THE CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL

GOVERNANCE

Presently, global security is in a state of

instability and uncertainty. The global and
regional security arrangements at times
compete and overlap. Since 1990, Western
comprehensive and cooperative security
dominated the globe. The United States’ control
of safety just prevailed in the early 2000s.
 There is now a shift in terms of global power
that led not only to a diffusion of power but also
to a diffusion of principles, preferences, ideas
and values, with implications for global
governance.

The Western power themselves are very

critical of international cooperation for not
harnessing emerging powers, making statements
such as: “ China is failing to be part of the
solution.” “India is an obstructionist.” and “Iran
is a rogue state.”
 Global systems are now dominated by two power
centers: a small number of gigantic global
corporations and the Bretton Woods “unholy trinity”-
the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. Combined,
they have achieved de facto global governance.
Though none were elected to rule, and none are
transparent or democratic, their powers can
overwhelm nations. Drastic revisions and
replacements are mandatory.
It must be stressed that these three dimensions
of globalization do not exist separately from each
other, for all are products of globalization and are
interrelated.
 THE MODEL OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
The system of governance should have a
governing body with political power and authority to
impose and ultimately can control its people. Powerful
governance as a system needs to have formal political
institutions that are stirred firmly with coordination
and control to all involved society or otherwise known
as interdependent social relations. It should have the
ability to strictly implement/ enforce decisions that are
for the common benefit.
In a globalized world, the concept of governance
is being used to describe the regulation of
interdependent relations in the absence of
overarching political authority, such as the
international system.
 Global governance is the management of global
processes in the absence of any form of global
government. However, due to the creation of the United
Nations and the World Trade Organization issues
concerning world problem and the like, these two
organizations can help in the system to regulate the
increasing problem that nations in the world can be
affected. Each of these has met with mixed success in
instituting some form of governance in international
relations but is part of the problem and an attempt to
address worldwide problems that go beyond the
capacity of individual states to solve (Rosenau 1999).
 The term global governance, therefore, is a
descriptive term recognizing the issue and
referring to concrete cooperative problem–solving
arrangements.
Thus, global governance can be considered to
be the complex of formal and informal institutions,
mechanisms, relationships, and processes
between and among states, markets, citizens and
organizations, both inter-and non-governmental,
through which collective interests on the global
plane are articulated, rights and obligations are
established, and differences are mediated.
 Scholars have used the term
“governance” to denote the regulation of
interdependent relations in the absence of
overarching political authority, such as in the
international system, It encompasses the
institutions, policies, norms, procedures and
initiatives through which states and their
citizens try to bring more predictability,
stability, and order to their responses to
transnational challenges.
 While the importance of global governance
has been acknowledged, the increasing need to
manage global problems more effectively in the
face of increased interdependence is now
witnessed and observed.
Effective global governance cannot be
achieved without effective international
cooperation. Besides being a manifestation of
international solidarity, international cooperation
is a means to promote common interests and
shared values and to reduce the vulnerabilities
generated by interdependence.
 ORIGIN OF THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IN
THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN
Global governance is based on the current
operational structure of the world that we live in (Thakur &
Weiss, 2015). It has more significant effect on all nations
in the world. The operation of governing the international
sovereign body is a collective effort of all nations/ states
for political, sociological, economic, and cultural stability
because there is no government for the world.
Communication across the world, transportation by
land, air, sea, services and activities beyond domestic
borders are taking place for securing the safety and needs
of all people in the world. The security would include
groups, firms, and government involved.
 Despite no government to rule, the world still
produces and establishes international norms, codes
of conduct and regulatory, surveillance, and
compliance instruments. The global interstate
system is equivalent to all states being intertwined
with each other which creates a continuous
international public power.

The idea behind global governance is, it will aid

in solving any challenges within the international
system. The typical example of global governance is
the World Health Organization (WHO).
 INEVITABLE CRITICISMS of GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Intentionally, the creation of the World Health
Organization (WHO) is to foster a harmonious relationship
of all nations of the world especially developing countries
but critics are still standing to discredit this international
organization. The WHO (2015) points out some arguments
that critics make: “Critics argue that global governance
mechanisms support the neo-liberal ideology of
globalization and reduce the role of the state to that of an
adjusting body for the implementation of international
policies. Some argue that, as a result, the interests of the
poorest people and nations will be ignored unless they
have a direct impact on the global economy.”
 EXPECTED GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
The World Health Organization provides the
expected gaps in the global governance systems, namely:
1. The jurisdictional gap, between the increasing
need for global governance in many years such as health
and the lack of an authority with the power, or jurisdiction,
to take action.
2. The incentive gap, between the need for
international cooperation and the motivation to undertake
it. The incentive gap is said to be closing as globalization
provides an increasing impetus for countries to
cooperate. However, there are concerns that, as Africa
lags further behind economically, its influence on global
governance processes will diminish.
(Cont.) EXPECTED GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

3. The participation gap, refers to the fact that

international cooperation remains the affair of
governments primarily, leaving civil society groups
on the fringes of policy-making. On the other hand,
the globalization of communication is facilitating
the development of global civil society movements.
 PARTICULAR GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Thakur & Weiss (2015) argue that there are five (5)
particular “gaps” in global governance. They are the ff:
1. Knowledge Gaps are important because if no one
knows the severity of a problem or doesn’t have the
resources to investigate a particular issue, then this could
become difficult for effective global governance. Lack of
information and research can also affect one’s attempt to
resolve or remedy every conflict or situation.
Therefore, in the cycle of global governance, the first
step in addressing a problem that goes beyond the
capacity of states to solve is actually to recognize its
existence, to understand that there is a problem.
(Cont.) PARTICULAR GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (THAKUR & WEISS)
Next, it is necessary to collect solid data that challenges the
consensus about the nature of the problem, to diagnose its causes-in
short, to explain the problem.
2. Normative Gaps. After understanding that an issue exists, it is
essential to establish (and develop) norms to address that problem.
This often forms within societies, but international organizations such
as the United Nations also have a role in forming laws on the issues.
Norms are essential; they “matter because people, as well as politicians
and officials, care about what others think of them.” Thus, individuals,
government organizations or NGOs, and international organizations can
work to set norms on various issues, whether they are economic trade,
environmental issues, human rights and some other issues.
Thus, once a problem/ issue is determined or established, many
can work to shape norms about how people in the global community
can respond to what is taking place (Thakur & Weiss, 2015).
(Cont.) PARTICULAR GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (THAKUR & WEISS)
3. Policy Gaps are related to the specific policies that one
can implement to address the stated problem. The policy is all
about “the articulated and linked set of governing principles
and goals, and the agreed programs of action to implement
those principles and achieve those goals” (Thakur & Weiss,
2015).
There are many actors in this process. Individuals and
NGOs can call for policies and the state itself can introduce
and establish policies towards these problems. However,
sometimes actors (e.g. states) may have varied interests with
regard to conflict, thus making the policy more difficult to
establish. On the other hand, it is also an issue when states
are making policies without including members of the civil
society (Thakur & Weiss, 2015).
(Cont.) PARTICULAR GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (THAKUR & WEISS)
4. Institutional Gaps are the challenges of
implementing any policies that are put forth by the
international community. When discussing
environmental rights abuses, institutional gaps
would include any failures of effective mechanisms
to ensure that environmental laws are in place. For
war crimes, the idea is the International Criminal
Court will be there to hold state leaders accountable
for their actions. On human rights, one could look to
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) for refugee issues, the Office of the
Commission on Human Rights or the Human rights
Council, for instance (Thakur & Weiss, 2015).
(Cont.) PARTICULAR GAPS IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE (THAKUR & WEISS)
5. Compliance Gaps are one of the final
challenges with regard to global governance.
This includes effective implementation, as well
as enforcement. Amongst the challenges is the
fact that “recalcitrant or fragile actors may be
unwilling or unable to implement agreed
elements of international policy (E.g. a ban on
commercial whaling, the acquisition of
proliferation-sensitive nuclear technology and
material, or the cross-border movement of
terrorist material and personnel” (Thakur &
Weiss, 2015).
 The United Nations (UN), while it does not
have a standing military, through the Security
Council, can pass resolutions and carry out
military and economic actions against non-
compliers. Nonetheless, there are still many
difficulties to ensure that actors are following
prescribed policies and norms (Thakur & Weiss,
2015).
THE UNITED NATIONS (UN) SYSTEM’S UNIQUE
STRENGTHS IN PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT:

1. Its universality: all countries have a voice

when policy decisions are made.

