Political Organization

Global Governance
Political scientist James Rosenau describes global governance as including “systems of rule at all levels of human activity—from the family to the international organization—in which the pursuit of goals through the exercise of control has transnational repercussions.”¹ Global governance scholars study the interacting web of international organizations, including governmental forums (e.g., the United Nations), international trade and development organizations (e.g., the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court), nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Oxfam International and religious bodies), and transnational corporations (TNCs).

The United Nations
The United Nations was founded in 1945, following the carnage of World Wars I and II. Its original Charter requires all member nations to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”² Unfortunately, the hope of international decision-making as an alternative to violence was not realized. Violations of this paragraph of the UN Charter began as early as the beginning of the Cold War in 1947.

With the failure of many of its original ideals, the United Nations has struggled to maintain leadership in diplomatic, judicial, and peacekeeping missions. Unlike those of the European Union, the decisions made by the United Nations are not legally binding. Each member country has one vote in the UN General Assembly, and depending on the subject, proposals require either one-half or two-thirds of the votes cast to pass.

The UN Security Council addresses all peace and security issues. The fifteen countries that sit on the Security Council are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, except for five countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—which have permanent seats and can veto any proposal. Reform of the Security Council, including expansion of the Council and the elimination of the veto power, have been contested for years within the General Assembly of nations.

The Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the UN, appointed by the General Assembly. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992–1996) proposed that the UN establish a standing army to fulfill an intervention duty under its Charter in order to prevent the growth of war but to date this proposal has not been adopted. The current Secretary-General, Kofi Annan (1997–present), has promoted international intervention in sovereign countries with massive violations of human rights, noting that “sovereignty is no longer a shield” for those countries’ governments to perpetuate violence against their own people.³

The UN has steadily expanded its economic, social development, human rights, and environmental activities. In the 1990s UN global conferences on the environment, development, population, social development, women, and human rights attracted tens of thousands of participants and spread the new ideas from scholars, activists, and political leaders to all corners of the globe.

The first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972) established the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), whose mission is “to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.”⁴ Additional UN conferences addressing environmental issues include: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), also called the “Earth Summit” (where the UN Commission on Sustainable Development was first established), and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002). Many UN conferences have publicized leading global issues, established goals, and promoted policy initiatives.

United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP assists a number of United Nations secretariats in developing international environmental agreements, including the Secretariats on Climate Change, Desertification, Ozone, and Biological Diversity. UNEP also facilitates global distribution of technical innovations in environmental sustainability, operates an emergency response system to address environmental disasters, and publishes many reports on environmental concerns (e.g., scientific basis of climate change, global biological diversity, summaries for policy leaders, etc.), including the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO), a series of reports assessing the state of the global environment throughout the world. In 1998, at the invitation of UNEP, the Forum on Religion and Ecology held a press conference symposium at the UN and reported the findings of a series of conferences on religion and ecology held at the Harvard Divinity School’s Center for the Study of World Religions.

International Trade and Financial Institutions
Several other global institutions exert and coordinate governance of economic and development activities. There are three main global trade and financial institutions: The World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Trade Organization (WTO), founded in 1995 to replace the former General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), manages the global rules of trade among most nations. The World Bank lends over $17 billion each year for health, education, social welfare, environmental, and economic development and stability projects.⁵ The International Monetary Fund (IMF), as the “lender of last resort” to nations with failing currencies, holds tremendous power to oversee national economies as it works to “promote international monetary cooperation, exchange stability, and orderly exchange arrangements” among all the nations of the world.⁶

All three of these international institutions have been criticized for failing to consider environmental factors. The World Bank strengthened its commitment to sustainable development in 2001, stating that “sustainable development, built on a balance of economic growth, social cohesion, and environmental protection, is fundamental to the Bank’s core objective of lasting poverty alleviation.”⁷ The WTO and IMF have not expressed such explicit links between sustainable development and their missions.

International Criminal Court
Following negotiations involving 160 countries, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was formed in 2002 after ratification of the ICC treaty by sixty-six nations.⁸ The ICC tries individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when a national court is unwilling or unable to do so. The term “war crimes” includes “widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage.”⁹ The ICC expects that most countries will eventually accept its jurisdiction, though China, India, and the United States (US) have declined to participate.

The World Court
By trying individuals, the ICC differs from the International Court of Justice (the “World Court”), a UN body that has ruled on cases filed by one nation against another since 1946. The ICC hears cases only when both the plaintiffs and defendants agree to appear in front of the court. Many environmental and trade treaties include an option for either a plaintiff nation or defendant nation to move a dispute to the ICC through its Chamber for Environmental Affairs, but thus far all environmental conflicts have been heard by specialized tribunals established by the treaties. In the 1990s, the WTO and various GATT tribunals ruled that United States laws banning imports of tuna and shrimp harvested in ways that harm dolphins and sea turtles, were illegal barriers to trade.

