The peace (essentially established in Westphalia) merely provided a pretext for liberty. As free market enterprises adapted to new ideas of liberty, the very security that the former liberty promised gave way to a new threat of domination through war. Putin is quite correct to assert that international law is being flouted by America: American corporate interests have larger concerns that the maintenance of international law: their business is business -- not peace. Such, of course, is problematic for any continuation of global governance, unless hegemony of a single governor takes the reigns. Lynn Miller states as much when she says "that the peace of the international community can be maintained [only] through a binding, predetermined agreement to take collective action to preserve it. It says that any illegal threat or use of force by any sovereign member of the international community against any other…should trigger the combined force of all the rest" (172). Yet, while American forces flout international law, at least according to Putin, little resistance to such actions is shown by Western powers. It would appear that American hegemony is redefining global governance according to its own interests -- which suggests that other powers may well do the same.

Such actions, of course, can only lead to war. Rosenau's assessment of the situation views the likelihood of no less: for him the new hegemony will either result in one world order, or world war: "Global governance is not so much a label for a high degree of integration and order as it is a summary term for highly complex and widely disparate activities that may culminate in a modicum of worldwide coherence or that may collapse into pervasive disarray" (294). Rosenau's concept explains how global governance is really nothing more than a problem that has arisen throughout history: the problem of international law. What Rosenau fails to show...

The idea is as old as Plato (and, perhaps, even older). "Pluralization," as Cutler describes it, may put a new face on the idea -- but that is all. The new face does not change the essence of the thing. Privatization has had a large impact on the way global governance is now viewed (at least by some). The viewpoint, however, is not welcome by all -- as Putin himself shows. Putin expresses discouragement in the shift from international to global governance and shows no willingness to be subject to a new world order backed by American hegemony, no matter what new ontology is used to define it.
Conclusion

Such is essentially the problem facing global governance today: not everyone within its parameters is likely to fall into conformity. Old wine may be poured into new bottles, but Putin (and those like him) will continue to denounce their contents. As he charges, international law may not be flouted for a new tendency toward global governance. Global governance is nothing more than a new label for hegemony -- strictly speaking, American. No new ontological theory will erase this fact from nations that view such hegemony as a threat to their own national security.

Works Cited

Brand, Ulrich. "Order and regulation: Global Governance as a hegemonic discourse of international politics?"

Cutler, A. Claire. "Global Governance."

Miller, Lynn H. "The Idea and the Reality of Collective Security."

"Putin Warns Against Flouting International Law For Own Interests." Spacewar. 2007.

Web. 22 May 2011.

Rosenau, James. "Toward an Ontology for Global Governance."

Scarfone, Carla. "Immaterial Labour and Post-Fordism." Generation Online. Web. 22

May 2011.