2. Its impartiality: it does not represent any

particular national or commercial interest, and
can thus develop special relations of trust with
countries and their people to provide aid with no
strings attached.
3. Its global presence: it has the world’s largest
network of country offices for delivering
assistance for development.

4. Its comprehensive mandate: encompasses

development, security, humanitarian assistance,
human rights and the environment.

5. Its commitment: to “the peoples of the United

Nations”.
 HUMAN RIGHTS
One of the great achievements of the United
Nations is the creation of a comprehensive body of
human rights law a universal and internationally
protected code to which all nations can subscribe
and to which all people can aspire. The organization
has defined a broad range of internationally
accepted rights, including economic, social and
cultural rights, and political and civil rights. It has
also established mechanisms to promote and
protect these rights and to assist governments in
carrying out their responsibilities.
 The foundations of this body of law are the
United Nations Charter and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
General Assembly in 1945 and 1948,
respectively. Since then, the United Nations
has gradually expanded human rights law to
encompass specific standards for women,
children, persons with disabilities, minorities,
migrant workers and other vulnerable groups,
who now possess rights that protect them
from discriminatory practices that had long
been common in many societies.
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is
intended as a “common standard of
achievement for all peoples”. It was adopted
on December 10, 1948 – the day now observed
worldwide as International Human Rights Day.
Its 30 articles spell out basic civil, cultural,
economic, political and social rights that all
human beings in every country should enjoy.
The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in
1976 and has 156 state parties.
 The human rights that the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
seeks to promote and protect include:
1. The right to work in just and favorable
conditions.
2. The right to social protection, to an adequate
standard of living and to the highest attainable
standards of physical and mental well-being.
3. The right to education and the enjoyment of
benefits of cultural freedom and scientific
progress.
 The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and its First Optional Protocol
entered into force in 1976. The covenant:
1. deals with rights such as freedom of
movement; equality before the law; the right to
a fair trial and presumption of innocence;
freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
freedom of opinion and expression: peaceful
assembly; freedom of association;
participation in public affairs and elections;
and protection of minority rights.
 2. prohibitsarbitrary deprivation of life;
torture, cruel or degrading treatment or
punishment; slavery and forced labor;
arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary
interference with privacy; war
propaganda; and advocacy of racial or
religious hatred.
 DEFINING UNIVERSAL RIGHTS
1. The right to life, liberty and security.
2. Freedom from slavery and servitude.
3. Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
4. The right to recognition as a person before
the law; the right to judicial remedy; freedom
from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; the
right to a fair trial and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal; the right to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 DEFINING UNIVERSAL RIGHTS
5. Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family,
home or correspondence; freedom from attacks upon
honor and reputation; the right to protection of the law
against such attacks.
6. Freedom of movement; the right to seek asylum; the
right to a nationality.
7. The right to marry and to found a family; the right to
own property.
8. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom
of opinion and expression.
9. The right to peaceful assembly and association.
 DEFINING UNIVERSAL RIGHTS.
10. The right to participate in government and equal access to
public service.
11. The right to social security.
12. The right to work, equal pay for equal work, and form and
join trade unions.
13. The right to rest and leisure.
14. The right to a standard of living adequate for health and
well-being.
15. The right to education.
16. The right to participate in the cultural life of the
community.
 REFERENCES
▪ Andrada, J.F. , et. al. 2018. The Contemporary World.
Philippines: Mutya Publishing House.

▪ Castells, M. 1998. End of Millenium . Vol. III of The

Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture,
Oxford: Blackwell.