|
Governance and Globalisation: A Cosmopolitan Future?
We have
entered an era in which the conventional political apparatus of the
nation-state system is beginning to appear anachronistic in the face of
increasingly global challenges. Here a fundamentally different form of
global governance is considered.
Jacob
Halpin
The limitations of the current system
As never before, issues of today are
international in nature, and decisions and events that would once have
been of little consequence beyond national borders now have worldwide
repercussions. Climate change presents a global threat, outbreaks of
infectious diseases trigger alarm-bells internationally, and the
agricultural policies of one country may directly affect the supply of
illegal drugs across the world.[1] The East Asian crisis of 1997
illustrated how local financial instability can rapidly escalate to
threaten global economic well-being,[2] whilst terrorism has taken on
international dimensions, as the stateless al-Qaeda network wages war
across continents, connected via laptop computers and the internet.
Globalisation is
providing the driving force behind much of the dramatic change occurring
worldwide. It is manifest in an unrelenting internationalisation of an
ever-increasing number of issues conventionally considered the sovereign
responsibility of the state. From finance, technology and travel to
human rights, security and the environment, a ‘widening, deepening and
speeding up of global interconnectedness’ and interdependence is
occurring.[3] States exercise decreasing levels of control in numerous
areas, as advances in communications and technology facilitate the flow
of ideas, money, goods, pollution, crime, drugs, terrorism, and often
people, across national borders.[4] As the phenomenon of globalisation
progresses, boundaries between the domestic and the global become
increasingly blurred, and jurisdictional areas are rendered unclear. The
dissolution of international borders increasingly moves issues beyond
the control of existing governmental and inter-governmental bodies. As
political activity shifts from the inter-national to the global,
globalisation is transferring power away from the state into an often
unregulated global political space. Fundamentally, globalisation is
forcing contradictions to emerge between a system built from autonomous,
state entities, each designed to govern independently, and a highly
interconnected global system.
The result is that, in
many respects, the state is no longer performing the tasks for which it
was created.[5] Core state functions include defence against external
military threats, natural disasters and health epidemics, the provision
of mass education, poverty relief and the promotion of economic
prosperity, as well as the respect of basic human rights.[6] The
fulfilment of many of these duties increasingly demands international
cooperation, often with non-state actors, and so in this sense
the state is failing according to conventional definitions. With
political authority limited by national boundaries, states are not only
losing control, but the inherently competitive nature of sovereign units
is likely to prohibit the emergence of the level of collective action
that is required. Consequently, effective governance within a limited,
bounded territory appears out-dated, irrelevant even, in the
contemporary era, suggesting a need for a new model of global
governance.
A cosmopolitan solution
Recognising that
sovereignty itself is a fundamental obstacle to effective governance in
a global era, cosmopolitanism advocates a relinquishing of power by
states, in order that they can paradoxically regain the ability to
govern effectively. Above all, a change of perspective is called for.
Cosmopolitanism envisages a shift away from the inward-looking focus of
the ‘national’ approach which currently dominates understandings of the
state, calling instead for a more globally-focused cosmopolitan
conception, one which is capable of responding to global challenges with
internationally-conceived solutions imbued with the effectiveness of
cooperation.
In response to the
increasingly anachronistic division of power which continues to exist,
cosmopolitanism advocates a redistribution of authority. It is asserted
that issues with global relevance must be tackled by international
bodies with real authority over states, rather than a futile reliance on
the cooperation of - often antagonistic - national governments.
Similarly, regional questions should be addressed by regionally-mandated
authorities. In this way, power would be distributed through a diverse
set of institutions and organisations, facilitating more effective
governance. It is important to note that in no way does this call for
the abolition of the state, as questions with relevance at the national
level would continue to be addressed by national governments. Similarly,
the state would be the foremost representative of peoples on the world
stage, and so would remain the central actor in international affairs.
The crucial difference is that it would not continue to hold a monopoly
on political authority, as is presently the case.
