Global Governance Issues Research Articles

Challenges in achieving the sustainable development goal on good health and well-being: Global governance as an issue for the means of implementation

To formulate health development policy and strategies aimed at the Sustainable Development Goal 3, which seeks to ensuring health and well-being for all, it is indispensable to revisit the issue of global health governance in the wake of the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. The issue of global health governance is also relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, where Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), influenza A (H1N1) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) were health security threats. The failure to respond timely and effectively to the health crisis was derived from a few factors that are relevant to the means of implementation necessary to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. During ordinary times, efforts to enhance health systems should include building the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (IHR), which should be supported not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also through coordination among diverse multilateral and bilateral organizations as part of their health development cooperation programmes associated with achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. To enhance preparedness for handling health crises, the organizational capacities of WHO and its regional offices need to be strengthened. In addition, coordination among WHO and other actors should be facilitated in accordance with the situational categories based on the combination of (a) the capacity of the country where an outbreak of an infectious disease is occurring and (b) the severity and magnitude of that infectious disease.

Towards a Public Management Paradigm for Global Governance: An Analysis Based on an Issue-Actor-Mechanism Framework

The concept of global governance first appeared in research on international political governance in the early 1990s. At the time much of the theoretical research on global governance was to some extent isolated from the realities of world development, but since the beginning of the 21th century, global governance research has been turning to real world issues, We propose the construction, from a public management perspective, of a governance “i ssue-act or-mec ha ni sm” fram ework. T hi s sees postwar gl oba l governance practice as the old paradigm. The paper points out that the rapid global development after the end of the Cold War has had a crucial impact on the traditional governance paradigm, followed by the emergence of new global governance issues and changes in new governance actors resulting from the changing world of the last twenty or thirty years which have led to the failure of traditional governance mechanisms. These “issue-actor-mechanism” changes are closely interlocked, and hence require a new global governance paradigm that can reflect the complex interconnections of governance issues, actors and mechanisms. We thus need to reexamine and refresh our perceptions of the world and open up a new research agenda.

What Explains the Low Success Rate of Investor-State Disputes?

AbstractThe treatment of foreign investment has become the most controversial issue in global governance. At the center of the controversy lies the mechanism of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows private firms legal recourse against governments if government interference has degraded their investment. Using newly released data covering 742 investment disputes, I assess some of the central claims about ISDS. I argue that the regime has indeed undergone an important shift: a majority of claims today deal not with direct takings by low-rule-of-law countries, but with regulation in democratic states. Such “indirect expropriation” claims have seen a precipitous decrease in their odds of legal success over the past twenty years. They are also far less likely to result in early settlement. These parallel trends may be a result of a rise in strategic litigation by investors whose aim is not only to obtain compensation but also to deter governments' regulatory ambitions.

Norm Contestation and Global Governance: Taking Actor Configurations and Practical Reasoning Seriously

Norm Contestation and Global Governance: Taking Actor Configurations and Practical Reasoning Seriously

2nd International Conference of Indonesian Society for Remote Sensing (ICOIRS) 2016

On behalf of the local organizing committee, I would like to welcome you all to the 2nd International Conference of Indonesian Society for Remote Sensing (ICOIRS) to be organized from 17 to 20 October 2016 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. This year's ICOIRS is also the 22nd of the Yearly Scientific Meeting of Indonesian Society for Remote Sensing (PIT MAPIN XXII). The main theme of the 2nd ICOIRS is “Remote Sensing for a Better Governance”. As we all know that remote sensing has become a part of our daily life; from simply viewing the streets from mobile phones to selecting the evacuation route and shelters when a disaster strikes or monitoring the extend of forest fire. These examples corroborate the need to discuss the strategic position of remote sensing in today's national and global governance issues. Therefore, this conference aims to elaborate the advantages and challenges of remote sensing as an essential element in the current governance through sharing the knowledge among the participants. Over 100 papers and 300 participants are expected in this conference.ICOIRS 2016 (PIT MAPIN XXII) would not have been possible without the many people who have worked with us in planning and organizing the technical program, exhibition, and social events. We thanks to MAPIN for its tremendous guidance and support on organizing the event; special thanks to the local organizing committee members who have all work extremely hard to make this conference happen.Yogyakarta is one of the foremost cultural centers of Java. This region is located at the foot of the active Merapi volcano and borders with Indian Ocean at the south lowest part. The city itself has a special charm, which seldom fails to captivate the visitor. It is renowned as a center of education (Kota Pelajar), making it the right place for exchanging ideas, engaging discussions and enriching knowledge. While you're here, take time to have fun and find memories with the various attractions that Yogyakarta has to offer.Finally, I would like to ask all of you to attend this exciting conference by presenting papers, discussing technical issues, exchanging ideas, and enjoying the city of Yogyakarta together. We are looking forward to see you all at ICOIRS 2016 in Yogyakarta.Drs. Projo Danoedoro, M.Sc., Ph.D. ICOIRS 2016(PIT MAPIN XXII) Chairman

