International Organization And Global Governance Dersi 3. Ünite Özet

Liberal Institutionalism

There are some similarities between realism and liberalism in the study of IR. They consider the nation-state, which has authority over a certain group of people, a defined territory as well as has a territory and a legitimate government, as the main actor of international politics. Liberals divide states into two types: a) Authoritarian or tyrannical regimes, b) Liberal regimes. Authoritarian or tyrannical regimes have little respect for human rights. In such a regime, a “checks and balances system” does not exist that may limit and control the power of the government. Liberal regimes, however, strive to create a democratic, open, and pluralistic society and to manage differing interests in the society like a neutral arbiter. In a liberal regime, the domestic political power is shared among several non-sovereign institutions. For most liberals, the state reflects the concerns and interests of various interest groups (pressure groups) such as the bureaucracy, the military, political parties, and other powerful elites that attempt to improve their own interests in the society.

The basic assumptions of the liberal approach may be summarized as follows:

• International cooperation is possible, and it is the main feature of international relations. Cooperation can lead to positive changes in the system.
• Because a human being is inherently good and rational, states behaverationally as well. Rational state pursues its own interests, embodies moral principles, and follows the rules of international law.
• The distinction between domestic politics and international politics is not that clear as realists argue. Multiple sets of relationships between international actors transcend national borders.
• Besides states, humans and other actors such as international organizations are important and have the ability to effect changes in international relations.
• Power should not only be considered as “military power”;economic, social, cultural, and intellectual power also matter.
• Liberals emphasize the importance of concepts such as world society, global governance, international institutions, and interdependence in the contemporary world where boundaries between states become increasingly blurred.
• In a social system where power centralizes, we also observe poor governance. Good governance, however, requires democracy and political pluralism.
• Liberalism believes in the possibility of a universal community of humankind that exceeds the vision of a fellowship of nation states (Shimko, 2016: 38-40).

Neoliberal Institutionalism

The so-called ‘neo-neo’ debate between neorealism and neoliberalism forms one of the core discussions in the study of International Relations. Although they share some assumptions, neorealism and neoliberalism differ in several respects.

• First, both approaches assume that international system is “anarchic.” However, while neorealists claim that foreign policy is constrained by anarchy, neoliberals argue that international regimes, globalization, and international interdependence are important tools for managing the relations between international actors.
• Second, neorealists believe that international cooperation depends on the will and power of nation states; from this perspective, it is difficult to achieve and maintain international cooperation mainly because states strive to achieve their own interests.
• Third, neorealists emphasize the importance of relative gains (zero-sum game) in international politics. Neoliberals, however, consider that international actors have common interests so that they can cooperate in a given issue area and maximize their absolute gains (non-zero-sum game).

Basic assumptions of neoliberal institutionalism may be summarized as follows:

• Although the international system is anarchic, states are interdependent.
• All actors (both state and transnational nonstate actors) are rational and their behaviors are driven by strategic calculations of their interests.
• States are not concerned with relative profits and gains. Rather they focus on absolute profits and gains. It is a non-zero-sum game or a win-win situation.
• Institutions have substantial roles. They increase mutual responsiveness and transparency and reduce uncertainty about the intentions and motives of others. Thus, institutions facilitate cooperation among international actors (Hohenstedt, 2017: 3).

Comparison of Liberal Institutionalism with Global Governance

For liberal institutionalists, as we have summarized above, democracy and ideas matter. Wars and conflict are not unavoidable; progress and peace are possible in the international system. Besides states, other actors such as transnational networks, MNCs, IOs, and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) are also instrumental in different issue areas such as security, environment, trade, and digital governance.

International Regimes

The concept of international regimes was first introduced by John Ruggie in 1975. He defined international regime as “a set of mutual expectations, rules and regulations, plans, organizational energies, and financial commitments, which have been accepted by a group of states” (Ruggie, 1975: 570). In his most-often-used definition, Stephen Krasner defines international regimes as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations” (Krasner, 1983: 2). International regimes refer to substantive and normative rules, and they are accompanied by institutional and procedural mechanisms which are created to oversee the formation, implementation, development, and enforcement of these regimes.

