ABSTRACT
This chapter considers how far the governance of processes of globalisation is being managed at a national, international or global level. Hirst and Thompson (1996 – also discussed Chapter 4) contend that despite an increasing number of issues having a global dimension, they continue to be responded to at the governmental level, and by ad hoc collectives of states rather than by an overarching global governing authority. While the popular belief of some conspiracy theorists might be that the UN fulfils the role of a global government, the number of UN resolutions that are ignored or actively broken contradicts this view. Important UN agencies contribute to global governance, but do not ‘do’ global government. Certain aspects of the work of the UN, notably its specialised agencies, have a very important role. However, this is not a supranational organisation. It does not have coercive power. Rather, it is a voluntary collective of states that all retain their sovereign autonomy. It works by consensus (although, as we shall see later in the chapter, consensus can also be powerful). This raises questions about the fundamental definition and workings of international and/or global governance. Is ‘governance’ simply the coordination of national policies, or does there have to be a greater sense of the rule of law and, crucially, of its enforcement? Does this create a different kind of authority in international relations? Or does it reinforce and develop existing patterns of domination – global hegemony?
