CHAPTER THREE: THE GLOBAL INTERSTATE SYSTEM AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

In a world where there is anarchy, where no overpowering state-like entity imposes rules and order, it is imperative that the
nation state imposes its sovereign power within its domain. The state is the legitimate user of physical violence (Weber, 1964), through
its military and police apparatus, together with its territorial, fiscal and ideologic monopolies (Wallensteen, 2012). The global system
is anarchic, and this necessitates global governance to maintain international peace and security.
How do we govern in the absence of a cosmopolitan state? This chapter aims to answer this question by focusing on the
United Nations as the primary venue and formal arrangement for global governance involving states and non-state actors. In sum,
global governance is defines as “the formal and informal arrangements that produce a degree of order and collective action above the
state in the absence of a global government,” that involve coordination among state and non-state actors (Young, 1999: 2). However,
governance in an anarchic setting has been challenged by the self-interest of major states and has exposed the limitations which this
chapter intends to discuss.

THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations (UN) serves as the primary organization for international cooperation, peace, and security. It is the only
international organization that can authorize the use of force against an aggressor. Its primary concern is collective military security
(Chapter VII of the UN Charter) through the facilitation of peaceful settlement of disputes among the member-states (Chapter VI) or
by [ commanding allegiance of the entire UN membership; sanctions]. While its primary objective is to ensure peace and action driven
by interests of particular states. With that, it must be emphasized that “UN is a membership-directed organization, and the members
are all states. This strongly affects what it can do” (Wallensteen, 2012: 241).
Representative of 50 countries convened at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, more commonly known as
the San Francisco Conference, to draw up the United Nations Charter.
The United Nation Charter established six principal council organs in 1945. These organs are Economic and Social Council,
Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice, General Assembly, Security Council and the Secretariat (Article 7, Chapter
III).
The Economic and Social Council’s (ECOSOC) primary objective is to advance the economic, social, and environmental
dimensions of sustainable development. It serves as a gateway of the UN’s partnership with the rest of the world for the coordination,
policy review, dialogue, recommendations, and implementation of international development goals. The organ is composed of 54
elected members by the General Assembly for overlapping three-year term (Chapter X).
The IMF and WB are specialized agencies and independent organizations that are affiliated with the UN. These two
institutions issue yearly reports to the ECOSOC but the WTO since it is a related agency and not a specialized one, is not required to
do the same. UN has little authority over these institutions, and a significant reason to this is that they do not seek for UN funds (Cohn,
2011). Developed countries channel funding to these institutions because of the weighted voting system of the IMF and WB, contrary
to the one-nation, one-vote system found in the UN (Cohn, 2011).
The Trusteeship Council was established as a main organ of the UN (Chapter XII) to provide international supervision of Trust
Territories that are under the administration of seven member-states, to ensure that adequate steps are being made to prepare the
people of Trust Territories for self-governance. All 11 Trust Territories achieved independence in 1994. The council’s operation was
suspended and will meet whenever an occasion necessitates it.
The International Court of Justice is the United Nation’s principal judicial organ (Chapter XIV). Its role is to settle legal disputes
between states (contentious cases) and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred by the UN organs and specialized
agencies, in accordance to international law (advisory proceedings) (International Court of Justice, 2018).
The Security Council (CS) is the most potent organ with the power to make legally binding resolution. It is comprised of the
strongest military states and is a concrete manifestation of the reality of power dynamics. The council is composed of 15 members,
among them would be the five states which are granted permanent seats by the UN Charter (Chapter V). The five permanent members
(PM), also known as the permanent five or P-5, are China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States – all of which are allies
in the Second World War and are nuclear states. The remaining seats are for the ten elected non-permanent members (NPM) elected
by the General Assembly (GA) for overlapping two-year terms. The ten non-permanent seats are divided among regions: five states
from African and Asian states, one seat from the Eastern European States, two states from Latin American States and last two from
Western European and other States (UNGA Resolution 1991(XVIII) of 17 December 1963).
Article 24 of the UN Charter states that the SC is mandated to act on behalf of the entire UN body to fulfill its primary
responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Functions may include investigating any situation that has the potential

