The Architecture of Global Governance

Problems and Issues

Statement of the problem

Even with an increasing consensus regarding the need for global policies, the nature and scope of the institutional architecture for global governance remain controversial. The mismatch between demands and existing institutional mandates is at the core of the controversy about the reform of the United Nations, but it also plays a role in many conflicts arising in regional multilateral organizations – such as the European Union and Mercosur – about the definition of common governance objectives, and reconciling national socio-economic imperatives and often long-agreed collective objectives.

Part of the difficulties in advancing negotiations derive from the complexity of the issues at hand, the cumbersome nature of multilateral negotiations and the disparity of interests and power between the various international stakeholders.

A competitive and changing economic environment and an unstable energy market exacerbate the individualistic pursuit of advantages and impose a “prisoner’s dilemma” on international relations. A decline in multilateralism and the increasing tendency by developed and developing countries alike to shift the forum of negotiations from the global to the bilateral have further contributed to the lack of global institutional reforms.

Furthermore, the nature of north-south relations has radically changed in the post Cold War era, giving birth to fragmented and temporary alliances and a variable geometry of agreements between the US and developing countries, which reflect shifting perceptions about opportunities for economic development and security threats. Indeed, the architecture of global governance is also guided by security considerations, which are all-encompassing but politically unclear. While the geography of power and military strength is quite evident, the problems, countries and issues perceived as security risks have not been subjected to a concerted political assessment.

The absence of counterbalancing powers to an inward-oriented US hegemonic position, the lack of political consensus regarding a global governance agenda within the European Union and the cautious international positions of the emerging powers have also considerably weakened the prospects of multilateral agreements concerning governance.

The deadlock over the re-organization of the Security Council, the unstable identity of cold war institutions such as NATO and the wavering commitments towards the creation of a European common defence force are additional examples of how the post Cold War political scenario deters institutional innovations in governance.

It is in this context of uncontested political hegemony, and incomplete regional partnerships that new ideas regarding a more appropriate architecture for global governance have to be developed.

Issues to be highlighted

• Are new instruments for negotiating global issues being developed at a bilateral level? What are the possibilities of developing alternative institutional scenarios and negotiating instruments which advance the cause of global governance and reflect the new emerging international political scenario?
  
• How do regional institutions today contribute to the governance debate? What lessons can be learned from the European experience of governance and how international is this experience?
  
• Does the strengthening of political groupings such as the G20 indicate new paths for the negotiation of governance problems? Is reinforcing these institutions an alternative for the stalemate in multilateral organizations such as the UN? Can these institutions bridge the legal and institutional gaps in the existing architecture for global governance?
  
• How do the unresolved reform themes of the 1980s, such as the reform of international financial institutions and the increase in development assistance, fit into the agenda of global governance today?
  
• Are security concerns conditioning short-term institutional arrangements for global governance or are they a new permanent variable of the governance design? What are the prospects for defining an agenda for a political discussion of emerging long-term security issues?