Global Governance Architecture Research Articles

Researching the European Higher Education Area external effectiveness: regime complexity and interplay

ABSTRACTThe European Higher Education Area (EHEA) constitutes an international regime which attempts to solve intra-European problems, as well as to respond to global challenges. Using the regime complexity approach, this article investigates the external effectiveness of the EHEA, which refers to its ability to play a key-role in the Higher Education (HE) regime complex consisting of overlapping and non-hierarchical institutions governing this area. It is also related to the EHEA capacity to become a co-shaper of an emerging global HE agenda and governance architecture as well as to influence policy outcomes and tools embedded in the world order settings. Taking into consideration the leading role of EU within the EHEA our analysis demonstrates that EHEA/EU employs an interplay management strategy aiming to promote and co-shape the HE global order.

State Representative: The Thucydides Trap and the Future of Global Governance

Imagining an alternative institutional and normative architecture for global governance must proceed on the bases of an identification and understanding of the principal challenges facing the international system. In my view, the gravest challenge facing the international system, and perhaps the greatest political drama of the twenty-first century, is the ongoing shift in the global balance of power. As we move from a U.S.-led unipolar system to a world in which non-Western powers, particularly China, exercise greater influence in international affairs, the foremost priority for global governance is to ensure that this transition proceeds peacefully and to minimize the potential for Great Power conflict, especially between the United States and China.

Dual use in the 21st century: emerging risks and global governance.

Dual use research of concern (DURC) is defined by the World Health Organization as "life sciences research that is intended for benefit, but which might easily be misapplied to do harm." Ethical and policy discussions on DURC span the past three decades. Today, however, new and emerging technologies and associated sociocultural transformations within the scientific community are reshaping the current risk scenario. This paper identifies three major trends that are likely to characterise dual use dilemmas in the near future: the diversification of dual use domains, the digitalisation of potential threats and the proliferation of actors. This analysis illustrates an increasingly heterogeneous and fragmented risk scenario, which can hardly be effectively governed top-down from a centralised authority. We propose that in order to meet the critical challenges of dual use in the 21st century, a global and distributed governance is needed. In contrast to globally binding sets of legal mechanisms administered by a central and hierarchical authority supported by leading powers, we suggest a global and decentralised governance architecture encompassing multilevel, multipolar and bottom-up strategies that can stretch across a spectrum of stakeholders and scientific domains in an agile, proactive and adaptive manner. Finally, we discuss how Switzerland can take a leading role in the promotion and development of this global governance architecture.

From crisis to crisis: Capitalism, chaos and constant unpredictability

AbstractFar from being an event of a decade ago, the 2008 global financial crisis is a manifestation of an ongoing crisis of the world order, with social, political and ecological dimensions that cannot be seen separately from each other. The root cause of the crisis can be traced back to the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in August 1971, and the failure to design an equitable and inclusive global financial and economic governance architecture consistent with the changed global economic realities. The vacuum was quickly taken up by the neoliberal orthodoxy that pushed the agenda of wholesale liberalisation, resulting in unprecedented domination of speculative finance capital and multinational corporation–led globalisation. This has seen falling share of wages in national income, growing wealth concentration, rising income inequality and ballooning of household debts. The consequence was frequent and increasingly deeper and wider financial crises.

Significance of BRICS: Regional Powers, Global Governance, and the Roadmap for Multipolar World

The article justifies the optimism of new global order. The global financial crisis that had erupted in the USA during 2008 battered the global economy. The disaster paved the way for rethinking on changes in the architecture of global governance. The fragile political and economic global situation triggered by the crisis led to emergence of regional power confederacy, particularly within the developing world. Consequently, the importance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) within the global governance structure has gone up. The steady emergence of BRICS in global politics has been mainly based on their excellent economic performances. This development on economic front coincides with increasing cooperation and coordination and formulating common positions on global political issues. BRICS, as a united entity, is expected to shape global governance in the twenty-first century. The influence already demonstrated by these emerging nations will surely continue to redistribute the balance of power in international financial institutions in favor of developing nations. Although the future of BRICS cannot be predicted with certainty, its combined efforts and the results of its meetings thus far reflect the potential of the group of emerging nations to change the existing distribution of power around the globe.

