Abstract
AbstractThis response to my critics discusses four claims that are central forA Theory of Global Governance. The first claim is that observing a high level of conflict and contestation in world politics is not proof of the unimportance of global governance, since many of the current conflicts and contestations are about international institutions. The second claim is that the 1990s saw a rise of trans- and international authority beyond the nation-state that is essential for the rise of a global political system. Third, a global system of loosely coupled spheres of authority relies on ‘critical deference’ (reflexive authority) but also contains numerous elements of coercion. And fourth, a technocratic legitimation of intrusive international authorities cannot build on emotions or a sense of belonging. This deficit creates a political opportunity structure that allows for the rise of a myriad of dissenters. The relative importance of them depends on the availability of resources for mobilization and not on the quality of reasons for resistance.
Highlights
Imagine you have a choice: either you write a book, and no one mentions it, or you write a book, and everyone criticizes it
Keohane asks whether the global politics paradigm advanced in A Theory can help us understand world politics of today, or whether recent political developments fall outside its scope conditions
I want to maintain that observing a high level of conflict and contestation in world politics is not proof of the unimportance of global governance
Summary
The year 2016 was a bad year for global governance. It demonstrated, above all, the strength of nationalist sentiments and forces within Western democracies. The commonality of all of the challenges to global governance is that they consider international institutions to be too powerful All of these contestations take place in a transnational struggle that cuts across levels of analysis in which statist defenders of national sovereignty are pitted against liberal cosmopolitans who emphasize human rights, international institutions, and open borders.. Especially people with little education and transnational capacities feel excluded from the political process They consider themselves as suppressed, or at least forgotten, by liberal cosmopolitan experts supposedly controlling NMIs at the expense of majoritarian institutions such as parties and parliaments that are the sources of influence for the majority. It may be that the current wave of challenges to global governance leads to its decline and possibly even to a revival of geopolitics In this case, A Theory would lose relevance to understand the future of world politics. It would remain relevant in explaining why we moved away from the post-World War II order and back to the world of geopolitics
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
