Global Institutional Order Research Articles

Combining world-system and world polity approaches to analyze international environmental governance: a case study of forest governance in Chile

ABSTRACT This paper analyzes an important facet in international environmental governance: the development and implementation of Chile’s national forestry strategy. As a national program designed to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and to enhance the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and forest carbon stocks (i.e., a national REDD+ program), Chile’s national forestry strategy demonstrates the norm diffusion and institutional structuration commonly exhibited in world polity approaches to global and transnational sociology. Yet, world-system analysis of Chile’s forest conservation program highlights the role of power and positionality along the global division of labor in its implementation. The organized hypocrisy of the Chilean state leads to means-ends decoupling in which the practices of the global institutional order are faithfully executed but have an opaque relationship to climate governance goals. This paper, then, joins a growing scholarship that combines these divergent approaches to highlight advances in environmental governance born from connection to the global institutional order of environmentalism while simultaneously explaining structural issues that hinder efforts to achieve global climate targets.

On the Universal Power of Socioeconomic Rights: A Comparison Between Thomas Pogge and Rainer Forst

Introduction. This article investigates the universal power of socioeconomic rights assessing their theoretical conceptualization and practical implication. Methods. Taking theoretical and empirical research into account – at the level of public ethics and political theory – the article carries out a comparative analysis of the elements of global economic justice theory, moral universalism and institutional understanding of human rights of Thomas Pogge and the critical theory of political and social justice and the moral constructivist conception of human rights of Rainer Forst. Analysis. On the one hand, Pogge’s cosmopolitan approach underlines serious noncompliance of socioeconomic rights at the global level because of the unjust distribution of rights and duties enforced by the current global institutional order. In this vein, the protection of socioeconomic rights is conceived as a (moral) negative duty not to deprive people of secure access to a basic human rights object, and socioeconomic rights, by imposing upon them unjust coercive social institutions. On the other hand, Forst’s perspective maintains that each right needs to be constructed on the very basic moral right to reciprocal and general justification which is conceived as the most universal and basic claim of every human being. Results. Drawing on the above-mentioned outlooks on socioeconomic rights, the universal power of socioeconomic rights is assessed in light of the satisfaction of universal basic needs, whose object is also the object of socioeconomic rights – a ‘conditio sine qua non’ for a worthwhile life – and the justification of the assigned duties at the global level.

Rationalization of belonging: Transnational community endurance

Contemporary thinkers are pessimistic about the endurance of transnational communities. The deviant case of the century-and-a-half-old transnational Esperanto community features a process that can explain transnational community survival: rationalization. Rationalization manifests in Esperantists reproducing a form of community logic integrating symbols, principles (justifications, values, etc.), communication practices and technologies, and organization centered on the Esperanto language. The Esperanto language and community logic enable unifying Esperanto activities across space and time. The Esperanto case suggests that community rationalization and language rationalization – an element thereof – are global phenomena integral to modernity. Having affected communities and language too, rationalization as a global process appears to be more extensive than previously suggested. Transnational communities can endure as manifestations of a global community institutional order organizing social life alongside but largely independently of nation-states, science, professions, and religion.

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.

Ubuntu and the modern society

The incompatibility school of thought maintains that ubuntu is incompatible with modern society’s politico-juridical order and neoliberal economic system that promotes individualism and unequal distribution of wealth in the context of economic marginalisation and severe impoverishment of the black African majority. Furthermore, the postcolonial state tends to undermine the common good of society. The pro-ubuntu camp maintains that ubuntu is relevant as a normative ethical concept and as the underlying moral framework of reconciliatory politics of South Africa’s rainbow nation. I will show that the limitation of ubuntu due to its application in the framework of liberal constitutional democracy and neoliberal “global institutional order” that serve the interests of global capital and at the same time undermine the economic interests of impoverished black Africans requires ubuntu normative ethical theory to establish an understanding of a rearrangement of the “global institutional order” in a way which fits ubuntu. This work is novel as I appropriate Metz’s understanding of ubuntu as a normative ethical theory to show the importance and the nature of the realignment of the “global institutional order” to ubuntu in a way which promotes the common good of the global community of human beings.

