2. International jurisprudence : definition, development and principles
3. ball-shaped administration : definition, principles and relations to International Law
4. Theory & practical implementation of the concepts
appendix : bibliography
International Law and Global Governance
In the play along, I am going to discuss characteristics, similarities and distinctions, problems and the grapple on world of International Law and Global Governance. At first, International Law, including its historic development and most significant principles, is presented. I continue with the insertion of the concept of Global Governance. At the end of this chapter, the relations between the two theories are explained and principal distinctions and similarities are mentioned. Coming to an end, I am going to ask for the clasp on reality and compare theory with virtual implementation. ultimately, I will draw my conclusions .
I decided to write about this subject because it gains more importance and actuality from day to day. International Law and Global Governance are vital constituents of international relations. specially when I prepared my report on Institutionalism I became mindful of their significance. Everyone, who wants to live in a world equally passive as possible, must make up his or her mind about those concepts because International Law and Global Governance are the only functional theories offered by political skill that could possibly sooner or late reach this goal .
2. International Law: Definition, development and principles
“ International Law ” is a term which does not completely speak for itself. The “ Law ” ( which means principles of judge standardized by abridge and custom1 ) does not refer to nations, but to states – since these are the main actors in external relations. however, there are farther subjects of International Law, for exemplar international organizations like the EU or heathen minorities .
International Law aims to set rights, duties and rules for the sexual intercourse of these actors. The actors must lead a continuous relationship ( otherwise there would not be any need for regulation by law ), recognize each early as subjects of International Law and acknowledge that agreements or treaties can not be changed by one party only .
One may already find examples for such rules between states in the greek system of city-states. They developed “ inter-city-state ” rules for deal, war and mental hospital. The peace of Westphalia from 1648, which marked the end of the Thirty Years ’ War, is generally accepted as the beginning date of classical International Law. This law referred largely to lords and kings as representatives of autonomous states and stretched out to non-European countries during the nineteenth century .
Modern International Law evolved in the twentieth century with the foundation of the League of Nations and the United Nations Organization regarding the experiences of the World Wars. It is endlessly gaining new areas and depths ( e. g. concerning enforcement and sanctioning ) ampere well as in work of globalization. full of life impulses for this development came from decolonization. merely as autonomous states the former colonies could participate in the international system. Modern International Law shows a tendency towards a genuine right of humans and peoples next to the “ Staatenverkehrsrecht ” 2 ( bare rules for states ’ coexistence ). But the most essential difference between classic and modern International Law is the judgment of war : whereas peace and war were both legal and evenly evaluate states before the foremost World War, war and violence became more and more ban and prevent during the twentieth century .
One of the winder principles of International Law is reign. It stands for independence – inwards and outwards. sovereignty means to have no other air force officer or authority above oneself, but it must not be confused with not being obliged to follow the law. Of course, one must keep in judgment that absolute independence is hardly approachable evening for a “ autonomous ” department of state. Most states in our modern international system depend on ( e. g. craft ) relations with other countries and they recognize international organizations as authorities, which may influence their national government .
In addition, the content of the mind “ reign ” has undergo deep changes during the past 300 years : while it was in the first place considered a quality of kings and lords in their capacity as country leaders, sovereignty belongs to the people nowadays, at least in democratic states .
To summarize, one might possibly say that due to globalization and democratization some parts of inbound and outward independence dropped away which makes it a morsel more unmanageable to shape an estimate of reign. possibly we would get a helpful answer if we asked people or regions who are not as used to it as we are in Western Europe but long profoundly for sovereignty like Kosovo or Chechnya. From the principle of sovereignty all other principles of International Law can be derived, for example that all states are equal. International Law never knew any kind of hierarchy – this is what the hypothesis says. In reality, the total of influence each state has in international relations ( and organizations ) differs widely and depends by and large on economic exponent. This is easily detectable glance at the development of China ’ s international function : the more its economic influence grows, the more grows its political influence in international relations as well.
Read more: Theatre Education & Performance
Another essential principle of International Law is mutuality. It is the explanation because of which the international system can work at all and the actors observe the rules – tied without a central authority that distributes sanctions for violations of International Law. It besides explains why the actors keep conventions or treaties .
The final crucial rationale that needs to be mentioned is the most unmanageable one : the prohibition of intervention. It developed as a part of modern International Law – in opinion of the fact that interposition could not have been forbidden while war was silent allowed. chiefly, it shall serve as a shield for weaker countries. It means that neither execution nor threat of any kind of violence – military, diplomatic, economic, propagandist etc. – between autonomous states is legal .
But this principle frequently collides with other norms of International Law, above all in the field of human rights. In each single situation the international community ( or rather the constituent members in the UNO ) is required to weigh unlike goods like sovereignty, protection of human rights or prevention of genocide against others .
