International Governance Regime Research Articles

Unseen and unheard: the invisibility of kelp forests in international environmental governance

Kelp forests are one of the most extensive coastal ecosystems in the world. They serve a myriad of ecological functions, support substantial biodiversity, and contribute to a multitude of services essential to our contemporary society. Unfortunately, they are in decline. International governance regimes and institutions play an important role in addressing threats to marine ecosystems and combatting declines. However, not all ecosystems receive the same level of global governance attention. There is a growing interest in coastal ecosystems, and an overall increase in conservation targets and restoration programmes on many international platforms. We demonstrate that kelp forests consistently receive the least global governance attention compared to other dominant marine habitats. To address the disconnect between kelp science and environmental governance, we make five recommendations for the future.

The EU and the governance of the Maritime Global Space

ABSTRACTThis article investigates the extent to which the European Union (EU) contributes to the governance of Global Spaces by exploring its policies towards the maritime domain. In a more competitive and uncertain geopolitical setting, are the EU’s policies changing and becoming more strategic? Or does the EU continue to promote multilateral cooperation and regulation of the maritime Global Space, and if so, what type of governance regimes does it promote? Developing and applying three analytical models of Global Space policies, the article finds that the EU has been consistent in its approach, which reflects a combination of its strong interest in free navigation and an attempt to achieve sustainable growth through climate regulation. Despite more geopolitical conflict in these areas and in international relations more broadly, the EU’s approach to the maritime Global Space is to promote international governance regimes.

The establishment of the Eurodollar market in Paris and the failure of regulation and reform, 1959–1964

The advent of the Eurodollar market under the international monetary system of Bretton Woods (1944–1971) played a crucial role in the re-emergence of post-war international finance. By drawing on multiple historical archives, this article examines several aspects related to the establishment of the Eurodollar market in France between 1959 and 1964. The article argues that the Paris-based but Soviet owned Banque Commerciale pour l’Europe du Nord pioneered offshore banking in Paris and that some of the leading French banks sought Eurodollar regulations and reform in 1963. The Banque de France rejected regulation as it wished to promote Paris as a centre for offshore banking and because it deemed efforts to promote Eurodollar reform at the Bank of International Settlements unrealistic. The Banque de France was a member of the Eurodollar international governance regime that emerged in the 1960s.

Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Intellectual Property: From the Knowledge Dommons to ABS Agreements (WITHDRAWN)

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) on biological resources and traditional knowledge are criticized for increasing corporate control and lacking ethical considerations for Indigenous peoples and local communities. Access and benefit sharing (ABS) agreements are considered useful policy instruments for addressing issues of bioprospecting and biopiracy by securing developing countries and Indigenous peoples’ rights on their biological resources and traditional knowledge. Building on the theory of knowledge commons, we examine the international governance regimes for access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization. We then investigate three case studies of bioprospecting and biopiracy in South Africa to examine the processes of designing and implementing ABS agreements in favor of Indigenous peoples. Highlighting the wide-ranging consultation that needs to take place as part of this process, our analysis of these ABS agreements provides useful insights for the development of innovation and intellectual property policies that include traditional knowledge in a spirit of social justice, economic development and biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. In doing so, we contribute to ongoing debates about IPRs impacts by establishing that IPRs can be beneficial for society when provided to Indigenous peoples for protecting their traditional knowledge. Moreover, we provide a more nuanced understanding of the knowledge commons by determining how ABS agreements promote collective forms of ownership that regenerate traditional knowledge commons in line with customary rights.

China as a “National Strategic Buyer”: Towards a Multilateral Regime for Cross-Border M&A

