Beyond Actor Recognition

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) responds to the new situation of globalization and provides a new platform for addressing global problems and challenges through interconnection and common development. However, global governance still faces the problems and challenges of escalating global protectionism and unilateralism, increasing challenges in global economic governance, and declined or failed effectiveness of global governance mechanisms. In the field of global governance, the BRI has promoted the development and innovation of global governance, the coordination and innovation of global governance mechanisms, and the achievement of new results in key areas of global governance. In this new situation, in order to shape new dynamics of global governance, it is necessary to continuously create favorable conditions and an environment for BRI countries to participate in global governance, consolidate their advantages in global development governance, and strengthen institutionalized BRI cooperation.

This study aimed to identify the key factors influencing the legitimacy of international organisations within public discourse. The methodological framework was based on an interdisciplinary approach that integrates political science, organisational theory, and media studies. This enables an examination of legitimacy through the analysis of normative and legal documents, official reports, open information platforms, and media discourse. The findings indicated that compliance with international law, transparency in governance processes, effectiveness in achieving stated objectives, and adherence to normative standards are crucial elements shaping support for international organisations from member states, the international community, and the public. In particular, successful peacekeeping initiatives, epidemic control programmes, and environmental projects contribute to strengthening organisational reputation. In contrast, failures in crisis response, inadequate accountability, or disproportionate influence by certain donors may undermine trust. The study also revealed that the media and the public play a pivotal role in shaping the image of international organisations. Negative narratives that highlight bureaucratic obstacles, conflicts of interest, or delays in decision-making often exert a stronger influence on public perception than positive reports of success. In this context, effective communication strategies are particularly important, especially those aimed at enhancing transparency, responding promptly to criticism, and engaging with civil society. The findings provided a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the formation of legitimacy for international organisations within the current global governance framework. They contributed to the further development of theoretical concepts related to trust in supranational institutions, the dynamics of organisational reputation, and the role of communication in maintaining or undermining legitimacy. This research offers new perspectives for future analysis of the interconnections between normative rationality, political legitimisation, and public expectations – perspectives which may serve as a foundation for further scholarly exploration in the field of global governance

This chapter conceptualizes technical standards and ICT standards, discussing their types and functions. It then introduces different types of standards development organization (SDOs), focusing in particular on competitive dynamics among standards developers. While discussing ICT standardization as a regime of private transnational governance, this chapter offers a theoretical background on non-State regulatory arrangements and explains how voluntary standards created in different types of SDOs may acquire a binding force. To that end, this chapter reviews the relevant scholarship in the field of global governance, transnational private regulation, and global administrative law, outlining the normative framework of this study.

The paper is focused on the crucial issues of the New Theories of Growth but of course after a sharp premise on the quest for Global Governance stepping up and the opposite situation in which we are in these really months. The looming conflicts of the Second Cold War have special boundaries and are not conventional. ISIL is not really a traditional army and operates at global level much more than supposed. Isolated and individual countries responses are unrealistic and dangerous at the same time. The New Theories of Growth robustness and the opposite weakness of the traditional International Relations frames of interpretations and prescriptions are proposing the really “Prisoner’s Dilemma” game theory results, where the convergence of aims and scope can’t produce the indispensable sharing of risks and efforts by the two sides. But the interrelated conditionality and implications of Global Governance policies and procedures are forcing towards negotiated but not precarious or vulnerable results in world affairs. In the quite effective equation and outcomes, shown through the drivers and clusters of the Formel-G elaborated by the Research Division of the Deutsche Bank in 2005 but with reference to the rigorous range of theoretical propositions both from the distinguished scholars Romer-Mankiv-Weil from Berkeley University and the coincidentally two homonymous authors cholar Paul Romer from Stern School of New York University. They had already closed the circle that is now imposing a reshaping, change, innovation of ideas and attitudes also to the more sensitive policy choices centers. This is the basic conclusion from the many spin-off of this paper in some way challenging the traditional formalism of the too often aseptic and “zero-sum-game” contributions on the crucial issues for the economy, financial system, development and growth of all the humanity in the one world.

The final chapter of this book looks more broadly at what can this book contribute to understandings of Internet Governance and the wider field of Global Governance. It argues that many of the trends found in Internet Governance such as the technification of regulatory demands or the expansion of disciplinary capacity over the Internet apply to many more areas of governance than just the governance of free expression.

