The course aims to introduce the key assumptions of the international relations theory as a part of social science and as an analytic tool, focusing on the problems of war and peace, foreign policy decision-making, etc. The course combines historic approach and analysis of the modern political problems. The historic part shows the evolution of the international relations theory from being a part of political philosophy to its emergence as a special branch of political science, which is essential to understand the key ideas of the IR science. The lectures also include broad outline of the modern concepts and debates in the context of the contemporary political problems, such as rise of China and other emerging powers, threat of terrorism, US-Russia confrontation, etc. The lectures of the two outstanding Russian scholars and political analysts – Timofey Bordachev and Dmitry Suslov - cover such fields as the problems of international security and conflict resolution, international economic relations, foreign policy decision-making, global governance, the role of power in the IR.
Criticism of global governance
Loading...
From the course by National Research University Higher School of Economics
Understanding International Relations Theory
35 ratings
National Research University Higher School of Economics
35 ratings
From the lesson
Global governance
Is it possible to establish a world government? And will it lead to "eternal peace"? These questions are essential to understand the key patterns and contradictions, which drive the modern international politics.
Meet the Instructors
Timofei BordachevAssociate professor
Department of international relations
Dmitrii SuslovSenior Lecturer
Department of international relations, HSE
[MUSIC]
Finally, let us talk about the skeptical and
critical perceptions on global governance.
As you saw from the previous parts of the lecture, global governance is quite
important, quite widespread, and quite developed as a concept.
However, there are those in the international relations theory
who either criticize global governance and identify some
flaws in the conceptual framework and the practical implementation.
And there are those who basically reject global governance
as something artificial and non-existent.
And let's start from the latter.
Indeed, the concept of global governance is simply flawed.
For those experts and scholars who believe in state classical sovereignty and
self help international system.
For them, the very idea of global governance which implies that
there is something beyond state, that there are some processes or
authorities that states comply with is impossible.
This concept contradicts to the classical idea of sovereignty as
the highest authority and that there is nothing higher authority
above states than the states themselves.
There are also less extreme views among the opponents of global governance.
Those who agree that behavior of states is regulated, that states follow certain
rules, but according to them, this is not because of global governance.
And for these skeptics, the term global governance is unnecessary because the fact
that states are willing or compelled to follow certain rules is already
conceptualized by traditional theories and concepts of international relations.
And thus,
the new concept of global governance is simply artificial and unnecessary.
So what is the this concept in traditional theory of IR which
explains the fact that states actually follow certain rules?
This is regulation, and regulation is a traditional term describing
making states complying with certain rules, and habits, and patterns.
And according to the traditional theory of international relations,
there are two major sources of regulations.
These are balance of power on the one hand and on the other hand hegemony.
Balance of power determines what type of state behavior,
hegemony predetermines the other type of state behavior but
they both are drivers of regulation.
Let's take the example of the Cold War, in the time of the Cold War there were both
balance of power and hegemony as the driver of foreign policies of states.
The relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were determined by
balance of power, whereas, the policies between the US and these allies.
And the relations between the Soviet Union and Soviet allies were determined by
hegemony and the concept of regulation is traditionally supplemented in the theory
of international relations by the concepts and studies of order and regimes.
So regulation is perceived as a process, whereas,
order is a state of affairs to which regulation results.
And what is order in the theory of international relations?
It is such a system of international relations in which states
they recognize a certain distribution of power and follow certain rules.
And these rules and patterns of behavior could be monitored and
fostered by certain institutions.
From this perspective, really, the concept of global governance is unnecessary.
However, what is different
from the traditional regulations in global governance?
So what is the counter argument of the proponents of global governance theory?
It is that the term regulation does not encompass the globalization and
ethics of globalization.
That globalization is something more and
global governance is something more than balance of power and hegemony.
And thus, global governance is a necessary conceptual tool which helps us
to explain the pattern of behavior of actors in conditions of globalization.
That it is much more than just the behavior in accordance with balance
of power or in accordance with hegemony.
Moreover, the proponents of global governance argued to these critics and
to the skeptics that, unlike regulation,
global governance implies the participation of non-state actors.
And this is very important.
Indeed the concept of regulation just explains
us regulation of states, of foreign policies of states.
Whereas, as you remember from the previous parts of the lecture,
global governance by definition, implies the other actors and
the other participants in addition to states.
Non-state actors, transnational organizations, and so on and so forth.
Another very important point of criticism towards the global
governance concept that it undermines the role of states.
That it underestimates the role of states and state sovereignty in contact
of international relations and foreign policies of these states.
And indeed, despite that the development of many formats and
forms, global governance can hardly challenge the central role of
sovereign state in the international system.
Sovereignty implies that only a state can regulate within its own
jurisdictional space.
And after all, non-state actors,
they do participate within the jurisdictional space of sovereign states.
Secondly, because regulations must be implemented within states to be
effective and enforced, states must agree to regulate.
So it all comes to the role of states.
And enforcement of regulations also rely to the judicial and
policy powers of states.
Here is the chart which exemplifies the role of nation states in the production of
global governance and international relations.
You see, according to this critical view point,
nation states, they shouldn't be just one among many.
Nation states, they are still at the center of the provision of authorities.
It is the nation state which regulates the international organization.
The nation state regulates local politics.
Nation states regulates civil society and nation states
regulate regions, the regional aspect of integration such as the European Union.
So the the critics disagree with an unstoppable relocation of authority
from states to non-state actors according to which Jim Rosenau talks about.
And according to which nation states become one of many or
participants of global governance of the same equal basis.
According to them, nation state is still at the center and will continue to be
at the center of both international relations and global governance.
And another aspect of criticism towards global governance is not conceptual but
practical.
If, and this part of criticism does not question global governance as such.
Does not question this new reality of global governance and
phenomena of global governance.
But they focus on certain flaws of global governance,
certain deficiencies of global governance.
And these deficiencies are of two major aspects.
One, is that in practice, institutions and formats of global governance are strongly
influenced by the United States, European Union, and Japan, the developed countries.
For instance, the head of the World Bank is always American.
The head of the IMF is always the European.
We don't see any Chinese or Indians there.
Structural adjustment policies reflect the neo-liberal Washington consensus of
the 1990s, which gives advantage to the capital and developed countries.
International regulations governing commercial aircraft and
flight are largely drawn from the American regulations.
So yes, global governance is about rules, but who actually imposes these rules?
Who elaborates this rules?
And the critics say that it is the United States.
Still the western countries,
the traditional west, which is at the center of rule making.
Thus, global governance becomes a certain cover for the western hegemony.
And the question that this critics asks is whether global governance is really global
or it serves according to the national interests of most powerful states?
So this is the first criticism of the practical aspects.
And finally, the second and mostly profound aspect of
criticism is that global governance remains fragmented and sporadic.
Very few things are really done in terms of provision of global governance.
Look upon the state of the global governance of climate change.
Look at the state of of global governance of the global economy.
Look at the state of global governance of transnational terrorism.
Yes, certain efforts are made in order to accomplish this governance.
But alas, these efforts are far, far beyond from what is necessary for
the effective management of those transnational problems.
In this lecture, we've covered both theoretical and
practical aspects of global governance.
For more information, please refer to the previous presentation provide, and
the bibliography.
The list of literature which is included into this presentation.
Thank you very much.
[MUSIC]
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