Nongovernmental Organizations and Global Civil Society
Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are playing prominent roles in the development of global governance. Groups ranging from Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International to religiously based development agencies are connecting grassroots activists with global conferences, often through “side events” held at major UN gatherings such as the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994), the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995), and the World Conference against Racism (Durban, 2001). As they provide leadership in the decentralized network of international politics, NGOs are experiencing a growing level of global influence similar to the national influence of environmental, civil rights, and other issue-advocacy groups within individual democracies.

Political scientists have titled the overall NGO movement a “global civil society” because these organizations often represent people who are prohibited from entering the official, international discussions held at the UN, WTO, and the IMF.¹⁰ Current anti-globalization protests point to a “democracy gap,” a term defined by grassroots activists as an increasing lack of diplomatic and governmental accountability to the general voting population. German political scientist Antonia Grunenberg suggests that this democracy gap may possibly lead to a populist, nationalist backlash against globalization. Grunenberg highlights the importance of global nongovernmental organizations building multinational coalitions among various national groups having related interests. According to Grunenberg, “conceiving civil society in transnational terms will enable national societies to transcend traditional patterns of identity-creating politics.”¹¹

National Privatization and Transnational Corporations
Economic activity is not commonly conceived as being “political,” yet few things are more central to the politics of a society than what goods and services will be produced and which workers will be hired to produce them. Though national governments still maintain many of their traditional regulatory roles, in nearly all nations, private corporations make the most important economic decisions of society. Corporations have become powerful entities that influence global, national, and regional legislative efforts. Political scientists and social activists are increasingly criticizing the unchecked power of these organizations. The privatization of public services, and the legal rights granted to corporations, are central aspects of the world's current political organization.

Public vs. Private
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, most countries have multi-party, constitutional governments. The military struggle between communist and capitalist nations has been defused but political struggles continue. One of the most pervasive political questions, on both the national and international levels, is the choice between the public and private management of the production of goods and services.

In the “public sector” production of goods and services, the government owns and manages the means of production. In contrast, “private sector” production allows individuals and corporations to make production decisions and reap the ensuing profits. In the United States, for example, Social Security, water systems, the operation of highways, and non-package postal delivery are all types of public services, but electricity generation, health insurance for workers, and the sale of flour are primarily defined as private services. Each country has made its own decisions and has its own unique combination of what services are designated as either public or private. Common debates about the “size of government” are ultimately debates about which services should be produced privately and which should be produced publicly.

The establishment of capitalism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is only one example of a wider privatization trend with consequences for social goals (e.g., environmental protection) not served by market mechanisms. The privatization movement has fueled the growth of “transnational corporations” (TNCs), companies that operate simultaneously in more than one country. As more countries open their markets to foreign investment, the size and activity of TNCs has greatly expanded. The largest TNCs are major actors in international institutions and treaty negotiations. To be certain that their interests are served, they lobby either directly or through allied national governments.

Privatization
When communism ended in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, companies that were formerly public companies were privatized as governments sold them to worker cooperatives or distributed ownership shares to the general public.¹² US political scientists Harvey Feigenbaum and Jeffrey Henig classify the wide ideological swings between public and private management in twentieth-century Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Great Britain as “systemic privatization.”¹³

To Feigenbaum and Henig, systemic privatization stands in contrast to two other types of privatization: “pragmatic privatization” and “tactical privatization.” The former is found in areas (e.g., United States, Italy) where efficient production is valued. In these situations, nations designate what goods and services are publicly or privately produced. The latter is more predominant in developing countries (e.g., Latin America) where privatization has typically involved the sale of public utilities (e.g., electric and water systems) to transnational corporations. These nations have made this strategic move toward privatization in order to qualify for large loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.¹⁴

In many cases, public provision of electricity, water, and other goods have been plagued by corruption and have employed environmentally harmful production practices. There is great public debate in many developing countries over whether privatization will lead to more efficient and sustainable production, or whether the drive for private profit will override the need for expensive investments in sustainable technologies.

The Corporation
Private corporations are required by shareholders, and in some cases by law, to maximize profits. Thus the managers of private corporations have very little ability to choose options that respect the environment and labor rights unless those decisions also positively impact corporate profits. In most industries, corporations that pollute the air, water, or the soil located on their own property are not charged for their environmental degradation. For example, industrial waste disposal costs typically do not include any extra fees for environmental damage.

