Today the mankind is facing a number of global issues which need critical attention. The humanity is suffering from several terrorist attacks that are fueled by extreme violence; there are numbers of conflicts in the Greater Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa; changing climates enhancing global danger and increasing cyber threats. All these issues are internally connected and it is not possible for a single state or a group of few states to deal with these issues in an effective way (Ruggie, 2014). Unavoidably all the states share accountability for others’ security. Nevertheless meeting these challenges which weaken the human development and the security of mankind and human rights, it also exceeds the political and operational capacities of the institutions in global governance that has been created for different yet crucial purposes (Duffield, 2014). Global governance is considered as a movement towards a sense of political cooperation amongst different states with the aim of negotiating their responses of different problems which tend to affect one or more than one region or state. All the institutions of global governance have demarcated or limited amount of power for enforcing any compliance.
With the growing global connectivity, it has enabled more new opportunities for tackling afflictions such as gender discrimination, international poverty and spread of different diseases. Therefore for such issues and much more environmental degradation, there should be sustainable goals towards development. The intense movement of people and powerful technologies are associated with the global economy along with goods and services (Frenk & Moon, 2013). The global commission of global justice, security and governance offers practical reforms new network and tools for building global institutions and an innovative global ethic with focusing on the policy makers, global civil society and opinion leaders for making more creative and dynamic solutions to the emerging global challenges. The global governance is a response to the upcoming opportunities and threats that we need to overcome over the years during this time.
Justice is indispensable for safeguarding the security at the communal and personal level. On the other hand, society would just be an illusion if there is no kind of security. Therefore if one analyzes the major international challenges, mostly focusing on the security, the potential complementariness and reinforced and managed. However, there are significant opportunities and challenges that make global governance more conflict affected and fragile climate and people along with a hyper-connected international economy. The first challenge is that, in the delicate states and regions, there are huge gaps in social justice and security. Their governance is recognized, yet those are difficult to fill up (Zelli & Van Asselt, 2013). Coping with such violent conflicts and fragility remain both costly and complicated. In such countries, the concurrent interstate conflicts and it is highly exploited by global terrorists and their organizations, therefore they have also reversed the trends of political violence. The numbers of refugees are increasing which is quite an unfortunate event for the world. Along with that, the increasing roles of civil organizations, roles of women and more business opportunities tend to offer more chanced for renewing the governance and effectual peace building. Therefore, responding to such challenges, threats, and opportunities will involve creating a different section of United Nations for mediating the conflicts and building the peace operations capability (Weiss, 2016). Building such responsive capability can be provided through experienced mediators which will include a great section of women for preventing the conflicts and building peace. It may also build a new cadre of qualified personnel as well. They can also go past transitional value, place assets into transformational value; and sort out activities eagerly and truly support nearby society and regional actors, with particular respect for consolidation of women in peace shapes. Other than that investing in the capacities and responsibilities of making plan to prevent the atrocities can also be helpful for monitoring the UN commission that are taking part in the R2p implementation. Eventually these will be very much helpful to participate more in the issues that are rising with the pace of globalization.
Secondly, with the succession reports of changing climate, there is a serious requirement for addressing the decisive and extraordinary actions where the climate changing becomes more urgent and evident. Therefore more approaches for meeting the challenges with the climate enhance the private and public sector collaboration. This procedure also enhances innovative types of engagement between the global regimes, business groups and civil societies (Voegtlin & Pless, 2014). It also enhances the formation of new advisory board that tends to review the atmospheric modifications as well. Therefore for responding to such situations, the green technology licensing should also be developed. It can tie the private sector innovations together along with the adaptation and mitigation of these issues, especially for supporting the vulnerable populations for the countries that are still developing.
