Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Few terms are as insecurely defined or controversial in a normative sense as global governance. A major part of the problem is the word governance. How does this differ from traditional notions of government exercised by sovereign states and their legal subdivisions? Must governance be institutionalized and rest on national, legal, and moral authority? To the extent that governance exists beyond the state, must it be created by formal agreement among states? Or should governance be understood to include all forms and degrees of rule, exercised by states and nonstate actors, whether based on law and institutionalized or much less formal in nature? If governance is other than traditional government by states, from where does such governance derive its legitimacy? What is the relationship between authority and legitimacy? Indeed, does legitimacy actually matter if there exists a capacity to govern effectively? Does authority imply legitimacy or only effective governance?

Confusion is compounded by the word global. Is the analytical focus only on some form of world government—that is, a truly global manifestation of some form of rule that extends over all the territory and persons in the world? Or should global be understood as including all forms of governance, however narrow in function and limited in territorial reach?

The answers to each of these questions obviously affect the answers to still others: How old or new is global governance? How do present patterns of global governance differ from those of the past? This entry discusses several forms of global governance, including international governmental organizations (IGOs), international regimes, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the legitimacy of global governance.

International Governmental Organizations

Not coincidentally, even as globalization in the 1990s became a popular way to describe a vast acceleration in the volume and pace of transnational activities, so did global governance gain prominence in diplomatic and academic circles as a concept that seemed to capture the increasing challenge of managing issues that were beyond the geographical reach of individual states to address on their own.

The term global governance was associated early on in the decade with the Commission on Global Governance. In 1991, a group of distinguished public figures met in Stockholm and pledged to form an international commission intended to help build a more effective system of world security and governance. The United Nations' (UN) then– Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali endorsed the initiative, and in 1992, the commission was established with 28 members from around the world, who served in their personal capacities. The commission issued its report Our Global Neighbourhood in 1994, making recommendations for the reform of the UN Economic and Social Council and certain other UN bodies. Few of the recommendations were implemented, so the report constituted more of a landmark than a watershed.

Be that as it may, the commission experience did seem to link global governance with the UN and, more broadly, with IGOs whose members are states. In the modern state system, growth in IGOs went hand in hand with the expansion of international law in the 19th and early 20th centuries. More than 20 times as many treaties from 1851 to 1950 took the multilateral form as in the period between 1751 and 1850 (Charlotte Ku, cited in Jan A. Scholte, 2005).

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading