Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State and Civil Society

Responsibility to Protect
Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State and Civil Society file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State and Civil Society book. Happy reading Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State and Civil Society Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State and Civil Society at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State and Civil Society Pocket Guide.

see Sovereignty can be further characterized as a fluid reflection of legitimacy and power, due to its ability to be shared and traded by cooperative and competing forces within the international arena. Due to the fluid nature of sovereignty in the current international arena, different states, international organizations, and localized populations share sovereignty in comparatively different portions. The DRC has suffered a tumultuous existence since receiving independence from Belgium in The central African country contains substantial and valuable natural resources such as copper and cobalt; however, the general population has suffered extreme poverty.

Multiple civil wars and military coups have greatly complicated the state system. In addition, the country suffered great repression under the prebendalist and authoritarian government of Mobutu. In he was officially elected in internationally acclaimed elections. However, since that time the Kabila government has failed to provide basic public services to its population. In addition, the government exercises virtually no control over significant areas of the territory. Specifically, the rebel militia under Tutsi general Nkunda in the East has perpetuated massive conflict.

Therefore, in the DRC sovereignty is divided and traded between international, local, and state actors. The state retains nominal sovereignty as legitimacy granted by the international community Friedman Although the state has demonstrated a significant lack of capacity, it is treated as the sovereign authority in that no external, globally recognized challenge exists to its authority. This can be evidenced by the reluctance of MONUC to engage in operations without the consent of the Kabila government 2.

Despite the changes brought by globalization, the legitimacy of the international state system as a whole has not been challenged, and therefore the state retains external legitimacy as recognized by the formal international community. However, the internal legitimacy, granted by the consent of localized populations, is not maintained by the formal state. This becomes evident when one examines the informal economic and social structures that localized populations have developed Dunn ; Hyden Localized individuals do not view the state as the legitimate authority in economic interactions, but rather legitimize means of non-state economic activity by choosing to pursue alternate means of well-being that avoid state apparatus.

This can be exemplified by the health sector. The Kabila government is incapable of providing even the most basic of health services to its citizens. State hospitals serve more realistically as morgues than places of healing Persyn This quote provides a critical insight into the location of empirical authority within the DRC health care system. Despite attempts at regulation 3 , the the state is incapable of influencing a growing private sector, bottom-up approach to health care.

In reality, it is the local peoples that have determined the operation of the health industry, despite the state receiving the recognition of authority by the international society. Therefore, sovereignty as legitimacy within the health sector is shared by a variety of actors, from local witchcraft doctors to international organizations such as WHO. In the same vein, food security is provided, for the most part, by the innovation and tenacity of the Congolese at the lowest level of social organization. Citizens have responded to this food crisis with a variety of bottom-up coping mechanisms, most importantly through urban-agriculture and an informal shipping sector.

International organizations have contributed in a few ways to these local innovations. To the same ends, the PAR project financed by the EU rehabilitated important asphalt roads in and Tollens These projects utilized cooperation between local and global agents to facilitate increased distribution of food. However, just as with water supply, increased cooperation between transnational sources of funding and technology and local individuals would enhance food security in the DRC. Furthermore, the DRC example illustrates the parallels between sovereignty as legitimacy and sovereignty as capacity.

Organizations require capacity to achieve legitimacy, and vice versa. Responsibility, however, does not necessarily follow either capacity or legitimacy. For this reason, the responsibility to impose order within the boundaries of the DRC has been captured and shared by a variety of actors, the state bearing the least responsibility. The international UN system has largely accepted the responsibility for peacekeeping in the East, which has manifest through the presence of MONUC forces in areas where the state military cannot exercise control.

As the example of the DRC shows, the fluid exchange of sovereignty as a result of relative differences in state and international capacity highlights the empirical irrelevance of the state within the Eastern territory. As such, the civil society literature that utilizes a state-society perspective remains unable to contribute to effective development literature concerning the area.

Future research must begin, therefore, with an examination of the relative flows of power between localized groups, various elements of the international community and the state.

Changing Concepts of State Sovereignty

Cambridge: Polity. Legal anthropologist E. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. NGOs, particularly those well integrated into the local setting, could nudge host governments as well as other armed actors toward better behavior. In principle, then, the ICC does not threaten to undermine the authority of well-functioning domestic legal orders, and may simultaneously limit and enhance state rights and responsibilities. This has a double impact. Finally, the present Powers of the world were formed.

Only once these flows of power have been more clearly delineated can theorists and scholars understand the role and capabilities of localized civic elements. The evolving nature and location of sovereignty have been utilized to illustrate the irrelevance of the state-society dichotomy in certain areas where states retain only minimal external legitimacy, while various non-state elements hold and exchange the remaining dimensions of sovereignty. Future research should focus on the flows of power and sovereignty that occur between the plethora of non-state actors in various regions on the continent.

These flows occur within three main manifestations:. Our understanding of the implications of these manifestations will greatly elucidate the true nature of sovereignty and the subsequent role for civic action in Africa. With the potential reductions in international aid that will inevitably occur due to the global economic crisis, the Troubled Continent will either rise or fall with independent, localized civic action.

Adekson, Adedayo Oluqakayode. New York: Routledge. Annan, Kofi. Art and Robert Jervis. New York: Pearson Longman. Arlinghaus, Bruce E. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bratton, Michael. Colorado: Lynne Reinner. Clapham, Christopher. Deng, Francis M. Washington, D.

Globalization and the state

C: The Bookings Institute. Deng and Terrence Lyons. DeLue, Steven and Timothy Dale. New York: Person Longman. Dunn, Kevin C. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Elian, George. Ferguson, James. London: Duke University Press. Florini, Ann M. Japan: Japan Center for International Exchange. Francois, Monika and Inder Sud. Gibrill, Hashim. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books. London: Zed Books. Harbeson, John. Hepner, Tricia M.

Global Democracy

Herbst, Jeffrey. Hyden, Goran. New York: Cambridge. Karns, Margaret and Karen Mingst. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Klein, Robert. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Makumbe, John. Milliken, Jennifer and Keith Krause. Mwacan, Angeline. Ngosi, Anthony. Sikainga and Ousseina Alidou. Oyugi, Walter O. Patterson, Amy S. Senghor and Nana K.

MORE WORLD POLITICS REVIEW

This book explores the nature and problems of global governance as we enter the next millennium. It focuses The United Nations, the State and Civil Society. The intense interactions between states and NGOs at conferences. of nation- states' responses to their new companions in global governance. As fundamental or meta-norms they include both foundational principles of the United Nations.

Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Pears, Brad. Persyn, Peter and Fabienne Ladriere. Rice, Condoleeza. Richter, Ingo K. Samatar, Abdi Ismail and Ahmed I. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sassen, Saskia. Shraeder, Peter J. California: Wadsworth. Sikainga, Ahmad A. Thorn, Hakan. Tollens, Eric. Trefon, Theodore. Udogu, E. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Democracy and Governance. Von Rooy, Allison. Young, Crawford.

Search form

Colorado: Lynne Rienner. Zartman, I. Group activity under the paternal tutelage of mission churches, colonial corporations, and ethnic associations was seen as harmless and thus was more easily tolerated. But in the terminal colonial years the tutelary surveillance relaxed, and associational activity expanded with remarkable vigor. If one defines civil society by its organizational life, one might suggest that the decolonization era was its golden age.

World government - Wikipedia

Sovereignty evolved to entail three main dimensions, all of which include both internal and external elements: Legitimacy; Capacity; Responsibility. These flows occur within three main manifestations: The exchange, spread, and influence of ideals and norms; The flows of financial aid and comparative finance; Tangible aid in the form of capacity enhancement and training. Bacik, Gochan. Bodin, Jean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Tocqueville, Alexis.

New York: Vintage Books. Fukuyama, Francis. London: Hamish Hamilton. Hegel, George. Hobbes, Thomas. New York: Dutton. Krasner, Stephen D. Locke, John. Rotberg, Robert I. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. NOTES 1 This role has often been clouded by the state-society perspective in civil society literature 2 President Joseph Kabila has held power since January of , and was legitimized in a national election.