Page 1 of 4
of creating international tensions; call for military action towards an aggressor or threat; impose economic sanctions and other
measures; determine the existence of a breach of peace and actions to be pursued.
The council has the authority to determine breach in international peace as stipulated in article 39 under Chapter VII. Crisis
situations can be categorized as a ‘threat to the peace,’ a ‘breach of the peace’ or an act of aggression. The UN agenda expanded
during the World Summit of 2005 in crisis urging international responsibility to protect exposed populations against mass violation of
human rights, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. State sovereignty is viewed as conditional based on the state’s fulfillment of its
responsibility to protect its people. If the state is incapable or unwilling to fulfill its responsibility, the intervention of the international
community is called upon to address the violations of human rights. The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle was first
executed in 2011 in Libya under Muammar Gaddafi with the implementation of a no-fly zone and authorization of air strikes. The
military intervention’s legal status remains contested and is considered to be “a failed case of international law and R2P since the
international community saved Benghazi but lost Libya” (Teimouri & Subedi, 2018: 31)
Such measures, however, can challenge the independence of sovereign states. The structural feature of the SC – the power
to veto of the PMs to vote against a substantive resolution- serves as a measure to protect states from possible threats to
independence and to ensure that the UN will not be used to serve the interest of particular states. Apart from this, there is also a ‘sixth
veto’ or ‘hidden veto’ of at least seven non-permanent members of the council to prevent the nine needed votes from reaching a
decision (Wallesteen, 2012). The voting system ideally aims to foster and emphasize the importance of unity, consensus, and
compromise, which were not present in the League of Nations where it was used as an instrument by major powers to target Germany,
Italy and Japan, and why countries such as the United States opted out from the membership. However, the UN Charter were never
intended to espouse sovereign equality; structural feature of the UN Charter-veto-is a result of an international compromise allied
powers of Second World War (Carswell, 2013).
These safeguards to sovereignty- the veto- also serve as a severe problem. When major powers are directly or indirectly
involved in a conflict, it renders the body unable to take action in addressing conflict as seen in the inaction of the UN in the Syrian
armed conflict. Frequent vetoes would often come from the United State and Russia on issues concerning the Middle East; for China
issues related to countries expressing recognition of Taiwan. The P-5 also act outside the UN Charter and undermine the interest of
the larger UN body as in the case of the US-led military intervention in Iraq in 2003 or the intervention of Russia in Georgia in 2008.
The bypassing of the UN renders it as a mere rubberstamp on interventions led by the major powers. This overrepresentation and
power concentration has resulted in demands to reform the structures of the SC, which dramatically serves and benefits the interests
of the P-5 (permanent five).
To maintain peace and order, the SC adopts a set of instruments such as sanctions, peacekeeping, and peace enforcement.
Sanctions can take in forms of non-military measures of economic, trade or diplomatic sanctions and targeted measures on groups or
particular individuals such as travel bans, financial and diplomatic restrictions. These are enforcement tools applied when diplomatic
relations have been fruitless, and the threat to international security persists, and if deemed inadequate, military sanctions may be
taken (Article 41 and 42).
Aside from sanctions, peacekeeping is also a useful tool employed by the UN to assist host countries struggling from armed
conflict. UN peacekeepers are deployed to provide security to populations and political and peace building support to countries
transition from conflict to peace. Ramsbotham et al. (2016) outline the transformation of peacekeeping operations across three
phases. The first generation of classical peacekeeping from the 1950s to 1980s and the multidimensional and multilateral second
generation were guided by the principles of consent, impartiality, and the non-use of force except for self-defense. However, due to
the incapacity of the UN peacekeeping forces in preventing mass killings in cases of civil war in Yugoslavia and the genocides in Somalia
and Rwanda, the UN was forced to rethink its principles. These failures would lead to the development of the third generation of
peacekeeping, which departed from the traditional principles of the traditional practice. It viewed the use of force as necessary to
fulfill the mandate, the consent of exposed populations as enough consent needed to intervene, and the digression from neutrality
when a party refuses to adhere to the UN mandate.
The more robust and more encompassing mandate of the third generation peacekeeping has often been interchanged with
peace enforcement (Ibidem), which involves for direct military intervention as seen in the military intervention of Iraq’s invasion of
Kuwait in the 1990s and Libya in 2011. The blurring lines between peacekeeping and peace enforcement and the boundary between
UN and non-UN peacekeeping has amalgamated UN intervention with warfighting (Ramsbotham et al., 2016). The current state of UN
peacekeeping is marred with concerns over the legitimacy of the military interventions.
The General Assembly (GA) is the only UN organ with universal representation with all 193 member states represented in
the body. The GA decides on essential questions with a simple majority, while concerns related to peace and security, budgetary
matters, and new membership admissions require a two-thirds majority. Yearly, the GA meets at annual General Assembly Session
and general debate participated by several head of state. Moreover, the body also elects a GA president and 21 Vice-Presidents
(elected according to equitable geographical representation) every session for one-year term. While the assembly mas discuss
questions relating to international peace and security, it can only make recommendations when a dispute is already being discussed