Already evident in
response to the decline of effective state power is the emergence of an
array of unconventional sources of governance now necessary in the
maintenance of economic, social and political order. From numerous
United Nations agencies to the International Labour Movement, the World
Intellectual Property Organisation and the International Organisation
for Migration, to financial organisations such as the World Trade
Organisation, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, and the International Monetary Fund, to regional bodies
such as the European and African Unions, as well as a multitude of NGOs
(Non-Governmental Organisations) and grassroots movements, an array of
international institutions seeks to govern, regulate and shape
contemporary political affairs. These developments are all indicative of
a steady shift of centres of governance away from their conventional
resting place within sovereign borders.
Cosmopolitanism
envisages the creation of a range of global and regional institutions
going beyond those which already exist. These might include a new
European Parliament or Assembly, established initially as a subsidiary
body of the UN General Assembly, regional centres of law-enforcement,
and an effective International Court of Justice, with an international
legal framework.[7] Above all, the UN is of central importance. In this
connection, cosmopolitans recommend the abolition of Security Council
veto power, directly elected General Assembly representatives, and
greater consultation with civil society,[8] in order to incorporate a
more diverse range of voices in the policy process. Held, a leading
proponent of cosmopolitanism, asserts the need for a (near) General
Assembly consensus to be considered as a basis for international law,
alongside an International Criminal Court with compulsory jurisdictional
powers on condition of UN membership. Additionally, increased UN
enforcement capacity is needed, for which purpose a portion of member
states’ military could be used.[9]
A necessary progression
As a radical, idealist
vision, cosmopolitanism can appear open to criticism as a utopian
project, its proponents existing in a state of denial of the continuing
dominance of realist power politics. Indeed, after two hundred years of
‘Westphalian’ nation-states, cosmopolitanism can seem an improbable
suggestion. It is important to acknowledge, therefore, that at this
stage transnational geopolitics still prevail, and nationalist belief
and unilateralism remain common in an era where globalisation can create
new tensions. Central to the cosmopolitan argument, however, is the
understanding that it is not simply a desirable progression, but an
unavoidable one if governance is to keep pace with globalisation.
Crucially, cosmopolitanism has the advantage of being the system best
suited to the age,[10] an assertion supported by already-evident
developments. Institutionally, authority is already leaking from the
nation-state into a multitude of international bodies and organisations,
as discussed above. The right to absolute sovereignty is also being
challenged more directly. Agreements such as the 1948 UN Declaration of
Human Rights embody a globally-applicable, cosmopolitan understanding of
human rights, whilst, once more, a universal approach to individual
worth is fundamental to the Nuremburg principles, as well as the
International Bill of Human Rights and its regional counterparts.[11]
Furthermore, absolute sovereignty is today not only questioned in
principle, but actively challenged, as the NATO action in Kosovo and UN
missions to Somalia and elsewhere demonstrate.
The re-assessment of
sovereignty is not the only sphere in which cosmopolitan ideas are
gaining significance. Today, the dominant discourse of
contemporary politics is one of cosmopolitan principle. Themes
associated with cosmopolitanism have now become the norm, as
globalisation, universal human rights, and international
responsibilities are paramount and leaders of all stripes are held to
account by NGOs and global public opinion for transgressions of these
expectations. Due to the genuinely global approach of large NGOs such as
Amnesty International and Oxfam, cosmopolitans assign such organisations
an important role in the promotion of a cosmopolitan discourse amongst
governments and citizens. Thus, as NGOs assume a progressively greater
role in governance they provide increasing momentum to the cosmopolitan
project. Once more, further weight is added to suggestions of a nascent
cosmopolitanism.
