Abstract
AbstractAt a point when global governance appears to be at a crossroad, caught between globalizing and national populist forces, International Relations theorists are deeply immersed in debating what brought the world to this point. This contribution enlists Michael Zürn'sA Theory of Global Governance(2018) to explore the state of global governance theory through a focus on three substantive themes: authority, legitimacy, and contestation in global governance. It identifies the current state of theorizing on each theme, situates Zürn's claims within these literatures, and previews counterpoints from a variety of theoretical perspectives.
Highlights
Global governance may be at a crossroad
While global governance always has involved an element of resistance and opposition from state and societal actors dissatisfied with the prevailing institutional order, the intensity and quality of this contestation appears to have changed in recent decades
As global governance institutions appear increasingly contested by state and nonstate actors alike, the importance of understanding their nature and impact is becoming ever more urgent
Summary
Few concepts occupy a more central position in the social sciences disciplines than authority. Contributions to IR theory have tended to solve the authority puzzle in one of two ways: either with reference to the use of contracts or by looking at processes of socialization The former approach, described by Zürn as a model of contracted authority, conceives of authority as the outcome of autonomous actors (principally states) signing treaties and establishing organizations which they obey because of the benefits they associate with them.. Zürn’s theory of reflexive authority conceives of states and international actors as entities that accept global rules and norms because they recognize their own limitations to autonomously understand or solve global problem. States and other actors reflexively defer to the rules and norms that are associated with global organizations and practices Zürn details in both quantitative and qualitative terms that global governance institutions have with time acquired political and epistemic foundations. 17E.g. Hooghe et al 2017. 18Keohane 2020; Scholte 2020. 19Deitelhoff and Daase 2020; Barnett 2020. 20Kelley and Simmons 2020. 21Pouliot 2020. 22Barnett 2020; Scholte 2020. 23Kelley and Simmons 2015; Barnett et al 2021. 24Leander 2020
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.