Internet Governance and WSIS + 10: Deliberate Exclusion or Strategic Neglect?

In 2005, the outcome document of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) requested the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to make an overall review of the implementation of the WSIS objectives in 2015 (WSIS 2005a). The same document also announced the decision to separate all issues related to Internet governance from the other issues discussed during WSIS by outsourcing the debates about Internet-related questions into the newly created Internet governance Forum (IGF). Yet, the last ten years have shown that this separation is an artificial one: today even more than back then, most policy issues of global communication governance are related, in some way or another, to the technical, legal, political and economic regulation and coordination of the Internet. For this reason, it is surprising that the 10-year review of the WSIS objectives and their implementation — a process commonly referred to as WSIS p 10 — does not focus primarily on Internet governance and that some of the preparatory processes even deliberately excluded Internet-related questions from their debates. In addition, the actors traditionally involved in Internet governance debates show little interest in the impact any UN revision of the WSIS objectives might have on Internet-related questions.

Regionalism and the Caribbean Internet Governance Forum

One important issue that has gained prominence in academic and public policy communities in recent years is that of Internet Governance. As defined by the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), “Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.”In order to articulate such shared principles, rules, etc., starting in 2006 there have been a series of annual UN sponsored global conferences called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The IGF has become one of the main international spaces for deliberation on global Internet Governance issues.

Global Trade Governance: WTO Accountability to Local Stakeholders

The domestic implications of global trade governance are advancing dramatically. This has made stakeholders more watchful of World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions and policies. The need for enhanced accountability has risen to one of the central issues in global trade governance. This article approaches WTO accountability from the perspective of stakeholders at local levels and proposes new accountability mechanisms to address the WTO accountability deficit.

Does the International Investment Regime Induce Frivolous Litigation?

The treatment of foreign investment has become the most controversial issue in global governance. At the centre of the controversy lies the mechanism of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows private firms legal recourse against governments, if government interference has degraded their investment. Using newly released data covering 696 investment disputes, I assess some of the central claims about ISDS. I argue that the regime has indeed undergone a major shift: a majority of claims deal not with direct takings by low rule of law countries, but with regulation in democratic states. The result of this shift towards indirect expropriation affects firms’ incentives: claimants may gain even when they lose a challenge, if litigation can deter governments’ regulatory ambitions. The result, as I show, is an increase in the number of cases, accompanied by a precipitous decrease in their legal merit. Investors bringing indirect expropriation claims also appear far less likely to settle, and more likely to publicize the dispute, consistently with theoretical expectations.

Cities and Global Governance: State Failure or a New Global Order?

International society, so long the resolution to problems of collective political order, now appears to be failing in its capacity to deal with transnational challenges such as climate change, global security and financial instability. Indeed, the structure of international society itself has become a significant obstacle to such pressing issues of global governance. One striking response has been the reemergence of cities as important actors on the international stage. This article will show how these two issues are intrinsically linked. Cities have taken on new governance roles in the gaps left by hamstrung nation-states, and their contribution to an emerging global governance architecture will be a significant feature of the international relations of the 21st century. But do the new governance activities of cities represent a failure on the part of states, as some scholars have argued? Or are they a part of an emerging form of global order, in which the relationship between states, cities and other actors is being recalibrated? This article argues that the remarkable renaissance of cities in recent decades has been a result of a shift in the structure of international society, and assesses the causal drivers of this shift. It goes on to draw out some of the implications of the recalibration of the relationship between the city and the state for how we understand the emerging form of global order.

