Global Governance Debates and Dilemmas: Emerging Powers’ Perspectives and Roles in Global Trade and Climate Governance

Abstract

The growing international influence of so-called emerging powers has had a major impact on global governance, leading to new challenges for established and emerging powers alike. This contribution outlines the expectations of established powers and the debates on the state of global governance in the field of International Relations, as well as the positions and policies of emerging powers. An analysis of the fields of trade and climate policy highlights the resilience of established powers and reveals that emerging powers, despite their declared reluctance, have actively participated in global governance to pursue their interests. While cooperation is difficult, confrontation is not inevitable.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We also thank the participants of a workshop on ‘New Challenges and Partnerships in the Age of Multipolarity’ that was held at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, in March 2013. Funding for participation in the workshop and for the strengthening of bilateral cooperation between IDSA and the GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies was provided by the German Research Foundation.

Notes

1. Klaus Dingwerth and Philipp Pattberg, ‘Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics’, Global Governance, 12(2), 2006, pp. 185–203.

2. James Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.

3. Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, p. 4.

4. Sophie Harman and David Williams, ‘Introduction: Governing the World’, in Sophie Harman and David Williams (eds.), Governing the World: Cases in Global Governance, Routledge, London and New York, 2013, p. 2.

5. Ian Goldin, Divided Nations: Why Global Governance is Failing, and What We Can Do About It, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.

6. For a view on global governance by contending theories of International Relations, see Alice D. Ba and Matthew J. Hoffmann (eds.), Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence, Contestation and World Order, Routledge, London and New York, 2005.

7. Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur, Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Journey, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 2010. For more debates in the academic discipline of International Relations and their relevance for issues of global governance, see Thomas G. Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson, ‘Global Governance to the Rescue: Saving International Relations?’, Global Governance, 20(1), 2014, pp. 19–36.

8. Tom Farer, ‘Introduction’, Global Governance, 17(3), 2011, p. 281.

9. For a more nuanced discussion on rising powers and sovereignty, see Johannes Plagemann and Sandra Destradi, ‘Soft Sovereignty, Rising Powers and Subnational Foreign Policy-Making: The Case of India’, Globalizations, forthcoming.

10. Andrew F. Cooper and Ramesh Thakur, ‘The BRICS in the New Global Economic Geography’, in Thomas Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson (eds.), International Organization and Global Governance, Routledge, London, 2013, pp. 265–278.

11. John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Norton, New York, 2001.

12. Randall Schweller, ‘Emerging Powers in an Age of Disorder’, Global Governance, 17(3), 2011, p. 287.

13. G. John Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2011, p. 122.

14. Bruce W. Jentleson, ‘The John Holmes Memorial Lecture: Global Governance in a Copernican World’, Global Governance, 18(2), 2012, p. 138. On the G20, see Andrew F. Cooper and Ramesh Thakur, The Group of Twenty (G20), Routledge, London and New York, 2013.

15. Nina Hachigian and David Shorr, ‘The Responsibility Doctrine’, The Washington Quarterly, 36(1), 2013, p. 75.

16. US Department of State, ‘Wither China? From Membership to Responsibility’, at http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm (Accessed August 2, 2013), emphasis in original. See also Gregory Chin and Ramesh Thakur, ‘Will China Change the Rules of Global Order?’, The Washington Quarterly, 33(4), 2010, pp. 119–138.

17. The White House, ‘Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly’, September 23, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly (Accessed July 31, 2013).

18. Federal Foreign Office, Shaping Globalization—Expanding Partnerships—Sharing Responsibility: A Strategy Paper by the German Government, Berlin, 2012, p. 5.

19. Fen Osler Hampson and Paul Heinbecker, ‘The “New” Multilateralism of the Twenty-First Century’, Global Governance, 17(3), 2011, pp. 299–300.

20. European Parliament, ‘Speech on EU Foreign Policy towards the BRICS and Other Emerging Powers’, Speech 12/56, February 1, 2012, at http://eeas.europa.eu/images/top_stories/020212_brics.pdf (Accessed August 1, 2013).

