Global Governance Institutions Research Articles

Venezuelan migration in South America: coordinating regional responses to a transboundary reception crisis

ABSTRACT Migration is a policy field that is prone to transboundary reception crises due to the weakness of inter-state cooperation and global governance institutions’ incomplete architecture. Research suggests that the regional level is a more realistic policy arena where cooperation to coordinate responses may emerge. Our paper aims to explore and analyse the conditions under which coordinated responses to transboundary reception crises are present in (or absent from) regional migration governance. Below we develop an analytical model based on crisis management scholarship to examine coordination capacities at the regional level. Empirically, we comparatively assess the ability of old regional institutions (i.e. MERCOSUR, the South American Conference of Migration) and new ones (i.e. the Quito Process) to orchestrate responses to receive Venezuelan migrants across the region. Our findings reveal that coordination capacities remain scarce as regional institutions navigate from non-crisis to crisis times. This is largely because there was a shift in policy framing regarding immigrant reception, to self-interested national, regional and extra-regional actors promoting new regional mechanisms, and to the increasing complexity of regional migration governance as (new) competing actors emerge. Our conceptual and empirical contributions provide insights into how governance processes in South America have changed, particularly during crises.

Substance- or legitimacy-oriented (de)legitimation of global governance institutions. The double-edged role of complexity

ABSTRACT This paper contributes to International Relations studies on the (de)legitimation of global governance institutions by introducing a focus on substance-oriented (de)legitimation practices to complement existing legitimacy-oriented perspectives. Building on the distinction between performance and performativity, the paper clarifies the concepts of performing (de)legitimation as legitimacy-oriented and performative (de)legitimation as substance-oriented. It argues that while the former primarily aims to contest or establish legitimacy, the latter targets substantive outcomes but affects legitimacy as a by-product. The paper introduces three distinguishing criteria – orientation toward legitimacy or substance, focus on form or function, and justificatory or substantive manifestation – to differentiate between the two. Their empirical manifestation is illustrated through a case study of the United Nations’ open-ended intergovernmental working group on business and human rights, which highlights the role of complexity and how it can serve both sets of (de)legitimation practices by contributing to legitimacy and substance, respectively.

In the Eyes of the Beholders: The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions under Multipolarity

Abstract Multipolarity has ambiguous implications for the legitimacy of global governance institutions (GGIs). Rising powers’ capacity to contest established powers’ agendas prima facie increases the GGIs’ legitimacy by reducing power asymmetries between the North and South. However, according to some, the rise of new powers has contributed to the GGIs’ poor performance and inadequate representativeness. We investigate how global publics evaluate the legitimacy of two GGIs—the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Group of Twenty (G20)—and multipolarity’s role in those evaluations. Drawing on an original dataset of 3,584 newspaper articles sampled from rising and established powers, mid-ranking developing, and least developed countries between 2008 and 2019, our qualitative content analysis found an intensification of legitimacy deficits over time. Regularly accredited to a new global power configuration, the inability to find consensus severely harmed both institutions’ legitimacy. We also see the resilience of GGIs’ legitimacy in the face of gridlocks and institutional fragmentation. Replacing inclusive multilateral agreements with bilateral or inter-regional ones was widely seen as an undesired outcome of major power tensions. Finally, our data revealed a deep-seated mistrust of great power politics and nostalgia for meaningful multilateral institutions as a potential antidote.

The Shifting Geopolitics

Geopolitics has now taken center stage in shaping the domestic and foreign policies of nation-states. This trend largely aligns with the principles of political realism, where states aim to survive in an anarchical international order by maximizing power and wealth while minimizing losses. In an era characterized by rapid ecological, economic, and technological changes, as well as uncertainty and conflicting dynamics in international politics, geopolitical narratives have captured the attention of statesmen, journalists, academics, policy analysts, and military strategists. The traditional version of geopolitics, which was characterized by determinism, expansionism, and aggression, has given way to a more nuanced understanding of where states make strategic choices in a multi-polar world. However, this shift has also witnessed a decline in multilateralism and the rise of nationalism, populism, and fundamentalism, which has weakened international regimes and global governance institutions. These developments are occurring at a time when many global issues, such as arms proliferation, pandemics, poverty, inflation, and climate change, require international cooperation. The global power shift from the Atlantic to Asia, particularly with the ascent of China as a geo-strategic rival to the USA with global influence in security, development, and civilization initiatives, as well as the growing Sino-Russian partnership, has created new geopolitical dynamics. India's neutral stance between a resurgent Russia and the USA, while being part of America's Indo-Pacific strategy, alongside rival strategies aimed at containing, deterring, and pushing back against China, has placed small states like Nepal in a challenging position. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, driven by the latter's interest in joining NATO and the EU, has reshaped bilateral relationships among major and minor states. This ongoing conflict shows no signs of resolution, further complicating global geopolitics. The emergence of the Eurasian geopolitical pole and the Atlantic solidarity, along with their contest for supremacy, are affecting global security, political and economic order, and the formation and dissolution of alliances among nation-states as they strive to rebalance their relationships.