Unlike the case of cross-border trade, there is no explicit international governance regime for cross-border MA rather, there is a shared understanding that publicly traded companies are generally for purchase by any bidder—domestic or foreign—willing to offer a sufficiently large premium over a target’s stock market price. The unspoken premise that undergirds the system is that the prospective buyer is motivated by private economic gain-seeking. The entry of China into the global M&A market threatens the fundamental assumptions of the current permissive international regime. China has become a significant player in the cross-border M&A market, particularly as an acquirer. The central claim of the article is that the cross-border M&A regime will require a new rules-of-the-game structure to take account of China’s ascension. This is because cross-border M&A with China introduces a new dimension: what we call the “national strategic buyer” (“NSB”), whose objective is to further the interests of a nation-state in the pursuit of industrial policy or out of national security concerns. Thus, China presents a problem of asymmetric motives in the global M&A market: sellers to Chinese firms have private motives for pursuing transactions, while at least some Chinese acquirers have non-economic motivations. Yet distinguishing commercial and financial motives from national strategic motives in Chinese firms is difficult. To date, the only mechanisms for addressing the NSB problem are national security review mechanisms such as the CFIUS process in the United States, as recently expanded through legislative amendment. The EU is moving forward on a screening regulation with a similar objective that contemplates activity both by the European Commission and the Member States. Whether suitably tailored or not, these approaches fail to take on the long-term concern of fully assimilating China as a normal actor in the global economic system. To address the NSB problem, we propose the adoption of a multilateral regime under which firms subject to potential government influence in their corporate decision-making must demonstrate their “eligibility” to engage in outbound M&A. For covered firms, the regime would require a commitment to exclusively commercial/financial motives in cross-border acquisitions, made credible through a corporate governance set-up featuring independent directors (selected by foreign investors) who publicly verify adherence and disclose the source of acquisition financing. Enforcement would consist of a secretariat that can evaluate eligibility and monitor post-acquisition conduct, and national legislation that would permit rejection of an acquisition of a local target by an acquirer that does not meet the eligibility criteria.

A Vital Artery or A Stent Needing Replacement? A Global Space Governance System without the Outer Space Treaty?

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is the foundational framework of international space law that has succeeded in effectively governing outer space. However, it is becoming increasingly possible that a major space power, or a group of States, may consider withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty, particularly in view of the current trend towards nationalistic political populism and isolationistic foreign policies to selectively withdraw from certain key international institutions and treaties. The Outer Space Treaty could be one such treaty, especially in relation to the exclusive national exploitation of space-based natural resources by private entities, and threats to national security. Such withdrawals would likely have serious implications for global space governance, which is essentially based on this Treaty. This paper critically addresses some of the most serious legal issues related to the void that such withdrawal might create in the prevailing international governance regime for outer space.

When in Rome: How Non-domestic Companies Listed in the UK May Not Comply with Accepted Norms and Principles of Good Corporate Governance. Does Home Market Culture Explain These Corporate Behaviours and Attitudes to Compliance?

Non-domestic companies are increasingly present on the London Stock Exchange. Such companies have specific governance requirements. They may seek to access capital in a more liquid market and to diversify ownership. The reputational ‘bonding’ (Coffee, Northwest Univ Law Rev 93:641–708, 1999; Columbia Law Rev 102:1757–1831, 2002) to a prestigious exchange should be a statement to the market of a propensity to disclosure and a willingness to protect minority shareholders. Yet, many non-domestic companies retain tightly controlled shareholding structures and are based in emerging regions where national culture norms differ to the UK. We hypothesise that non-domestic companies are likely to be less compliant with the principles of the UK Corporate Governance Code and suggest a correlation between lower levels of compliance and non-domestic companies from countries that demonstrate high power distance in the Hofstede (Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, 1980a) cultural value framework. We find some encouraging signs of compliance with the reigning governance code principles in Board structures. However, we find only partial compliance in leadership and Board effectiveness measures in those companies from cultures high on the power-distance scale. Further, we include analysis into ownership characteristics and find companies from emerging markets are dominated by a single or controlling group of shareholders, which is likely to impact on attitudes to compliance and is particularly evidenced in terms of Board structures with no executive directors or led by an executive Chairman. Much of the prior research effort into the levels of compliance with the UK’s ‘comply-or-explain’ approach to governance has produced mixed results and focused on all companies. In our exploratory approach to analysing only the non-domestic subsample, we report some evidence linking cultural distance to lower levels of compliance with the UK standards. We develop a framework to guide future research into the context and cultural underpinnings of this sub-sample of companies, hypothesising that frequent market capitalisation-induced index changes may divert attention away from any potential compliance issues. On the one hand, our evidence is encouraging for governance regimes based on voluntary compliance disclosures such as the UK and similar European and international markets, as we report partial compliance with the principles of the current governance code. Our research may, however, be helpful in guiding future versions of the UK governance framework and other international governance regimes adopting the ‘comply-or-explain’ approach and in setting policy to improve disclosure. It contributes to the understanding of the specific context of non-domestic companies and any cultural tendencies to non-compliance. By demonstrating evidence of lower levels of compliance with key principles of the Code by non-domestic companies, we present a framework enabling lawmakers to further improve corporate governance codes.

