Search results

This paper aims to propose a legal characterisation of the recent proliferation, across the broad range of global environmental good governance initiatives and practices, of a diverse mix of regulatory environmental standards, many of which are informal in origin insofar as they are neither State-driven nor State-centred. It examines the novel conception of legal order posited by Twinning and Walker, to determine whether it encompasses the myriad rules and standards emerging in the field of environmental governance.

Surveying the rapidly developing montage of formal and informal rules and standards associated with global environmental governance, this paper uses the analytical framework provided by scholars of “global administrative law” to reconcile the complementary roles of formal and informal sources of legal rules, and to explain their increasing convergence around a set of good governance principles and standards commonly used in national administrative law systems.

The paper concludes that the emerging regulatory framework for global environmental governance comprises an almost endless variety of forms of novel transnational regulatory activity, many succeeding in having a profound impact on environmental outcomes. Yet all appear to be founded upon and guided by a discrete set of good governance standards and principles of an administrative law character – including transparency, participation, legality, rationality, proportionality, reviewability and accountability – which serve to enhance the credibility and legitimacy of each regulatory mechanism.

It appears that new and informal forms of environmental regulatory activity enjoy a complex symbiotic relationship with formal systems of environmental law. In addition to filling lacunae and addressing deficiencies in such systems, owing, for example, to the transnational character of much of today’s trade, informal regulatory systems are increasingly influencing the evolution of formal legal frameworks and, in so doing, are improving the responsiveness, flexibility and accessibility of this new environmental “legal order”.

At a practical level, viewing the wide range of new forms of environmental regulatory activity through the prism of global administrative law (or global environmental law) brings unity to this diverse field and, in so doing, makes available to all the actors involved in this “community of practice” a wealth of established practice and principle which can help to inform the elaboration and interpretation of rules and standards of environmental governance through a process of cross fertilisation of ideas and approaches.

Recognition of the legal character and significant role of the wide range of novel forms of environmental regulatory activity lends further credibility and legitimacy to such mechanisms, which often comprise the only truly relevant and applicable environmental controls or truly accessible mode of redress and accountability. The challenges of realising sustainability are immense and, as one leading commentator has noted, “all normative means are useful to this end”.

This paper attempts to characterise the legal nature of the range of novel forms of environmental regulation which (can) play such an important role in modifying the behaviour of many of the key environmental actors globally – actors who have largely been unaffected by more formal legal frameworks. For this reason, it seeks to encourage a fundamental shift in the way we think about environmental law and legal authority.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the shifting nature of governance reforms, both at global and national levels, in the increasingly commercialised game of cricket. The authors explore the inter-relationship and linkages between governance and commercialism, and in the process, question the contemporary reliance placed on governance as a generic counter-commercialist force and accountability aid.

The analysis is based on a comprehensive analysis of cricketing archives, newspapers and online media. The authors specifically utilise a range of review reports, governance and accounting information from annual reports and websites of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as different national cricket governing bodies (NCBs).

The paper vividly demonstrates the importance of recognising the specific significance of different cultural traditions and modes of organising – and not presuming a particular form of impact. The findings highlight that the adoption of a dominant market logic by cricket administrators has resulted in a shift in the balance of power in favour of non-western nations. India has emerged as the clear leader and driving force shaping the way cricket is globally governed. The consequences have been profound but not in terms of delivering, enhanced standards of transparency and accountability. Drawing on institutional theory, the paper argues that the scale of the Board of Cricket Control of India’s financial and operational control over the ICC has not only led to an increasingly commercialised game but engendered divergent and highly questionable standards of governance at the level of NCBs.

Unlike other global games, cricket has an imperialistic root, and has gone through the process of globalisation in relatively recent times. Also, the commercialisation of cricket has resulted in the global economic and power base shifting from the West to the East, giving us the opportunity to study the dynamics between commercialisation and governance in a quite different globalisation context that allows an assessment to be made of the culturally contingent nature of governance as a substantive organising force.

The purpose of this paper is to include the following items: to show the absolute necessity of managing the international community, to explore the fundamental possibility of managing the global world, to prove or disprove such a possibility, to determine the real background of global governance in modern conditions and to show the methods of transition toward global governance.

The main methodological principles used in writing the paper are: the principle of the integrity of the world; the understanding of globalization as an objective historical process; the principle of historical sequence of the considered event; the principle of priority of the general over the particular, as well as of the global over the regional and the local.

As a result of the proposed research, it is shown that the global world needs to be managed. Prerequisites for the management of the global world are identified, among which the most important are morality and rights. It is shown that for management of the global world there should not only be global government, but also other branches of government, such as a World Parliament and a judicial system based on global law.

A clear distinction between the management and regulation of social relations is made. The need to further explore the concepts of international law and global right is stated.

National sovereignty increasingly must give place to global governance structures.

The need to build a global civil society is evident.

The absolute necessity and possibility of regulating the world community are shown. New approaches to solving this problem are proposed. They are based on existing assumptions in the field of executive and legislative power and also involve the creation of new structures, primarily in the area of the judiciary.

IFAC, a Swiss‐registered non‐governmental organization, is emerging as an important international (auditing) standard setter amongst a powerful group of regulators, including the World Bank, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the European Commission (EC). The purpose of this paper is to focus on the changing governance and accountability structures within IFAC, the way such changes are shaping, or re‐shaping, its “public interest” commitments and the resulting strategic implications for processes of auditor regulation and public oversight in the global financial arena.

The material and analysis presented in the paper derives from an extensive review of official reports, consultation documents and related responses, a range of other information available on IFAC's web site (www.ifac.org) or those of other key regulatory players in the global financial arena.

The paper analyzes how IFAC is succeeding as an international standard setter with an established place in the global financial infrastructure. From analysis of the recent establishment of a Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB) and the changing nature of representation on IFAC's Public Interest Activity Committees (PIACs), the paper reveals a growing reliance on governance by experts together with a growth in influence of the large, multinational accounting firms. Governance of auditors has become a matter of global importance and governance structures are being reconfigured.

By highlighting the changes that have taken place within IFAC's governance system, the paper establishes the importance for public policy of further study and debate concerning the nature and practical operation of such a system, particularly given IFAC's position within a complex but developing global governance arena.

IFAC is becoming an integral player in global financial governance processes and yet has not been subject to any substantial academic accounting research. This paper seeks to rectify this by focusing on the structures and processes underpinning both the development of IFAC's International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and its own global strategy for advancement.

Global health challenges and threats could be confronted by collaborative efforts of international community. Governance for global health is a set of formal and informal processes, operating beyond state boundaries, and refers to institutions and mechanisms established at the national, regional and international levels. Nordic countries demonstrated a long-standing commitment to development assistance for health (DAH), and more recently to governance for global health. Governance for global health tools could be used effectively to achieve collective solutions for the maintenance and promotion of health as a common good, could ensure accountability and transparency, and reconcile the interests of different actors on the international and national levels. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of tools and approaches in support of eight sub-functions of governance for global health applied by the Nordic countries. This will help international audience to compare those mechanisms with similar mechanisms that are available or planned in their countries and regions, and may benefit policy scholars and practitioners.

This study uses qualitative review of research literature, policy documents and information available from institutional websites related to the governance of global health in four Nordic countries. In total, 50 selected publications were analyzed using framework synthesis, mapping all findings to 8 dimensions (sub-functions) of governance for global health and related tools.

Review reveals which tools are available, how they have been applied by the Nordic countries and influenced all domains (sub-functions) of governance for global health at different levels: national governments, agencies and networks; bilateral and multilateral partnerships; inter-governmental institutions and international health-related organizations. Common trends and approaches in governance for global health have been formulated.

This study is unique in relation to the prior literature as it looks at the role of Nordic countries in the governance for global health system through the lens of tools applied in support to its sub-functions.

The topics of an emerging planetary civilisation and its common affairs, global problems requiring coordinated worldwide responses and contested forms of globalisation are collectively stimulating an international conversation about alternatives to the current system of global governance. The purpose of this paper is to introduce new voices to the conversation, providing unconventional perspectives of possible futures to those found in much of the scholarly literature. These perspectives are those of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), an international non-government organisation comprising nations and peoples not represented at the United Nations (UN).

Collectively the discourses and worldviews of the UNPO, feminists, social and environmental movements, Cosmopolitan Democrats, technocrats and the Commission on Global Governance reveal contesting images of global governance futures in which the UN is transformed in ways that are aligned to emerging forms of alternative globalisations. The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) futures research method is used to construct models of each group’s preferred global governance future from elements of their discourses and deeply held ideological commitments.

Structural aspects are also considered and the author offers an analytical framework summarising the models against the layers of CLA and the history, power base, globalisation worldview and agency congruent with each model. The models are then presented as visionary scenarios generating images of future alternatives while providing an opportunity to hear what the nations unrepresented in the current system have to say.

Their image produced a more inclusive, egalitarian and holistic image of a global governance future when compared with the “business as usual” UN future. As we approach 2015 and the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the UN, this conversation provides a timely prompt for the review of the UN system of global governance and an opportunity for the UN to consider how it might transform to retain relevance in a rapidly changing global environment.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and compare three different principles – the culpability, capacity and concern principles – for allocating responsibility for governance in a multi‐level context of addressing sustainable development.

The principles are first analysed from a theoretical and normative standpoint, linking to earlier literature on for example, the contribution principle, subsidiarity and global citizenship. Then the three principles are analysed in an empirical setting. The selected case is the issue complex around the health and environmental concerns from pesticide use in developing countries. Document analysis and semi‐structured interviews were carried out with relevant stakeholders from local, national and global governance levels on themes which enabled analysis of the workability and justness of the principles and whether they were already applied to some degree.

Analysis of the case shows the mutual complementarity of the three principles for allocating responsibility for governance, especially when culpability and capacity are dispersed across different agents and levels. However, the concern and capacity principles emerged as more important and promising. The results indicated the need for moving the value basis of agents towards more selfless global concern in order to create an effective multi‐level governance system.

The results may help policymakers at different levels to analyse more systematically who should assume responsibility for sustainable development governance and why.

Extends the analysis of principles for allocating responsibility for global issues.

This paper aims to clarify the character of globalization, to identify the changes it brings to structures of governance, and to consider ways in which these arrangements could be made to serve a good (more global) society.

This essay takes a reflective approach.

The paper considers the rules and regulatory processes that govern today's more global world. The first step in the analysis identifies globalization as a trend whereby people's lives become more interconnected on a planetary scale. The second section describes the institutional apparatuses through which global issues are governed. Global governance is seen to take shape not as a “world government”, but as a complex array of regulatory networks that span local to global scales and also combine public and private sectors. The third section assesses the normative values that this “networked” and “polycentric” governance of global affairs might serve. Both an earlier “neoliberal” design of global governance and a currently prevailing “social market” paradigm are critiqued. An alternative vision of global social and ecological democracy is offered as a more promising road to a good society in the contemporary more global world.

The paper suggests alternative guiding principles for governance of today's more global society, including the role of corporations in it.

The paper suggests ways in which global governance can deliver social justice, ecological sustainability and democracy along with material prosperity.

The paper consolidates a conception of post‐statist governance that can aid researchers and practitioners alike in mapping the processes of contemporary policymaking. The normative framework presented can, moreover, help to clarify the objectives that citizens of a more global world would wish regulation to provide.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical and informative exploration of the emerging roles and rising influence of the Global South in shaping the future of global governance. Specifically, it inquires into the following questions: How is the Global South impacting the way we govern globally? What are the pushers, pulls and weights to the futures of global governance? Using Jim Dator’s alternative futures archetype, what is the future of global governance? What are the emerging issues and trends?

It uses Sohail Inayatullah’s futures triangle to map the drivers – the pushes, pulls and weights of global governance and Jim Dator’s archetypes – continued economic growth, collapse, conserver and transformation – to imagine and construct alternative futures of global governance.

The futures triangle analysis maps and reveals three diverse but causally linked Global South narratives of global governance. The pulls of the future include the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa leading the way, and emerging economies reinforcing the pluralization of global governance discourses and systems. New governance regimes create new global governance dynamics and North – South relations. Their increasing social, political and economic clout leads to new governance structures. The Global South’s rising human development index, economic growth, decreasing financial reliance, the rise of minilateralism and South – South cooperation is a push of the present. Weights are recurring financial constraints, their lack of technical capacity, existing international laws, stagnating bureaucracy, poverty, domestic issues and state centrism (among others). Four alternative global governance scenarios emerge: a harmonious world is everybody’s business – a state-centric and economic growth global governance future. Here, the dynamics of global governance remain the same as zero-sum thinking informs the rules of the game. In dangerous transitions and the rise of the rest, however, the status quo is disrupted as power shifts rapidly and detrimentally. Then, in mosaic of the old structure, the South embraces protectionism, and the old vanguards return. Finally, in all boats rise substantially, power is redistributed as emerging states gain larger, formal (and informal) leadership roles in global governance. The global world order is re-designed for the Global South. A world parliament is created and stronger regional confederation or unions emerge.

This paper extensively utilizes existing and emerging literature, official reports, blogs, interviews, books and other digital texts on global governance. The sources relevance is analyzed using the futures triangle tool and dissected to present four detailed scenarios using Dator’s alternative futures archetype. This study seeks to initially explore alternative futures of global governance from the perspective of the Global South. While some studies have approached the topic, only a few authors have addressed global governance using futures tools and methods. The goal of this research is to map and explore some alternative futures of global governance. The paper is less useful in predicting what lies ahead. Its intention is to highlight the “rise of the different” and to create a space for more meaningful conversations on global governance.

This research could provide futurists, policy-makers, international relations scholars and global governance advocates some alternative narratives, frameworks and images of global governance. While it does not offer any specific structures and solutions, it offers a number of emerging issues and perspectives from the Global South that decision-makers and institutions might want to consider as they rethink global governance.

This paper highlights the emerging roles and perspectives of the Global South in global governance. It identifies some “trading zones” and “emerging issues” that may inspire actors to create new global governance spaces, innovate alternative narratives and design new frameworks of global governance.

It maps and constructs some plausible scenarios of global governance that emphasize Global South perspectives while using futures tools and methods.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.