Zur Legitimität von Staatlichkeit: Eine kosmopolitische Kritik offener Grenzen

AbstractBorders are a constitutive feature of states. Political agency would, therefore, come into conflict with a practice of open borders. This is equally true for the dynamics of unleashed global financial and commodity markets as well as for a global labour market. An unregulated mobility of capital, goods, and people would erode the agency of states and diminish politics to a mere location factor. In the following, I argue in favor of the legitimacy of (state) borders and political control over migratory movements, however, not from a communitarian or even nationalist perspective, but from a cosmopolitan one. Political cosmopolitanism differs from sociological, economic, or cultural variants with regard to the role of politics. While other kinds of cosmopolitanism generally understand globalisation as weakening the agency of states, political cosmopolitanism strives for the establishment of a global institutional order, which allows for democratically legitimised political agency beyond the nation-state. The question is what institutional governance of migration is legitimate in a cosmopolitan framework. The following text discusses the political theory (part 1) and some preliminary philosophical-ethical aspects (part 2) of this topic.

REPUBLICANISM AND GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS: THREE DESIDERATA IN TENSION

Abstract:Recently, republicans have been increasingly arguing that the ideal of nondomination can ground both a more plausible account of global justice and better insights for global institutional design than liberal egalitarianism does. What kind of global institutions, however, does nondomination require? The essay argues that a global institutional blueprint based on the republican ideal of nondomination is a multifaceted endeavor. Republican institutions should aim to fulfill three different desiderata: 1) avoiding excessive concentration of power; 2) bringing informal asymmetrical power under institutional control; 3) furthering an active, vigilant citizenry. The three desiderata often pull in different directions. At the global level in particular, they do not converge on a verdict over whether we should switch to a cosmopolitan institutional order, stick to a world of states, or opt for something altogether different. As a result, there is no straightforward pathway leading from the vindication of nondomination as the central principle of global justice to a clear vision for a global institutional order. The issue is, instead, a matter of careful balancing.

World polity or world society? Delineating the statist and societal dimensions of the global institutional system

The world society/polity perspective developed by John Meyer, his collaborators, and his students has grown tremendously over the past three decades. It is, however, theoretically and conceptually imprecise in one crucial respect: the very terms by which the perspective is called – ‘world polity’ and ‘world society’ – are used interchangeably and indiscriminately. This article proposes the utility of developing an implicit conceptual distinction between these terms. The world polity and world society describe, respectively, the state-centric and civil society dimensions of the global institutional order. After explicating key differences between the world polity and world society, the author offers suggestions for operationalizing these concepts in empirical research and considers possible avenues of inquiry.

Is Globalisation Good for the Poor? A Reply to Pogge

In an article from 2011, Thomas Pogge asks if globalisation is good for the world's poor. Pogge answers in the negative. As important evidence for the view that the globalisation period has not been good for the world's poor, Pogge cites a dataset provided by Branko Milanović (CUNY). In this article, we do not take issue with Pogge's definition of “globalisation”, “the world’s poor” or with the veracity of the empirical data he refers to in articulating and defending his view about globalisation and the world's poor. However, Pogge's reference to a dataset showing that there has been an economic polarisation between the wealthiest and poorest people of the world, is not, we contend, something that in itself offers strong support for his view that the global institutional order is a significant cause of this economic polarisation. We believe that Pogge overemphasises the impact of supranational institutions in relation to the question of what the main drivers have been of the economic polarisation in question. Our thesis is that a high population growth in the poorest regions of the world, relative to the population growth in the richest regions of the world, can help explain a non-negligible amount of the economic polarisation that has occurred between 1988 and 2005.

Justice Between Sites of Justice

Michael Blake argues that states are the primary sites of justice for persons and that the function of international justice is to ensure that states interact with each other in ways that preserve the capacity of each to realize justice for their own members. This paper will argue that justice among states requires more of states than that they preserve and maintain each other's capacity as primary sites of justice. Justice among states will require some justification, as well, of the claims of states over resources and territory within their borders. Such a justification, I suggest, must presume a global institutional order, and this will introduce the problem of coercion in the international domain. International coercion will have implications for Blake's understanding of international economic justice since it is premised on the claim that the domestic context is coercive in a way that the international arena is not.

Resource Curse: Micro and Macro Analysis

The aim of this paper was to identify the different human agents and their different activities which cause resource curse – a phenomenon that has plagued Sub-Saharan Africa. In order to do the identification, the paper employed the levels of analysis approach. The approach shows that the relevant agents and factors can be analysed at the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, there are the individual, collective and corporate sub-levels, while at the macro level there are the state and the global institutional order sub-levels. The paper was divided into three parts. The first part explicated the different levels and sub-levels of analyses. The second part dealt with the micro level while the third part dealt with the macro level. The end-result is that despite the complexity of resource curse and the multifaceted nature of the activities that cause resource curse, we can still identify the different causal roles played by different agents, and thus attribute causal responsibility to the agents. Keywords: Dutch Disease, Macro, Micro, Rent-Seeking, Resource Curse

