scholarly journals Legitimacy in Global Governance

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Sociological Approach ◽  
The Core ◽  
Governance Institutions

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume: to develop an agenda for systematic and comparative research on legitimacy in global governance. In complementary fashion, the chapters address different aspects of the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. The volume makes four specific contributions. First, it argues for a sociological approach to legitimacy, centered on perceptions of legitimate global governance among affected audiences. Second, it moves beyond the traditional focus on states as the principal audience for legitimacy in global governance and considers a full spectrum of actors from governments to citizens. Third, it advocates a comparative approach to the study of legitimacy in global governance, and suggests strategies for comparison across institutions, issue areas, countries, societal groups, and time. Fourth, the volume offers the most comprehensive treatment so far of the sociological legitimacy of global governance, covering three broad analytical themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Tallberg ◽  
Karin Bäckstrand ◽  
Jan Aart Scholte
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Sociological Approach ◽  
The Core ◽  
Governance Institutions

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume, which engages with the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. This introductory chapter explains the rationale of the book, introduces its conceptual framework, reviews existing literature, and presents the key themes of the volume. It emphasizes in particular the volume’s sociological approach to legitimacy in global governance, its comparative scope, and its comprehensive treatment of the topic. Moreover, a specific effort is made to explain how each chapter moves beyond existing research in exploring the book’s three themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.

Effects of Legitimacy Crises in Complex Global Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariborz Zelli
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Institutional Complexity ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
Institutional Architecture ◽  
Modes Of Governance

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.

scholarly journals Improving global governance: making global institutions fit-for-purpose in the 21st century

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Clark
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
Global Institutions ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Fit For Purpose ◽  
Governance Institutions

In this lecture I will: comment on some of the complex challenges of the 21st century which cry out for effective global governance reflecting today’s geopolitical and other realities; and examine whether global governance institutions – particularly in the areas of peace and security, economic governance, sustainable development and climate change – have kept up with geopolitical changes and been able to tackle emerging challenges to ensure their continued effectiveness, legitimacy and accountability. 

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.

The Intersection of Security and Justice in Global Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Durch ◽  
Joris Larik ◽  
Richard Ponzio
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Structural Violence ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
International Level ◽  
The Core ◽  
Personal Community

Security and justice are both essential elements in humanity’s quest not only to survive but to thrive with dignity; neither is sustainable alone. Security is merely the appearance of order in a framework of structural violence unless tempered or leavened by concepts of justice that include human rights, human dignity, and other normative limits on the use of power. The pursuit of justice, whether at the personal, community, national, or international level can be crippled if not matched, in turn, by means to sustain security at each level. This complementarity of security and justice—despite their inherent tensions—is the core conceptual framework of the book. Achieving “just security,” we argue, is essential to the success of any global governance enterprise or architecture.

The Paris Agreement—China’s Kind of (International) Order?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Krahl
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
World Order ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Old Order ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
Emerging Powers ◽  
International Status

The Paris Agreement has turned traditional approaches to global governance upside down, using a bottom-up approach that made it possible for emerging powers like China to agree to binding emissions targets to contain climate change. It thus marks a further step away from the old order centered on Western power, and at the same time it fits well into Chinese attempts to create a post-American order that rests on great power diplomacy within a multilateral framework of cooperation that privileges developing countries. The Paris Agreement allows China to leverage the internal fight against pollution and the restructuring and upgrading of its economy for international status. That the agreement has so far survived President Trump’s announcement of America’s departure suggests that it could yet serve as a blueprint for other, future arrangements for world order that would be able to integrate a risen China.

scholarly journals Grassroots and Global Governance: Can Global–Local Linkages Foster Food System Resilience for Small Northern Canadian Communities?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 2415
Author(s):  
Carla Johnston ◽  
Andrew Spring
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Land Tenure ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Food System ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Global Network ◽  
Global Networks