Towards Global Justice with Chinese Characteristics

This paper aims to contextualise China’s own understanding of global justice in global governance. The paper does not only uncover China’s traditional understanding of justice and global justice as purveyors of order and stability, it also analyses the very pragmatic and instrumental Chinese views on the global institutional order that should be conducive to that ideal. This pragmatic and instrumental stance is obvious in China’s support for a restrictive understanding of the sovereignty concept; ambiguous support for a reform of the global governance architecture; and preference for non-binding settlements to resolve international disputes. The paper demonstrates that China’s approach to and appreciation of the South China Sea Arbitration is exemplary thereof. The paper also argues that there is a real momentum for the EU to further engage with China in support of the strengthening global justice.

The EU in Global Energy Governance

The EU is obviously playing a unique role in global governance systems. This paper will argue that the EU engages in fragmented global energy governance architecture based on two phenomena, Standardization and Externalization, from the beginning. Then, first section of this paper considers the state of play of global energy governance. Following sections, this study considers the EU’s global engagement in the field of energy from Power debates, theoretical, and historical perspectives. Then, this paper analyzes the energy relationship with Russia. Finally, as a conclusion this paper will try to sum up the findings from this research.

Toward a Pluripolar Global Financial Architecture? The Bretton Woods Institutions and the New Landscape of Developmental Finance

I advance three claims in the paper. First, the Asian and especially the global financial crisis occasioned discontinuities and continuities that are imparting incoherence to the global financial governance architecture and developmental finance. Second, the emergent incoherence is productive of development rather than debilitating. Third, productive incoherence can be understood most fully within a “Hirschmanian mindset,” that is, an understanding of social and regime change informed by Albert O. Hirschman’s key theoretical and epistemic commitments.

Angry birds of passage – migrant rights networks and counter-hegemonic resistance to global migration discourses

ABSTRACTThe past decade has seen the emergence of a global migration governance architecture. But while – unlike other ‘objects’ of global governance – migrants are able to speak for themselves, only limited participatory space has been reserved for them in global processes. In reaction to this glaring democratic deficit, migrant organizations try to challenge and bring about change in the nascent global migration regime. Drawing from neo-Gramscian approaches, this paper analyses the various political spaces where a cluster of migrant rights organizations and ‘networks of networks’ express and organize resistance and counter-hegemonic discourses to the current paradigms within global migration governance. Particularly, this article focuses on two spaces of organizing: the International Assembly of Migrants and Refugees (IAMR), held by the International Migrants Alliance (IMA), and the Churches Witnessing With Migrants (CWWM) wherein temporary labour migrants, often referred to as ‘birds of passage’, form a large part of their constituency.

Chinese–Russian economic relations: developing the infrastructure of a multipolar global political economy?

This article situates Russian–Chinese relations within a wider emerging infrastructure of multipolarity to consider how such relations signal a complex and multifaceted ‘decentering’ of the global political economy beyond American-centered global governance architecture. Russian–Chinese economic cooperation and economic multipolarity have been some time in the making; however, they are demonstrating new institutional, governance, and reciprocal ‘embeddedness.’ The processes by which such embeddedness has occurred provide the context within which geopolitical and geoeconomic crises are mediated, not the reverse. This article traces emerging economic relations between Russia and China by moving beyond abstract and generalized pronouncements of multipolarity to consider the extent to which such multipolarity is realized via contemporary Russian–Chinese economic relations, and how such relations are constitutive of a post-hegemonic global political economy. The increased complexity of Russian–Chinese economic relations—means that any resultant effects on polarity cannot simply be deduced from each state’s strategic preferences regarding polarity.

India’s Role in a Liberal Post-Western World

After a period of significant gains, achieved largely through the establishment of institutions that promoted international liberalism, the global order today finds itself at a crucial juncture. Rising inequality, the proliferation of nationalist politics, technology-induced disruptions and the resurgence of zero-sum geopolitics, are all beginning to shake the foundations of the global governance architecture built assiduously over the past 70 years. It is clear that the liberal order, as it is frequently referred to, will not be able to sustain its influence in the 21st century unless it finds new torchbearers in Asia, where politics and economics are scripting a story very different from that of post-war Europe. To some, it is evident that India, which has successfully combined economic growth with its own liberal traditions, will indeed be the heir to and guarantor of this system as an emerging and leading power.