Page 2 of 4
by the SC. In reality, the SC remains to be the primary decision-maker of the UN in all matters of international peace and security.
However, the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution in 1950 ensures that divisive issues in the SC are blocking the members to take action
may be assumed by the assembly, to bypass the vetoes of the council and recommend measures including the use of force. This
resolution, however, has been criticized for being unconstitutional, as it allowed the assembly to usurp the SC’s primary role in
maintaining international peace and security (Carswell, 2013).
Collective action in times of crises may be coursed through the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the
Office of the Secretary General. The Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the United Nations Secretariat. As
stipulated in Article 97, the SC sends a recommendation to the GA which will appoint the Secretary-General for two five-year terms at
most. Article 99 mandates the Secretary-General to call for the attention of the members of the SC members to be responsive or to
take responsibility is present. Wallensteen (2012) states that “the three organs of the UN are interrelated in ways which support the
viability of the United Nations” (p. 247). The shifting responsibilities of the three organs ensure that the organization will not collapse.
However, since the Cold War, the SC has been paramount when it comes to decision making, leaving the other organs with little
involvement and influence in international issues (Ramsbotham et al., 2016; Wallensteen, 2012).

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS

Reform has only been met once in 1963 when the UNGA voted for the expansion of the UNSC from 11 to 15 member-states
(UNGA Resolution of 1963). In the 1994, the Open-ended Working Group on the question of Equitable Representation and Increase in
the Membership of the Security Councill was created where members were invited to submit comments on the reformation and
review of the Security Council. Since then, the negotiations have been fruitless, and it has been dubbed as a “Never-ending Working
Group” for the endless years of consecutive deliberations (Gould and Rablen, 2017).

Page 3 of 4
 Gould and Rablen (2017) state two distinct sets of criticism relating to the efficiency of the council and the degree of equity
regarding power allocation. For the inequity in the country level, the problem lies in overrepresentation of the PM countries; in the
regional level, there is lack of representation for Asia and Africa while Eastern and Western Europe are overrepresented- an overt
manifestation of the North and South divide (Gould and Rablen, 2016). Several demands have been presented and established by
India, Brazil, Germany and Japan in the G-4 proposal calling for permanent seats in the council, while smaller states demand equitable
representation for the South (Hosli & Dorfler, 2017)
Contrary to these recurring demands however, Gould and Rablen (2017) call for caution in pursuing structural reforms related
to expand the UNSC membership. Their quantitative appraisal shows that UNSC membership enlargement is no panacea; it permits
enhancement of equity in diminishing returns, at the expense of efficiency at the increasing returns. They find that reform of requiring
two PM votes to constitute a veto would be more promising, in improving both equity and efficiency and break the status quo (Gould
& Rablen, 2017). Furthermore, they also see the difficulty in finding a reform that would break the 20-year impasse in the negotiations.
The difficulty for the UNSC to include rising power into the power-sharing arrangement in the UNSC is due to the absence of
the prospect for change. According to Hosli and Dorfler (2017), this is brought by not only the diverging preferences of the permanent
members but also of structural hurdles in the UN Charter locking in the current institutional arrangement and preventing any reforms
from seeping in. these institutional hurdles are the P-5 inclusion requirement and two-thirds majority requirement in UNGA
substantive decisions. The likelihood of reform to succeed depends on the feasibility of acquiring the necessary support and votes.
If reforms are unforeseeable in the near future, what can be done? The awakening of the latent potential of the General
Assembly to counteract the powers of the Security council through the “Uniting for Peace” resolution serves as a potential solution.
This is imperative especially with two permanent members ensuring that no international intervention would occur in the Syrian
armed conflict. As argued, by Cars well (2013), “ the General Assembly, representing the entire international community, has a moral
authority that should not be downplayed, particularly where the issues at hand have a direct impact on state sovereignty” (p. 478).
The resolution ought to be fully realized and maximized for it has bestowed the assembly the capacity to check the Security Council in
its proper and rightful exercise of veto, in accordance to what is mandated by the UN Charter.

Page 4 of 4
TCW CHAPTER 4

GLOBAL DIVIDES: THE NORTH AND SOUTH

”We WERE ALL HUMANS until race disconnect us, religion separated us, politics divided us,
and wealth classified us.

-Anonymous

While the world is broadly demarcated geographically and demarcated through continental
divisions, it is imperative to note that there exist other delineations that harbor on other
factors. These factors or parameters so to speak, are anchored on development patterns,
wealth distribution and emerging economic situations.

This is the primordial consideration when one seeks to better understand the concepts
underlying the Global North and South divide. But as we shall see later, even cultural and
historical dimensions actually contributed to the existence of the concept. At this point,
however, it is important to highlight some definitions of term in order to gain a better
understanding of the term.

The North – South can be related to an economic division between richer and poorer
countries. This explains the reason why it is considered to be more of a socio political and
economic classification. The Global North is generally viewed to be more affluent and
economically stable countries and generally includes the United States of America, Canada,
the member nations of G8 (Group of 8), the four permanent members of the UN Security
Council. This also includes countries that lie below the equator namely Australia and New
Zealand. The Global South, on the other hand includes most nations located in Africa, Latin
America, and the developing parts of Asia with the exception of Japan. It can be argued that
the division goes beyond merely geographical since not all states found north of the equator
belong to the Global North and in the same manner, not all states that lie south of the
equator belong to the Global the Global South. One attempt to produce an objective
classification uses the UNDP’s Human Development Index to differentiate. In Brief, the
Global North consists of those 64 countries which have high HDI (most of which are located
north of the 30th northern parallel), while the remaining 133 countries belong to the Global
South.

In effect, Rigg (2017) makes it clear that this is not strict geographical categorization of
the world but one based on economic inequalities which happen to have some cartographic
coherence. It also emphasizes that both North and South are, together, drawn into global
processes rather than existing as separate sides of the world. However, for purposes of
identifying which countries are included in the list, the Global North includes Australia,
Canada, Israel, Hong Kong, Macau, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan,
United States and all of Europe (including Russia). The Global South includes Asia (with the
exception of Japan. Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan), Central America,
South America, Mexico, Africa, and the Middle East (with the exception of Israel).

THE GLOBAL NORTH

We could find in the North the More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) in the
world. Some counties which lay in the North part of the divide are Canada, United States,
Greenland, and Russia. They are considered the “richer” and more stable countries.

WHY ARE THE COUNTRIES IN THE NORTH CONSIDERED MEDC?

