ABSTRACT
Comparative analyses of commonwealth structures are rare (Shaw, 2010). International relations (IR) studies, and their various economic and foreign policy subsets, have not fully availed themselves of the research opportunities of investigating the commonalities of these structures, or their contributions to global governance. That there are even fewer comparisons of the Commonwealth with other major international organisations (IOs) is downright puzzling. The critical mass of post-war heritage, institutional similarities and policy motivations shared between commonwealth entities and most contemporary (albeit western) IOs and their subsequent impact on 20th century soft power represents a wealth of unexplored potential. As Shaw argues (2010, p. 333) argues, the various commonwealth entities1 ‘deserve to be juxtaposed with myriad other international networks’ with the hope that such ‘overdue attention might also generate policy considerations or innovations’. The themes pursued in this special issue are thus both
salient and belated. As will be explored in this article, both the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Union (EU) represent different facets of contemporary multilateralism, have a markedly different impact on their respective members, and yet represent ‘distinctive global networks’ that struggle, with varying degrees of success, to transcend their inheritance (Shaw, 2010, p. 334). This makes them both formidable ‘hybrid’ actors that can contribute to, and even constitute, global governance, while simultaneously-even maddeningly-defying easy description. This article begins by examining the concept of ‘soft power’, and its ability to give
meaning to, and emerge from, the normative foundations of entities such as the EU and the Commonwealth. From there, it moves on to survey the structural and normative challenges facing both entities, suggesting that both operate on a value-based foundation, but have dealt differently with contemporary challenges to their respective normative templates. From there, the article examines the specific manner by which ‘house values’ are used to define the home institution, calibrate its relations to its members, and ultimately influence non-members. Here the role of development policy takes centre stage, with the Commonwealth being repeatedly advised to ‘promote positive economic outcomes and prosperity through better enforcing its values’, and the EU moving development policy alongside diplomacy and defence as part of its broad spectrum approach to international engagement (Gruenbaum, 2014, p. 370). The article concludes by offering a series of pragmatic policy reforms that both must undertake if each is to tackle successfully the 21st century challenge of maintaining both structural and substantive integrity.