3. Global Governance: Definition, principles and relations to International Law
Concerning Global Governance, there is no especial definition everybody agrees on. One potential trace may be the postdate : ball-shaped administration means the diversity of procedures that create rules for the local anesthetic, national, regional and global level in a free switch over against the background of globalization.3 Since the demands made by the problems in a globalize world differ broadly from the capacity of nation states to manage ball-shaped problems with conventional methods, external politics is forced to be globalized a well .
The formulation Global Governance appeared for the inaugural time in a reputation of the Commission on Global Governance in 1995. immediately, a discussion started about unlike interpretations of the term. Some believed that Global Governance means no more than an increase of multilateralism in international politics, which is ill-timed. Others assumed that Global Governance is equal with or demands a worldly concern government, which is besides amiss. The idea of a universe politics is neither realistic nor desirable because it could barely gain democratic legitimacy and would be besides far away from the actual problems. Global Governance decidedly implies the intend that government should take home on different levels, not entirely on the global one .
As I already mentioned, Global Governance is not limited to the global degree. On the reverse, it is a full of life rationale that government should take plaza on the horizontal surface which is suited best for the particular problem. This is called rationale of subordinateness. For example, the regulation of international cash flow can not be limited to the national level whereas the creation of a nature allow in Bavaria should be handled by local authorities. consequently, it is often the character that general formulations of political goals are carried out on an external level ( e. g. the formulation of the Agenda 21 at the global conference for environment and growth of the United Nations UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 ), but the concrete implementation ( creating nature reserves or laws for environmental protective covering ) takes set on the blot – in the nation department of state or on an even lower level .
furthermore, Global Governance is characterized by cooperation of country and non-state actors, for exemplar supranational systems like the European Union, NGOs ( non-governmental organizations ) like Greenpeace that stand for the civil society, external organizations like the WTO ( World Trade Organization ) or international regimes that are bound to a particular area of politics like the MTCR ( projectile technology control government ). many global problems require collaboration of these actors as it is the casing in the battlefield of human rights. They can only be protected effectively when the nation states ratify international conventions and NGOs like amnesty external observe thoroughly their submission. This development is accompanied with an increasing significance of cozy agreements .
Another condition of Global Governance is the redefine of reign rights. This means to link national administration and reign to the submission of globally accepted standards, e. g. homo rights. Countries, which do not follow these rules, must expect sanctions of the external community. however, this concept must be based on authenticity and requires surely a reformation and democratization of the United Nations Organization. Sanctions that are not clearly approved and defined by external institutions like the UNO ( e. g. the Iraq War ) are not legal even if they are necessary, desirable or morally advisable. Of course, one can besides not deny the problem to find these “ globally ” accept standards. They might vary decisively due to cultural differences .
Relations between Global Governance and International Law, similarities and distinctions Global Governance means political regulation on a global, international flush. such regulation requires rules and the confirmation of rules is law – which leads us to International Law. Vice versa, Global Governance is a progression and farther development of International Law. The single guarantee for the notice of International Law was the principle of mutuality until the concept of Global Governance arose. While in erstwhile times states could only hope that contracts were kept for the bare reason that the early party besides would not like to be betrayed, states are present urged or even forced to keep conventions because otherwise they are going to be punished by international administration institutions. At least, this is what Global Governance aims for. Thus, Global Governance multiplies the determine of external rules and norms on inner-state matters : be it a prescription of the EU that alters german citizens ’ customer habits or an internationally legitimized intervention that changes even the government of a area. It restrains sovereignty much more than International Law alone does. Looking at the begin time of the concept of Global Governance, it is easily recognizable that this concept developed due to severe breaches of International Law during World War One and Two ( apart from demands of globalization ) and consequently the claim for external institutions which are enabled to formulate stern rules, control their conformity and punish their misdemeanor .
Both International Law and Global Governance depend on a certain minimum consensus amongst all actors, despite countless differences, e. g. cultural ones .
On the other hand, International Law is chiefly mugwump from the type of government inside a department of state, it works in a community of monarchies, democracies, autocracies and sol on, whereas it emerged during the concluding years that Global Governance is close coupled with majority rule : rules, which are democratically legitimized, are much more likely to be followed than other rules. The notice of rules guarantees the effectiveness of administration – and this again strengthens the trust in and the satisfaction with the democratic political regulation. The more a organization of administration lacks central authorities and successful sanctions, the more it requires voluntary complaisance of rules. ball-shaped administration without democratic authenticity will always be baffling. An extra dispute between the two concepts is that the equality of all actors, as it is a principle of International Law, is realized even less in Global Governance, for example there are states with particular functions that enlarge their world power like the five permanent members of the Security Council of the UNO. finally, Global Governance involves much more different actors, e. g. NGOs which are not subjects of International Law .
Read more: Theatre Education & Performance
1 Krell, Gert 2004, Weltbilder und Weltordnung ( p. 148 )
2 Krell, Gert 2004, Weltbilder und Weltordnung ( p. 149 )
3 Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Zahlen & Fakten : Globalisierung, Global Governance – Einführung