Internet Governance: Trends and realities. Part 2

Peter Major - Vice-Chairman, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Address: Palais des Nations, 8-14, Av. de la Paix, 1211 Geneva 10, SwitzerlandE-mail: pmajor@bluewin.ch Internet Governance is one of the global governance issues that emerged at the end of the 1990s. As the Internet is taking on an important role in every aspect of our lives, it has been recognized that its governance needs to involve all stakeholders and institutions to allow global access, foster development and contribute to the global economy, education, information. Security and privacy concerns should also be addressed in the policy dialogues. This paper outlines the global nature of the Internet Governance. It argues that in addition to dialogues and negotiations formal approaches should be explored to handle global issues in a global way. In its conclusion a mechanism is proposed to address Internet related global public policy issues. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development.

G20: On Behalf of the Rest?

Major developments in the last three decades have set the scene for the rise of novel problems on global scale. The unprecedented level of interdependence and interconnectedness between countries, firms and institutions has paved the way for the emergence of, both, novel practices that increase the quality of life and intriguingly complicated issues of global governance. The relationship between global actors are so intertwined that striving for predictability is barely feasible. In spite of the enhanced capabilities gained through involvement in the economic and financial value creation process, there are perils ahead for better global governance. Major issues pose global actors in terms of credibility, building and ensuring sustainability, erosion of capacity to fulfill promises and increasing fragility of financial markets as well as issues regarding depleting energy resources, environment and security. G-20 emerged as a remedial governance structure in the wake of the 2008 financial turmoil making sure that the prominent dynamic emerging countries are seated around the table. The expansion of G-8 into G-20 including the new global powerhouses has many positive implications. However, ongoing debates regarding this structure oscillate between hope and contestation. This conceptual paper intends to draw a general framework regarding the representative capability of G-20 members and discuss the hybrid quality of this so called steering committee given the era of turbulence that the world is heading towards.

Internet Governance: Trends and realities. Part 1

Peter MAJOR -Vice-Chairman, United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD)Address: Palais des Nations, 8-14, Av. de la Paix, 1211 Geneva 10, SwitzerlandE-mail: pmajor@bluewin.ch Internet Governance is one of the global governance issues that emerged at the end of the 1990s. As the Internet is taking on an important role in every aspect of our lives, it has been recognized that its governance needs to involve all stakeholders and institutions to allow global access, foster development and contribute to the global economy, education, information. Security and privacy concerns should also be addressed in the policy dialogues. This paper outlines the global nature of the Internet Governance. It argues that in addition to dialogues and negotiations formal approaches should be explored to handle global issues in a global way. In its conclusion a mechanism is proposed to address Internet related global public policy issues. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development.

The Last Two Centuries of Global Governance

In recent essays, Thomas Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson argue that analysis of systems of global governance going back to the beginnings of the earliest state systems could provide fundamental insight into the problems that trouble the scholarly field of international relations today. (1) While no social scientist or historian is yet able to give a credible account of global governance over those many millennia, it is possible to begin to recount the history of global governance far back beyond the events with which scholars of international relations begin, 1945, the end of World War II and the founding of the postwar UN system--as Thomas Weiss and Dan Plesch do in their essay in this issue of Global Governance--to provide valuable insights for contemporary global governance. An even more reasonable date for the beginning of the contemporary system of global governance would be 1815. The associated events were the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna and the beginning of a system of governance of Europe and its empires that eventually led to the global system that we now have. The conservative governments that held the congress created many of the institutions that still characterize global governance and gave new life to older institutions and practices whose sources and consequences were central to the nineteenth-century interimperial organizations out of which the United Nations grew. Many of the goals of the interimperial system--the economic goals as well as the goal of universalizing and perfecting the state system--also are still with us. Moreover, the constitutional dynamics of the nineteenth-century system--the forces that led to change within international governance--remain the same. Attention to those dynamics can, as Weiss and Wilkinson would suggest, help us understand the prospects for ameliorating current global problems, including problems that could not have been anticipated two centuries ago. New Institutions The Congress of Vienna imposed a peace on France and Napoleon's allies by doing much more than reestablishing something like the eighteenth century European balance of power. The victors sought to create a system that would assure continent-wide and interimperial rule by conservative social forces far into the future. The congress itself was the first of a series of nineteenth-century multilateral conferences of the great powers called to deal with European and interimperial conflicts. The Hague international peace conferences of 1899 and 1907 (and a third, planned for 1915, aborted after the outbreak of war) also built on the earlier conferences by attempting to institutionalize general processes for resolving conflicts among all national governments. The goal remained the same with the 1919 Paris Peace Conference that established the League of Nations and the 1945 San Francisco conference that agreed on the UN Charter. The congress or conference system not only made multilateral treaty making a common practice, it quickly led to the simultaneous or sometimes separate meetings of periodic congresses or conferences of representatives of ministries involved with transportation, communication, commerce, health, currency, finance, and almost every other aspect of government. This was the beginning of the legislative branch of today's global governance, the system of global multilateral conferences. At the same time, and often in the same cities where nineteenth-century public officials met, private associations of transnationally oriented communities of professionals and social activists also met to agree on voluntary international standards affecting almost every aspect of economic and social life throughout Europe and its empires. Moreover, long before the congresses of the great powers became truly global, the private international governance system welcomed professionals and activists from every part of the world. By the mid-nineteenth century, many of the periodic conferences, both public and private, had created permanent administrations (secretariats) to carry out tasks between the meetings of national representatives. …

