Luke Pramudita
Abstraction
The emerging concept of global governance has developed for more than a decade after post-Cold War period. It has gone from the abstract topic to the central themes in the study of international affairs at this time. Nowadays, the concept of global governance is still debated between three major theorist of each paradigms : realist, liberal, and radical. This essay might help to view how the three paradigms in international relations look at the global governance concept. Here writer want to analyze how should global governance looked.
Introduction
Nowadays every side in international relations has changed because of the event called globalization. In globalization era we may see the increasing role and connection between all actors at international relations (IR law subject). The globalization itself means the condition whereby social relations acquire relatively distanceless and borderless qualities, so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world at the single place1. From this passage we may conclude that globalization made the world (international society) more conducted and organized on the basis of this universe.
Understanding phenomena of globalization growth, peoples may think to have mechanism to keep the process of globalization work as good as possible. The theorists of international relations at these time have analyzed this issue and one of the idea (came from the liberals) was developing new forms of collective action (between IR actors) under the rubric of global governance2.
Without want to agree or disagree about this liberals view, writers just want to view what is the global governance means in some definition from the theorists. There writers pointed out the basic explanation of global governance from many sources:
“Global governance is the establishment and operation of social institutions….capable of resolving conflicts, facilitating cooperation, or more generally alleviating collective action problems in a world of interdependent actors3.”
“Global governance is the cooperative establishment, promotion, or restoration of order, usually under conditions of consensus among the leading members of the international community4.”
“Global governance can defined as the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is the continuing process through which conflict or diverse interests may be accommodated5.”
From all of these explanation above writers can include the global governance is the frameworks between actors (government or non-government, public or private) to look at the international problems together and continuously. But global governance can’t be catch as global government. Global governance is the mechanism how IR actors can accommodate theirself, not government in real context so it called government above the government and all IR actors. James Rosenau explain it clearly with the passage below :
“Global governance not mean global government, it is embraces governmental institutions, but also subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanism whereby persons and organizations within its purview move ahead, satisfy their needs, and fulfill their wants. That means global governance implies examination of various governance activities, from formal to informal, from law to rules to understandings, at a variety of locales. It is not the hierarchical approach of world government6.”
What writer have mention above is the little and basic view of liberal theorists about global governance. The question now is what about the other theorists (realist and radicals) view the global governance?
We have known the three paradigms in international relations: realist, liberal, and radical. Each concept content different way to explain the phenomena of international relations. In briefs there is the view of each paradigms: realists look that the main actor in IR is state, and the focus of every state is struggle for power so the system in this world is confused and very anarchy, sometimes there are conflicts or war between states; liberal look that the main actor in IR are states and non-states actor that related one and another, the system in this world is anarchy but it still peace because they try to find the peace way to solve the problem; radical look that the main actor in IR are states and non-states actor which compete one and another, the system in this world is anarchy and there is classification and hierarchical between them7.
Back to the global governance view, the theorists of each paradigm also see it in different view based on their theory. They look in different way each factor include the substations in global governance: the role of international law and the organization of global governance8. This is the focus of the debate between the theorists.
The Global Governance View Based on Liberals
As what writer have tell before that the concept of global governance firstly came from the liberals, here writer just want to give more attention to the attitude from liberals look at the global governance.
Actually liberals are agree with the concept of global governance. They think that there must be an effective mechanism to forward the international problems in this world so there will be peace resolution without take extreme action (war and intervention). The traditional liberals have said that mechanism of global governance should be done with the unity of states in this world so it can hold together to cooperate international problems. Like what Grotius said, “States is like a peoples who basically rational, law abiding, and also capable of achieving cooperative goals9.” That means although states has the sovereignty by theirself they can unite and cooperate as an organization. This Grotian opinion inspire the traditional liberals and modern liberals (neo liberals) as their principal about the global governance.
What about the form of global governance? Liberals think that global governance have organization shape like United Nations at this time. As we know before that United Nations has the ability to unite every states in this world, made them organized in one body and the most important is can arrange the world so it seems like governance above state governance. Beside the UN neo liberals also add the other actors like IGO’s and NGO’s as the part of the system of global governance. However, at this time their role are more important and sometimes they work more effective than states in global view.
The Global Governance View Based on Realist and Radicals
Actually the realists and radicals are skeptical about both topic of global governance that serve by liberals10. For them there are many question that not appropriate with their theory and logic. There writer will classify the explaining of global governance into their own logical:
a. Realist
Realist as we know before are the opposite of liberals. They are really critics the concept of global governance at all. Liberals view the global governance as the unity of the international relations actors which controlled by mechanism above them, but realist that only recognize states as the the main actors in international relations view that states cannot united because they have their own national interest that difficult to united. One opinion that explained why realist push away the liberals view is with mechanism of global governance it means that states should give their sovereignty to be arranged in one governance.
How about the international law that limit the sovereignty of each sates? Realist look it in different way again. For realist, state decision to follow the international law is because of they choose to follow it (based on their national interest). They need it to keep their region saved from international intervention and the others state power. It is just strategy not the state conscious11.
Than talking about UN and international organizations, realist just explain it simple with statement, ‘If UN works effectively why until this time there are still problems between many states?” Realist think that with or without UN, the condition of international system still the same; anarchy. These statement can be evidence with the follow of USA in every problems in this world (whereas who is USA? What is her capacity so he can follow in every states problem?). Realist look that there is better make state peace with balance of power and deterrence than unite in organization like UN.
b. Radicals
Same with realist, radical also view global governance is not appropriate with the Marxist theory of capitals12. For them with the coming of global governance the structure of classification between 1st world and 2nd or 3rd world are vague.
The existion of UN also asked by the Radicals. Their basic question is, “If UN work without differ the states why until now there can’t find the similar economic growth between UN member?” There may be truth infact this time the international system inclined to western states (the colonial former). There still differentiation from colonial era until now.
Conclusion : Let’s View the Global Governance Concept Again
If we discuss again the concept of global governance viewed by liberals, realist, and radicals maybe there will never end because their basic logical and theory are very different. We also can’t take summary conclusion between definition from their debates.
Now, let’s viewed global governance in new paradigm (situation) that can be solved and closed with the definition: logicals. The global governance like what writer told before is a mechanism to govern all actors in international relations to unite as the international society. The concept of governance here is not same with government in fact. Governance just mean mechanism to work not means government that above the other government (states).
What it does mean? It means that global governance is a temporary conditions in international relations. It can happens every times in this world without any needs of sovereignty and structural organization. This means that global governance is free coalition to overcome problems together. The example is when the world look about the AIDS disease. In situation like that the way to overcome the AIDS problem is not come from the states but also the others international actors. This is international responsibilities. We may see that not only states which try to solve this but also NGO’s etc. This relation is the meaning of global governance.
Talking about UN is it global governance? Writer conclude that UN is not global governance but just international governance. It is because the members of UN is not all actors of IR but just states in this world.
—end—
Bibliography :
Perwita, Anak A.B.P, and Yanyan Mochamad Yani. 2005. Ilmu hubungan Internasional. Bandung: Rosda
Barnett, Michael, and Raymon Duvall. 2005. Power In Global governance. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
Baylish, John, and Steve Smith. 1998. The Globalization of World Politics. United kingdom : Oxford University Press