He will graduate in May with an international studies major; focus in world politics and policy, and a minor in Spanish. He will most likely pursue an education in international law next year. His paper reflects two years of research for his University Honors thesis, which he aims to publish in a joint essay with his advisor, Dr.

Moreover, they held that human beings are inherently rational so that they can collectively shape the nature of the society they belong to. In addition, human beings have the capacity to voluntarily gather for the common cause and maintain peace in society. As the forces of countries reconstituted themselves to re-affirm their global dominion in the era of globalization, the forces of community found parallel expression through a series of popular movements that drew inspiration from earlier national liberation movements.

Each sought to transform the relationships of power from the dominator model of empire to the partnership model of community. These movements emerged in rapid succession in response to an awakening consciousness of the possibility of creating truly democratic societies that honor life and recognize the worth and contribution of every person. Each sought deep change through non-violent means in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. They challenged the legitimacy of dominator cultures and institutions, withdraw cooperation and support, and sought to live a new reality into being through individual and collective action.

Each contributed its piece to an emerging mosaic that is converging into what we now know as global civil society. Global civil society is a social expression of the awakening of an authentic planetary culture grounded in the spiritual values and social experience of hundreds of millions of people. The power of authentic culture gives civil society the ultimate advantage. Global civil society is a manifestation of social energies released by an awakening of human consciousness to possibilities for creating societies that nurture and rejoice in a love of all beings.

Like globalization, the emergence of global civil society is also a recent global phenomenon. It is hypothesized that there is a mutual interaction between global civil society and globalization and it is considered that global civil society is an aspect of globalization. Moreover, global civil society contributes to globalization. Further, it has been proposed that global civil society both feeds on and reacts to globalization.

Globalization provides the foundation for global civil society. The high concentration of global civil society is found in north-Western Europe which is also high on globalization in terms of presence of Transnational Corp[orations TNCs , Internet usage, importance of trade and foreign investment. It is observed that global civil society also reacts to globalization, especially to the negative consequences of the expansion of global capitalism and interconnectedness.

Globalization is not found to be an even process. It has yielded benefits to some and caused deprivations and exclusion of others. The victims of globalization have reacted in an increasingly organized manner which is reflected in the growing strength and activities of global civil society.

Global civil society comprises diverse set of organizations, individuals, and ideologies.

How the Idea of National Sovereignty Is—and Isn't—Changing

It does not take an unified or single stand on globalization. Its responses are widely varied that have been classified into different categories. The supporters are those groups and individuals in global civil society, who advocate globalization and are enthusiastic about it.

They are in favour of the expansion of global capitalism and interconnectedness or global rule of law and global consciousness. They are allies of transnational business, and also of governments that want globalization to move ahead. Rejectionists those who reject globalization and want to return to a world of nation-states. The rejectionists are of different types in terms of politico-ideological perspectives.

There are leftists here who are opposed to global capitalism, but do not oppose the spread of global rule of law. Moreover, there are traditional leftist anti-colonial movements or communists who oppose infringement of state sovereignty. This category of global civil society also comprises nationalists and even religious fundamentalists. They consider globalization harmful and hence oppose it with all their might. Reformists are said to be the largest segment of global civil society.

They welcome the spread of global capitalism and global connectedness which is considered potentially beneficial to all. So, they want reform of international and multilateral economic institutions, and a global rule of law. They are in favour of greater social justice and a fair and participatory procedure in case of new technologies.

Two sub-groups are identified under this category. Rather, it prefers to opt out and adopts its own course of action independent of government, international institutions and TNCs. Their main aim is to develop their own way of life and create their own space without any kind of outside interference. This gathering engaged some 18, citizen of every nationality, class, religion and race in crafting citizen treaties articulating positive agendas for cooperative voluntary action to create a world that works for all. This was an initial step in forming the complex web of alliances committed to creating a just, sustainable, and compassionate world we now know as global civil society.

