International Organisations, Agreements And Governance

The end of World War II implied a new era of Global Business; the era of open borders, globalization and therefore free trade. In the 21st century, a flourishing world economy can no longer be imagined with existing trade barriers and high quotas, advocators argue. The world economic system and our wellbeing, are highly dependent on both economic growth and globalization, which in turn are reliant on “the absence of artificial barriers to the free flow of goods and services between countries” (Dunkley 2004, p. 9). Nations ensure this mutually beneficial situation by signing preferential trade arrangements with each other. Arguably, the most common form of such arrangements are Free Trade Agreements (FTAs): when two or more

Intergovernmental organizations are an important facet of public international law. According to Margaret P. Karns, “intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are organizations that include at least three states as members, that have activities in several different states and that are created through a formal intergovernmental agreement such as a treaty, stature or statute. Most intergovernmental organizations also consist of headquarters, executive heads, bureaucracies and budgets.” Karns also states that between the years 2013-2016 the “Yearbook of International Organizations,” identified about around 265 different intergovernmental organizations that varied from consisting of 3 member countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to more than 190 member countries, such as the Universal Postal Union (UPU). In intergovernmental organizations, Karns explains, the members that compose these IGO’s can come from specifically one geographic area, the Organization of American States (OAS), for example. This is not the case for every IGO, though. Members of IGO’s can also come from all geographic regions, using the World Bank as an example. Karns also describes how some intergovernmental organizations are designed to achieve a single purpose, and others are developed in order to complete multiple tasks. When discussing intergovernmental organizations, it is safe to say that most of them are regional or sub regional, with a similarity of interests motivating

Our planet is currently in the process of transforming into a “global village” where everyone and everything seems to be interconnected physically, as well as virtually. Thus, the occurrence of an idea and a phenomenon of global governance in the modern world is rather commonsensical than striking. Despite the overwhelming power of globalization that, as it had been believed in its incipient phase, had been expected to introduce the same standards and values everywhere, it caused reappearance of nationalistic ideas and manifestations of sovereignty in the number of countries. This undoubtedly is an act of willingness to maintain the identity and dissimilarity. However, global governance is not intended to take away the sovereignty of the

1. Intergovernmental organizations, or IGOs, are players in the international setting, attempting to establish common grounds between the different members, or in other words countries involved (Rourke and Boyer 2010, G-6). Examples of IGOs include the following: “United Nations, European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the African Union” (Wilkinson 2007). Non-governmental international organizations, or NGOs, attempt to make substantial changes and promote their specific values to certain aspects of the world, like human rights issues and the environment, by utilizing their non-association with the government and their NGO status with special access to the media and diplomatic measures (Steinberg 2011, 44; Steinberg

Despite the more pessimistic view of international cooperation of neorealists, neoliberals believe that cooperation can be a norm in international relations. Neoliberals see that cooperation is possible due to the interdependence of nations and the involvement of international institutions. Even though neoliberals have this outlook on cooperation, they still share the same core ideas of neorealists, but reject their conclusions. Neoliberals, similarly to neorealists, see the world in a state of anarchy with no overriding power above the states. However, unlike neorealists, neoliberals believe that there are instances under anarchy which lead to cooperation between states since, in their opinion, the state of anarchy can be overcome. This is because neoliberals believe states are unitary, rational actors with the final goals of security and survival. Neoliberals express that not only can states improve themselves in terms of military power, but also in other areas such as economic prosperity since it is still works towards security and survival. These goals then lead to the promotion of international cooperation. Oye, a neoliberal, states, “Despite the absence of any ultimate international authority, governments often bind themselves to mutually advantageous courses of action” (Oye 76). States will cooperate with one another when it will elevate their interests and there is a mutual gain between the states involved. Because in the neoliberal perspective, if the situation can

International institutions abound in the realm of international business. As globalization increases, disputes multiply. The responsibilities of these organizations can vary due to the needs of its members, such as monetary or trade issues. Moreover, the support these institutions provide may come in the form of various agreements to include the negotiation or enforcement of sanctions and treaties which will either stop or promote trade between nations.

place institutions that support market liberalization and increased transparency. As argued by Drabek and Baccheta (2004), WTO membership eventually enhances good governance by upholding the rule law, contract enforcement and makes countries to have a strong judicial system. Other elements such as culture and group norms have fundamentally transformed how international organizations or governments shape their motivations and thus, the governing process is controlled by multiple entities with varying interest (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015). If any country wants to be a part of the international community, they will have no choice but to conform to WTO’s stipulations and adapt to the ever evolving global system. Policy making and economic conditions in WTO member states have changed drastically over the last two decades because the two elements are heavily influenced by forces of globalization.