International regimes have been conceptualized as intervening variables standing between basic causal factors and actors’ behaviors. According to Krasner, there are four defining components of international regimes:

• Principles are beliefs of causation, fact, and rectitude.
• Norms are standards of behavior, and they are defined in terms of rights and obligations.
• Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action. • Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice (Krasner, 1983: 2).

Theories of International Regimes

Theories of international regimes offer a better understanding of international institutions in world politics. First, international regime theories are based on the realist assumption that the international system is state-centric and anarchical. Therefore, international cooperation can arise from the self-interests of states. International institutions are necessary to reduce uncertainty about how other actors behave. Second, international regime theories focus on specific issue areas from climate change to peacekeeping, but it excludes complex international organizations. For example, the UN performs important functions in issue areas such as environmental regimes. However, the UN is less influential in security regimes. Therefore, international regimes do not look for links between unrelated issue areas in international politics. Third, international regime theories provide an analytical framework for examining how international regimes are formed, how they continue (or change), and how they restrain state behaviors (Dombroski, 2007: 13).

International Regime Formation and Negotiation

Nation states and non-state actors are key in the creation of international regimes. IOs can only play a complementary role in the creation of a global governance system. IR scholars consider normative and institutional factors such as international norms and organizations “as supportive rather than as prime causes of regime formation with some explanatory weight” (List and Rittberger, 1992: 102-103). In the literature, there are different explanations for how international regimes are formed. (Keohane, 1984; Rittberger, 1993; Young, 1989; Young and Osherenko, 1993a). Yet they share several common points: (i) focused, conceptual definition; (ii) easy operational measurement; and (iii) comparability across time and issue areas (Helm and Sprinz, 2000).

International regime formation occurs at three levels.

At the structural level, power and hegemony are important factors that influence the analysis of regimebuilding negotiation.

At the cognitive level, knowledge, ideas, consensual knowledge, and epistemic community are concepts that are utilized to explain how international cooperation is shaped by perception, information processing, and learning.

At the institutional level, the emergence of international regimes is based on the interactive decision-making among self-interested and utilitymaximizing parties to solve collective action problems to reach mutually acceptable joint gains (Young and Osherenko, 1993a, 1993b/ Rowlands, 1995/ Haas, 1992/Porter and Brown, 1996).

The Critique of the Regime Theory

• First, Strange criticizes the regime theory because it gives the wrong impression that the US has already lost or is about to lose its hegemonic position.
• Second, ‘regime’ is used by IR scholars in different meanings. For instance, Keohane and Nye see the regime as “networks of rules, norms, and procedures that affect relationships of interdependence by regularizing behavior and control itseffects” (1989:19).
• Third, the regime theory has a value bias, and it is too static to capture the dynamic nature of international institutions.
• Finally, the regime theory shares the state-centric assumptions of the major IR theories.

The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Regimes

In the era of globalization, effective global governance can only be achieved if states are willing to coordinate their policies and cooperate with one another. International regimes can contribute to the fulfillment of various objectives and solving global problems. International regimes can produce mechanisms toward managing transboundary problems in three areas that are labeled as the 3 C’s:

• First, international regimes raise concern about cause-effect relationships.
• Second, regimes improve the contractual environment and foster the establishment of negotiation processes.
• Third, regimes reduce transaction costs in issue areas and enhance capacity-building in developing countries (Levy, Keohane, and Haas, 1993: 397-408).

Multilateralism and Internet Governance

Global governance provides global (re) distributive and regulatory mechanisms in the absence of a world government. It is defined as an international rules-based framework through which international actors aim to collectively resolve common problems and promote crossborder cooperation and coordination in a given issue area of world politics.

Global governance consists of four basic steps. The first is to define trans-boundary and global problems. The second is to find sustainable approaches to solve these problems. Third, international actors must convert these solutions into certain rules of conduct and ensure other actors to obey them. Last but not least, these rules must be revised in light of changing circumstances (Rittberger et al., 2008: 46).