Thirdly, the technological and economic globalization has also enhanced the international economy that will benefit several fragile economies and inequalities along with the new threats for the international stability and personal and corporate security. The financial crisis in the year 2008 and 2009 has shown the spread of crisis in the international financial system which was mostly caused by the banks that had lost trillions of dollar. This has also driven the global unemployment to a great extent (Telò, 2016). Therefore the G20-UNBretton Woods institutional coordination should be enhanced for preventing the cross border economical shocks and promoting the financial reforms and fostering the equitable developments that are necessary to achieve the goals for sustainable development.
Weiss and Wilkinson (2014) has observed that global governance with a sense of coherence will perform better as the security will require better streamlining and innovating the global institutions and will engage the local organizations and authorities, civil societies and business communities in a more effective way. There have been repeated failures for the formation of UN and such other entities. Significant progress in this field also needs a strong hold of the obstructions for reforming the efforts. Particularly, these impediments include a serious lack of the political will for changing, mostly amongst the powerful countries or within the well-established bureaucracies, poor advocacy and design for a particular institutional or policy reform and inadequate effort and skill for investing in the sustaining a reform program to reach to its completion (Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014). By helping the mobilization of pressure for the intergovernmental reforms while it can also serve as the resourceful partners for the international institutions with fresh, non-state, local, or regional actors are still critical parts of the governance network. In order to bring success in this century, the global institutions and United Nations should extend the conventional convening role for their states for including new ways for engaging the emerging influential actors. Therefore for improving the global governance, the opportunities should be seized through the awareness of risks and potential challenges for reforming.
The ideas, networks, asset and leadership abilities of all actors with something to put in want to be assessed, cultivated, and harnessed on the earliest stage of projects to reform worldwide governance, consisting of from governments, civil society companies, the enterprise network, local agencies, and neighborhood authorities. The instances emblematic of these functions are the coalition for the worldwide criminal court, the worldwide campaign to ban Landmines, and the international attempt to adopt R2P as a global norm. Clear period in-between milestones, sponsored up by way of properly-honed communications, tracking, and coordination equipment, are also crucial to fulfillment. Specifically, the fee recommends investing in a hybrid method that taps into the strengths of important avenues to international governance reform designed to triumph over deep-seated divisions within the worldwide community.
There should also be parallel tracks that acknowledge various kinds of reforms which can negotiate; therefore several negotiation forums can be required. Therefore if this needs to be done, it can facilitate the sequences of reforms which will be based on the political feasibility, urgency and cost. Within the year 2020, there should be a culmination of the formal negotiation with various stakeholders as it could work on the international institutional reforms. The world conference can work as the rallying section for bringing smart conditions and generating political momentum for urgent and multiple global reforms.
Therefore, it can be concluded that global governance are very much necessary to be intensify in the forthcoming years, as the justice and security have been considered to be the most pivotal to the concept of global governance. Both of these are two most imperative challenges that are to be overcome. Moreover both the challenges will provide the global ethics a new base which will eventually provide a new direction for the global governance.
After entering this century, the globalization has brought huge social, economic and security dangers for the mankind. Thankfully, at this very same time limitless financial, social and security improvement opportunities are similarly viable. The fate of mankind, to both cast off the risks, or makes use of the possibilities, depends on his capacity to establish and appoint accountable worldwide governance (Orsini, Morin & Young, 2013). Men can mitigate the chance and acquire the significant development opportunities thru the implementation of efficient worldwide governance. Without this governance the devastating effects of globalization may be unavoidable.
Man is a social being flourishing in social groups produced from large and complex interconnected structures. He has several motivations and hobbies that are contemplated in his social sports. His voracious urge for food to eat ignites a vast manufacturing requirement that in turn drives the allocation of scarce and diminishing recourses. This tenuous existence underpins capacity assets of crises and could even threaten the very life of society. In addition to this a number of decisions have to be reached and enforced in the social groups and it might be very inefficient if every choice needed to be preceded by separate settlement on a way to reach and apply it (Shambaugh, 2013). Therefore a set of guidelines for human behavior to coordinate and regulate human activities is needed to make certain a sustainable, secure and efficient future. To sustain in creative and efficient manner these social activities requires some form of collective management and institutions. To meet this need the person makes collective decisions - practicing governance - and creates institutions or authorities for society.
