Expert Networking and International Governance: Questions of Democracy

Networks of experts coordinated or orchestrated by international bodies have become so widespread and influential that they are said to shape a new world order. Standards for consumer safety, investor protection, and environmental sustainability are governed by appeals to the epistemic authority of experts. Typically, formal international organizations orchestrate cross-border constellations of public–private collaborations between groups that are deemed to have relevant knowledge. This trend is part of a depoliticization of decision-making; policy issues are framed as technical problems that should be kept at a distance from party politics. The question here is how to conceptualize and assess this development in democratic terms. In political theory, three kinds of approach have evolved in response to this trend. At one extreme, the argument is that governance beyond the state cannot be legitimate until it has implemented modes of representation and contestation familiar from the domestic context. At the other extreme, the argument is that legitimacy beyond the state should be decoupled from democratic concerns and be legitimated on technocratic grounds. Between these two poles is the argument that democracy does not have to resemble the domestic model in organizational terms and can fruitfully be reconceived or reinterpreted in the international context. Versions of the reinterpretive approach are currently popular under different theoretical labels. It is fruitful to use it as a model for considering questions of democratic legitimacy for the expert networks that constitute or interact with international organizations. In following the reinterpretive route, a natural starting point is to consider what the key evaluative dimensions of democracy are. At an abstract level, democracy is about three main considerations: 1. Authorization: The people are the rightful principals of public action. It is necessary to consider how people can be empowered to challenge and potentially veto opinions that flow from expert networks. 2. Attitude: Democratically justified institutions express the right kind of concern for people as equals. There are important questions about how the technical rationalities of expert networks can show consideration for a reasonable pluralism of perspectives and how “soft law” can address subjects with appropriate respect for citizens’ claim to justification and rule of law. 3. Area: The authority of democratically legitimate institutions must be matched by a defined sphere of answerability. For the area of expert networks, this issue concerns both the scope of expert mandates and whether there is a fit between mandate and actual practice. The task for an assessment of the democratic legitimacy of expert networks is to consider more fully what each of these evaluative dimensions imply in the relevant context.

Omnilingual Aspirations: The Case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the most widely translated document. However, versions in 419 languages are not conceived as translations but equivalences, alternate embodiments of identical tenets. The Bible has been rendered into numerous languages, but the Hebrew and Greek originals possess authority that English, Bengali, and Xhosa derivatives do not. The Bible is translated, but the UDHR is, through the theology of international governance, transubstantiated into multiple tongues. No version has priority; each is equally valid, transparent, and interchangeable. The utopian premise is not only that all humans possess inalienable rights but also that all languages express the same principles. The document’s title, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, might seem a solecism, a misplaced modifier. Surely, it is human rights that are universal, not the declaration. However, the UN insists that all versions (at least in the original official languages) are equally binding. It rejects Whorfian notions that particular languages enable particular thoughts and embraces languages as neutral tools whose specific manifestation is irrelevant. Arguments against imprisoning writers in Burma could appeal equally to the authority of either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme or Всеобщую декларацию прав человека or la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos or 世界人权宣言. Rather than the Babelian myth of an Ur-Sprache before hubris scattered us into mutual unintelligibility, the UDHR endorses a Chomskyan belief that all languages can express the same thoughts. Yet differences among versions of Article 1 (“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”) are not trivial; dignity is incommensurable with Würde, αξιοπρέπεια, dignidade, waardigheid, or достоинства. The UDHR is a translingual text shaped by the languages of framers and translators.

Challenges and Approaches of the Global Governance of Public Health Under COVID-19

Public health events, as the common concern faced by the international community, call for the joint response from all mankind. The outbreak of the COVID-19 has highlighted the problems confronting the global governance of international public health, such as limited functions of international organizations and difficulties in achieving objectives, poor collaboration between governance subjects and their limited performance, overlapping legal basis of governance and blurred core function, and lack of solutions to special problems. The corresponding approaches can be taken to improve the efficiency of the governance of global public health, including supporting the role of international organizations to achieve the objectives, enhancing coordination among international governance subjects to form synergy, promoting the compliance with IHR2005 to avoid conflict of law application and upholding the vision of a community with a shared future for mankind to jointly respond to the special problems.