Internet Governance

The definition of internet governance is similar to that of international regimes. “Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes, that shape the evolution and utilization of the Internet” (Bygrave, 2009:2).

There are five models of internet governance:

• The spontaneous cyberspace model: The Internet is beyond the reach of government control, and it is a self-governing realm of individual liberty.
• The transnational institutions and organization model: It inherently transcends national borders. As a result, most suitable institutions are transnational and quasiprivate cooperatives or international organizations with treaty arrangements.
• The internet architecture and code model: Many regulatory decisions are made by communication protocols and other software about how the Internet operates.
• The national government and law model: Regulatory decisions about the Internet are made through legal regulations by national governments.
• The market regulation and economics model: Market forces are driving forces in shaping the nature of the Internet (Solum, 2009: 56-57).

Internet governance and internet government are different concepts. It should be underlined that there is obviously no Internet government, and the Internet as a whole is not “governable.” Internet governance mostly refers to the management and coordination of domain names, internet addresses such as IP numbers and autonomous numbers, their technical aspects and parameters, and root servers.

The Basic Characteristics of Internet Governance

• Some aspects of Internet governance have been privitazed. The Industry plays an important role in governing the freedom of expression and privacy as well as regulating the content of the internet.
• The freedom of expression can be shaped by the Internet’s underlying technical architecture.
• The stability and security of the Internet cannot be taken for granted.
• Internet governance is continuously developed and negotiated. However, this process is not always public and transparent (Levinson and Cogburn, 2016: 220).

Internet governance has some new trends. Therefore, internet policy and cyber security should be addressed in a broad and multidisciplinary way. Both technical and policy aspects should be considered. The new-cyber approach focuses on anonymity, privacy, internet guardians, innovation, cyberlaw, and the end of sovereignty and geography.

Epistemic Communities and Global Commons

The concept of epistemic community has gained currency in international relations since the 1980s as part of the constructivist theory. Epistemic communities provide information to decision makers, help them better understand the world, and shape their policies and interests under the conditions of complexity and systemic uncertainty. It is obvious that the world becomes more interdependent, complex, and uncertain. Epistemic communities develop scientificallyinformed and causal knowledge for the solution of global problems.

The term, epistemic community, was first introduced by Holzner as “knowledge-oriented communities in which cultural standards and social arrangements interpenetrate around a primary commitment to epistemic criteria in knowledge production and application” (1969:108). However, Peter M. Haas applied the concept to international policy-making processes. In this sense, epistemic communities are defined as networks of knowledge-based experts or groups with recognized expertise in a particular domain and “an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within the domain of their expertise” (Haas, 1992: 3; 2016: 5). Epistemic communities are policy networks formed by scientists, technical experts, and international organizations that have competence and specialization in a particular issue area. They play important roles in the formation and legitimation of global commons regimes.

There are several differences between policy networks and epistemic communities. The policy networks do not reflect the same degree of coherence as epistemic communities do. Policy networks are clusters and have larger groups, while epistemic communities are a subset of policy networks. Policy networks’ membership fluctuates. Although they have different values, they are tied together by their interdependency. Power and resources are distributed unequally in policy networks. However, epistemic communities are more stable, and they consist of a smaller number of members who share same values (Carayannis, et.al., 2012: 132-133).

Global Commons

Global commons are defined as natural resources and areas that are outside the national jurisdiction (Vogler, 2012: 61). Global commons are resource domains to which all nations have legal access (Buck, 1998:6). Internation law identifies four global commons, namely: Antarctica, the oceans, the atmosphere (airspace, acid deposition, stratospheric ozone, and climate change), and space (outer space and telecommunications).

Global commons should be used on the basis of ecological and institutional sustainability. Sustainability is the standard against which global governance and international regimes should be measured. The 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (www.un.org). At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, sustainable development was defined as essential to human survival, easy to articulate but difficult to implement as a substantial item on the world environmental agenda (O’Riordan, 1999: 283).