A Global Civil Society in a World Polity, or Angels and Nomads Against Empire?

Clifford Bob, The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media and International Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 254 pp. Richard J. F. Day, Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist Currents in Newest Social Movements (London: Pluto, 2005), 262 pp. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in Age of Empire (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), 427 pp. Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl, eds., NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations (London: Earthscan, 2006), 288 pp. Over past quarter-century, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and activist networks have increasingly gone global. Between 1973 and 1993, transnational social movement organizations concerned with human rights, environment, peace, and development more than tripled in number, rising to over 600 organizations. (1) Formerly local and national NGOs and community organizations now regularly operate transnationally: swapping information, networking, coordinating campaigns, framing claims, and locating shared targets. This is a change not only in frequency of interactions across borders, but also in networks' density, adaptability, complexity, and reach. Sidney Tarrow and Donatella Della Porta have called this trend the most dramatic change we see in world of contentious politics. (2) Transnational social movements are dynamic networks of multiple organizations and issues, forged in parallel and autonomous international summits, protest events, and via Internet. (3) They have even created their own space, World Social Forum (WSF), as well as a web of regional, national, local, and thematic forums modeled on WSF's horizontal, open space format. Here, movements deepen and broaden their solidarity ties and joint analyses under strategically ambiguous slogan that Another World Is Possible. While diverse, networks are united in conviction that this alternative should be forms of governance than neoliberal globalization. Activists decry this current global (dis)order as being characterized by mounting poverty and inequality within and among societies, corporate encroachment of the commons, environmental devastation, feminization of poverty, exacerbation of conflicts, and erosion of democracy. They identify and denounce World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO) as main institutional promoters of neoliberalism. Beyond this shared oppositional orientation, these actors have diverse--and often conflicting--demands, organizational cultures, tactics, and ultimate goals. At most recent WSF in Nairobi, Immanuel Wallerstein spoke of a family of movements, replete with all affinities, identifications, and squabbles that constitute such relationships. Broadly, movements divide between reformist NGOs and more radical direct action social movements and networks. At bottom, feuds between these two tendencies stem from fundamentally different conceptions of existing global governance and order (as well as their place within it) and from degree and methods of change that each pursues. Contemporary activist forums like WSF have brought these different circles into contact with one another and thus have helped to attenuate polemic between them. Yet tensions remain, and there is evidence that other superpower is both demobilizing and fracturing along traditional leftist fault lines. But who are these new global actors? What are their points of convergence, contradiction, and outright conflict? And how do they engage with, legitimize, or challenge both state and international governance regimes that states have constructed? Finally, what can we learn about nature of global governance from movements' relatively marginal vantage points? These questions orient this essay. Each of four books examined here offers a unique standpoint and insight into this upstart clan of nonstate (and sometimes antistate) actors that challenge patrician families comprising global governance: those of states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and transnational corporations (TNCs). …

Participation in International Governance Regime by the "Rest of the World": An Analysis of ICANN and South Korea

This paper explores the participation, policy agendas, and effectiveness of representatives from outside of North America and Europe in the processes of THe Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is an important and interesting example of how the Internet and e-commerce are creating new forms of international governance. ICANN is a private corporation, created at the end of 1998. How does the unique ICANN approach to an international governance problem affect the rest of the world (ROW) than the U.S.? Does the reliance on a private sector organization with some channels open to civil society participation make representation of ROW needs and interests easier or harder? How effectively have ROW actors participated in ICANN's regimes? What procedures and substantive policies would improve the benefits recieved by the ROW in the ICANN process? Relying on the empirical evidence from South Korea, the paper establishes a general framework for analyzing this problem.