules, norms, and coordinating arrangements that transcend individual states and societies, what really marks the contemporary era is not the absence of such governance but its “astonishing diversity.” In addition to “long-standing universal-membership bodies,” such as the United Nations, writes Stewart Patrick, “there are various regional institutions, multilateral alliances and security groups, standing consultative mechanisms, self-selecting clubs, ad hoc coalitions, issue-specific arrangements, transnational professional networks, technical standard-setting bodies, global action networks, and more.” The proliferation and diversification of governance mechanisms—yielding a jumble of formal and informal arrangements—has supplanted the simpler image of state representatives gathering at official assemblies. Many scholars believe this pluralism opens important new avenues for tackling a growing array of complex transnational problems, particularly at a time when the responsiveness of traditional multilateral institutions is being called into question.


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