The countries are considered MEDX because of the stability that their economy has and the
change that is happening within it. Countries that are considered MEDC generally have
better standard of living and quality of life. Aspects which may show this is how long the
country’s life expectancy is , education levels, if there are doctors available (medicine) and
how the developed their technology is. For instance the United States, an MEDC, has a life
expectancy of 79 years for women and 77 years for men. However in Somalia a LEDC the life
expectancy is 51 years for women and 48 years for men. The distribution of education and
health cares is also a factor. For example, Canada has free universal healthcare and free
secondary education, which leads to a better quality of life for Canadians. Where as in many
parts of Africa—a continent filled with LEDC – has little education and hardly no health care.
These are just some of the many factors which separate the MEDC from the LEDC (Gluttal,
2016)

THE GLOBAL SOUTH

The area below the North – South Divide is what is known as the South / developing, or “Poor
side”. These countries are known as developing countries, meaning the GDP, HDI and general
standard of living within these countries are considered inferior to that of the countries in
the “North”. Some examples of these, countries include Somalia, Vietnam, Haiti and India.
 WHY ARE COUNTRIES IN THE SOUTH CONSIDERED LEDC’S?

The countries in the south may be considered LEDCs due to a number of reasons, among
them including an unstable government and a poor economy. In addition, countries that are
considered to be LEDC contain citizens who have a poor standard of living and quality of life.
Some characteristics of countries in this region may include low Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) and low Human Development Index (HDI). Some LEDCs have skewed HDIs due to
relatively high GDP and exceptionally low standard of living. An example of these types of
countries is Indonesia.

WHY IS THE SOUTH AT SUCH A DISADVANTAGE?

Of the many possible reasons for the south’s woes, the factor that stands out is
colonization. When the countries were, at some point in history, imperialists. From the 13th
century on, most countries that were powerful have stayed powerful, such as France and the
United Kingdom. And therefore, most countries that were inferior have stayed inferior.
However, like any aspect in history, there is always an exception, as the United States, a
former British colony, has developed into the most powerful country in the world (Guttal,
2016)

FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD WORLDS

The term Global North – Global South first emerged in 1996. However, since the end of the
Cold War, many commentators have employed the North –South label to draw a dichotomy
between wealthy, developed countries primarily located in the northern hemisphere (the
North) and poorer, developing countries located mainly in the southern hemisphere (the
South). In UN circles and elsewhere, one frequently hears policymakers and practitioners
use phrases like “the North-South divide) or “the gap between North and South” to
summarize complex political and economic tensions on a range of issues.

The term was also fashioned out of the categorization which included mainly the First,
Second and Third World distinctions. This was by and large, influenced by the Cold War era
between the USA and USSR. This was conveniently drawn upon political ideologies and
alliances with the US and much of the Western world who preached for Democracy and
Capitalism tagged as the First World. The Communist bloc led by USSR (Union of Soviet
Socialist Republic) / Republic, Shina and other states who employed Marxist principles are
deemed to be part of the Second World. While the Third corresponds to the non-aligned
states, the underdeveloped nations and states have unstable political and economic
conditions. The “Third World” , a term that had been coined by the French scholar Alfred
Sauvy in 1952 to distinguish the formerly colonized and presently neo-colonized societies of
Asia, Africa and Latin America from the modernized “first” world of capitalism and the
modernizing “second” world of socialism. By the 1960s’, “Third World” would become a
central political slogan for the radical left. The term in its origin had been suggested that
societies of the Third World. Embarking on the long path of modernity, had one of two paths
to follow, the capitalist or the socialist. (Dirlick, 2007)

In effect, the term “Third World” was coined by states hoping to navigate between the two
poles of the Cold War, and ultimately gave birth to the Non-Aligned Movement. These
countries were generally less economically developed than their First – and Second-World
counterparts. Thus, as Riggs (2007) pointed out some interchangeable terms that
characterize the Third World – The Less-developed World, all beaming with hues of
economic dilemma and lack of development.