Water Economy Resources as a Geopolitical Asset of the EAEU Countries and the Formation of Sovereign Development Strategies

   Water is a vital resource for all mankind. Its resources can both accelerate and limit the social development and technological progress of any society, can be the cause of both prosperity and poverty, can lead to both cooperation and conflicts on a local, regional or global scale. The article is devoted to the problem of joint exploitation of water resources. Their fair distribution in the Central Asian region is relevant, requires coordinated approaches and the creation of joint roadmaps. They could diversify emerging risks by creating favorable conditions for the accelerated development of all Central Asian countries and building a unified infrastructure for energy exchange and water use, taking into account the interests of the world’s main regulators of the scientific and technological process, who have historical claims to the dominance and assimilation of some parts of the economy in the national economies of Central Asian countries. The opportunity not to fall under the institutions of global governance will help to create conditions for local national elites not to lose their sovereignty and fulfill the tasks of sustainable technological development of Central Asian industries in a situation of digital transformation and post-crisis recovery.

Regulatory “Reliance” in Global Trade Governance

AbstractOne of the most significant recent trends in global trade governance has been the increasing use of regulatory “reliance” arrangements as a significant element of trade alliances. Against this backdrop, an important set of questions are raised about how existing institutions of global trade governance – especially the World Trade Organization and international regulatory standards organisations – should respond. To what extent, and how, should such institutions facilitate reliance arrangements? And what role can they usefully play in overseeing and guiding their use? This paper begins to answer these questions through a focused case study of regulatory reliance in the agrifood sector. Four challenges are identified regarding the implementation of such arrangements: the high costs of establishment and maintenance; the lack of agreed and reliable assessment methodologies; the potential for arbitrary discrimination between trade partners; and the difficulties of dealing with regulatory change over time. In light of these challenges, the paper assesses the work of existing international organisations in governing reliance arrangements in the agrifood sector. The paper concludes with a number of preliminary suggestions as to how this architecture of global governance might be supplemented or harnessed to address some of the challenges posed by reliance arrangements.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: The Twin Challenges of Economic Inequality and Disinformation

Modern international interactions are structured by institutions of global governance, both formal and informal. Most of these institutions are encompassed by the liberal international order. Like domestic institutions, these international institutions are challenged by the prevalence and depth of disinformation. The demand for disinformation, in turn, has been fed by the order’s lack of attention to growing domestic economic inequality. Disinformation and inequality thus present twin challenges to global governance.

Global justice and EU climate policy in a contested liberal international order

Abstract Following the failure of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) in 2009 in Copenhagen, the European Union has significantly altered its negotiation strategy in the global climate regime. It moved from an emphasis on ‘leadership by example’ and an insistence on top-down, binding targets within a framework of strong global governance institutions (impartiality in global justice terms) towards a strategy of shared leadership, increased dialogue (mutual recognition) and acceptance of more voluntary instruments (non-domination). This article traces this shift through an examination of EU policy documents and makes sense of it by reference to learning effects of an EU with solidarist ambitions in a pluralist international society, and the changing power distribution and contestations of the post-Cold War liberal order on the global level. Furthermore, it assesses the consequences of the shift for international society (especially concerning different ‘solidarisms’) and global climate justice. We argue that while a changed EU approach has been vital to maintaining the EU's status as a relevant actor and to secure the Paris Agreement, too much emphasis on the pluralist dimension and non-domination may also hinder effective global solutions to climate change. It is therefore vital that the EU continues its solidarist ambitions by pushing for rigorous measures of accountability, but also by alleviating structural domination in the climate regime and particularly by better recognizing and including civil society actors from the global South.

Public sphere and global governance

This paper is about the effects of the absence and the possibility of the emergence of a normatively meaningful political public sphere. The effects of the lack of a global public sphere are far-reaching. Namely, the current crisis of global governance and the global political system can be traced back to the absence of a normatively meaningful public sphere that can mediate between global society and the authoritative institutions of global governance. At the same time, I argue that the absence of the public sphere is not primarily due to the population’s attitudes trapped in national horizons but must be primarily attributed to the deficient institutional structure of the global political system.