Global Governance and the Need for ‘Pragmatic Activism’ in India’s Multilateralism

While global governance is all about creating an international order that addresses the interests of the big and small nations and people, non-government and corporate entities, the foreign policy of a state, including its multilateralism, aims at achieving its national interest. Tension between the two therefore is only natural. Often this is depicted as a hiatus between the greater good associated with idealism and self-interest associated with pragmatism. This article argues that the resonance between issues in global governance and issues and postures in India’s multilateralism in the UN suggests that its multilateralism is not completely at odds with the egalitarian aims of global governance. In fact, there are quite a few complementarities and these derive from the fact that although there has been a move towards pragmatism, the shift from idealism has not been complete. However, the complexity of global governance presents some challenges and opportunities for meaningful multilateralism today. Given the complementarities, challenges and opportunities, there is substantial scope for ‘pragmatic activism’ in India’s multilateralism.

Trade, Sustainability and the Food and Natural Resource System: Some Examples of Governance Issues

Trade in agricultural goods and raw materials provides an important challenge for rule-making at the national, regional and international level. Many of the activities undertaken in the name of efficient agriculture are unsustainable, but unsustainable agriculture does not depend just from the exports level, because it can be found everywhere: in fact, trade in agricultural and food products can both threaten and promote sustainability. At that point the question arises as to what multilateral (or regional) rules are needed specifically to tackle the issue of sustainability and trade? With regards to this question, there are several issues such as property rights to indigenous resources, trade rules governing biofuels, investment in and ownership of land and mineral rights in resource-rich countries. This short paper looks at some specific areas where the issue of global governance, through trade institutions, impinges on farming and fishing practices and related types of raw material trade, by presenting a taxonomy that shows the intersection between government trade activities, trade agreements and sustainability. Particularly, it may consider two categories of government activity in agricultural and raw material trade: taxes or other restrictions and subsidies or other forms of encouragement; these actions can be divided in the direction of sustainability and those that are inimical to that objective. Therefore, the paper will illustrate the interface between trade rules and sustainability objectives, by discussing some examples reflecting these actions/sustainability combinations, such as: the removal of tariffs on environmental goods; restrictions on imports of products produced in an unsustainable way; restrictions on exports of raw materials in the context of scarcity; subsidies to encourage environmental farming practices; subsidies for the production and use of biofuels; and subsidies for fossil fuel usage. The last section links these topics to the issue of gaps in global governance: this item has been recognized in WTO discourse for some time, especially in the Ministerial Declaration on the contribution of the WTO to achieving greater coherence in global economic policymaking. But the search for a cohesive system of governance remains in the hands of the major countries of the world that have to led the way towards the synergy between trade rules and sustainability goals. s. Il commercio di prodotti agricoli e delle materie prime pone un’importante sfida per la regolamentazione in materia a livello nazionale, regionale e internazionale. Molte delle attivita svolte in nome di un’agricoltura efficiente si rivelano insostenibili, ma un’agricoltura non sostenibile non dipende solo dal livello di esportazioni, poiche puo ritrovarsi in molteplici situazioni: infatti, il commercio di prodotti agricoli e alimentari puo sia minacciare che favorire la sostenibilita. A questo punto, si pone la questione di quali norme multilaterali (o regionali) siano nello specifico necessarie per affrontare il tema della sostenibilita e del commercio. Relativamente a questo interrogativo, si sollevano diverse questioni, quali i diritti di proprieta sulle risorse locali, le regole del commercio in materia di biocarburanti, gli investimenti sui terreni e la loro proprieta e i diritti nei paesi ricchi di risorse naturali. Questa breve saggio esamina alcune aree specifiche in cui la questione della governance globale, attraverso le istituzioni del commercio, incide su agricoltura e pratiche ittiche e le tipologie correlate di commercio di materie prime, presentando una tassonomia che mostra l’intersezione tra le attivita commerciali di governo, gli accordi commerciali e la sostenibilita . In particolare, si possono considerare due categorie di attivita di governo nel commercio di prodotti agricoli e materie prime: tasse o altre restrizioni, da un lato, e sussidi o altre forme di incoraggiamento, dall’altro; queste azioni possono essere divise a seconda se sostengono la sostenibilita o la ostacolano. Pertanto, il documento mostrera l’interconnessione tra le norme commerciali e gli obiettivi della sostenibilita, attraverso la discussione di alcuni esempi che riflettono queste combinazioni di azioni/sostenibilita, come ad esempio: la rimozione delle tariffe sui beni ambientali; le restrizioni sulle importazioni di prodotti fabbricati in maniera non sostenibile; le restrizioni all’esportazione di materie prime scarse; i sussidi per incoraggiare pratiche agricole favorevoli all’ambiente; i sussidi per la produzione e l’uso di biocarburanti; e le sovvenzioni per l’uso di combustibili fossili. L’ultima parte del paper collega questi argomenti al problema del vuoto nella governance globale: vuoto che e stato riconosciuto nei discorsi dell’OMC per qualche tempo, soprattutto nella Dichiarazione Ministeriale sul contributo dell’OMC al conseguimento di una maggiore coerenza nella politica economica mondiale. Ma la ricerca di un sistema coerente di governo resta nelle mani dei principali paesi del mondo che devono aprire la strada verso una sinergia tra le regole commerciali e gli obiettivi di sostenibilita.