21. Miles Kahler, ‘Rising Powers and Global Governance: Negotiating Change in a Resilient Status Quo’, International Affairs, 89(3), 2013, p. 718.

22. Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, ‘China’s Attitude towards the ICC’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3(3), 2005, pp. 608–620.

23. Ramesh Thakur, ‘R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers’, The Washington Quarterly, (36)2, 2013, pp. 61–76.

24. Permanent Mission of India to the UN, ‘Remarks by Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, Permanent Representative, at an Informal Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Secretary General on Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Action’, September 5, 2012, at https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/13040ind2058.pdf (Accessed December 5, 2014).

25. See Gareth Evans and Ramesh Thakur, ‘Correspondence with Robert A. Pape: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect’, International Security, 37(4), 2013, p. 206.

26. Adrian Oroz, ‘Transatlantische Streicheleinheiten, an der Macht klebende Tyrannen und nukleare Geisterfahrer—Ein Bericht von der 49. Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz’, Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, 6(2), 2013, pp. 277–278.

27. Miles Kahler, no. 20, p. 725.

28. Joachim Betz, India’s Turn in Climate Policy: Assessing the Interplay of Domestic and International Policy Change, GIGA Working Paper 190, Hamburg, 2012. On India, see also Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Bruce Jones (eds.), Shaping the Emerging World: India and the Multilateral Order, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2013.

29. Babette Never, ‘Who Drives Change? Comparing the Evolution of Domestic Climate Governance in India and South Africa’, Journal of Environment & Development, 21(3), 2012, pp. 362–387.

30. John C. Cole and Diana M. Liverman, ‘Brazil’s Clean Development Mechanism Governance in the Context of Brazil’s Historical Environment–Development Discourses’, Carbon Management, 2(2), 2011, pp. 145–160.

31. Kevin Gray and Craig N. Murphy, ‘Introduction: Rising Powers and the Future of Global Governance’, Third World Quarterly, 34(2), 2013, p. 184.

32. See Joachim Betz, ‘Emerging Powers and Global Financial Governance’, Strategic Analysis, 38(3), 2014, pp. 293–306.

33. Thorsten Benner, Brazil as a Norm Entrepreneur: The ‘Responsibility While Protecting’ Initiative, GPPi Working Paper, Berlin, 2013.

34. Kishore Mahbubani, The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World, Public Affairs, New York, 2013.

35. Robert Wade, ‘What Strategies are Viable for Developing Countries Today? The WTO and the Shrinking of Development Space’, Review of International Political Economy, 10(4), 2003, pp. 621–644.

36. Haa-Joon Chang, Kicking Away the Ladder: Policies and Institutions for Economic Development in Historical Perspective, Anthem Press, London, 2003.

37. Rorden Wilkinson, The WTO: Crisis and the Governance of Global Trade, Routledge, London, 2006. Note that the number of WTO members has gone up from 128 in 1994 to 159 as of 2014 drawing WTO membership closer to the near-universal membership of the World Bank and the IMF.

38. Mark Langan, ‘Governing Trade’, in Sophie Harman and David Williams, Governing the World?, no. 4, pp. 79–95; Andrew Hurrell and Amrita Narlikar, ‘A New Politics of Confrontation? Brazil and India in Multilateral Trade Negotiations’, Global Society, 20(4), 2006, pp. 415–433.

39. Kent Jones, The Doha Blues: Institutional Crisis and Reform in the WTO, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.

40. This is the first time a member of the BRICS is in the top position at one of the three Bretton Woods Institutions. Note that in other cases, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), representatives from the Global South and/or the BRICS have been elected to the helm as well. The point here is that the three Bretton Woods Institutions epitomise the post-war global economic order which the Global North has fiercely defended thus far, minor reform notwithstanding. It also makes a difference whether the WTO is headed by a national of one of the BRICS or by a national of a less dynamically evolving member of the Global South. Note that Thailand’s Supachai Panitchpakdi served as the director general of the WTO from 2002 to 2005. Some even see it as a deliberate strategy by the BRICS to seek appointments to multilateral institutions. See Zhenbo Hou, ‘The BRICS and Global Governance Reform: Can the BRICS Provide Leadership?’, Development, 56(3), 2014, pp. 356–362.

