In Whose Name Are You Speaking? The Marginalization of the Poor in Global Civil Society.

Author's Introduction Civil society has become one of the most popular concepts within international development discourses. But, what is civil society? Civil society is defined as an arena of collective social interaction situated between the state, market and household, encompassing a range of non‐state organisations, groups and associations, including non‐governmental organisations (NGOs). The article assesses the range of different interpretations of civil society highlighting its diverse makeup at local, national and transnational scales. Why has civil society become so important within international development? Democracy and delivery of services . As people organised collectively against totalitarian regimes in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and the Global South, civil society emerged as a manifestation of democratisation processes. The neoliberal agenda also wanted to capture and channel civil society to foster democracy, but also to take on service delivery functions as the role of the state diminished. This article outlines how these roles relate to two theoretical viewpoints – the Marxist or Gramscian that sees civil society as a site of resistance and counterhegemony, and the liberal democratic that views it as a beneficial force for good. Civil society in practice. In the 1990s, development agencies championed civil society from an undertheorised liberal democratic viewpoint as a saviour or ‘magic bullet’ as it channels more and more funds via NGOs. But, civil society has increasingly been criticised as undemocratic, unable to reach the poor and unaccountable. This article describes this evolution. The emergence of global or transnational society . In these days of globalisation, global civil society is increasingly important. This is neither civil society at a global level, nor is it a unified global force for good, lobbying and challenging the neoliberal order. Instead, viewed as ‘transnational civil society’, it is a complex mix of competing, overlapping and intersecting groups that operate beyond national borders for a range of reasons. Especially important actors in transnational civil society are diasporic civil society groups in the form of migrant associations. This article argues that as international migration increases, these groups are growing in economic, social and political importance, yet we do not know very much about them. Author Recommends Anheier, H., Glasius, M., and Kaldor, M. (eds) (2004). Global civil society 2004/5. London: Sage. This book is one of the annual reports on the nature of global civil society produced by the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics. It has a range of interesting articles and is available to download at http://lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/yearbook04chapters.htm Howell, J., and Pearce, J. (2001). Civil society and development: a critical exploration. London: Lynne Rienner. This book provides an excellent overview of the theoretical and empirical debates about civil society at a national level. It provides a range of examples from around the developing world. Lewis, D., and Opoku‐Mensah, P. (2006). Moving forward research agendas on international NGOs: theory, agency and context. Journal of International Development 18, pp. 665–675. This article is an engaging review of the main themes revolving around civil society and development in relation to international NGOs in particular. Mercer, C. (2002). NGOs, civil society and democratization: a critical review of the literature. Progress in Development Studies 2, pp. 5–22. This article is an excellent state‐of‐the‐art review of the relationships between civil society and democratisation from a development perspective. It outlines the main theoretical approaches and assesses them in relation to development policy. Mitlin, D., Hickey, S., and Bebbington, A. (2007). Reclaiming development? NGOs and the challenge of alternatives. World Development 35 (10), pp. 1699–1720. This article outlines the issue of why NGOs have been so popular with development agencies and why this popularity is on the wane. Mohan, G. (2002). The disappointments of civil society: the politics of NGO intervention in northern Ghana. Political Geography 21, pp. 125–154. This article outlines the main thinking about civil society and then illustrates it with an interesting case study from Ghana. Munck, R. (2007). Global civil society: royal road or slippery path? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 17, pp. 325–332. This article is one of the most‐up‐to‐date accounts on the advantages and disadvantages of global civil society. Useful Links http://www.jhu.edu/~ccss/ website of the Centre for Civil Society, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. This site reports on policy‐related research on civil society and other more practically oriented projects. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/ website of the Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. This site publishes a range of research papers on civil society and runs academic events. http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/</jats:ext-lin

This article examines current academic knowledge regarding the international relations and political science concept of 'global governance' as it has emerged in international law scholarship. The notion of 'global governance' encompasses the broad realm of political interaction aimed at global problem-solving. It includes the United Nations system, its organs and agencies, and the public and private legal institutions, regimes and networks governing relations among states and other actors across state borders. Its value in contemporary discourse lies in the need for a concept broader than 'international law' that encompasses the multitude of legal and non-binding regulatory mechanisms currently existing beyond the national domain. The contemporary idea also incorporates the phenomenon of 'global civil society,' but it repudiates global 'government.' Instead, the discourse focuses on role of democracy in global governance.Part One commences with an exploration of the meaning of 'global governance' and of the contemporary framework of global governance. The second section then situates the emerging concept of 'global civil society' and international law within the global governance framework and distinguishes global governance from global 'government.' The third section then explores globalisation and its various effects on global governance. Part Two first examines the philosophical origins of the idea of civil society, then looks at the historical evolution of the role of civil society actors in global governance, and finally investigates contemporary meanings of the terms 'civil society,' 'global civil society,' 'civil society organizations' and 'nongovernmental organization' (NGO).