A Comparison of Global Governance Across Sectors: Global Health, Trade, and Multilateral Development Finance

While several studies have traced the development of various intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), charting their growth and influence in international affairs, and assessing their prospects, few if any have compared IGOs across various fields. We take a closer look at three different policy fields to better understand the current architecture of global governance, the centrality of IGOs, the role of new and other actors, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of this “new” architecture. We find that, first, the emergence of new private players has significantly eroded the centrality of IGOs such that the course of global governance in health, trade, and development finance has changed irreversibly. Second, regional arrangements have overtaken global ones and nonstate actors have assumed more prominent roles. Third, this multiplicity of powerful players has led to some positive outcomes but also greater inefficiencies and redundancies. Fourth, developed countries have been pivotal in eroding the centrality of IGOs, but developing countries are taking on a greater role in global governance. Fifth, the new architecture can be described as one of diversification in global health governance, fragmentation in global trade, and variation in multilateral development finance. Global governance in the 21st century is thus characterized by a proliferation of actors and a decentralization of authority, an erosion of IGO centrality accompanied by a greater role for nonstate actors, developing countries, and by increased regionalism. Depending on the sector of governance, its inherent aims, and the nature of the actors involved, the new architecture may be one of variation, fragmentation, or diversification. While this new architecture is complex and might possibly lead to inefficiencies and redundancies, it allows a greater number of actors to participate, making it more representative of the current world order and making it possible to mobilize more resources to promote development.

Improving international policy-making in the absence of treaty regimes: the international forestry, migration and water policy cases

Distinguishing between international regime features and national implementation problems affecting policy effectiveness in many areas of international policy-making is an area of increasing concern to practitioners and academics alike. While many observers have traced problems with existing global governance architectures to deal with contemporary problems to the lack of appropriate treaties at the international level, recent work on regime fragmentation and the interplay between regimes suggests that a lack of a central and integrated international regime may be overcome through improved multi-level governance efforts. Much can be learned in this area from sectoral experiences in areas such as water and forestry as well as non-resource areas such as migration where such strong regimes have failed to develop.

Improving international policy-making in the absence of treaty regimes: the international forestry, migration and water policy cases

Distinguishing between international regime features and national implementation problems affecting policy effectiveness in many areas of international policy-making is an area of increasing concern to practitioners and academics alike. While many observers have traced problems with existing global governance architectures to deal with contemporary problems to the lack of appropriate treaties at the international level, recent work on regime fragmentation and the interplay between regimes suggests that a lack of a central and integrated international regime may be overcome through improved multi-level governance efforts. Much can be learned in this area from sectoral experiences in areas such as water and forestry as well as non-resource areas such as migration where such strong regimes have failed to develop.

Mapping offshore renewable energy governance

This article has an empirical focus on energy transition using the emerging offshore renewable energy (ORE) industries in the context of global governance. First, it explores and assesses pertinent discussions on sustainability and transformation within energy systems and the marine space. Then, it studies potential policy linkages within ORE governance which, although relying on clearly defined objectives and targets (e.g. climate change mitigation, increased share of renewable energy, energy security), could translate into polycentricity and institutional complexity/fragmentation. Previous research has focused on the technical, legal and policy challenges of deploying ORE technologies, however there is not any systematic review of who are its global governors. Certainly, the importance of the International Renewable Energy Agency and other renewable energy intergovernmental institutions has not been overlooked. Nevertheless, there are other international organisations whose mandate extends beyond renewable energy and several non-state actors who claim a role in ORE governance. This article puts forward a comprehensive analysis of the institutional architecture of global ORE governance with emphasis on the EU in order to shed a light on how ORE is being governed and who is involved. Results should advance knowledge on the scope, type and function of the institutions currently governing the exploration and exploitation of offshore renewable resources.

Regionalization of Migration

Regionalization of migration is not a new phenomenon, which is developing alongside its globalization. The globalization of migration driven by the increased migration interdependence between labor-surplus and laborshortage countries, is manifested in the growth of the number of countries participating in the population exchange and the number of international migrants, foundation of the support framework of the global migration governance, etc. At the same time, the level of liberalization of migration flows is significantly lower than that of commercial and financial flows. The territorial mobility is reducing, that may be seen as a symptom of the attenuation of globalization of people’s movements. The aggravation of contradictions between sending and receiving countries hinders the development of global migration governance. In contrast the regionalization of migration has been increasing markedly over the previous decades. It is being revealed in the growth of people’s movements on the territories of the global North and even more in areas of the South which house more migrants from the developing regions of the world than the North. The enlargement of regional flows leads to the emergence of the major donors of migrants in the North and major recipients of migrants in the South as well as enhances the relevance of the consequences of emigration for the sending countries in the North and the effects of immigration for the receiving countries in the South. The low efficiency of unilateral measures of migration governance and the lack of global partnership in this field make increasingly important the regulation of population movements at the sub-global level. The cooperation between the countries concerned is being carried out both in a formal format within the integration associations and by means of informal regional consultative process. The rules governing migration issues are being increasingly included into regional multilateral agreements. The most developed regional regulation system of migration is created have within the EU, followed with a wide margin by the MERCOSUR, ЕАEU and ASEAN. Although the regional consultative process is not binding for participating countries, it contributes to moving from de facto to de jure policy coherence in migration governance. Given the inevitable obstacles to the territorial expansion of such regional organizations and to the creation of global alliances modelled on them, regional migration regulation will remain an integral element of the architecture of the future global governance.