As the preface of its Constitution determines,1 Japan has established peaceful cooperation with all nations as a priority. Since 1951, when Japan recovered political independence, it has been seeking to play a positive role in the international community based upon the principles set forth in the Constitution. However, just as political interpretations of the Constitution vary, so do concepts of international cooperation and policies on particular issues. While the words ‘international cooperation’ have been widely used since the 1950s (and even earlier), concepts using the word ‘global’ such as ‘global issues’, ‘global governance’ and ‘globalization’ have proliferated since the early 1990s. The global concept is a reflection of the international situation since the cold war, with huge numbers of people and wide areas of the former communist bloc becoming integrated into the market economy and democratic society. The sense of sharing a global environment has become stronger than ever. More importantly, it has become widely recognized that many actors other than nation states and the organizations they comprise them are playing various, sometimes decisive, roles in influencing the world, creating a new agenda and posing new challenges.KeywordsClean Development MechanismStructural AdjustmentGlobal IssueGlobal ConcernHuman SecurityThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The concept of global governance represents one of the most fertile intellectual ferments with which attempts have been made to rethink the nature of the international environment in the context of the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War. A new journal, Global Governance, has begun publication in the last few years,1 and a growing body of literature attests both to the utility of the concept for describing emerging international conditions and to the scope of the interrogations to which it is now giving rise.2KeywordsInternational CommunityConflict ResolutionPeripheral RegionSocial SpaceGlobal GovernanceThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Commonwealth as an inter-governmental organization has not been studied with any reference to the growing literature on multilateralism. (1) Commonwealth is a unique grouping, embracing developed, developing and least developed countries across all regions of the globe, and including many of the world's smallest countries. It is a valuable forum for addressing issues such as tax, competition, money laundering, and corruption, as well as broader political issues such as good government. We will work to sharpen the focus in the Commonwealth's activities on its areas of comparative advantage. (2) Because of the very nature of the current international community, following the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the emergence of new dynamics in the order (or disorder?) ... now is the time for new forms of diplomacy and strategies. In an extraordinary way, it is almost as if the Commonwealth has leapt in utility from past to future. It is a non-exclusive transnational organization whose time has probably come. (3) To date, the Commonwealths (plural) (4) have been neglected in studies of global but, as inter- and nonstate networks engaging with over a quarter of the world's states and peoples, they have much to contribute to both analysis and practice. Along with others, I treat governance as continuous patterns of relations, decisions and/or policies among the heterogeneous trio of state, market and civil society actors over a diverse range of issues and levels. (5) Such governance spans local to levels, each of which involves triangular relations among state and nonstate actors, notably private companies and civil societies. As Thomas Weiss indicates for the level, Global governance implies a wide and seemingly ever-growing range of actors in every domain. Global economic and social affairs have traditionally been viewed as embracing primarily intergovernmental relationships, but increasingly they must be framed in comprehensive enough terms to embrace local and international NGOs, grassroots and citizens' movements, multinational corporations and the capital market. (6) Although myriad Commonwealth agencies are engaged in such governance at all levels, from local to global, their contribution to date has been largely overlooked. The modern Commonwealth is a 'family' with members in every continent and their association is as much a Commonwealth of peoples as of nations; it is a network not only of governments but also of individuals, non-governmental organisations and civil society groups. (7) Both the official and nonofficial Commonwealth families were ahead of other inter- or transnational organizations during the middle period of Cold War bipolarity in terms of ideas, links, and networks with respect to early multilateralisms or governance. Yet, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's successes in the two-decade antiapartheid struggle, that then preoccupied it, the grouping was in decline by the mid-1990s despite the end of bipolarity. question now arises whether the Commonwealths can recoup their status as a pioneer among agencies in the distinctive post-Cold War period and whether they have something unique to contribute to the analysis and practice of governance. From Empire to Commonwealth: From Global Imperialism to Global Governance? inter- and nonstate Commonwealths may be uniquely placed--because of their genesis, composition, and character--to play a crucial role in advancing human development and security in the twenty-first century, in contrast to some other agencies that lack their unique flexibility and adaptability. Conversely, they may lose such comparative advantage if they fail to appreciate and exploit generic opportunities such as using the current lingua franca of commerce and diplomacy, English. …

Structural change brought about by the end of the Cold War and accelerated globalisation have transformed the global environment. A global governance complex is emerging, characterised by an ever-greater functional and regulatory role for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and its associated agencies. The evolving global governance framework has created opportunities for regional organisations to participate as actors within the UN (and other multilateral institutions). This article compares the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as actors within the UN network. It begins by extrapolating framework conditions for the emergence of EU and ASEAN actorness from the literature. The core argument of this article is that EU and ASEAN actorness is evolving in two succinct stages: Changes in the global environment create opportunities for the participation of regional organisations in global governance institutions, exposing representation and cohesion problems at the regional level. In response, ASEAN and the EU have initiated processes of institutional adaptation.