Global Governance: The Problematic Legitimacy Relationship between Global Civil Society and the United Nations

In this article the frames of democratic global government, which determine the role of a global civil society as an alternative of market-driven globalization, are being analyzed. With this intention the main theories of international political economy – hegemonic stability theory, complex independence theory, new multilateralism, and also the comparison of the approaches to the potential possibilities of strengthening of the role of civil society in the system of global government are being examined.In order to create the necessary framework for democratic global governance in the twenty-first century, global and national civil societies must enter into more intensive synergies with individual national states and international organizations. Therefore, the article aims to define the role of global civil society in the project of global democratic governance as an alternative to market-driven globalization and to consider the main theories of international political economy by comparing their approaches to the potential opportunities of civil society in the global governance system.The article concludes that, based on the definition of opportunities for expanding the role of civil society in global governance, the theory of complex interdependence and the new multilateralism offer the most appropriate theoretical framework for examining the contribution of civil society in removing the tensions generated by globalization. One can talk about the expansion of the role of civil society in global governance, as the growing presence of social movements and non-governmental organizations on the global scene has become visible due to their activities in the areas of services, education, and protection of rights that contribute to the development of a global cooperative system.

The goal of this paper is to argue that we currently have a system of global government rather than global governance. To prove this, It examines two main areas, international hierarchy and global society. In terms of hierarchy, it considers the existence of hierarchy among nations as well as a practical hierarchy in global decision making and functioning. This is shown via an examination of American Empire, Power Transition Theory, the Washington Consensus, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The second major focus, global society, considers how nations utilize international organizations and technology to allow for the free exchange of ideas, culture, trade and currency. This is shown via an examination of Bretton Woods, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, international infrastructure, and the United Nations. This paper contends that since both an international hierarchy and a global society exist, the term global government most accurately describes the current world order.

Does increased participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) improve the democratic quality at intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)? Multilateral institutions and global governance mechanisms have emerged during the past few decades to tackle global challenges, such as climate change. However, policy making institutions such as IGOs are often viewed as lacking democratic legitimacy. The decision- making process remains tied to nation-states represented often by non-elected delegates, yet the decisions affect people who do not have a say in the process. One remedy proposed by global governance scholars to close such democratic deficit is to include a variety of stakeholders such as non-governmental actors. I challenge the conventional wisdom that assumes the democratic potential of these actors, and unpack the “blackbox” of NGOs to assess their internal politics.To assess their role in global governance, we need to understand the substantive participation and patterns of interaction among the NGOs at the governance institutions. I construct a multilevel theoretical framework from a social network perspective to understand their participation and interaction. The theoretical framework is based on transnational social movement theory and social network theory.I draw on the example of women’s groups working at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) annual conferences. Employing both quantitative statistical analysis and network analysis, I demonstrate an evident increase in women’s groups that participate substantively at the UNFCCC. How- ever, the growth is accompanied by inequality in participation. Not all groups that attend the UNFCCC participate in collective advocacy or network actively. The variation is associated with the capacity and social embeddedness of a given organization. Furthermore, the community working on women’s issues has become fragmented over- time. The fragmentation is a result of NGOs’ different strategies and understandings of their role in global climate governance. The institutional context of UNFCCC has also contributed to the fragmentation. Overall, these civil society actors contribute to the democratization of the UNFCCC process by adding new voices, establishing new issue linkages, and raising awareness for women’s rights and gender equality. At the same time, however, the internal inequality and the power imbalance could further exacerbate the democratic deficit in the global climate governance process.I have independently collected data on over 800 actors at the UN climate conferences. I have also conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with civil society representatives at the UN climate change summits in 2017 and 2018. The findings contribute to the understanding of democratic legitimacy in global governance of large-scale, transnational challenges by analyzing both macro-level network relation- ships among actors and the micro-level mechanisms among network members.

The food commodity price rises from 2006 to 2008 engendered a period of political renewal and reform in the governance of global food security. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was designated as the main international forum dealing with food security and nutrition in 2009 as part of this reform. Through the CFS reform process, civil society organizations secured the right to co-ordinate autonomously their engagement in the Committee as official participants and are doing so through the International Food Security and Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism (CSM). The CSM is an innovative institutional form designed to allow a broad range of civil society organizations from different regions of the world and from diverse constituencies, notably those who face food insecurity on a regular basis, to participate in global food security governance. The challenges and complexities of setting up and operationalizing the CSM are presented and illustrated. These findings are considered in the context of the longer-term move towards widening participation in global governance, with a particular focus on the trajectory of civil society participation in food security governance. The broad neo-liberal logic, or embedded neo-liberalism, that underpins contemporary world politics provides boundaries within which the innovative CSM is being given shape through the political agency of the participating civil society organizations. The study concludes by suggesting that while the Civil Society Mechanism faces some internal challenges, these are not insurmountable, and that the CSM represents an effective politicizing, engaging and connecting model for food-focused civil society organization entering into global governance.