Political Leadership and Financial Emoluments: A Case of Developing Countries

The theoretical concept of political leadership would have to be the most elusive and fluid concept of leadership. It has within its authority dominated policies, influenced security- intelligence, shaped intellectual-cultures, inspired citizens-aspirations and has directed the trajectory of nation-states and sovereignties within international governance and global affairs. The political behaviors of developing nations through foreign policies, national interests and diplomacy have been a reflection of the authority of their political leadership; regime after regime. There are no best-kept secret to the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of political Leadership other than the influential impact of the political leader’s self-empowerment, self-leadership and self-legacy. Political Leadership is fundamentally controlled by the polices of choices where decisions meet actions and authoritarian powers redefines humanity. The elusive extent, and fluid depth of political influence through the impact of governance does not measure -up to the assurance of humanity in most developing countries around the world. The political consciousness and idiosyncrasies of most individuals over the years have contributed none or fewer interests to the study, the justification, and the analytical reasoning of the influence of political leadership. This new study and the assertive findings on this chapter are aimed to pragmatically educate, inspire, and reignite the zealousness of visionary leadership, through the consciousness of humanity. The intellectual assertions in this chapter are envisioned to create, expand and illuminate the distinctive reality between of our profound empirical knowledge, theoretical beliefs and interpretive researches on the conceptual understanding of political leadership. The topics in this chapter are aimed to create an endless stream to the consciousness of political leadership and financial gains to the betterment of humanity. It expands the understanding of political leadership through psychological lens beyond the titles, offices and political display of power. Political leadership in developing countries can improve and offer better outcomes in todays world, when humanity meets the consciousness of political leadership in financial prosperity. The societal divisions of ethnicity, wealth and the polarization of political ideologies into sets of beliefs, questions the influential impact of political leadership. As political leaders govern and navigate through their leadership goals, aspirations and visions more often than not, the traits of their ethnic identity, individuality and beliefs constantly create struggles with their understanding and acceptance of humanity as a whole.

The commons as a paradigm shift for a regenerative

As the Earth System's trajectory approaches an irreversible path towards a "Hothouse Earth", societies remain unable to collectively ensure the maintenance of a stable climate. Nearly 30 years have passed after climate change was considered a Common Concern of Humankind, a status that remains the legal framework adopted by the Paris Agreement. A stable climate is a manifestation of the stable and well-defined functioning of the Earth System. Although intangible, a stable climate exists in the real world and is necessarily a common good for being limited, exhaustible, and non-excludable. Thus, a congruent system between the rules of appropriation (negative impacts) and provision of the global public good (positive impacts) is necessary for the effective management of the common good – stable climate. However, in the current legal framework that considers a stable climate a Common Concern of Humankind, a stable climate is invisible to our international legal system and economy, which makes it impossible for it to become an object of international governance. Here, the authors argue that the recognition of a stable climate as the Common Heritage of Humankind is the first and fundamental step for being able to act towards restoring and maintaining a stable climate.

International cooperation in developing countries health systems: in-depth analyses from Gaslini Children Hospital

Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide a framework useful for identifying the elements that aim for success in the construction of collaborative governance and to investigate how international governance systems have characterized the international collaborative projects developed by the International Division of Gaslini Children Hospital in Genoa (Italy). Critical and successful factors in developing partnerships in the healthcare sector have been identified. Design/methodology/approach A total of 15 projects implemented by the Gaslini Hospital in collaboration with a global network of low and middle-income countries were examined using a content analysis of the project reports. Later, a conceptual framework proposed by Emerson and colleagues was used to design a theoretical map for investigating elements of international governance systems. Findings A matrix developed in two categories (health cooperation and training, and exchange of best practices) and three branches of medicine (oncology, paediatrics and cardiology) made it possible to cluster the research projects. However, details of the collaborative process often overlooked by research on public-private partnerships emerged from the framework. Originality/value The growing demand for higher quality health services in low- and middle-income countries has led to an increasing number of partnerships with industrialized countries to enable access to wider resources and technologies and develop useful skills to adapt to changes in society. Through the application of collaborative governance’s framework to healthcare collaboration, different elements of the collaborative process emerged which have been previously neglected.