The driving forces of cosmopolitanism
Through his claim that
‘man is a wolf to man’, Thomas Hobbes provided the basic rationale for
his political theory of state sovereignty. Today, Beck, a prominent
cosmopolitan writer, asserts that it is the case that ‘humanity is a
wolf to humanity’.[12] As such, the existential threat to human kind
provides not only the rationale, but also the potential driving force
behind a cosmopolitan transition. New perceived risks, whether in the
areas of global terrorism, climate change, global finance, or elsewhere,
may be capable of overcoming the barrier of sovereignty. The starkest
example is that of the environment, where the humanitarian and economic
implications of inaction are becoming ever-clearer to governments and
populations alike with the release of each new scientific study, report,
and even documentary film. For risk to drive a behavioural change on the
part of those in power, the shock realisation of the consequent reality
of inaction must become foremost in people’s minds, and so global
information systems, the media and non-state organisations have a
crucial role to play. As Held writes, if people are not convinced of the
urgency for a revitalised global project, or of the possibility of
addressing long-standing problems, then globalisation may fail.[13]
Cosmopolitanism does
not call for a mere readjustment of existing political structures, but
rather for a fundamental reconfiguration of the international system.
Such a transition cannot be expected to emerge overnight. More important
at this stage are indications that globalisation may be weakening the
foundations of existing structures, bringing with it the suggestion of
cosmopolitan alternatives. Here, a number of factors may emerge to lead
this process, including a rising perception of environmental, security,
terror, and other threats; increased collective action among states,
business, and global civil society; a growing recognition by governments
that the national interest is in fact global; the driving force of NGOs;
even the increasing international influence of the planet’s most
integrated polity, the European Union.
More significant than
any of these, however, is the force which underlies each of them:
globalisation, the source of the recent rejuvenation of cosmopolitan
thought. Globalisation is an unrelenting phenomenon, displaying little
regard for the arbitrary divisions of the nation-state system. There is
evidence that the foundations on which the sovereign state’s role as the
bearer of global authority rests are in fact being corroded by the tide
of globalisation. Paradoxically, it is from this undermining of the
conventional state position that contemporary cosmopolitanism draws its
strength. If the cosmopolitan analysis proves to be correct, then the
unstoppable nature of globalisation may yet form an inexorable driving
force, the channels of the previous paragraph simply pressure-release
valves for a deeper shift in the make-up of global politics. Despite the
scale of the project, it is not inconceivable that we may be witnessing
what Beck terms a ‘creeping revolution’.[14]
References
[1] Control of the supply of
illegal drugs including cocaine and heroin to European
and North American markets depends greatly on limiting
their production in countries such as Afghanistan,
Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Colombia. Jeevan Vasagar,
‘Golden Triangle’s Poppy Output “eradicated”’, The
Guardian (27th June 2006). Available at
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1806717,00.html>
Accessed on 2nd August 2006.
[2] For an account of these events,
see Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its
discontents (London: Penguin, 2002), pp.89-132.
[3] David Held, Anthony McGrew,
David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton, ‘Rethinking
Globalisation’, in David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.),
The Global Transformations Reader, 2nd ed.
(Oxford: Polity Press, 2003), p.67.
[4] James N. Rosenau, ‘Governance
in a New Global Order’, in David Held and Anthony McGrew
(eds.), Governing Globalization (Cambridge:
Polity, 2002), p.74.
[5] Martin Shaw, ‘The State of
Globalization: Towards a theory of state
transformation’, in Timothy J. Sinclair (ed.), Global
Governance: Critical Concepts in Political Science,
vol. I (London: Routledge, 2004), p.212.
[6] Mathias Koenig-Archibugi,
‘Mapping Global Governance’, in Held and McGrew (eds.),
Governing Globalization, p.46.
[7] Anthony Giddens, The Third
Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1998), pp.145-146; David Held,
Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to
Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1995), p.271.
[8] Daniele Archibugi, ‘Principles
of Cosmopolitan Democracy’, in Daniele Archibugi, David
Held and Martin Köhler, Re-imagining Political
Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), p.221.
[9] David Held, Democracy and
the Global Order, p.276.
[10] David Held, ‘Cosmopolitanism:
Ideas, Realities and Deficits’, in Held and McGrew,
Governing Globalization, p.313.
[11] David Held, ‘Cosmopolitanism:
Globalisation Tamed?’, Review of International
Studies, 29:4 (2003), p.478.
[12] Ulrich Beck, Power in the
Global Age (Cambridge: Polity, 2005), p.252-253.
[13] Held, ‘Cosmopolitanism:
Globalisation Tamed?’, p.478.
[14] Beck, Power in the Global
Age, p.65. |