A critique of an argument against patent rights for essential medicines

Thomas Pogge has recently argued that the way in which research and development of essential medicines is incentivized, under existing World Trade Organization rules, should be supplemented with an additional incentivizing mechanism. One might hold a stronger view than the one that Pogge currently holds, namely that patent rights for essential medicines are morally unjustified per se. Throughout this paper, ‘the strong view’ refers to this view. The strong view is one that enjoys considerable support both within and outside the academic community. This paper critically discusses one specific argument in favor of the strong view. This argument is named the ‘Poggean argument’. This denominator is appropriate because a number of the essential premises of the argument are constituted by propositions that Pogge at some point has defended. The Poggean argument is valid, and defenders of the strong view also have some grounds for believing that the argument is sound. This belief comes, however, with what is arguably a too high cost, namely that the global institutional order becomes very demanding on taxpaying citizens of high-income countries if it is to be just. One may find acceptance of this cost relatively unproblematic, but this cost is, it is argued, unacceptable to anyone who has views on distributive justice that are sympathetic to the core tenets of libertarianism.

Cutting the Gordian knot of world poverty: Thomas Pogge’s Alexandrian solution

In this paper, the author analyzes Thomas Pogge?s thesis that citizens of affluent countries are violating the negative right of the global poor not to be harmed by lending their support to the current global institutional order. The author argues, however, that Pogge?s argument is unsatisfactory because he makes an unjustified leap from collective to individual responsibility. The author begins by assessing Pogge?s argument so as to elucidate the leap. Subsequently, the author examines two proposals which could complete his argument; nonetheless, the author argues that both proposals are unsatisfactory. The first suggestion - the participation argument - contains two conceptual inadequacies; moreover, if we were to accept this argument, we would also be committed to accepting an unsavory implication. Taking cue from Thomas Nagel?s ?rule in our name? argument, the author develops Pogge?s second suggestion - the political representation argument - that promises to bridge the gap in Pogge?s thinking. The issues of misrepresentation and of underrepresentation, however, undermine this proposal too.

Unequal power and the institutional design of global governance: the case of arms control

AbstractIR scholars have recently paid increasing attention to unequal institutional orders in world politics, arguing that global governance institutions are deeply shaped by power inequalities among states. Yet, the literature still suffers from conceptual limitations and from a shortage of empirical work. The article addresses these shortcomings through a study of the historical evolution of global arms control institutions since 1945. It shows that in this important policy area, the global institutional order has not been marked by a recent trend toward deeper inequality, as many writings on unequal institutions suggest. Instead, the analysis reveals a pattern of institutional mutation whereby specific forms of institutional inequality are recurrently replaced and supplemented by new forms. This process, the article argues, is driven by states' efforts to adapt the regime to a changing material and normative environment within the constraints of past institutional legacies.

Realising Justice

In the recent past the Western-dominated global institutional order has come to be challenged by the bloc of rising powers. The question of whether brics has the ability to reshape global governance is an important one and carries significance for the global South, which has been adversely affected by global institutions. Yet the reliance on the capacity, or the will, of rising powers to speak for the global South, or to prioritise the concerns of their own people might be misplaced. Conceivably the only way both global institutions and governments can be compelled to heed the voices of the poorest of the poor is through sustained activism in civil society. In a globalised world, civil society activism has to be global in scope. Civil society might not be the best solution to the problems of the world, but in a disenchanted post-revolutionary world, it is the only option on offer.

Do We Have a Negative Duty Towards the Global Poor? Thomas Pogge on Global Justice

Who has the duty to guarantee that basic human rights are fulfilled globally? This is one of the central questions in the current global justice debate. The answer to this question must be based on some principle of justice that distributes rights and duties in the global sphere. This paper analyses Thomas Pogge’s answer to this question, which does not rest on notions of charity, benevolence, or supererogatory duties, but on the negative duty not to harm the global poor. His central claim is that “we, the citizens and governments of the affluent societies, in collusion with the ruling elites of many poor countries, are harming the global poor by imposing an unjust institutional order upon them.” Although I am sympathetic to Pogge’s project, my discussion of it is mainly critical of his negative duty argument. Section 48.2 discusses Pogge’s explanatory globalism arguing that global poverty is caused by a global institutional order, and that affluent societies, by setting up this global institutional order in an unjust way, are responsible for global poverty. Section 48.3 describes and discusses Pogge’s argument that we, the citizens and governments of affluent societies, have a negative duty not to cause global poverty. Although Pogge’s explanatory globalism is convincing, his negative-duty argument cannot be sustained. The main problem in his argument is the unspecified “we” that have a duty: does it refer to governments of affluent societies, their citizens, or both?