This underdevelopment at time, is being traced back to the historical events that led to the
Colonial patterns of exploitation of the Developed World in the 15th – 18th centuries as well
as the modern clouts of Neo Capitalism in which much of the Third serves as “ready and
willing markets” to the delicate of the First World producer states. The next term used was
developing world to refer to states that are previously categorized as part of the Third
World who found themselves the necessity and the mean to grapple with the economic
realities at the demise of the Cold War era. The challenge for many Third world states this
time came in the form of ensuring that national development spurred by Globalization and
higher economic integration can be attained. Thus, the term developing states came to be
associated with the industrialization attempts by many Asian economies once dubbed as
“Asian Tigers” or the NIC’s (Newly Industrialized Countries) like Taiwan, Hong Kong and
South Korea. The Term “Developing World” has been widely used in the 80’s.

In 1983 the Brandt report was published by a commission chaired by the former German
Chancellor Willy Brandt. This report identified a North/South line (or Brandt line), and thus
popularized another term, namely “The South”. The South is a geographical convenience
based on the fact that most of the Poor World lies south of latitude 30 degrees North.
There were exceptions, most notably Australia and New Zealand, but nonetheless it worked
for many people: scholars, politicians and the media. Critics, however, objected to the fact
that once again in hid from view the political and economic processes and historical
inheritances that rendered these southern

FLASHPOINTS AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE DIVIDE

As underdeveloped countries become more visible, they are frequently referred to under the
collective label the “Global South”. Despite the advantages this designation offers as
synthesizing term, many scholars and writers of Globalization consider it ambiguous because
it uses a simple geographical criteria to descrive a complex social situation which
distinguishes poor countries from the wealthiest. It should be clear here that the implied
North-South dichotomy has never been as have always been regarded as southern outliers of
the North. Some of the richest countries in the world (with a high GDP per capita) are
classified as part of the Global South. Yet the model still rests exclusively on a “latidunal”
division.

The world has changed considerably since the time when the North-South relationship was
articulated, although the terms continue to be used today as they were then. A few decades
ago, the South was associated with starvation, malnutrition, poverty, epidemics, low
educational levels. Political authoritarianism and dictatorships. Today, although hunger and
poverty continue to exist in many South countries, the numbers of wealthy and extremely
wealthy people are rising rapidly. Many South countries- especially in Latin America and Asia
– contribute large numbers of well-educated, competent professionals to the global
workforce.

However, the fact remains that inequality and inequity remain inherent and almost
foundational characteristics of the North South divide. Inequality is not a surface
phenomenon that can be rectified by diverting cash here and there, but deep structural
defect that diminishes individual and collective potential for many, and shapes power
relations within and among societies. It exists as differentiating set of factors both, across
and within the countries of the North and South, prompting many factors both, across and
within the countries of the North and South, prompting many to refer to conditions to
wealth, power, poverty, and inequality as a South in the North and a North in the South.
While such theorizing may seek to challenge the traditional global North-South divide, it still
uses the labels of North and South to denote more or less the same conditions as in the
original conceptualization. (Gluttal, 2016)

Despite improvements in social-economic indicators, and increases in wealth accumulation and

capital and investment flows among many countries of the South, there continue to be
significant differences between North and South countries in living conditions, consumption
levels and patterns, social and economic structures, access to services and resources, and
political power in supranational global governance. Systems and institutions of Global
economic and financial governance continue to be dominated by the North despite attempts
by developing countries to secure greater power. (Guttal, 2016)

In addition, Magallanes (2012) also mentioned that the term global South is historic and de
contextualized. It omits a critical core of dynamic variables that characterize different
kinds of countries, especially historical, economic, social, cultural, and political variables,
among others. It is these factors that might explain the reality of these countries as a
product of a societal process, and the type and origin of the differences among them.

The term Global South, as pointed out, is normally used to mean countries that are faced
with social, political and economic challenges – for instance poverty, environmental
degradation, human and civil rights abuses, ethnics and regional conflicts, mass
displacements of refugees, hunger, and disease. But it is important to look at the historical,
political and even cultural contexts of these countries why they are considered poor. For
instance, the strict Hindu tradition of many people in the Indian subcontinent and their
veneration of the cow as sacred prevent them from have a supposed successful livestock
industry which could in turn be very vital in improving their economic lot.