Hierarchy and differentiation in international regime complexes: a theoretical framework for comparative research

The concept of international regime complexity offers a useful lens for examining the increasing density of international institutions in global governance. A growing literature in International Political Economy (IPE) identifies clusters of overlapping institutions in many important policy areas, yet some scholars argue that complexity undermines governance effectiveness, while others perceive distinct advantages over unified institutions. To bring coherence to these findings, we present a general theoretical framework that characterizes regime complexes based on two structural features: Authority relations and institutional differentiation. These dimensions jointly determine the opportunities and constraints that states and other actors confront as they navigate institutional rules. As a result, they shape important outcomes, such as policy adjustment, regime shifting and competitive regime creation. The article proposes testable hypotheses regarding the effects of authority and differentiation, and we assess their correspondence with the eight regime complexes examined by the five companion articles in this special issue. We further identify a set of dynamic processes that shape the evolution of regime complexes over time. Our framework strengthens the foundation for comparative analysis of regime complexes and charts a new agenda for the research program.

Global governance and the normalization of artificial intelligence as ‘good’ for human health

AbstractThe term ‘artificial intelligence’ has arguably come to function in political discourse as, what Laclau called, an ‘empty signifier’. This article traces the shifting political discourse on AI within three key institutions of global governance–OHCHR, WHO, and UNESCO–and, in so doing, highlights the role of ‘crisis’ moments in justifying a series of pivotal re-articulations. Most important has been the attachment of AI to the narrative around digital automation in human healthcare. Greatly enabled by the societal context of the pandemic, all three institutions have moved from being critical of the unequal power relations in the economy of AI to, today, reframing themselves primarily as facilitators tasked with helping to ensure the application of AI technologies. The analysis identifies a shift in which human health and healthcare is framed as in a ‘crisis’ to which AI technology is presented as the remedy. The article argues the need to trace these discursive shifts as a means by which to understand, monitor, and where necessary also hold to account these changes in the governance of AI in society.

Granting legitimacy from non‐state actor deliberation: An example of women's groups at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

AbstractNon‐state actors (NSAs) have been widely recognized as important participants in the global climate regime. Their participation is considered to have the potential to enhance the democratic legitimacy of global governance institutions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What is the mechanism through which NSAs grant legitimacy to the institution? This study connects NSA legitimation with their deliberation at multilateral venues. I argue that, while NSAs do not have formal voting or decision‐making power, evaluating their participation in deliberation activities, such as the Side Events at the annual Conference of Parties, can shed light on our understanding of whether there is equality in their participation and who gets to contribute to the institutional legitimacy of the UNFCCC. Drawing on the example of women's groups at the UNFCCC, I demonstrate their increasing participation in deliberation. Quantitative analysis and interviews suggest that their participation is relatively inclusive with a diverse range of actors and viewpoints. Although Global Northern NSAs enjoy some advantages in participation, the effect is balanced by NSAs' social embeddedness, especially for the Southern groups, and the robust collaborations between the North and South. These features are likely to enhance the legitimacy of UNFCCC. Future research should consider how to understand and assess legitimacy in global governance regimes and who may be left out in the legitimation process.

The instability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime complex

This article theorizes path-dependent changes in the institutional architecture of the nuclear nonproliferation regime complex; it analyses the effects of different regime-complex structures on institutional contestation and policy adjustment. I first offer a general theory of how the preexisting institutional structures of international regime complexes (IRCs) facilitate and constrain subsequent institutional developments in ways that make IRCs prone to endogenous, path-dependent change. Next, I illustrate how strategies of regime shifting and rival regime creation in the nuclear nonproliferation complex have triggered path-dependent ‘reactive sequencing’, resulting in growing institutional fragmentation. To illustrate endogenous dynamics of IRC evolution, I examine the nuclear nonproliferation complex at three ‘critical junctures’: The mid-1970s, the end of the Cold War, and the early-2000s. During each period, exogenous proliferation shocks interacted with pre-existing institutional structures to produce specific patterns of contestation which set in motion a reactive sequence of growing institutional fragmentation. My argument has relevance for global economic governance broadly and for the growing IPE literature which explores reactive sequencing and institutional decay in global governance institutions.

India, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and the 1979 Virginity Testing Scandal

AbstractThis article looks at India’s complaint at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1979 about the ‘virginity test’ performed on a migrant Indian woman at Heathrow. It examines the use of arguments about race and racial discrimination by India to compel Britain to discuss immigration on a bilateral basis. The article argues that the pivot to a race-based argument was deliberately patriarchal and India’s main concern in these negotiations was the impending British Nationality Act of 1981, which would prevent men from moving to Britain in search of an overseas wife. Using the virginity testing scandal, the article re-examines the changing role of discourses about race in postcolonial institutions of global governance.

The epidemic effect: Epidemics, institutions and human capital development

Epidemics can negatively affect economic development unless they are mitigated by global governance institutions. We examine the effects of sudden exposure to epidemics on human capital outcomes using evidence from the African meningitis belt. Meningitis shocks reduce child health outcomes, particularly when the World Health Organization (WHO) does not declare an epidemic year. These effects are reversed when the WHO declares an epidemic year. Children born in meningitis shock areas in a year when an epidemic is declared are 10 percentage points (pp) less stunted and 8.2 pp less underweight than their peers born in non-epidemic years. We find evidence for the crowd-out of routine vaccination during epidemic years. We analyze data from World Bank projects and find evidence that an influx of health aid in response to WHO declarations may partly explain these reversals.