In the late s global civil society gained public visibility primarily as a popular resistance movement challenging the institutions and policies of corporate globalization. Less visible was the on going work of articulating and demonstrating positive alternatives. This more positive and proactive face of the movement came to the fore in at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre Brazil nine years after Rio. The foundation of the change ahead is the awakening of a cultural, social, scientific, and spiritual consciousness of the interconnections that bond the whole of life including the human species into the living web of an earth community.

The World Social Forum. The World Social Forum is not an organization, not a united front platform, but it is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centered on the human person. The World Social Forum brings together and interlinks organizations and movements of civil society from all the countries in the world.

However, it does not intend to be a body representing world civil society. The World Social Forum is an annual meeting, based in Brazil, that defines itself as an opened space, plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan that stimulates the decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions towards a more solidary, democratic and fair world. It is a permanent space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism. It is held by members of the alter-globalization movement also known to as the global justice movement who come together to coordinate world campaigns, share and refine organizing strategies, and inform each other about movements from around the world and their issues.

It tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The town was experimenting with an innovative model for local government which combined the traditional representative institutions with the participation of open assemblies of the people.

Peace-Building, Human Rights, Internet Governance and Cybersecurity, and Climate Change

About 12, people attended from around the world. The second World Social Forum, also held in Porto Alegre from 31 January to 5 February , had over 12, official delegates representing people from countries, 60, attendees, workshops, and 27 talks. There were many parallel workshops, including, for example the Life After Capitalism workshop, which proposed focussed discussion on non-communist, non-capitalist, participative possibilities for different aspects of social, political, economic, communication structures.

  • Principles of geometry.
  • World Government.
  • Heat Pumps for Energy Efficiency and Environmental Progress?
  • The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century.
  • How the Idea of National Sovereignty Is—and Isn't—Changing?
  • The Vanishing Children of Paris: Rumor and Politics Before the French Revolution.

Among the speakers was American linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky. The attendance was expected to be 75, and it shot over by thousands. The cultural diversity was one notable aspect of the forum. A notable decision that was taken was the stand on Free Software. There were , registered participants at the Forum, with most coming from Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Uruguay, and France.

A number of participants in the forum released the Porto Alegre Manifesto. The Forum in Pakistan was delayed to March because of the Kashmir earthquake that had recently occurred in the area. There were 66, registered attendees, and 1, participating organizations from countries, making it the most globally representative World Social Forum so far.

It was criticized as being 'an Non-Government Organizaton NGO fair' and movements of the poor in Kenya and South Africa mounted vigorous protests against some of the NGOs that attended and, in their view, dominated the forum in the name of the African poor. The eighth World Social Forum in was not organized at a particular place, but globally, which means by thousands of autonomous local organizations, on or around January They are also known as the Global Call for Action.

More than , people descended on the city of Belem at the mighty Amazon river to debate proposals and plan strategies for making a new and better world. Since , the United Nations has had a presence at the World Social Forum through UNESCO, showing the institutional credibility achieved by the forum, seen by UNESCO as a prime opportunity for dialogue and a laboratory of ideas for the renewal of public policies through critical reflection on the future of societies we want to create and for elaborating proposals in search of solidarity, justice, peace and human rights. Charter of Principles of World Social Forum.

The committee of Brazilian organizations that conceived of and organized the first World Social Forum, held in Porto Alegre from January 25th to 30th, , after evaluating the results of that Forum and the expectations it raised, considered it necessary and legitimate to draw up a Charter of Principles to guide the continued pursuit of that initiative.

The principles contained in the Charter are supposed to be respected by all those, who wished to take part in the process and to organize new editions of the World Social Forum. The Charter of Principles is a consolidation of the decisions that presided over the holding of the Porto Alegre Forum. From now on, in the certainty proclaimed at Porto Alegre that "Another World is Possible", it becomes a permanent process of seeking and building alternatives, which cannot be reduced to the events supporting it.

All the meetings that are held as part of this process have an international dimension. They are designed to ensure that globalization in solidarity will prevail as a new stage in world history. This will respect universal human rights, and those of all citizens - men and women - of all nations and the environment and will rest on democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples. No one, therefore, will be authorized, on behalf of any of the editions of the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of all its participants.