[MUSIC] Our short excursions into the worlds of trade, climate change, and Internet governance illustrated how issues which transcend traditional borders of nation states and arguably traditional mandates of international organizations make global cooperation more important yet also more difficult. In international trade, the emergence of global supply chains and the fragmentation of production processes creates new network problems that WTO has big difficulties to address them. Investment rules, competition policies or customs procedures are domestic in nature but, of course, have major implications for global supply chains. So how should the WTO deal with this? On top, emerging markets have evolved from passive observers on the periphery to active participants at the front and center of the WTO and other trade bodies, making them more legitimate, yet also less effective. Stacey Child discussed two potential solutions to reducing the growing complexity in international trade, made our regional agreements and issue-specific unilateral agreements. It remains of course to be seen if any of those with advanced or fragmented international trade going forward. With more than 200 multilateral agreements, global environmental governance is highly institutionalized. Still, in terms of outcomes, success stories are unfortunately rare. In climate change, the second global issue we explored, two decades of international negotiations resulted exactly in one treaty, the 1995 Kyoto Protocol. And this one on top never got ratified by the United States or any major developing country. According to Jill Casan, international institutions have not been able to help states overcome collective action dilemmas. Partly, this goes back to conflicting priorities of developing countries who evolved into the world's largest emitters of the past two decades and partly, to powerful transnational networks actors and interests which constrained the ability of states to arrive at agreements. Voluntary subnational initiatives, as well as transnational multi-stakeholder partnerships, rose to fill the gap in recent years. But as Jill pointed out, by themselves, they will not be enough to confront one of the biggest challenges humanity is facing today. The management of the Internet has only recently entered the stage of international politics. In many ways, it is the perfect network problem where everyone gains from openness and connectedness, but there are common challenges, such as cyber crime, but also common rules and frameworks need to be reassured. Explained the emergence of new structures for Internet governance amplified the tension between hierarchies and networks in a powerful way. All three examples showed how the 20th century hierarchical model of international organization is struggling to deal with today's challenges. Our guest speakers illustrated that innovative approaches to these problems are often about networked leadership, about being at the center, not about being at the top. States and foreign institutions continue to play an important role in this, but they increasingly need to orchestrate networks to successfully manage today's global problems. >> The three examples we decided to share with you not only exhibit similar dynamics, the struggle between hierarchies and networks. They also respond to a common concern, an international order which allows societies to reap the benefits from globalization while limiting its risks. This concern has not always been at the forefront of international politics. Historically, states experience interdependence primarily as threats to their sovereignty. International relations was mainly about the projection of military power over territories as expressed in the term geopolitics. The collapse of the Soviet Union shifted the focus from state security to the provision of institutions that facilitate globalization. This is not to say that large powers did not clash anymore. Differences arose over the conflicts in the Balkans, NATO enlargement, the missile shield, intellectual property, artificially lower exchange rates, trade globalizations and so on. But high intensity interstate wars declined by almost 80% and no persistent breakdowns of big power relationships occurred. If from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the tension between private networks and public hierarchies dominated the headlines, the second decade of the new millennium is more complicated in that both private and public hierarchies are challenged by emerging public and private networks. An important trigger for these developments are the massive differences in the economic performance of major states since the end of the Cold War. The slide you see compares the gross domestic product of Russia, China, Japan, and the United States, and the European Union. The graph tells you two striking stories. One is the astonishing rise of China, not only in absolute terms but also relative to the stagnant regional rival Japan and the United States. The others, the stagnation of Russia, not only in absolute terms but also relative to the EU in the west and China to its east. Why should we care about this measure? Because aggregate economic power at some point has a good chance of translating into political might. This was true for Britain in the 19th century and for the United States in the 20th century, and could well be true for China in the 21st century. Much has been written about the dynamics of great power rivalry and particularly about periods of power transition. This year, the centennial of the first World War has evoked many accounts of the parallels with today's strategic competition and the potential of a broad-based unraveling of networks. However, given deeper economic integration and a more formalized international system, a more likely outcome would be competitive cooperation whereby actors strive for the center of the network rather than the top of traditional hierarchies. The defining challenge for international organizations will therefore be to avoid being paralyzed by rising tensions among states and be a proactive broker for international corporation. [MUSIC]
