Global governance is a system of principles, institutions, legal and political norms, as well as behavioral standards that determine the regulation of global and transnational issues in social and natural spaces. This regulation is carried out as a result of interaction between states through the formation of mechanisms and structures by them. It is also possible to interact at the level of non-governmental organizations participating in international activities. In this article, we will talk about this concept, attempts to bring it to life.
The emergence of the concept
The concept of "global governance" has been actively used since the 1970s, when a large number of international communities of a planetary scale began to emerge in the conditions of the formation of complex interdependence in the world. This required the creation of mechanisms for the joint regulation of world processes, as well as morehighly coordinated.
There is a need for global governance. His practice and ideas have now undergone significant changes. At the same time, it is still not clear which principle will nevertheless be taken as its basis.
Scientific proof of concept
The first concept of global governance was the theory of political realism, formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. Its founders were American and British researchers - Carr, Morgenthau, Kennany. In their writings, they were primarily based on the conclusions made by the English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who is considered the founder of the social contract theory.
In his monograph "Leviathan" Hobbes talked about the problems of state formation. In particular, he considered the state of freedom, which he considered natural. According to him, the people residing in it were neither subjects nor sovereigns.
Hobbes was sure that over time people themselves come to the idea of the need to limit the state of absolute freedom. Due to the fact that human nature is inherently self-centered, this provokes violence and constant conflicts. The desire to get rid of wars and disasters leads to the fact that people begin to independently limit their rights in favor of the state, concluding the so-called social contract. His task is to ensure the safety of citizens and peace within the country.
Proponents of political realism began to extrapolate the ideas of Hobbes to the sphere of international relations. They claimed thatinteraction between countries takes place at a chaotic level, since no model of a supranational center exists. Because of this, the ultimate goal of countries becomes personal survival.
Social Contract
Thinking further, some came to the conclusion that sooner or later international political acts should be concluded in the form of a similar social contract that would prevent any wars, even permanent ones. Ultimately, this will lead to the possibility of global governance of the world, the creation of a world government or a world state.
It should be noted that the supporters of the realistic school came to the conclusion that such a development of events is unlikely. In their opinion, nationalism, which remains the strongest form of ideology, should have prevented this, since until now independent nation-states refuse to recognize any higher authority over themselves, delegating at least part of their own sovereignty to it. This makes the idea of strategic global management seem impossible.
Besides, the emerging anarchy of international relations does not indicate that the world is always in a state of war "all against all". Foreign policy must necessarily take into account the interests of other subjects. Every ruler comes to this at some point.
For the sake of realizing specific political goals, states enter into all sorts of alliances among themselves, which makes it possible to make the international situation morecalm. The emerging balance of power leads to stability, which is based on an approximately equal distribution of power even among the largest and most influential players.
Ideology of liberalism
The school of liberalism appears to be one of the oldest in the study of international relations. Its proponents regularly discuss the possibility of global governance. In many of their positions, they are in positions opposite to realism.
It is noteworthy that many liberals, like realists, base their conclusions on the work of Enlightenment philosophers. In particular, Rousseau and Locke. Accepting the possibility of anarchy in international relations, they claim that man is not inherently aggressive, as he is aimed at cooperation. When governance becomes international, it is more preferable than any conflict, both ethically and rationally.
At the same time, the material dependence of states on each other is growing significantly, which is becoming one of the hallmarks of globalization, necessitating international regulation, that is, global governance.
According to liberals, international organizations contribute to the spread of stability in the world, pacifying strong states by creating new rules and norms in international politics. This is the concept of global governance. In addition, they have the ability to manage or prevent conflicts between states.
Summing upliberals' views on this problem, it is worth noting that they consider economically significant trade an important component influencing the reduction in the number of possible contradictions between countries. Any phenomena and processes that increase the interdependence of the world are considered as prerequisites for global economic governance. This concept in their view is a factor in the deployment of globalization.
Options for the existence of world government
There are several views on the possibilities of managing global systems and processes. For example, it is proposed to form a single world government. This approach involves its creation and subsequent functioning in the image of domestic government.
In this case, the problem of global governance is the ability to give it the appropriate powers to which all countries would obey equally. We have to admit that at the moment this option is not considered due to its low probability.
Most experts tend to believe that modern independent states will not recognize any higher authority over themselves, and even more so delegate to it even part of the authority in resolving certain issues. Therefore, global political governance based on domestic methods is not possible.
Besides, with such a variety of political systems, levels of economic development, traditions, it looks completely utopian.
However, this approachregularly discussed by supporters of all kinds of conspiracy theories. The so-called conspiracy theories assign the functions of world government to various fictional or real-life structures. For example, G8, United Nations, G20, Bilderberg, Freemasons, Illuminati, Committee of 300.
UN reform
Another global governance approach is based on reforming the existing United Nations. The essence of this idea is that the UN should become the central and key link in the governance of the world. At the same time, it is assumed that its institutions will be transformed into sectoral departments and ministries.
At the same time, the Security Council would take over the function of a kind of world government, and the General Assembly would act as a parliament. The International Monetary Fund in this structure is assigned the role of the world central bank.
Most skeptics consider this form of global process management unrealizable. So far, the only truly significant reform at the UN was in 1965.
In 1992, the Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the UN, urged all countries to make further changes to bring the organization more and more in line with modern realities. This idea was actively discussed, but did not lead to anything.
According to many modern experts, the UN has now become an extensive system,which is more like a prototype of a civil society, far from ideal, rather than a world government. In this regard, it is believed that in the future the UN will move and develop in this direction. Its main activity will be directed towards civil society, contacts with the national community, socially responsible business, non-governmental structures.
US influence
Perhaps no discussion of world government goes by without mentioning the growing hegemony of the United States in the world, which leads to an understanding of an exclusively unipolar world.
This approach is connected with the idea of monocentricity, when America leads everything as the main and only player. One of the main proponents of this model is Zbigniew Brzezinski, an American sociologist and political scientist of Polish origin.
Brzezinski identifies four major areas in which America is and should continue to be a leader. This is economic, military-political, mass and technological culture.
If you follow this concept, America opened up endless possibilities at the end of the 20th century. This happened after the collapse of the socialist system led by the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
Given the approximately equal strength of opponents, after the collapse of the bipolar model of the world, the US became the sole owner. Globalization, which nevertheless continues to occur, is carried out indemocratic-liberal spirit, which America is completely satisfied with. In addition, this model helps to increase the economic potential of the state. At the same time, the vast majority of other states do not show strong dissatisfaction with the actions of the United States.
This situation persisted in the 1990s, but at the beginning of the 21st century it began to change dramatically. India and China began to play their role, as well as Western countries, which increasingly began to show their dissatisfaction with America's actions. As a result, it is now increasingly difficult for the United States to carry out its policy without taking into account the interests, goals and activities of other significant world powers. In this regard, more and more researchers are skeptical about the idea of US hegemony.
International policy coordination
At present, the most realistic model seems to be one that will result in the deepening and expansion of international politics in various fields. It is believed that this can happen due to the detailing and expansion of the existing agenda, as well as the involvement of new participants, which can become not only countries, but also corporations, organizations, various public institutions.
The discussion about the expediency and necessity of an international coalition has been going on since the end of the 19th century. After the First World War, it intensified especially strongly. It is in it that politicians from different countries of the world see the key to maintaining stability and peace. They, in their opinion, should become the main goals of global governance.
Searching for similar efficient ways to coordinate a given systemcontinued throughout the 20th century. Despite some objective factors preventing this, it continues at the present time.
Formats
The possibility of international policy coordination is seen in various institutional formats. They are classified depending on the adoption of certain political decisions. They can be centralized, provided that the participants delegate their powers to a single coordinating center, as well as decentralized, when each of the delegates decides for himself.
Decisions are expected each time to be made by consensus and negotiation, based on previously known and agreed rules that have been accepted by all parties to the commitments without exception.
Today, among influential international organizations, there are those that are able to practically independently carry out centralized policy coordination on the basis of agreements and rules previously adopted by them. In doing so, they use delegated powers and resources. These include, for example, the World Bank.
Others coordinate the policies of other members based on a system of negotiations and agreements, such as the World Trade Organization. An example of decentralized coordination is the G20 summits and the like. Such coordination is carried out on the basis of formal agreements. A striking example is the actions of all politicians who signed the Paris climate agreement.
Conclusion
Concluding, one canrecognize that attempts at interstate coordination of politics and economics were repeatedly made in the 20th-21st centuries. However, none of them proved to be truly successful.
In the context of the growing dependence of countries against the backdrop of globalization, the idea of isolationism has been completely ruled out today.
As a result, neither the emergence of a world government nor the existence of a single hegemonic state can be expected in the near future.
It is believed that the most likely alternative to coordination between states will be interaction based on institutions and formats that have become traditional. However, they will be constantly improved, adopting new rules, following other principles.
