Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This is unfortunate, according to Slaughter, for a number of reasons. On the most basic level, it
leads to a distorted view of how international relations really works and is likely to develop as
the twenty-first century unfolds. It also keeps observers from seeing the most likely solution to
what Slaughter calls “the globalization paradox,” that is, the condition of “needing more
[world] government and [at the same time] fearing it.” At present, debate about the issue of
world governance tends to pit national sovereignty versus world government.
Take-Aways
Informal networks of regulators, judges and legislators change how the world works.
Such networks make it possible to enforce laws and harmonize regulations in an
increasingly inter-connected world.
Critics charge that such networks are unrepresentative, secretive and dangerous.
Networks could be a positive force, but they need norms and checks-and-balances.
Networks of financial officials have been key in responding to regional fiscal crises.
Judges are reluctant to be bound by foreign court decisions, but international legal
affairs now affect their decisions.
Legislators are latecomers to the networked world, for sound political reasons. Yet even
legislators are forming networks and learning from each other.
States once communicated only through carefully defined channels. Networks have
opened more pathways among countries.
Networks need not replace traditional institutions and could reinvigorate them.
States have clear boundaries and clear limits on authority, but corporations and other
transnational forces do not. Networks keep states relevant in an era of globalization.
Summary
Networks and the Global Order
Like business people, stock traders and even criminals, governments now rely on
networks to achieve their objectives. Law enforcement agencies cooperate on
investigations through formal and informal networks. Financial ministers and central
bankers work jointly in networks such as the G-20, the G-8, the International
Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSCO) and others. Environmental officials,
justices and legislators have networks. There are even networks of government
networks. Networks have several advantages:
They allow regulators to develop better intelligence about the activities of transnational
organizations such as corporations, lobbying groups and even criminal gangs. This
enables regulators to respond with timely, well-coordinated action.
They help members get to know each other and learn to trust each other.
They provide a forum for swapping information about best practices.
They often offer various forms of assistance to members.
“It would be a world order in which human hope and despair, crime and charity, ideas
and ideals are transmitted around the globe through networks of people and
organizations. So, too, would it be in the power of governments to represent and
regulate their people.”
The United States could benefit greatly from the network phenomenon. Although the
U.S. has historically believed that problems with domestic sources need domestic
solutions, even it has begun to understand that multilateral problems need solutions on
that level. Networks can also help the U.S. learn from the example of other venues.
When the "American Way" is "best," networks will help others to learn from it. When
the "American Way" is not as good as some other approach, the networks will make that
clear, to the benefit of all concerned.
“Terrorists, arms dealers, money launderers, drug dealers, traffickers in women and
children, and the modern pirates of intellectual property all operate through global
networks. So, increasingly, do governments.”
To use networks most effectively, and to help them become all they could be, society
must think about the world in a different way. It is time to stop conceiving of a world of
states. Such a world is made up of national institutions that interact in clearly defined
official ways, usually through embassies, consulates and the associated bureaucracy of a
foreign office. By contrast, the new world includes states, but also includes many other
networked channels. Some are formal; others are less formal.
“The prerequisite for a vertical government network is the relatively rare decision by
states to delegate their sovereignty to an institution above them with real power — a
court or a regulatory commission.”
Changing the way society thinks about the world opens the possibilities of creating a
new world order. The foundation stones of the new world order include networks as well
as states. Networks would not substitute for states or abrogate national powers. They
would have only the power and authority that state governments decided to delegate to
them. And, national governments probably would delegate authority and power when it
served their own interests.
“So what exactly do government networks do? Their members talk a lot.”
Regulatory Networks
In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf took power in Pakistan by military coup. The Clinton
administration protested and waited for Musharraf's response. The General did not call
Clinton, his secretary of state, his secretary of defense or the American ambassador.
Musharraf went outside ordinary official circles and called a Marine general he knew.
“To the extent that pockets of global jurisprudence are emerging, they are most likely
to involve issues of basic human rights.”
Military officers, heads of state, senior ministers and economic officials network. The
famous economic "Groups," usually identified by "G" followed by the number of
member states, include the G-7, G-8 and G-20. They have been important factors in the
world's response to major economic shocks, such as the East Asian crisis of the late
1990s. They helped coordinate efforts to control criminal or terrorist use of the world's
financial system.
Legal Networks
Even without any sort of treaty, judges have begun to learn from each other. Justices on
the U.S. Supreme Court meet with their peers in Europe, Latin America and Asia. Under
the auspices of the United Nations, the Global Judges Symposium convened in
Johannesburg to discuss environmental laws. Judges have begun to discuss how to
proceed when conflicting decisions in various venues threaten such procedures as, for
example, bankruptcy. The five most common ways that judges utilize networks are:
“U.S. judges have not shied from conflict with their foreign brethren.”
Legislative Networks
Legislators have not moved to form networks as rapidly as judges and regulators, but
they have created some. For example, networks of legislators have helped monitor
elections. They have discussed issues of international trade, such as issues of
standardization in the European Union or the effect of the North American Free Trade
Agreement on labor. Political factors require legislators to exercise some caution about
networks. An accusation that a candidate has gone on too many foreign "junkets" can
resonate in an electoral campaign. Moreover, because legislative terms may be short and
uncertain, legislators find it more difficult to develop the kind of cross-border
relationships that come more easily to bureaucrats, judges, bankers and even military
officers.
“The traditional way for legislators to express themselves in foreign affairs is by trying
to keep members of the executive — the ministers or head of state — on a short
leash.”
The existence of regulatory, judicial and legislative networks (embryonic though these
may be) points to a new kind of world order. International communication and
cooperation is no longer the exclusive domain of embassies, consulates, secretaries of
state and foreign ministers. These networks form the bedrock of a new world order,
based not on old institutions but on new and often flexible networks. These networks
can be structured as:
Horizontal — Essentially these networks bring together peers or colleagues. They may
be permanent networks, such as the Basel Committee, or they may be temporary, such
as the Financial Stability Forum.
Vertical — Vertical networks have the power and authority to make decisions that bind
government institutions. These networks are more rare than horizontal networks,
because governments are reluctant to put themselves under the authority of any other
power. Yet examples include the European Court of Justice, the European Court of
Human Rights and the World Trade Organization Appellate Body.
Networks of government networks — New government networks and old-fashioned
international institutions can and do coexist. The North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was signed by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. to
institutionalize mutual environmental agreements. It created the Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a trilateral network. Sometimes new government
networks help reinvigorate traditional international institutions. Along those lines, the
Organization of American States (OAS) has established networks of specialized officials
to deal with issues of terrorism, children, women, agriculture and so on.
The picture is not all rosy. Because network operations are not governed by clear
standards, some see them as secret, undemocratic or unaccountable. Setting five norms
may diffuse this:
1. Global equality — All government networks should freely admit any official who
meets the criteria for membership. Once admitted, every member should have an
equal right to hear what others say and to be heard in return.
2. Tolerance for differences — Members should recognize, accept and act on the
belief that there is space for legitimate differences in point of view or in approach.
3. Positive comity — Traditionally, states have merely deferred to each other. The
network norm should be to work on cooperation.
4. Checks and balances — Use institutional mechanisms to limit network power.
5. Subsidiarity — Address issues at the lowest practicable level.
Special Study:
The ideas of the sovereign nation-state is outdated and unable to capture the complexities of
contemporary law and governance.