*{Global Governance: What Needs to Change? [http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Global%20Governance%3A%20What%20Needs%20to%20Change%3F?open&topic_id=300250000&theme_id=300]

            31.01.2002

            Annual Meeting 2002}

            *partie=titre Developing a System of Global Governance: Drivers and Challenges *partie=nil

            As the events of 11 September illustrated, many of the key problems that nations face today are inherently international, yet no consensus exists on a system of global governance that would enable states to cooperate in addressing issues such as terrorism, economic inequality, AIDS and drug trade. Structures of global governance are only beginning to emerge and at present are based on concepts of territorial nationalism and state sovereignty, said Stephen J. Kobrin, Professor of Multinational Management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, USA. But, said William R. Pace, Convenor, NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, there is no alternative to organizing politically around the new interdependent realities of the world.

            Very different definitions of global governance exist, observed Zaki Laïdi, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, France. The term describes diverse processes, such as the avoidance of systemic crisis, the convergence of economies and societies on some common ground, the inclusion of the world’s poor and excluded, or the recognition of collective preferences of individual regions in trade or cultural matters, Laïdi said. Europe remains the region most strongly committed to the concept of global governance. Resistance to the concept has come from the United States which as a superpower believes it can "go it alone," as well as many poorer countries which believe "the rules of the game are stacked against them." 

            While the shape and scope of global governance remains contested, Pace pointed to a body like the International Criminal Court as a new model of international lawmaking that embraces multiple sectors and crosses traditional lines for grouping governments. Pace also praised the European Union as a great experiment in international democracy and in redefining sovereignty.

            However, at present, global governing institutions suffer from a crisis of political legitimacy, noted David Held, Graham Wallas Chair in Political Science, London School of Economics, United Kingdom. The base of representation for international governmental organizations (IGOs) is often unclear, Held said. And as one participant put it, those who have the power to solve global problems don’t have legitimacy, while those with political legitimacy tend not to have such power. Participants expressed concern that systems of global governance will be used to spread what is seen by some in developing countries as global domination by a small minority, or that some countries, still weak in their capacity to function even at the national level, will be excluded from international governance.

            Despite the flurry of new global institutions and initiatives, the role and the existence of the state is still very real, declared Jusuf Wanandi, Member of the Board of Trustees and Senior Fellow, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Indonesia. Though states must understand how to interact with these new institutions, states may increase their power as they deal with issues such as terrorism, Wanandi said. 

            Also unresolved was how a system of global governance might function democratically. Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, USA, said rather than striving for direct democracy on a global scale in the near term, systems of global governance should aim for accountability and transparency. Multilateral organizations might publish transcripts of meetings and NGOs might be permitted to offer amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs to the World Trade Organization, Nye suggested. 

            Held concluded that the challenge for the emerging system of global governance is to make it accountable, transparent, democratic and just, questions that he said are a matter of political will. Finding a balance between common ground and a diversity of views is another challenge, added Laïdi. Panellists agreed that US resistance to global governance slows the system’s progress but expressed hope that the terrorist attacks of 11 September would result in greater commitment to a multilateral system.                 

                  *{Contributors:       Held David
                  Kobrin Stephen J.
                  Laïdi Zaki
                  Nye Joseph S.
                  Pace William R.
                  Wanandi Jusuf}