Global governance is the concept that mostly represents one of the potential methods for extending the political sphere to an international level. There may be some limitations and negative aspects of the global governance within this belief that the global corporations and organizations can solve the security issues together. In fact, it can also be said that the powers of executives are capable of lending the binding forces for common decisions that are mostly lacking at the global level (Barnett & Duvall, 2014). The decision making process also favor the unanimity and there is a certain veto power. Sometimes, this can also be seen that the democratic principles of the majority decisions are neglected. In addition to that the actors related to non-state also try to escape the control of the state, therefore it competes with the others for having the decision making power at the international level.
The shifting to the multi-polar world has already complicated the prospects for effectual global governance for the next ten to fifteen years. Within the second part of this century, the United States has shaped the global order which has largely reflected the liberal view points of the democracy and free markets (Margulis, McKeon & Borras Jr, 2013). The United States have also overseen the condition of international public products like the open routes for trading or monetary stability. Particularly, it can be said that after the end of cold war the European Commission has required exporting the representing local integration and sharing sovereignty and has also planned a particular discourse on the international practice and global governance. A participant in the European think tank said that “At issue…it seems to me, is less the risk of conflict, but the danger of a loss of coherence and direction in the international system while the redistribution of power plays itself out.” Today, it can be seen that the credibility and legitimacy of the European Union and US leaders are being questioned openly by the other emerging power centers and large swaths of global community.
This can be an immediate consequence of their apparent inadequacies in showing the general public things they ensured before moving to a multi-polar, international, containing of financial balance, and to the view that their positions on burdens which encompass exchange and atmosphere exchange are baseless to hobbies of others. Meanwhile, the extending financial clout of making powers fabricates the political effect enjoyably past edges. It can also be said that open chance that are implications of advancement are making recovery. The qualities of open capital markets are much less than commonly shared, or even on the exchange the front, business coverage seems greater in fashion, especially in rising economies. Extra states also take into account in the global gadget these days. Lots of the ones states, which range extensively in phrases of their ideologies and economies, are vital to fixing global problems. According to a Russian think tank speaker, ‘The Western approach to global governance, with the US and the West as the centre and creator of laws and rules, diminishes the readiness of others to cooperate.’’
Power isn't generally top notch exchanging from mounted forces to growing countries and becoming worldwide, yet additionally inside the course of non-joined conditions of American on-screen characters, they can be merchants or spoilers of collaboration. On an effective know, intercontinental non-administrative gatherings, common society gatherings, church homes and religious organizations, multinational companies, distinctive undertaking our bodies, and intrigue offices have end up being progressively dynamic in confining scope and producing open intrigue and weight. But, adversarial non-state players collectively with criminal agencies and terrorist network – all of them are authorized by current and new technology can pose severe protection threats and complicated and systematic risks. Further, nation-controlled and state-owned corporations, especially Russia and China, are possibly to play a vital position in the global governance. Those actors do now not necessarily fit well into conventional groups as they will be pushed with the useful resource of a mixture of political and monetary concerns.
In the promising multi-polar system, pivotal regional and international actors have diverse views on sovereignty, legitimacy and multilateralism, often shooting from distinct historical experiences. Dealing with such different perspectives will be significant to nurturing global cooperation in different domains. A Chinese think tank experts states that ‘Global governance requires giving over significant sovereignty to others – that is the view in China… So far, sovereignty is the number one priority, but China has to balance sovereignty and international responsibility. When China thinks its sovereignty is guaranteed, it will go ahead to work with other countries. There is no doubt.’ There is always a risk factor that the possible competitions of the different priorities in the international or regional institutions will estrange the major actors and may make the negotiations to deadlock within the multilateral ones.