Will Ebola change the game? Ten essential reforms before the next pandemic. The report of the Harvard-LSHTM Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola

A revised version of this working paper has been published as: Biermann, Frank. 2012. Greening the United Nations Charter: World Politics in the Anthropocene. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. May / June 2012. A constitutional turn is needed to bring the UN system in line with the urgent needs of planetary stewardship and earth system governance in the 21st century. Yet how this could be organized in practice remains a challenge and subject to political and scholarly debate. This paper contributes to this debate by outlining four reforms of the UN system that would advance global decision-making by addressing major shortcomings in the current system: Lack of integration of economic and environmental policies in the UN system; institutional fragmentation and weakness of the environmental pillar of sustainable development; lack of high-level regulatory competence and oversight regarding areas beyond national jurisdiction; and insufficient integration of scientific insights into political decision-making. The reforms proposed would together create an Earth Alliance in the UN system, consisting of a high-level UN Sustainable Development Council, a World Environment Organization, a UN Trusteeship Council for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, and an UN Global Environmental Assessment Commission.

Activists, officials, and academics alike have often linked observations about an emerging global civil society to an incipient democratization of world politics. Global civil society is assumed to bring public scrutiny and “bottom-up” politics to international decision making “from outside” formal political institutions. Based on an analysis of uses of the concept of global civil society in 1990s global governance discourse (especially related to the major UN world conferences), this paper argues that the presumed democratization of world politics is better understood in terms of a double movement: on the one hand, “global civil society” depoliticizes global governance through the promotion of “human security” and “social development”; on the other hand, the emerging international public sphere (in the UN context) operates as a subsystem of world politics rather than opposing the system from outside. Practices of depoliticization are thus part of the political logic of (neo-)liberal global governance. The argument draws on Luhmann’s systems theory and Foucault’s analysis of governmentality.

In this paper we explore some linkages between globalisation, civil society and governance in order to develop a strategic approach to how civil society may engage with state and interstate institutions of governance. We propose that, just as national civil societies depend on and in turn support particular features in state systems, the prospects for an emerging global civil society also depend on similarly appropriate features in the institutions of regional or global governance. We discuss four possible relationships between civil society and governance institutions, depending on whether governance is facilitating or obstructive to civil society, and whether it is strong or weak. This suggests a range of strategies for non-government organisations (NGOs) and networks depending on the features of the institutions with which they are engaged. We then illustrate the model using the eventually successful campaign for East Timorese self-determination. This case shows how the strategic engagement of global civil society networks with state and interstate institutions eventually lead to a positive result through drawing these institutions into supportive roles.

L'objectif des auteurs de cet article est double. Il s'agit d'une part de presenter une etude exploratoire sur les tendances actuelles temoignant de l'emergence d'un nouvel activisme non gouvernemental dans le champ de l'education et d'autre part de dresser un cadre analytique afin d'evaluer l'importance de cet activisme, en elaborant des concepts bases sur les recherches ayant porte sur les nouveaux mouvements sociaux et les debats theoriques actuels a propos de la societe civile mondiale.

Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evidence from the Field of Education

Hydroelectric dams are massively controversial, and the social, economic and environmental backlash against them in the 1990s led to the emergence of new modes of global governance, wherein local social movements and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) formed effective anti-dam alliances with global civil society. This in turn led to the 2000 World Commission on Dams – an attempt to create new, shared norms for establishing systems global governance. However, with the emergence of the 2011 Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP), based on corporate social responsibility (CSR), competing norms in effect exist – with conflict between global civil society on the one hand, and states, the hydropower industry and global governance institutions on the other. This conflict revolves around participation – the World Commission on Dams' (WCD) attempt to 'mainstream participatory governance' versus HSAP's requirements for 'community engagement' in the context of involuntary resettlement. The chapter traces the process through which participatory norms were watered down, attempts to institutionalise global governance failed, and civil society itself was weakened.

John Keane, a leading scholar of political theory, tracks the recent development of a big idea with fresh potency - global civil society. In this timely book, Keane explores the contradictory forces currently nurturing or threatening its growth, and he shows how talk of global civil society implies a political vision of a less violent world, founded on legally sanctioned power-sharing arrangements among different and intermingling forms of socio-economic life. Keane's reflections are pitted against the widespread feeling that the world is both too complex and too violent to deserve serious reflection. His account borrows from various scholarly disciplines, including political science and international relations, to challenge the silence and confusion within much of contemporary literature on globalisation and global governance. Against fears of terrorism, rising tides of xenophobia, and loose talk of 'anti-globalisation', the defence of global civil society mounted here implies the need for new democratic ways of living.