The legitimacy and importance of institutions in global governance is a highly contested topic, among which many question the existence of international institutions. To suggest that institutions in global governance do not matter, is to suggest that the majority of countries have the willingness to co-operate, the ability to solve disputes and to organise themselves to ensure problems are dealt with effectively without the pressure of an outside body – which has been proven to be ineffective . This essay will examine how institutions matter and are important in global governance, through examining a realist views, using Waltz concepts of insecurity and global governance. It will examine how global institutions can promote peace and

“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”

Despite every last bit of its success, the GATT/WTO framework has encountered numerous setbacks. All throughout history, individuals have progressively turned to making coalitions. These coalitions are normally settled on a topical principle, as no two WTO individuals are liable to have vague interests. (Meckling, 2011; Gilbert, 2013).

International treaties are a treaty that is made between at least two countries. When a treaty is signed it doesn’t have to be instantly initiated as law but is expected to be due to the signing of the treaty. The treaty process starts by the Cabinet deciding to enter into a treaty. The minister and department officers negotiate with other parties to the treaty, next the government will sign the treaty with at least one other nation otherwise the treaty will be voided. When the treaty is signed the minister for Foreign Affairs tables an intention to take treaty action per the 1996 reforms in parliament. The JSCOT (Joint Standing Committee on Treaties) conducts an inquiry and submits the

First and foremost, this essay will look into the need for international institutions in global governance. As aforementioned before, there is an imbalance of power between developed and developing nations, and even more so with countries that are so influential that they are dubbed the ‘superpowers’. In order to ensure there is no abuse of power, international institutes put forth guidelines and rules for superpowers to follow as even the United States—as the unchallenged superpower—cannot afford the costs of arm-twisting other nations (Keohane 1998, p. 82). Other than being an institution for international rule-making, ideally, it also provides a forum for the voice of developing countries to be heard. The increase of postcolonial nations had helped turn the General Assembly in United Nations Security Council into a forum for the North-South conflict in the 1960s, and it had ensured that the resolutions to the assembly would be viewed as hostile and detrimental to their interests and values

International community admits that frequently - shipper is the one less powerful contracting party and absolute freedom of contract would result in unfair and imbalance outcome. It would not be a big mistake to amount shipper and carrier relationships to the ones of consumer and seller respectively. Therefore, international instrument is an essential condition to ensure a fair balance between bargaining parties as well as to encourage the development of international commerce. Moreover, the cost of diversity in legal regimes end up with years of expensive and complex international litigation between contracting parties who are established under the different legal regimes. Consequently prolonged litigation creates a number of obstacles for international trade which respectively impede an expansion of international trade. Since the international community is well aware of these underlying issues the work towards global harmonisation was carried constantly. Proceedings have not been stopped after the success of Hague Rules. Four decades later the amendments to Hague Rules have been produced and as well as its predecessor, the protocol of Hague-Visby Rules been widely accepted. However, international trade evermore been and still is a rapidly evolving area. Especially over the last century, maritime trade has experienced a sharp increase in a number of breakthroughs/innovations designated to serve the international trade. Moreover,

Emergence of revolution in the world led to globalization. Hitherto, people gain from the massive and healthy business trades across the borders. In this case, one country is able to gain from selling or buying of goods. At some point, countries realized the importance of creating a global trading arena to encourage the producers from all nations. In this regard, people enjoyed from some exemptions that interfered with flow of goods and service across borders. Despite the vast advantage that parties enjoy in this kind of trade, they face various hurdles, which demoralize them as they perform their business transactions. For instance, changes in the economic status in one of the countries result in reduction in value of goods. Likewise, some traders may suffer due to high rates of taxation in the bordering countries.

The focus of this study is to critique the neoliberal agenda of multilateral organizations, specifically the World Bank), its role in the global initiative of the Educational for All (EFA) movement through a case study of Tanzania’s educational outcomes.