Communities in Canada’s Northwest Territories (NWT) are at the forefront of the global climate emergency. Yet, they are not passive victims; local-level programs are being implemented across the region to maintain livelihoods and promote adaptation. At the same time, there is a recent call within global governance literature to pay attention to how global policy is implemented and affecting people on the ground. Thinking about these two processes, we ask the question: (how) can global governance assist northern Indigenous communities in Canada in reaching their goals of adapting their food systems to climate change? To answer this question, we argue for a “community needs” approach when engaging in global governance literature and practice, which puts community priorities and decision-making first. As part of a collaborative research partnership, we highlight the experiences of Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation, located in Kakisa, NWT, Canada. We include their successes of engaging in global network building and the systemic roadblock of lack of formal land tenure. Moreover, we analyze potential opportunities for this community to engage with global governance instruments and continue connecting to global networks that further their goals related to climate change adaptation and food sovereignty.

scholarly journals COVID-19 and future pandemics: a global systems approach and relevance to SDGs

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tharanga Thoradeniya ◽  
Saroj Jayasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Rna Virus ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Systems Science ◽  
World Population ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Physical Environments ◽  
Corporate Interests

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely impacting modern human civilization. A global view using a systems science approach is necessary to recognize the close interactions between health of animals, humans and the environment. Discussion A model is developed initially by describing five sequential or parallel steps on how a RNA virus emerged from animals and became a pandemic: 1. Origins in the animal kingdom; 2. Transmission to domesticated animals; 3. Inter-species transmission to humans; 4. Local epidemics; 5. Global spread towards a pandemic. The next stage identifies global level determinants from the physical environments, the biosphere and social environment that influence these steps to derive a generic conceptual model. It identifies that future pandemics are likely to emerge from ecological processes (climate change, loss of biodiversity), anthropogenic social processes (i.e. corporate interests, culture and globalization) and world population growth. Intervention would therefore require modifications or dampening these generators and prevent future periodic pandemics that would reverse human development. Addressing issues such as poorly planned urbanization, climate change and deforestation coincide with SDGs such as sustainable cities and communities (Goal 11), climate action (Goal 13) and preserving forests and other ecosystems (Goal 15). This will be an added justification to address them as global priorities. Some determinants in the model are poorly addressed by SDGs such as the case of population pressures, cultural factors, corporate interests and globalization. The overarching process of globalization will require modifications to the structures, processes and mechanisms of global governance. The defects in global governance are arguably due to historical reasons and the neo-liberal capitalist order. This became evident especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 when the vaccination roll-out led to violations of universal values of equity and right to life by some of the powerful and affluent nations. Summary A systems approach leads us to a model that shows the need to tackle several factors, some of which are not adequately addressed by SDGs and require restructuring of global governance and political economy.

scholarly journals Effects of Climate Change on Grassland Biodiversity and Productivity

Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1047
Author(s):  
Gianni Bellocchi ◽  
Catherine Picon-Cochard
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Plant Species ◽  
Livestock Farming ◽  
Low Input ◽  
The Core ◽  
Fodder Production ◽  
Grassland Biodiversity ◽  
High Diversity

Associated with livestock farming, grasslands with a high diversity of plant species are at the core of low-input fodder production worldwide [...]

scholarly journals Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392199910
Author(s):  
Nina Frahm ◽  
Tess Doezema ◽  
Sebastian Pfotenhauer
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Responsible Innovation ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Societal Participation ◽  
New Vision ◽  
Governance Institutions

Long presented as a universal policy-recipe for social prosperity and economic growth, the promise of innovation seems to be increasingly in question, giving way to a new vision of progress in which society is advanced as a central enabler of technoeconomic development. Frameworks such as “Responsible” or “Mission-oriented” Innovation, for example, have become commonplace parlance and practice in the governance of the innovation–society nexus. In this paper, we study the dynamics by which this “social fix” to technoscience has gained legitimacy in institutions of global governance by investigating recent projects at two international organizations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission, to mainstream “Responsible Innovation” frameworks and instruments across countries. Our analysis shows how the turn to societal participation in both organizations relies on a new deficit logic—a democratic deficit of innovation—that frames a lack of societal engagement in innovation governance as a major barrier to the uptake and dissemination of new technologies. These deficit politics enable global governance institutions to present “Responsible Innovation” frameworks as the solution and to claim authority over the coproduction of particular forms of democracy and innovation as intertwined pillars of a market-liberal international order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document