US and Europe’s Attitudes Towards Global Governance: The Case of the North-North-Incoherence

Over one hundred and eighty sovereign states are members of the United Nations and they have different constitutions. Some have to provide for a federal structure, in others although unitary, include different legal systems within the one state. The disparities between constitutions deals with momentous ethnic, linguistic and religious considerations. Their vagueness requires a prudent imposition on what ?is? and what ?ought? to be the law. The premise of this piece is on Global Administrative Law, with an exegesis on critical legal studies.

The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second

It is an honour to be writing to you, Mr. José Ángel Gurría. As the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), you have defined your organization as being a “source of evidence-based advice for governments and a standard setter to address many global challenges” (Gurría). I wish to take this opportunity to provide my own evidence-based perspective on two particular trends within the global economy, and assist you in the process of giving advice on the global stage. Firstly, over the past few decades, there has been a common suggestion that some type of relative or absolute decline in the U.S.’s position of power exists. Amitav Acharya’s book, The End of American World Order, is one such example.

“Strong and sustained American leadership is essential to a rules-based international order that promotes global security and prosperity as well as the dignity and human rights of all peoples.” This statement from the most recent U.S. National Security Strategy indicates that the White House administration acknowledges the current international order is shaped constitutionally, or is “rule-based.” Globalization has made states and individuals increasingly interdependent and interconnected. Globalization is an “umbrella term” used to describe the interconnectedness, integration, and transcontinental interdependence of people and states; it occurs on several dimensions: economic, political, security, and social/cultural. Constructivism best explains how globalization spreads cultural norms, values, and interests resulting in constitutional orders between states that “evolve over time through interaction between agents and social structures.” As such, the international order will change through state collaboration in institutions and organizations, economic interdependence between states, and the sharing of cultural norms particularly through the advancing platform of technology.

In my opinion, I believe the United States (U.S.) should deepen its commitment to multilateralism in to strengthen its place as a worldwide leader. For close to a hundred years, the U.S. Senate has opposed U.S. engagement in binding multinational covenants, threatening its influence in the global arena. Once a champion of worldwide cooperation, the world view of the U.S. has recently weakened. Stestonavich also agrees. In his book, Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama, he underscores America’s willingness to form equal partnerships with other nations was critical to its success in foreign policy. As stated in “Stealth Multilateralism: U.S. Foreign Policy without Treaties--or the Senate,” by David Kaye, Europe is increasing

The Commission on Global Governance (2005) defined global governance as “the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs; it is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken”. The perception management which mislead the people from the complexities of reality that the American government adopted in 1980’s, do not conform with the definition of global governance since it includes the individuals as an actor that has to be involved with the process of conflict resolution. Since global governance is synonymous to international organizations, this imply that it is the IOs responsibility to ensure that global governance is being adopted across the globe.

Recent events in the world such as the election of President Donald Trump and his ideologies regarding to how “make America great again”, the situation of the crisis of the European Union and the raising protagonist of china in the international trade; leaves an uncertainty as to where the global economy is headed. Likewise, the main discussion is no longer between a left or right political spectrum, if not the divergence of ideologies being the nationalism and globalism the protagonists. This paper summarizes and analyzes the article entitled "We Are Not the World" written by the author Greg Ip (2017), in order to delve into the context of the ideologies of globalism and nationalism respectively. As well, as the role that these ideologies

As our current world is so interdependent upon one another in terms of things like trade and security, the actions of major super powers are ones that cause global reactions. Being members of international treaties and organizations that affect trade, the

The book also refers to the question on the last part of the book if there any existence of a common system between countries and also the author put her own agenda for the democratization of the global governance and proposes to already build the components of democracy and expand the list of players in the public debate in global politics. The book also referred to the reform approach where The book mention that reform is not possible if there is no clear and high voice calling for reforms in the first

‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what)’, portrays the speed in which globalism has increased through many different factors; economically, military, environmentally and socially. This is an idealist analytic approach, not set in stone. This leads on to

As a result globalisation has also undone some important cultural and psychological underpinnings of sovereignty. However, it is imperative to note that the effect of globalisation on different nation states will not be the same, because states differ domestically, historically, politically and socio-culturally. Therefore, states will make different policy choices in response to the same global phenomena (Held 1989, 237).

The global politics in today’s world is characterized by the dominance of the United States and the European Union, and the rising power of China enabled by its rapid economic development. Since the conclusion of the Second World War in 1945, no conflict has occurred on a global level. Despite some regional warfare, the world after 1945 has provided many countries with a relatively stable environment for development. Various advancements in technology have flourished in this environment, such as the invention of the Internet and the increased accessibility of air travel. They substantially improved the lives of those who have access to them. However, problems abound in today’s world: global poverty, abuses of human rights, and terrorism,

According to Rourke (2008) the most important way people have identified themselves politically for five centuries is through nationalism (p. 102). Nations are formed when people who “share demographic and cultural similarities [who identify themselves] as a group distinct from other groups and want to control themselves politically” (p. 103) band together in a national political identity which has “a soul, a spiritual quality” (Rourke, 2008, p. 103). Feelings of nationalism can be very intense and difficult to put aside because of this. For the concept of globalization to continue to spread and grow nationalistic feelings must be tempered with cosmopolitan ideals.

Globalization has brought a huge change to the way the world operates and functions. The variables that affect the way the world is connected not only stay as a matter of one country, but also stretch beyond several countries. Accordingly, the management and control of them has started to take a new form. The new concept of “global governance” has spread as global issues appear beyond nation-states. In this global governance, however, the question of “who governs”- who will be the principal actor that governs the new global system- can be very controversial. Especially, when international institutions and other organizations are thought to become more important leading actors in global governance than the nation-states used to be, the controversy can be intensified. Some people argue that global issues are no longer in the hands of the nation-states and therefore they cannot be effectively managed by them. In reality, however, most international institutions consist of the nation-states and are also influenced by the actions and decisions of them. Moreover, other non-state actors cannot escape from the impact of the nation-states. That is, global governance is fundamentally in accord with the Westphalian system that is centered on the nation-states and they are mutually complementary.

At the crux of cosmopolitanism and its Kantian strand, rests the concept of globalisation and its intricate relationship with cosmopolitan thought. There is effectively no dispute that globalisation has played a significant role in the interrelated global system of the modern world. It has developed a distinct structure, but also continues to shape the way in which states communicate and form relationships. Given this intrinsic process as a medium of international regulation in the modern world, it can be asserted that the importance of individual states is diminishing as the connections between them overcome borders (Kleingeld 2006, p. 559). Furthermore, in the globalised world, it is argued that globalisation itself is “the driving force behind contemporary cosmopolitanism” (Pichler 2011, p. 22). This results in ramifications for the conduct of states and their ethical duties as an inclusive community. These ethical duties manifest in many ways creating a diverse system that emerges as a homogenous community. As globalisation plays a key role in the unified association between states, it is also important to recognise that the economic factors of globalisation, including more sophisticated and complex trade schemes motivate states to uphold this cosmopolitan value, but to also reflect individuals within this society. “Global forms of supranational governance and the transnational enhancement of… human rights generate a latent cosmopolitanism in the form of global