Global Security Challenges

Canada and the United States share a close alliance, a long border, and democratic values, but the two countries do not always have the same views on regional and global security challenges. A group of Canadian and American scholars and practitioners met at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire on 23-24 September 2011 to compare views on four key issues: Is the global institutional order equipped to meet today's threats? Are regional security institutions improving North American security? How different are Canadian and American grand strategies? And by which mechanisms should security threats be assessed and addressed?The organizers of the conference were the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth; the McGiIl- Universite de Montreal Centre for International Peace and Security Studies; and the Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University with support from the chair in American politicai and economie studies at the Universite de Montreal; the Social Science and Humanities Council of Canada; Fonds quebecois de recherche sur la societe et la culture; and the embassy of Canada in the United States.The papers presented led to a lively and spirited exchange of views on alliance burden- sharing, economic and security integration, cooperation in protecting human rights, security cooperation and peacemaking, China and the challenge of rising powers, and issues of status in international relations. Participants agreed that the international system is being tested by the world economic and financial downturn, continuing challenges in the Middle East and Iran, the rise of China, and major human rights violations by state actors. While questions about the continued leadership role of the US in the international system were raised, most felt that its role will continue and that the international system will evolve to meet the new challenges. The US, however, will seek more burden- sharing and be very judicious about new commitments abroad. Although the US and Canada may disagree on some issues such as the role of the UN and international human rights treaties, common interests bind us, as exemplified by the current focus on perimeter security.This symposium presents a sample of brief pieces that give a sense of the research agendas pursued by conference participants. Like other allies, Canada has a vested interest in the United States' capacity to find the proper balance between global leadership and efficient and legitimate international institutions. In the first article, William Wohlforth, of Dartmouth College, explains why the US must make strong international security institutions an integral part of its own grand strategy. He sees more positive movement in the direction of strengthened security institutions than many critics contend, and gives a few indications as to how the US can play a constructive role in that process. If security institutions are to function adequately, however, all participants have to bear their share of the burden. …

Global injustice, individual duties and non-ideal institutional circumstances

The main questions of this paper are: What duties towards the very poor do the global rich have given that the global institutional order is unjust? Are there duties to institutionalize rights under such non-ideal institutional circumstances? How strong are these duties? My thesis is that what makes duties strong or weak is not that they are positive or negative in the sense derived from the theory of action. Instead of this, the strength of individual duties depends on their reference to basic goods and their specification, which partly depends on existing institutional arrangements as far as feasibility, determinateness, costliness, and efficiency are concerned.

Poverty, negative duties and the global institutional order

Do we violate human rights when we cooperate with and impose a global institutional order that engenders extreme poverty? Thomas Pogge argues that by shaping and enforcing the social conditions that foreseeably and avoidably cause global poverty we are violating the negative duty not to cooperate in the imposition of a coercive institutional order that avoidably leaves human rights unfulfilled. This article argues that Pogge's argument fails to distinguish between harms caused by the global institutions themselves and harms caused by the domestic policies of particular states and collective action problems for which collective responsibility cannot be assigned. The article also argues that his position relies on questionable factual and theoretical claims about the impact of global institutions on poverty, and about the benefits and harms of certain features of these institutions. Participation in, and benefit from, global institutions is unlikely to constitute a violation of our negative duties towards the poor.

Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties

Mathias Risse discusses whether the global system of territorial sovereignty that emerged in the fifteenth century can be said to harm the poorer societies. This question is distinct from the question I raise in my book—namely, whether present citizens of the affluent countries, in collusion with the ruling elites of most poor countries, are harming the global poor. These questions are different, because present citizens of the affluent countries bear responsibility only for the recent design of the global institutional order. The effects of the states system as it was shaped before 1980, say, is thus of little relevance to the question I have raised. A further difference is that whereas Risse's discussion focuses on the well-being of societies, typically assessed by their GNP per capita, my discussion focuses on the well-being of individual human beings. This difference is significant because what enriches a poor country (in terms of GNP per capita) all too often impoverishes the vast majority of its inhabitants, as I discuss with the example of Nigeria's oil revenues (pp. 112–14).My focus is then on the present situation, on the radical inequality between the bottom half of humankind, suffering severe poverty, and those in the top seventh, whose per capita share of the global product is 180 times greater than theirs (at market exchange rates). This radical inequality and the continuous misery and death toll it engenders are foreseeably reproduced under the present global institutional order as we have shaped it. And most of it could be avoided, I hold, if this global order had been, or were to be, designed differently. The feasibility of a more poverty-avoiding alternative design of the global institutional order shows, I argue, that the present design is unjust and that, by imposing it, we are harming the global poor by foreseeably subjecting them to avoidable severe poverty.