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

Средства для реализации повестки дня в области развития после 2015 г. и глобальное партнерство в целях устойчивого развития: значение для развивающихся стран

This article examines the position of four of the most influential Emerging Market Economies - Brazil, China, India and South Africa - on issues that require global action featuring in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda, recognizing that these play a pivotal role in the implementation of this new global agenda. It focuses on the five issues of global finance, technology transfer, trade, climate change and global governance. All except climate change are included in the 17th SDG, and most featured in the discussion at the third International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Addis Ababa in July 2015.The article is based on four country -level background papers conducted by institutions in each country, and draw on interviews with local policy makers. It also draws on content analyses of country statements from the different negotiating forums, further interviews with experts and a literature review.The first section provides a summary of the countries’ engagement in the negotiations and national policy developments related to the SDGs to date, as an (imperfect) signal of their interest in implementation. The Next section analyses what emerging economies stand to gain or may be asked to bring to the table for each of the five issues, while the final section summarizes the key findings.

Global Governance and NGO Participation: Shaping the Information Society in the United Nations (Rethinking Globalizations Series)

While the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in world politics has grown in importance since the early 1990s, ‘global governance’ has become a fascinating subject in international public policy discourse today. In addition, since the contemporary debate over world governance obviously exists in the context of the United Nations (UN) and globalization, the global order is changing in response to the new challenges posed by political, economic, social and cultural changes in an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world. As keen academic attention is now paid to the issues of global governance and civil society in an era of information revolution, the above-mentioned book is certainly well timed and too important.

Global Governance Efforts in Tension between Humanitarian Concerns and Statist Sovereignty Rights

This article focuses on the role of justice claims for issues of global governance. Conflicting justice convictions held by states can become considerable stumbling blocks for multilateral negotiations. Normative claims which call for strengthening individual rights, such as human rights or human security, often collide with statist sovereignty convictions, such as the right of non-intervention, territorial integrity and non-interference. Conflicts between negotiating parties also occur on questions of distribution, recognition and procedural justice. The article argues that such justice conflicts affect the outcome of negotiations. Two recent negotiation processes and governance efforts at the United Nations are examined: the Responsibility to Protect (2005) and the Arms Trade Treaty (2013).