41. Bridges Daily Update, ‘Days 3, 4 and 5: Round the Clock Consultations Produce “Bali Package”’, 7 December 2013, at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news13_e/mc9sum_07dec13_e.htm (Accessed December 7, 2013); Amrita Narlikar and Shishir Priyadarshi, ‘Empowering the Poor: The Successes and Limitations of the Bali Package for the LDCs’, Third World Quarterly, 35(6), 2014, pp. 1051–1065.

42. We assume that the BRICS countries were somewhat divided on these issues but that they ultimately held a preference for arriving at a positive outcome from the Bali conference given that this may provide a new stimulus for the larger agenda of the Doha Round.

43. Matthew D. Stephen, Pivotal Rising Powers: India, Brazil and South Africa and Contestation in Global Governance, PhD dissertation, Free University Berlin, 2013.

44. It might seem somewhat premature to talk about the merger of the TTP with the TTIP given that neither of the agreements has yet been fully negotiated and finalized. Note also that the last word is yet to be pronounced in the academic writings on whether regional blocs are substitutes for, or supplementary to, the framework of global governance.

45. Axel Berger and Clara Brandi, ‘The Global Trading System at a Turning Point’, The DIE Current Column, July 8, 2013, Bonn, DIE (German Development Institute).

46. Daniel Bodansky, ‘The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: A Postmortem’, The American Journal of International Law, 104(2), 2010, pp. 230–240; Karl Hallding, Marie Jürisoo, Marcus Carson and Aaron Atteridge, ‘Rising Powers: The Evolving Role of BASIC Countries’, Climate Policy, 13(5), 2013, pp. 608–631.

47. Andrew Hurrell and Sandeep Sengupta, ‘Emerging Powers, North-South Relations and Global Climate Politics’, International Affairs, 88(3), 2012, p. 464.

48. Ibid., pp. 463–484.

49. Ibid.

50. Elie Bellevrat, Climate Policies in China, India and Brazil: Current Issues and Future Challenges, IDDRI Working Paper no. 16, Paris, 2012.

51. Eduardo Viola, Brazilian Climate Policy since 2005: Continuity, Change and Prospective, CEPS Working Document no. 373, Brussels, 2013.

52. Elie Bellevrat, no. 49.

53. Joachim Betz, The Reform of China’s Energy Policies, GIGA Working Paper no. 216, Hamburg, 2013; Joachim Betz, India’s Turn in Climate Policy: Assessing the Interplay of Domestic and International Policy Change, GIGA Working Paper no. 190, Hamburg, 2012.

54. Jen Iris Allan and Peter Dauvergne, ‘The Global South in Environmental Negotiations: The Politics of Coalitions in REDD+’, Third World Quarterly, 34(8), 2013, pp. 1307–1322.

55. Andrew Hurrell and Sandeep Sengupta, no. 46.

56. Jen Iris Allan and Peter Dauvergne, no. 55.

57. Philip Nel, ´Redistribution and Recognition: What Emerging Regional Powers Want’, Review of International Studies, 36(4), 2010, pp. 951–974; Philip Nel and Matthew Stephen, ‘The Foreign Economic Policies of Regional Powers in the Developing World’, in Daniel Flemes (ed.), Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers, Ashgate, Farnham, 2010, pp. 71–90.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sandra Destradi

Dr. Sandra Destradi is a Research Fellow at the GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies/Institute of Asian Studies in Hamburg, Germany. Prof. Cord Jakobeit holds the Chair in International Relations at the University of Hamburg, Germany.

Cord Jakobeit

Dr. Sandra Destradi is a Research Fellow at the GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies/Institute of Asian Studies in Hamburg, Germany. Prof. Cord Jakobeit holds the Chair in International Relations at the University of Hamburg, Germany.