Atlantic-community.org hosted a student essay competition on the future of Global Governance in the year 2020. The student entries emphasized four issues that are impacted by the global nature in which the world today operates. The four issues are
- Institutions
- Trade and Finance
- Human Rights
- Environment, Climate Change and Energy
1. The institutional approach to global governance needs to be reassessed.
Many student essays focused on the institutional approach to global governance. Broadly speaking, the opinions formed around the importance of global, regional and national actors. In his article, John Dalziel Frew argues for a more globalized approach, saying that a consensual approach to decision making offers the best solution for a globalized world. Regional organizations also have a critical role to play, and regionalized global governance strategies would be preferable to UN action as regional bodies are more appropriately suited to influence governance within their own areas (Simona Lipstaite). The case for a more national approach is put forward by Tobias Weise, who proposes that states should effectively utilize their own power and responsibility in shaping the world, rather than placing their faith in international organizations.
2. Economic problems require direct action on a global level.
Soyen Park says that the scale of the current economic crisis makes it hard to predict what the future role of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank will be in 2020. In times of such uncertainty state leaders will need to understand and respond to global interactions when making decisions (Niketa Kumar). Increased levels of global trade will necessitate the creation of a central body to ensure that each nation "promotes politically liberal policies," explains Scott Hartley.
3. Improve human rights via economic rejuvenation.
Promoting human rights is intertwined with fostering economic development, and ultimately international security can only be maintained once human rights have been secured globally (Alyssa Ramsey). Such security issues will place greater scrutiny on the role of the United Nations Security Council and some of its powers should be transferred to the General Assembly (Kay-Michael Dankl).
4. Counter climate change with greater investment, cooperation and data sharing.
Establishing a "fourth sector" composed of scientific work and research drawn from the government, commercial sector, non-governmental organizations, academia and civil society is necessary to address the challenges posed by climate change (Noah Chutz). Implementing technology transfer must overcome competing private sector interests to allow co-operation between developed and developing countries (Sam Vanderslott). A more drastic overhaul, suggested by Jordan Levine, is required to implement a system that accounts for the "social and ecological consequences of human activity" across the world.
Atlantic Memos showcase the best ideas and arguments from debates in the Open Think Tank on www.atlantic-community.org. Please take the next step and help us spread the word. You can download a PDF copy of this Atlantic Memo to distribute to your local or national decision-makers. The recommendations expressed above come from your Atlantic Community.
Written by Rob Steer
- 4
April 7, 2009
amarjyoti acharya
Trying some medieval-esque crusades in third world states via prostitutes, etc. - the great underbelly of crime-terror network that feeds the opposites of global governance - is barely the way to begin. France may need to re-consider its ideas of real-politik and aspirations towards super-power status via such methods that feed upon the faultlines of societies. As the anti-thesis of global governance - spinning cardboards to make a ghost appear may do the Baptist church a great favour of appearances or even the Roman Catholic Church, etc. It does not help the case for equal societies and towrads the building of peaceful world. France would of course vehemently disagree - even as its ghoulish or the Baptist Church's ghoulish presences as ostensible US presences go - the shape-changing phenomenons, inspired from Great Britain as one understands it!
Would the People's Republic of China assume that it is what global governance is made up of or exercises towards it? Would Russia?
The smaller states that attempt to vie for a place under the sun - including Ukraine or Georgia, North Korea, etc. may attract many a sympathetic glances from the major powers that may seem to be competing with say Russia. North Korea may be bugbear of the USA, while USA may be a bugbear for China! Talk of changing geo-politics and their reasons! The European Union may resent the presence of 'jehadi' populace or their exporters from other quarters. Any reason why other states may not resent the export of Christian Jehadis or Jewish or even Hindu Jehadis? In a globalized world, the 'Jehadis' may not need to physically cross-over as most do - Georgia included, if Russian reports are to be believed. The encouragement of radical left Jehadis is barely the answer, as the case of Taliban is slowly proving. So common sense is something else than 'classic realism' calcified as French stupidity or US denseness, etc. It merely smacks of doomsday cults having a free run via its stooges in third worlds that run the routes of crime-terror nexus.
It barely encourages global governance or visions of it. It seems that from a vantage point of standing in New Delhi - only its insurgent populations, their sponsors (Irish Troubles sound so enlightening) and political classes of such states that feed and encourage such forces - cutting across religious lines as such forces of anarchy usually are made up of (petty criminals and their political patrons) - global governance needs to exclude South Asia when it begins its confabulations. The only trouble is: who are its sponsors and which states too then would need to be looked at carefully, when one talks of global governance!