Sovereignty is well an alive, in accordance to a critical number of authorities that are encountered. The method the reestablished complement on influence will spread out in the next years will have bona fide consequences for overall organization. How much power should be doled out to overall organizations and the purposes will be gone head to head with respect to. The subject of whether and, expecting this is the situation, under what conditions the all inclusive gathering or overall associations can test or annul the master of a nation in its inside issues will similarly go to the front. The EU is comprised the most dynamic occurrences to date of resolute distribution of sovereignty in an exclusive trial of regional consolidation which has, as it were, accomplish for involving post-Communist structures into the greater regional demand.
For balancing the significant powers pledge to front line shapes of worldwide support and management that they see as exemplifying interests or, not direct disturbing those. Nuclear weapon states approve of the nosy control of the IAEA to look at the nuclear workplaces of non-nuclear bludgeon states. In any case, countries are quite reluctant to help rules obliging their lead in regions of relative favored point of view or strong contention, for instance, essentialness approach or bans on particular kinds of weapons. Such a specific approach is, regardless, running into bother in light of the way that those adequately extraordinary to endeavor to stop are growing continuously different.
Distinction between hard and soft notions of power
Power is used by an authority over other authorities or the subordinates to control or influence for certain purposes (Wrong, 2017). These notions are aligned with foreign policies that help the countries to utilize their relationships with other nations. The hard notion of power implies that economic or military power but a soft notion of power deals with something subtle. The simple difference between the hard notion of power and a soft notion of power is how one nation uses power and deals with other nations (Wagner, 2014). In the international relations, these two nations hold high importance that specifically demonstrates the political relationship among various countries.
In this coercive approach, one nation uses hard means like economy or military to control of influence another nation or political groups. Therefore, this power equation builds on the hierarchical presence of a stronger nation and a weak nation. The powerful country uses strategies as reducing trade barriers, economic benefits or military securities to insert their force into their federal structure. The act of hard power is based on the action of persuading another nation through enforcement. The powerful countries apply this to fulfil their purposes and gain benefits. A nation is considered hard power due to its capacity, size and quality-quantity of resources that are a military strength, population, territory and economy. Most recent example of the notion of hard power is Invasion of Iraq by the United States of America in 2003 (Ilgen, 2016). Other examples could be Soviet Union’s invading Afghanistan or USA’s trade control over Cuba or Iran.
Soft Power represents one nation’s use of diplomatic, historical or cultural influence over others. This form of power has the strength to persuade other nations to cooperate. The powerful nations provide payments and other benefits as tools of persuasion. The nations, using soft power indirectly convince other nations to participate in their vision. Powerful international organizations implement this strategy to transform other's preference into their own. The notion of soft power enables the nations to convince through highlighting what could be attractive to others (Roselle, Miskimmon & O’Loughlin, 2014). Other than its culture the foreign policies and political views also play a major role. It is evident through various surveys that most nations engage in the notion of soft power in their foreign policies. The 2014 Monocle survey demonstrated that United States of America has been implementing soft power in its foreign policies more than most nations. Countries like Germany, Japan, UK, Canada, Australia and France implement soft power in its foreign policy to maintain effective international relations.
The notion of soft power is more important than the notion of hard power. The example of USA's notion of hard power over Iraq resulted in the sacrifice of thousand innocent humans. The military intervention is the principle factor of the hard power which is bound to generate complexities and violence. The soft power, on the other hand, does not affect the other nations that much, so the notion of soft power is preferred.
4: Global Governance
The international economic and political relations experienced great changes due to neo-liberal changes, and it acted as a source of global governance. The market mechanisms received privileges over state authorities resulted in governance gaps. The private authorities have started taking the authoritative role. Global governance is becoming more important than others. Several transitional actors are working towards developing a political cooperation through the global governance (Duffield, 2014). This addresses the common problems affecting multiple states and works to resolve those. However, there are various theories and claims about the future of global governance. Many scholars believe that in reality, global governance has failed but others claim that global governance is adapting necessary changes to resolve those issues effectively. The future generations could face great challenges without the global challenges. Bigger human security awareness, individual empowerment, power shift, institutional complexities and political changes are increasing.
The globalization and the internet revolution have changed the information capacity of individuals and most organizations. As a result, they hold more power than ever. Individuals can obtain security information easily due to the internet exposure. The individuals now know the value of the international security on their lives. After the cold war, the globalization and digital revolution have transformed the transportation and information technologies. The state authoritative power is getting increased. As the individual empowerment has experienced great changes, the global security is at risk (Weiss, 2016). Not just the security, human dignity, ethics and physical safety are also threatened. In the future global governance will play a significant role in protecting the global securities. Through global governance, a group of security analysts have been analyzing the reasons behind environmental degradation.
The institutional complexity is getting increased that can be resolved by global governance. Along with the individual power, the power of civil society is also getting increased. So now multiple non-state actors have the power to influence the state authoritative power effectively. The power shift in the international relations will be managed by global governance. The western countries control the global governance, but now the power from global south is establishing its strength in the global sphere. The global governance will get complicated due to this increased multilateralism (Telò, 2016). The world political paradigm plays a major role in the future of global governance. Various international organizations have found a powerful platform through global governance for materializing their plans to secure the global security. They take care of the international politics and make sure that every nation is getting equal treatment. The United Nations, International Criminal Court and the Atomic Energy Agency have made significant progress in protecting the security with the help of global governance (Baylis, Owens & Smith, 2017). The hegemonic rivalry of China USA or the conflicts between the USA and the Middle East will create more threats shortly. Global governance can play a serious role to minimize such issues successfully. The global security is at great risk of collapsing at any time, and global governance can only ensure the security. Global governance is capable of developing a sustainable, cooperative and secure future for the future generations.
Barnett, M. N., & Duvall, R. (2014). Power in global governance (pp. 1-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margulis, M. E., McKeon, N., & Borras Jr, S. M. (2013). Land grabbing and global governance: critical perspectives. Globalizations, 10(1), 1-23.
Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance?. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 27-39.
Shambaugh, D. L. (2013). China goes global: The partial power (Vol. 111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duffield, M. (2014). Global governance and the new wars: The merging of development and security. Zed Books Ltd..
Frenk, J., & Moon, S. (2013). Governance challenges in global health. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(10), 936-942.
Ruggie, J. G. (2014). Global governance and “new governance theory”: Lessons from business and human rights. Global Governance, 20(1), 5-17.
Telò, M. (Ed.). (2016). Globalisation, multilateralism, Europe: towards a better global governance?. Routledge.
Voegtlin, C., & Pless, N. M. (2014). Global governance: CSR and the role of the UN Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 179-191.
Weiss, T. G., & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. International Studies Quarterly, 58(1), 207-215.
Zelli, F., & Van Asselt, H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1-13.
Baylis, J., Owens, P., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
Kahler, M. (2013). Rising powers and global governance: negotiating change in a resilient status quo. International Affairs, 89(3), 711-729.
Telò, M. (Ed.). (2014). European union and new regionalism: competing regionalism and global governance in a post-hegemonic era. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Telò, M. (Ed.). (2016). Globalisation, multilateralism, Europe: towards a better global governance?. Routledge.
Weiss, T. G. (2016). Global Governance: Why? What? Whither?. John Wiley & Sons.
Weiss, T. G., & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Global Governance to the Rescue: Saving International Relations?. Global Governance, 20(1), 19-36.
Ilgen, T. L. (Ed.). (2016). Hard power, soft power and the future of transatlantic relations. Routledge.
Roselle, L., Miskimmon, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2014). Strategic narrative: A new means to understand soft power. Media, War & Conflict, 7(1), 70-84.
Wagner, J. (2014). The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations. E-International Relations. Retrieved 12 December 2017, from https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/14/the-effectiveness-of-soft-hard-power-in-contemporary-international-relations/
Wrong, D. (2017). Power: Its forms, bases and uses. Routledge.