IX-d. Global Governance

For a long time the Jeffersonian imperative was widely accepted: that government is best that governs least. The foremost function of national governments was maintaining security from outside attackers. Historically, national governments grew slowly, increasing the range of their powers as it was discovered that some issues simply could not be handled adequately by village and city administrations. In time their functions came to include many other matters such as maintaining systems of currency and public finance, health services, welfare, transportation, and communication.

Governance at the global level is now at an early stage of evolution. However, it is increasingly recognized that there are some issues—such as war, environment, population, poverty, immigration, epidemic diseases—that are simply too large to be handled by nation states. Some global level bodies have been established to deal with these issues, but they have limited powers.

Global governance requires increasing attention not only because the problems are getting larger but also because--in the view of many observers--the capacity of traditional nation-states to deal with problems is itself shrinking. They are being weakened by economic, environmental, and other kinds of shocks. The traditional leaders are being bumped aside by virtually invisible czars of the financial world. As a result, there is increasing fear of loss of control by national governments. It is not a fear of descent into international anarchy so much as it is a fear that the international community is increasingly controlled by economic forces that cannot be held accountable. As one analyst put it, "economic processes are becoming autonomous of political authority (Kothari)."

The powers of existing global agencies are limited partly because of fears that they might override the sovereignty of nations. While there are serious risks associated with increasing the powers of global agencies, there are also grave risks to maintaining the sort of global order that now prevails. We need to look seriously at how those risks might balance out as global governance is strengthened.

In designing more desirable global arrangements, we have the advantage of potentially learning from the mistakes made in forming the institutions of national governance. We can also draw on the positive experience in national governance to get a clear sense of direction. In particular, we should explore the question of what democratic global governance might imply. It would be difficult to argue that the present world order based on the hegemony of one super-power together with an unrepresentative UN Security Council is very democratic. Democratic governance should be identified not simply in terms of voting mechanisms (which in many cases are limited to addressing relatively minor questions), but in terms of commitments to genuine equality, to broad participation in public decision-making, and to challengeable and changeable leadership that is representative. What would such ideas mean when transposed to the global level?

In the new global governance, we are likely to see the creation of a global government of some form. It would have substantial powers in some respects, but its powers in other respects probably would be strongly constrained. Without substantial constraints, global governance would be fiercely resisted by those who fear its potentially tyrannical powers.

Global government could take a form comparable to that of most national governments, with particular functions assigned to particular ministries. We can already see nascent forms of these world ministries in the intergovernmental agencies: WHO, FAO, ILO, UNICEF, World Bank, etc. How would their operations be different in a democratic global government?

With a global government of some form, it would be possible for the international community to take responsibilities and to be genuinely accountable in ways that are not presently possible. For example, it would be possible for the international community (as distinguished from the separate nation states) to take responsibility for providing developing assistance or humanitarian assistance, or for the realization of human rights. The international community would then have real powers, and would not have to go begging in each situation to the major donor nations or the dominant financial and military powers. We see movement in this direction with the decision to create an International Criminal Court. The question is whether this—and other global agencies—will really have "teeth". Those who have reason to fear these powers certainly will resist their establishment.

Earlier, in Subsection VIII-c, we pointed out that even the most democratic nations have substantial inequalities among their constituents. This pattern is reproduced in the international system. In the world community of nominally sovereign states, the idealized principle is that nations, no matter how large or small, strong or weak, are equal, just as within democracies individual persons, in principle, have equal votes and are equal before the law. In reality the power disparities among nations are even greater than the disparities among individual persons within nations. The world is full of gross inequalities, even in supposedly democratic systems.

The ideal of global democracy implies global equality, not of nations, but of individuals. True equality before the law, not only for people within countries but also among countries, would imply full freedom of migration. Currently this is nowhere near to being politically feasible. Many world leaders see no inconsistency in insisting that goods should be allowed to cross borders freely, but people should not. For them, that would take the idea of equality much too far.

Currently, we have enormous disparities worldwide in the ways in which assistance is provided to the needy. For example, the victims of HIV/AIDS in the United States have great amounts of money spent on research and on direct assistance, while the far more numerous victims in Africa have only very small amounts spent for them. Global equality would imply equity in terms of humanitarian assistance. People who faced the same risks would be entitled to the same level of assistance, regardless of where they lived and regardless of the color of their skin.

In regard to food and nutrition in particular, strict global equality would mean that people at risk of malnutrition everywhere would be entitled to the same sort of assistance. Of course this degree of equality is almost unimaginable, but the concept should be held in mind as the objective, the goal implied by a commitment to the human right to food and nutrition.

Those who think that these ideas regarding equality are wholly unfeasible should be reminded of the history of the United States. Under the Interstate Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution, the individual states of the United States may not do anything that would impede commerce among the states. This means they may do nothing to impede the flow of goods within the United States (e.g., by imposing tariffs), and it is also interpreted to mean they may not impede travel. People of the United States are free to relocate to any place in the country. They do not have to get anyone's permission. The only evidence of border crossing between states usually is a "Welcome to . . ." sign along the interstate highway. This clause in the constitution was motivated by interests in promoting commerce and in promoting equality. By most accounts, it has worked very well.

Welfare programs are the domestic analogue of international humanitarian assistance. Some states of the United States, such as California, have tried to keep poor people from other states out by saying that for their first year, people coming in would get welfare payments no higher than would have been available in the states they came from. In May 1999 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that this was illegal: in their welfare programs, states may not pay lower benefits to newcomers than to longtime residents. Richer states like California may view this as disastrous, but the prevailing concept is that this ruling constitutes a great advance for the cause of equality.

It is not impossible to imagine the United States experience being reproduced on a global scale, at least if it is implemented gradually. For example, while national governments may be free to vary in the kind and quality of assistance they provide to their own people, it seems reasonable to suggest that international agencies and bilateral donors should begin to treat all people of the world equally.

And since a strong case is being made for free international commerce in the World Trade Organization and in other settings, perhaps it should be suggested that free trade could be linked to free travel: "Yes, we will let your goods into our country without a tariff if you let our people into your country without a visa." If open borders are good, they should be good for everyone.

What would be the implications of the human right to food and nutrition in a world of democratic global governance? Certainly we would expect that more of the world community's attention and resources would be devoted to addressing the concerns of weaker nations and weaker persons. The possible roles of the world community in connection with issues such as international humanitarian assistance and refugees are suggested in the following section.

In principle, the globe still operates under the traditional nation-state system established with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. While the 1648 model may have served us well for hundred of years, it is now inescapably clear that new ways of thinking and acting are needed. New institutional arrangements are needed.  In that rethinking, we need to recognize that the obligations associated with human rights cannot be treated as if they end at national borders.

Skip to Contents

Section IX-d last updated on June 13, 1999