Facts and Arguments Related to Global Governance

Within the past few years global governance is a topic which has been raised quite frequently within discussions, it has been defined as a new, co-operative, though as yet largely unspecified way of running world affairs in response to the changes bought by both globalisation and rapid technological change. This definition of global governance is also agreed upon by Simai (1994) who states “it is the maintenance of social order world-wide, in which there is no world government and responsibility rests on no actor alone.

On the subject there are many different views for the need for global governance, but there are many arguments which highlight the importance of global governance, one of the main arguments is that global governance would be able to regulate other countries. This is that global governance demands that there is regulation which is beyond the normal parameters of the state. This idea has already been put in practice; examples of this would be the United Nations (UN) and also the world trade organisation (WTO).

These organisations were set up to regulate all of their members, to represent the countries which were in need of assistance, and also to negotiate terms of e. g. trade which would benefit populations or in some cases all of society (the banning of CFC’s). Latham agrees with this view as in his opinion “State governments are too inefficient and there is need for some degree of order which helps strengthen the argument of the effectiveness of global governance.

As global governance would be established to monitor the actions of countries, issues which they would have to scrutinize would be issues such as whether the populations were receiving at the very least their basic human rights; the reason for this is that “universal human rights are the basis of social organisation.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Cyber Crime

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Violations of these are a threat to peace, and their implementation on a global scale is the obligation of the international community. As stated above the WTO is a good example of this as they are a non-discriminatory body whose basic principles are the reciprocity of privileges, open markets, privatization, and liberalization.

This can be seen as a justification of the need for governance as if this organisation was not introduced countries would be able to take away both their own population and also other countries basic human rights, or maybe taking advantage of another nation’s situation which they may presently be in. Instead there would be a set of guidelines which countries would have to comply with, otherwise actions could be taken, sanctions or even a military takeover. Another point which supports the notion of the need for global governance is stated by Reginald Dale who says the argument for global governance is relatively simple, as many of today’s problems, such as crime disease, pollution and destabilizing capital flows are not confined to national borders and therefore cannot be solved by individual governments alone. Though individual countries can harm their neighbours, if not the entire world, for instance, by failing to control cyber crime, money laundering or environmental disasters.

This point elaborates the view how co-operation is needed from all nations as for example the technology in the UK or the USA would be more advanced then less developed countries such as Indonesia, and so the resources of more developed countries could help combat diseases effecting these populations. At present less developed countries are not receiving the representation which they require to help solve problems or concerns which they may have, as countries such as the UK and the USA (considered “rich countries”) are disproportionably represented when they attend summits or negotiations on area which concern the global population.

If global governance was actually introduced this would not be the case, this has two sides though as it means that though less developed countries would be willing to introduce this theory as it would give them more authority, countries such as the major powers would be less willing to give up their position of authority and so this is one of the reasons why it would be difficult for this notion to be implemented.

The last statement elaborates the fact of the control in which these “rich countries” have on the rest of them, this is why in fact that global governance has to be implemented as there will be a proportionate amount of representation and issues which are effecting the largest amount of people or are evaluated as most important topics are put into the forefront of the agenda, overall causing a fairer and just society. “Global governance is directed against a set of global problems.

Economic, security, and environmental issues are observed to be in the need of global management and submitted to global mechanisms and institutions. In this view, the outside of global governance consists in any resistance to the global management of the respective issue-areas. Since the initiatives and measures of global governance are meant to produce solutions to the issue-areas at hand, any forces that might challenge the governance effort are treated as undesirable disruptions.

Though this can be seen as a negative view of global governance, the statement could be also seen in a different light. The reason for this is that though it tells us that anything outside global governance is seen as a resistance, the quote shows us the main principles of global governance and if it was introduced would help cause a kind of security blanket for the members who complied with their regulations.

Throughout this essay it has been stated how global governance would act as a type of regulatory body monitoring the actions of the countries, though it would have to monitor regulations such as trade agreements it also can monitor actual leaders/presidents of countries to make sure they are using their influence and power in the most suitable way for the population which they govern, and so global governance can help promote human rights and has the capacity to contribute to that objective.

This train of thought is really touching on how global governance can help being a boundary for the political. This view is taken by Konrad Spath who states that “global governance takes place after the relevant issues are identified and the course of action is selected. Inside the global governance system, the type of problems and the form of solutions that should guide governance are already identified and are waiting for implementation.

Any form of politics is supposed to stay outside, because it would undermine the effective operation of the governance system. In this way, governance becomes somewhat “post-political”, because it is something that takes place after values are chosen, goals are set and political deliberations have designed the future path to a better world. Because political struggles and contests would be counterproductive to the emerging consensus of global regulation, governance itself has to become a sort of boundary for the political.

In conclusion, the main arguments for the need of global governance would be that as individual governments cannot solve all issues by themselves global governance can help to regulate all countries, give protection for human rights and trade agreements similar to that being carried out by organisations like the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Also, global governance would be a boundary for the political and would help less developed countries have more of an input into how the world is run, and ways in which they would be able to improve their population’s standard of living.

In my point of view I believe that global governance is a relevant theory which should be considered as there would be many benefits for society if it was introduced, in theory it would create a fairer more just society which would benefit everyone. Though in the light of the arguments it seems that global governance is seen as a good idea, yet we don’t know whether this would be the case if put in practice, but only time will tell as at present we do not have any real life examples of this theory to compare with.