The Architecture of World Governance
The UN Reform and the Alterglobalization Movement
Setting up an Arbitration Tribunal on Debt: An Alternative Solution?
Dialogs on Party Systems and Global Democratization
For a Legitimate, Efficient, and Democratic Global Governance
Redefining Global Governance to Meet the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century
The Future of Global Governance
Structure of Global Governance: Explaining the Organizational Design of Global Rulemaking Institutions
The UN and World Governance
The UN: Which Reforms for What Future?
From Westernization to Globalization. A Brief History of Chinese Modernity
Moving Toward a New World Governance
Expanding and Reinforcing the Objectives of the Kyoto Protocol: Inciting International Stakeholders to Engage in Greenhouse-gas Transparency
Global Democracy: Civil Society Visions and Strategies (G05) Conference Report
A World Alliance against Social Apartheid
Charter of the Peoples of the Earth
Civil Society’s Impact on the Multilateral Sphere: Lessons Learned and Future Directions
Forging a World of Liberty under Law: US National Security in the Twenty-first Century
World Governance Index (WGI)
Thirty years of Habitat I: no more neoliberal model of cities!
The State of the Right to Education Worldwide: Free or Fee
Global Environmental Governance: Elements of a Reform Agenda
Greenhouse-gas Emissions and Global Mitigation Efforts
Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead
The World March of Women Third International Action
Hearing on Neo-liberal Politics and European Transnational Corporations in Latin America and the Caribbean
The Commons, the State and Transformative Politics
Alterglobalization, a Long-term Process Leading to Alternatives
Negative Growth or Sustainable Development?
More that the shock of September 11, 2001, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of a very long period of international history, that of the "balance of powers." Since this historic event, the planet has been in a phase of geostrategic rupture. The "national security" model, although still in force for most governments, is gradually giving way to an emerging collective conscience that goes beyond this excessively restrictive framework.
There are some who believe, including ourselves, that the future of global architecture will require setting up a global-governance system. However, today the equation has become significantly more complicated: whereas previously, it was simply a matter of regulating - and limiting - the power of states in order to avoid disequilibria and maintain the status quo, it is hereafter imperative to shape the world’s destiny collectively by setting up a system to regulate the numerous interactions that supersede state action.
The main problem of governance, a problem with which we must cope every day in our daily lives, is that institutions have been set up, which define their objectives in terms of their competences (and their limits), when they should be doing the opposite. The global-governance issue is characterized by the fact that objectives are being defined through an institutional void at the international level - with the UN, and more generally speaking public international law, playing the role of the tree that hides the forest - and as a result, it is the states that are forced to solve problems that are beyond their competence and even their comprehension. How can states, with institutions poorly designed to solve even their domestic problems, be expected to solve problems that go beyond their political framework? Seen as such, the concept of "collective security" does no more than magnify the problem, as this security is only an aggregate of state institutions. It is significant that the concept of governance itself is perceived as a whole that makes little distinction between local, national, and global governance, the objectives of these different levels often being close or interconnected.
How can governance and global governance be conciliated? There is the root of the problem, since the key of the history of international relations is precisely in the fact that these two problems have been approached in radically different, even opposite ways.
The problem facing those who would like to see a true global-governance architecture emerge is that making such construction dreams come true does not in any way resemble anything that could possibly be built, given the constraints, limitations, and obstacles that we are often tempted to overlook or minimize. Thus, rather than dreaming of an illusory global democracy or a hypothetical global government, it would be more reasonable to move gradually through the definition of the problems and objectives with a view to design the type of structures and institutions likely to take vigorous action to solve specific, given problems. It is only through this sort of gradual progress that a "global governance" worthy of its name might take shape, and there is no way of knowing beforehand what it will look like as, by definition, it will take the shape of the objectives that it will set progressively.
This approach is entirely different from that adopted by the architects of the League of Nations after World War I, or of the UN after World War II, as well as, moving further back in history, from the internationalist dream that France’s Henri IV maintained with his "Grand Design" for Europe. From a philosophical and political point of view, our approach would be closer to that adopted by Jean Monnet and the first architects of what was going to become the European Union.