The Second Edition of the South Commission

Abstract This essay proposes the creation of a second edition of the South Commission, with updated discussions featuring not only the central theme of development, but also the topics of climate and environment as part of joint efforts to achieve an overarching diagnosis of key challenges facing humankind – with a focus on the developing world – as well as a roadmap for global governance reform that takes both historical and current demands seriously and that shields, even if partially, key global governance institutions, including the UN system, from global power politics. While building bridges with the North is necessary, without a South-led reform agenda, global governance will remain undemocratic, unjust, and ineffective.

Embracing or Rebuffing “the International”? Populist Foreign Policy and the Fourth Wave of Populism in Latin America

Abstract Under what conditions do populists embrace or reject “the international”? Some scholars of populism argue that populist leaders tend to neglect political (inter-)action in the international arena due to their stated preference for isolationist, nationalistic, and protectionist stances. Meanwhile, others claim that through their promotion of performative encounters and transnational solidarities between “People(s),” populists are actually more likely to engage with actors, ideas, styles, and agendas coming from abroad. This article explores this apparent contradiction, hypothesizing that three main elements influence the “populist mindset” to narrate the external world and thus adopt or rather resist new contingencies originating internationally: legitimacy, support, and opportunity. To examine the combination of these behavioral patterns, we compare two populist presidents who are paradigmatic of a fourth wave of populism in Latin America: Brazil's Jair Messias Bolsonaro and Mexico's Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). A comparative analysis of Bolsonaro's and AMLO's discursive responses to numerous foreign policy issues reveals how these three mechanisms condition their engagement or apathy toward external developments in bilateral frameworks of cooperation, regional integration schemes, multilateral organizations, and global governance institutions. The findings of this study can contribute to a greater understanding of populist foreign policies and their outcomes, with a special emphasis on Latin America and the Global South, and more generally to the emerging research on populism in international relations.

Institutional Overlap in Global Governance and the Design of Intergovernmental Organizations

How does the increasingly dense network of overlapping institutions in global governance affect the design of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)? We argue that institutional overlap can unleash mimicking dynamics whereby states design new IGOs using the design of existing organizations that engage in similar issue areas and perform similar governance tasks for similar member states as templates. Using design templates from the reference group of overlapping institutions is a strategy for boundedly rational designers in situations of complexity because it reduces uncertainty and lowers the costs of identifying suitable institutional solutions. Overlap therefore increases the design similarity between new and pre-existing IGOs, specifically where pre-existing organizations have institutional designs that made them endure. Introducing a new measure of institutional overlap in global governance and new data on the design and governance tasks of the 534 IGOs from the Correlates of War Project, we corroborate our argument using regression analyses. Our results hold important lessons for theories of institutional design, regime complexity, and global governance more broadly.

Does Science Shape Sentiment? Scientific Inputs and the Deliberations in the Convention on Biological Diversity

Can the tone of scientific reports shape the ensuing political debates? This question is of utmost importance as global science bodies like the IPCC and IPBES release increasingly fervent calls to action. This article seeks an initial study about whether global science bodies can influence the negotiations by state parties by performing a multifaceted sentiment analysis of scientific inputs into the debates of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The article articulates two social learning pathways in which science can influence the tone of debates: pushing and participation. It then finds these pathways lacking in the incorporation of science into the CBD negotiations, and empirical work demonstrates limited effect on the sentiment or tone of debates as a result of scientific inputs. The conclusion reflects on the role that multifaceted sentiment analysis can play in understanding the increasingly complex politics of science on global governance institutions and particularly in the case of biodiversity governance.

Introduction

Scholarly and public interest in the nexus of capitalism and global governance has intensified in recent years. The persistence of economic inequality, the rise of populism, the backlash against globalization, the Covid-19 pandemic and supply chain fragility, the resurgence of open conflict in Europe, and the urgency of the climate change crisis have only drawn further attention to the relationships of markets and trade to norms and institutions. Solutions to many of these challenges, which are closely tied to capitalist dynamics, require interventions on a scale that only institutions of global governance can provide. At the same time, these challenges compromise governance institutions by making them susceptible to private influence. Moreover, critics have raised alarm about the ways some forms of global governance – such as powerful philanthropic institutions, private summitry forums, and international organizations that enforce economic globalization on nation-states – evade democratic accountability. Such developments have prompted scholars to analyze the entangled histories of capitalism and global governance and the evolution of the global economy and its regulation as well as collective efforts to provide for the well-being of humans and their environments.