Governments can choose various policy initiatives (e.g., regulations, environmental laws, targeted taxes) to adjust for these externalities, or they can choose to produce certain goods and services publicly. Public agencies are theoretically the entities most accountable to voters. They can weigh competing claims (e.g., environmental preservation, social equality, and economic growth) in order to determine what is best for the overall society. Public agencies are criticized primarily for inefficiency. Advocates of privatization argue that private corporations, by focusing on profits, are generally much more economically efficient and thus contribute more to the world’s total wealth.

Since the 1990s, a multi-national “anti-globalization” movement has opposed the privatization trend and criticized the influence of corporations through the WTO and other international institutions. This social movement seeks to incorporate labor and environmental protections into trade treaties and to either reform the WTO and IMF or replace them with institutions that are more directly and democratically accountable to citizens.

Conclusion
Increasing international communication, cooperation, and decision-making are changing how humans address the political, economic, and environmental challenges that remain after the Cold War. Longstanding social conditions (e.g., poverty, war, oppression) are now being addressed in a more comprehensive manner through the UN, other international organizations, global civil society, and transnational corporations. More contemporary challenges, such as the protection of culture and the need for environmental sustainability, will also require solutions that are fundamentally global, rather than national, in scope.

During the Cold War, many political scientists considered the dramatic struggle between capitalism and communism to be the world’s predominant conflict. Compared to the events of the Cold War, the growth of global governance is relatively quiet, yet equally momentous. Global governance offers the opportunity for human beings to plan the future of the world in a more organized, democratic manner.

Scholars of the “realist” school of international studies maintain that it will not be in the interest of powerful nations to give up part of their sovereignty to global institutions. So far world events only partially match that prediction. The United States has certainly been wary of growing global governance, most notably in its opposition to the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change. There has been a surprising level of support for global governance from many leading nations, especially Japan and many European countries. The International Criminal Court, for example, was negotiated and ratified in just six years, an unexpectedly short period of time for such an institution. It seems likely that there will be continued rapid growth of international institutions, as well as continued controversy about them, in the next few years. This growth will impact how war, peace, trade, and environmental sustainability are addressed by the world community.

Additional Information
For additional information on political organization, check the resources in our Political Organization Links section.

Endnotes
1 James N. Rosenau, “Governance in the Twenty-First Century,” Global Governance 1, no. 1 (Spring 1995): 13, quoted in Wolfgang H. Reinicke and Jan Martin Witte, “Interdependence, Globalization, and Sovereignty: The Role of Non-Binding International Legal Accords,” updated 2001, http://www.globalpublicpolicy.net/Reinicke-WitteASIL.pdf (cited 26 January 2002), 25, forthcoming chapter in Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, edited by Dinah H. Shelton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
Return to text

3 See also the Forum on Religion and Ecology “Conflict, Peace, and Security” section.
Return to text

4 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “Mission Statement,” updated 2002, http://www.unep.org/about.asp (cited 26 January 2002).
Return to text

5 See also Forum on Religion and Ecology “Globalization and Trade,” “International Debt,” sections.
Return to text

6 International Monetary Fund (IMF), “About the IMF,” updated 2002, http://www.imf.org/external/about.htm (cited 26 January 2002).
Return to text

7 The World Bank, Making Sustainable Commitments: An Environment Strategy for the World Bank (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group, 2001) xvii. Document in PDF format. (cited 13 August 2002).
Return to text

8 The sixty-six nations that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) by ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are (in order of population) Nigeria, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Africa, Spain, Poland, Argentina, Canada, Peru, Venezuela, Romania, Ghana, Netherlands, Ecuador, Cambodia, Mali, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Hungary, Niger, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Benin, Paraguay, Slovakia, Denmark, Sierra Leone, Finland, Jordan, Norway, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, New Zealand, Ireland, Costa Rica, Central African Republic, Panama, Mongolia, Lesotho, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia, Botswana, Estonia, Gabon, Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Iceland, Belize, Dominica, Marshall Islands, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Liechtenstein, San Marino, and Nauru.
Return to text

9 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8(2)(b)(iv), updated 1999, http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm (cited 24 April 2002).
Return to text

10 For additional information see: Paul Wapner, Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996).
Return to text

11 Antonia Grunenberg, “Public Spirit and Civil Society: How to Conceptualize Politics in a Globalizing World,” International Review of Sociology 8 (November 1998): 413–24.
Return to text

12 David Ellerman, “Lessons from Eastern Europe’s Voucher Privatization,” Challenge 44 (July/August 2001): 14–37.
Return to text

13 Harvey B. Feigenbaum and Jeffrey R. Henig, “Privatization and Political Theory,” Journal of International Affairs vol. 50 (Winter 1997): 338–55.
Return to text

14 Ibid.
Return to text