It should be added also that the term Global south rids itself of the negative political and
economic labeling that Third World had before as it is generally seen to be more apolitical.
Thus, it is considered to be more neutral and sits well within the platform that Globalization
seeks to induce. Furthermore, it can also be surmised that with the rapidly changing patterns
of development coupled with massive technological revolution, ease travel and migration and
interconnectedness of commerce and trade brought forth by trade liberalization, the terms
may also change swiftly especially with respect to the states or countries categorized under
it. The uneven development of the Global South since the term was coined has rendered the
geography of the term even more complicated - to the point where it may have become an
obstacle to understanding the contemporary global situation. Some of the societies covered
by the term – such as the People’s Republic of China, India, Brazil, Turkey – have benefited
from globalization to become more assertive in global relations – with the PRC aspiring to
world leadership and hegemony (Dirlick, 2007)

It can be also that the global South has embarked on an unprecedented upward trajectory.
Already, the output of the developing world’s three leading economies (Brazil, China and
India) is close to equaling the combined output of the longstanding industrial powers of the
North – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Even
smaller countries like Bangladesh, Chile, Ghana, Mauritius, Rwanda and Tunisia are
experiencing rapid economic development. According to the 2013 UNDO Human development
Report, it is estimated that 80% of the World’s middle class population will be living in
developing countries by 2030 (Mendez,2015)

As opined by Mendez (2015), this ongoing global transformation is a phenomenon known as

“South-South cooperation”. Once consigned to the margins, South-South cooperation is
coming to occupy an important pace in the changing theory and discourse of development.
Originally bound up in the response of the developing countries to the destabilizing politics
of the Cold War, South-South cooperation gave voice to aspirations for a development path
untainted by ideological conflict, and to an acknowledgement that relations between
developing countries should be crucial means of achieving these aspirations. This forges a
clearer path towards integration within states that are deemed to occupy the same position
to emerge out of the label “South” and aspire to become a part of the “North”. This is very
feasible considering to the strict geographical constructs. Thus, in effect, even states that
are once labeled as part of the Global South may after some a time become included as a
state in the Global North depending on their future socio economic status.

In Fact, Jean Grugel (1990) enumerated the three factors that direct the economic
development of states within the Global South. These are “elite behavior within and between
nation states, integration and cooperation within ‘geographic’ areas, and the resulting position
of states and regions within the global world market and related political economic hierarchy.
These essential aspects of development tendencies in the Global south are indeed essential
if there are expected changes in the categorization of nation states in the future. The
important thing that one has to consider is that the divide, as with any Global phenomenon is
never static especially when the factors of technology, migration, increasing levels of
literacy, employment, GDP increase and the currency valuation increase come into play. In
fact, it is increasingly hard to make an outright categorization that may be truly acceptable
especially with the onslaught of global economic integration. The BRICS is a good example of
this assertion. BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national
economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Originally the first four were
grouped as “BRIC” (or “the BRICs”), before the induction of South Africa in 2010. The
BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs and all members
of G20. The Global South and the Global North represent an updated perspective on the post
1991 world, which distinguishes not between political system or degrees of poverty, but
between the victims and the benefactors of global capitalism.

In effect, a contraction in the Global North – South divide is actually seen many economists
as a result of international free trade and unhindered capital flows across countries which
could definitely catapult development further in the South. After all, it has been made clear
in the previous chapter that Globalization is not simply it as a “compression of the world”,
the improvement in economic interdependence will contribute to the further “shrinking” of
the world and is expected to shake up even more the volatile Global North – South divide.

Closing or mitigating the divide has been a goal for many developmental initiatives. The
United Nations has developed a program dedicated to narrowing the divide through its
Millennium Development Goals aimed at Sustainable development. This includes improving
education and health care, promoting gender equality, and ensuring environmental
sustainability. In addition, the IMF, World Bank and other progressive Northern countries
have embarked on developmental initiatives such as providing loans and grants to the Global
south countries in order that these nation states may also attain development in the long run.