Mohammad Aftab Alam

Professor, Department of Political Science, AMU, Aligarh –U.P-202001

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i08-92

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

Unlike national societies and systems, it is generally assumed that international society of nations lack formal institutional framework of governance comparable to notion of state sovereignty. To a large extent, this assumption is quite plausible as exact replication of state sovereignty has not been achieved in international system. Thus, there is no supra sovereign governing the nation states constituting the international community.

But on the contrary, there is myriad of international institutions, organizations, conventions, protocols which are able to establish a set of rule-settings for state actions greatly eclipsing the classical idea and exercise of state sovereignty.

This is an undeniable fact that at no point of time of human civilization, people and communities spread across the globe in concrete national and state identities have been so close due to epic revolution in the fields of information and communication technology. As a resultant factor, there is a definite paradigm of global world order. Globe has shrunk to the extent that interaction among these national communities has achieved greater speed and volume.

Every activity of these national communities are getting governed and regulated by a framework of rules commonly agreed by the majority of them. From seas to space, war to peace, trade to commence, postal to aviation, one can imagine any possible areas of those international interactions among the states, one finds a voluminous amount of international treaties, conventions, protocols, organizations, international non- governmental organizations, mass and digital media, global public opinion which restrict the unbridled exercise of state sovereignty and bound it to the global rules of governance in a profound manner.

The notion of the global world order has gained wide currency and has received extensive academic acceptability as a viable theoretical construct to make sense of the type of the world we are placed in at the moment. If there is a global world order then in what ways this order has been achieved? It has been achieved through definite, conscious and historic growth towards global governance both in its theoretical and institutional forms.

Within various theoretical attempts to grasp this phenomenon of global governance, Realist and Liberal paradigms provide two broad prisms to understand the theoretical viability and institutional infrastructure of global governance. This research paper is a humble attempt to explain the main concerns of the theoretical stands of realist and liberal paradigms and various sub-streams emerging with them.

REFERENCES


1) E.H. Carr, The Twenty Year‟s Crisis, 1919-1939, 2nd edn. (London: MacMillan, 1951).

2) S.D. Krasner, „Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables‟, International Organisation, 36, 1982, pp. 185-205.

3) David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.) Governing Globalization: Power Authority and Global Governance (Oxford: Polity, 2002).

4) Robert Gilpin, „A Realist Perspective on International Governance‟ in David Held and Anthony McGrew(eds.) Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Oxford: Polity, 2002).

5) Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977).

6) Robert Gilpin, A Realist Perspective on International Governance in David Held and Anthony McGrew, Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance (Oxford: Polity, 2002).

7) E.H. Carr, The Twenty Year‟s Crisis, 1919-1939 (London: Papermac, 1981).

8) I. Clark, The Post Cold War Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

9) M. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York: Norton, 1997).

10) B. Russet and J. Oneal, Triangulating Peace (New York: Norton, 2001).

11) M. Howard, The Invention of Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

12) R.O. Keohane and L. Martin, „The Promise of Institutionalist Theory‟, International Security, 20 (1995), pp. 39-51.O. Keohane, After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

13) R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

14) Ibid, p. 54.

15) Ibid, p. 13.

16) J.M. Hobson, The State and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

17) R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

18) D. Deudney and G.J. Ikenberry, „The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order‟, Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 179-96.

19) G.J. Ikenberry, After Victory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

20) B.G. Peters, Institutional Theory in Political Science (London: Pinter, 1999). P. Pierson, „The Path to European Integration : A Historical Institutionalist Analysis‟, in W. Sandholtz and A. Sweet (eds.), European Integration and Supranational Governance (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998). Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstretch, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

21) G.J. Ikenberry, American Power and the Empire of Capitalist Democracy‟, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001), pp. 191-213. „America‟s Liberal Grand Strategy: Democracy and National Security in the Post War Era‟, in M. Cox, G.J. Ikenberry and T. Inoguchi (eds.) American Democracy Promotion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

22) G.J. Ikenberry, After Victory (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2001).

23) G.J. Ikenberry, American Power and the Empire of Capitalist Democracy‟, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001), pp. 191-213.

24) G.J. Ikenberry, After Victory (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2001).

25) Ibid, p. 5.

26) Ibid, p. 7.

27) D. Deudney and G.J. Ikenbercy, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 179-96.

28) A. Moravcsik, „Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics‟, International Organisation, 51 (1997), pp. 513-33.

29) V. Cable, Globalization and Global Governance (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1999). a. Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). b. M. Edwards, Future Positive: International Cooperation in the Twenty First Century (London: Earthscan, 2000). c. R. Keohane, „Governance in a Partially Globalized World‟, American Political Science Review, 95 (2001),pp. 1-13. d. W.H. Reinicke, „The Other World Wide Web: Global Public Policy Networks‟, Foreign Policy, Winter (1999), pp. 44-57. e. James N. Rosenau, „Change, Complexity and Governance in Globalizing Space, in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating f. Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). g. A.-M. Slaughter, „Governing the Global Economy through Government Networks‟, in M. Byers (ed.), The h. Role of Law in International Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). i. T.G. Weiss and L. Gordenker, NGOs, the UN and Global Governance (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996). j. N. Woods, „Good Governance in International Organisation‟, Global Governance, 5 (1999), pp. 39-61.

30) R.O. Keohane, „International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?‟ Foreign Policy, Summer (1998), pp. 82-96.

31) C.R. Beitz, „Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism‟, International Affairs, 75 (1999), pp. 347-77.

32) C.R. Beitz, „Does Global Inequality Matter ?‟ in T.W. Pogge (ed.), Global Justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001)

33) C. Jones, Global Justice: Defending Cosmopolitanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

34) C.R. Beitz, „Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism‟, International Affairs, 75 (1999), pp. 347-77.

35) K. Hutchings, International Political Theory (London: Sage, 1999).

Volume 07 Issue 08 August 2024