The format and process that China and Russia engage in the existing global governing mechanism have been largely shaped by their historical departure from their respective communist legacies. China’s gradualist reform and rebuilding process helped it join the capitalist world trading system. The rapid change in the former Soviet Union left considerable frictions and contradictions in Russia and its “near-abroad” areas, orienting the post-Soviet space more toward geopolitical frictions than economic interdependence. Although both countries increasingly face a less friendly West in the new millennium, they have so far resisted the temptation to form a formal alliance due to their historical learning experience from their volatile interactions during the Cold War and their extensive ties with the Western liberal international order thereafter.

A pioneering history traces the origins of global economic governance—and the political conflicts it generates—to the aftermath of World War I. International economic institutions like the IMF and World Bank exert incredible influence over the domestic policies of many states. These institutions date from the end of World War II and amassed power during the neoliberal era of the late twentieth century. But as Jamie Martin shows, if we want to understand their deeper origins and the ideas and dynamics that shaped their controversial powers, we must turn back to the explosive political struggles that attended the birth of global economic governance in the early twentieth century. The Meddlers tells the story of the first international institutions to govern the world economy, including the League of Nations and Bank for International Settlements, created after World War I. These institutions endowed civil servants, bankers, and colonial authorities from Europe and the United States with extraordinary powers: to enforce austerity, coordinate the policies of independent central banks, oversee development programs, and regulate commodity prices. In a highly unequal world, they faced a new political challenge: was it possible to reach into sovereign states and empires to intervene in domestic economic policies without generating a backlash? Martin follows the intense political conflicts provoked by the earliest international efforts to govern capitalism—from Weimar Germany to the Balkans, Nationalist China to colonial Malaya, and the Chilean desert to Wall Street. The Meddlers shows how the fraught problems of sovereignty and democracy posed by institutions like the IMF are not unique to late twentieth-century globalization, but instead first emerged during an earlier period of imperial competition, world war, and economic crisis.

By exploring the themes of settler colonialism and modernity in Australian commentary about Italy's invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, this paper sets out to consider Italy's war in north Africa as an international crisis with significance for Australian progressive narratives about Aboriginal conditions, status and rights important to Australia's international reputation. Thus, Australia's role as a member of the League and a mandatory power will be read in the context of international debate about Italy, modernity, race and violence.My case study draws from the experiences of Bessie Rischbieth, alternate delegate for Australia to the League of Nations in 1935, who observed the Abyssinian protest being made before the Assembly. Rischbieth was seemingly persuaded by Italy's claims to the right to land and territory in the context of immigration restrictions into the United States (and we might add, in relation to Australia) and was provided evidence of slavery in Abyssinia mobilised by Italy and earlier by the Anti‐Slavery Society in London in defence of the civilising influence of Europe upon a fellow (non‐European) member of the League. However, Rischbieth was also an activist within liberal humanitarian networks critical of Aboriginal policy in Australia in this same era. Her responses to the crisis in African and League affairs offer some insight into the proximities between settler colonialism in Australia and the ‘race’ issues raised by the annexation of Abyssinia by Italy, and its implications for collective security and global governance.

Global governance can have a significant impact on how the world recovers from a major catastrophe. After the twin tragedies of World War I and the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918–19, the newly formed League of Nations was unable to prevent a vicious spiral of nationalism, protectionism, and economic hardship that would wipe out two-thirds of international trade, plunge the world into the Great Depression, and ultimately sow the seeds of World War II.

The role of women in the history of the United Nations should be seen in the context of emerging and re-emerging debates in International History and International Relations. A cartoon of the problem characterizes international history as lacking in theoretical self-consciousness and fearful of the contamination of contemporary relevance to policy and social practice. International Relations on the other hand is beset by increasingly reified theories distant from empiricism. The role of international feminism during the early Cold War period has been simplified in earlier accounts as mired in dichotomies obscuring links between welfarism and feminism on the one hand and internationalism and feminism on the other. One of the important insights of the emerging literature on global governance and multilateralism is what Acharya has called the "pluralization of agency". Agency should not be equated with states, or organized non-state actors, but also individual women and men.

Empty Signifier in Practice: Interrogating the Civilizationss of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations