International relations: theories, practices, and global governance

¶ … NGO is a non-governmental organization, while an IGO is an intergovernmental organization. The latter is typically created between states. Trade agreements often create IGOs as enforcement mechanisms, for example. Thus, IGOs exist as intermediary between the constituent nations. There are often three or more nations party to the agreement, as per the UIA (2014) definition of an IGO. The body will typically have specific set tasks for which it has been created, and any authority that the IGO has will be related to the performance of those tasks.

An NGO is also an international organization, but exists outside of state influence. The UIA defines an NGO as being transnational in nature but not bound or run by any nation. An NGO may theoretically receive some funding from a nation-state, but in many cases will raise funds privately. NGOs therefore operate independent of state influence, and perform tasks on this basis. The UIA still precludes bilateral bodies in its definition of NGO. An NGO is distinguished from an IGO on the basis of not being part of any government, nor created by government. The distinct, independent, non-state nature of the NGO makes it a counterpart to an IGO. It is also worth noting that an NGO is not a multinational corporation. A corporation is defined by its profit motive, where an NGO will typically be a non-for-profit entity (UIA, 2014).

2.

The tragedy of the commons is a term coined by Hardin (1968). This concept reflects the theory that the pursuit of individual outcomes will necessarily lead to negative consequences for society as a whole. The underlying theory is that humans are motivated by individual outcomes -- we are essentially rational actors who will pursue that which is better for us. When an action has a negative consequence, we might avoid it. But in many situations on a shared earth, my action that has a positive consequence for me might only have a negative consequence on another; or as Hardin points out a negative consequence only to the commons.

Climate change is a good way to explain the tragedy of the commons, because it is corollary to the herdsman allegory that Hardin used. Each of us pursues economic betterment. I will avoid actions that lead to direct negative consequences to me. But where there are negative consequences to a more generalized entity -- the commons -- I will pursue that activity. So it is that we as a human society have built our society and economy around the internal combustion engine. Yet, burning fossil fuels to power our world creates pollution. It was a tragedy of the commons when we talk about smog, but climate change is a bigger tragedy. The costs of this will be wrought on all humanity, not just on those who burned the carbon -- indeed, many of those people will already be dead.

So this is the tragedy of the commons. It is essentially a rhetorical adaptation of the economic concept of negative externalities. Any indirect outcome is an externality. A negative externality is Hardin's tragedy, because of its negative nature and the fact that it affects everybody. Hardin of course goes a bit further, pointing out that the world is finite. Increased consumption would not be a tragedy if there did not come at some point a constraint on increasing consumption. It begins with diminishing marginal returns and then finally the constraint becomes very real and people are forced to deal with the tragedy head on.

3.

Human rights are defined by the United Nations as "right inherent to all human beings, to which we are entitle equally without discrimination" (UNCHR.org, 2014). These rights are considered by the UN to be inalienable. Rights are not granted by the UN, but they do need to be granted by law. They are "expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law" (UNCHR.org, 2014). The UN Declaration on Human Rights outlines human rights as "right to life, liberty and security," "no slavery or servitude," "the right not to be tortured," the right to legal protection, and many others.

4.

Global governance has more weaknesses than benefits. The biggest benefit is that it might give us a chance to eliminate the tragedy of the commons. Hardin's herdsman is basically the individual nation-state, and the tragedy of the commons can really only be avoided when decisions about resource use and allocation are made at the commons level. That is a bit utopian, and most of the drawbacks to global governance are related to who impractical global governance would be in today's world. This is a tribal world, where humans are more worried about what divides us (especially religion and ethnic identity) than about what we have in common with each other. Such divisions create otherization, and that would be very difficult to reconcile to make global governance work. This is especially an issue because different cultures have very different value systems, and there is sometimes little common ground that would enable cooperation to flourish.

Some examples of global governance in action. An example of how it doesn't work -- tribalism and disproportionate voting at the UN gives 20 votes to 300 million Arabs, 1 vote to 300 Americans and 1/4 of a vote to 300 million mainland Chinese. Global governance under such a system is never going to work. Where there are global governance successes would be, maybe, in international trade where an organization like the WTO has signed up most nations and as a result trade barriers around the world have fallen dramatically in the past twenty years.

5.

Economic nationalism reflects the economy as a national phenomenon; economic internationalism as an international phenomenon but where the main actors are still nation-states. Economic structuralism is an argument that the developing world is dependent, always has been and that defines the economic order of the world. In essence, structuralism is the weakest in terms of explanatory power. It utterly misunderstands the drivers of success. First, resources are important -- Chad will never be rich, whether dependent on France or not. Second, governance is critical. Argentina and Canada have the same incredible resource wealth, low populations, and European colonial history. Argentina has had terrible governance, harming trade and industrial development, putting it well below Canada on standard of living measures. Economic structuralism is based on the logical fallacy of starting with a pre-supposed conclusion, rather than deduction through empirical analysis.