How stalled global reform is fueling regionalism: China’s engagement with the G20

In the Chinese view, the architecture of contemporary global governance – especially that of the Bretton Woods institutions – is flawed and in need of reform. Developing nations (like China), the argument runs, need to be given a role proportionate to their global economic influence. Since the Group of Twenty (G20) became a leaders’ summit in 2008, China has used the forum to push for such reform. But today, despite some supposed progress, reform has stalled. Recognising this fact, China is increasingly emphasising regional integration in its strategy for overcoming the middle-income trap. Global reform has not been abandoned, but – given its infeasibility – is no longer a short-term priority.

Defending supremacy: how the IMF and the World Bank navigate the challenge of rising powers

It is widely acknowledged today that the rise of new powers in the global economy has failed to produce commensurate adjustments in the architecture of global economic governance. How, then, do established multilaterals navigate the challenges arising from growing multipolarity? The article tackles this question by examining recent IMF and World Bank practice. It argues that, resistant though the Bretton Woods twins are to comprehensive reform, they nonetheless employ mechanisms to cope with the new realities on the ground. However, this adaptation lacks a cohesive strategy, and on balance remains insufficient. The analysis launches from a discussion of the normative, operational and competitive challenges the organizations face. It then discusses three coping mechanisms the Fund and Bank have employed over the past decade: (1) bolstering operations in low-income countries (LICs) and small middle-income countries (MICs); (2) adopting a flexible approach towards large MICs to retain them in the organizations’ client portfolio; and (3) reinforcing and refining non-lending activity to preserve normative authority. The effectiveness of these adaptive efforts in addressing the challenges of multipolarity is variable, comprising a mix of modest gain, abject failure, and untested promise. Implications for the organizations’ efficacy also remain uncertain. Even then, these initiatives highlight the twins’ willingness to defend their institutional supremacy in a fast-changing global system. Crucially, they also harbour important signs of change in how ‘development’ is perceived and practised in the strongholds of Western multilateralism.

Lost in translation? The challenge of translating the global education goal and targets into global indicators

In this article the history of global education goal- and target-setting is traced from 1990 to 2015. After the highly inclusive process of developing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their targets, a much more technical process has produced the global indicators. The challenge of securing the ambitious targets for education in SDG 4 and assessing them via the global indicators is reviewed with particular attention to primary and secondary education and to skills development. A good deal of the SDG aspirations for expanded rights to, and breadth of, education appears to get lost in their translation to the indicators. The complexity of the global governance architecture for the SDGs and their implementation are also analysed, with acknowledgement of the critical lens of the Global Education Monitoring Report of 2016.

Global Governance in a Multiplex World

Despite paying attention to a growing number of actors and agents, the literature on global governance remain remarkably traditional and Western-centric. Much of it still revolves around the existing multilateral system created under U.S. hegemony after World War II. In this paper, I propose a new understanding of studying global governance that reflects recent and ongoing global economic and political shifts. To this end, in the place of the traditional conception of a liberal world order within which the mainstream literature on global governance has been anchored, this paper employs the idea of a “Multiplex World”. Unlike the former, the idea of a Multiplex World envisions a more pluralistic and diversified architecture of global governance shaped by a proliferation of transnational challenges, diffusion of new ideas, and expansion of actors and processes that lie at the center of global governance. A Multiplex World better captures the ongoing fragmentation of global governance, which in turn reflects a growing demand for new principles and approaches that cannot be accommodated by a simple extension of the existing but fading international order dominated by the US or the multilateral institutions it created. The concept of global governance, argues this paper, must come to terms with an emerging realities of the Multiplex World.