Just Security and the Crisis of Global Governance

2009

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the over ambition of the following statement “Global governance is essential for international security". The debate among scholars over the legitimacy of the world government or the recent soft term 'global governance', starting from the development project passing by the debit crisis reaching to the formation of the debit regime and ending up with the globalization project which paved the path to the disabling of the Third World via Free Trade and privatization uphold by the hegemonic quest of the world war 2 victors and their global power bodies such as, World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and UN Security Council etc. Security as the basic need of nations and individuals not mentioning the globe, is supposed to mainly regulate and advocate the process of securing social contracts between states and citizens politically, economically and socially(food, health, education…etc. It is as 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) defines it "being free from fear and want" which global governance failed to fulfill.

2012

This paper addresses the global governance of human security and particularly its provision across borders. It argues that the responsibility to protect (R2P) framework is part of global governance. Of special interest to this paper is the role the international community plays within the global governance of human security. The international community is assigned a collective responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity that becomes activated when an individual state fails in its primary, individual responsibility to protect. Moreover, the international community is assigned an ongoing preventative responsibility. In a sense the international community is a "governor" of sorts. Yet, the R2P framework is unclear in its conceptualization of the international community. Evidently within the R2P framework the international community is not a world government, a formal international organization, or necessarily synonymous with the society of states. Yet, existing alternative conceptualizations of "international community" are unhelpful. Hence the paper offers a novel suggestion: the international community as "potentiality." The concept refers to the possibility of forming a configuration of actors and networks for the purposes of solving global governance issues. My proposal captures both how the international community is in flux and ad hoc, and how one can see some permanence in the international community "governing" without being a government.

2019

The purpose of the article is to summarize the conceptual basis of the global security governance in the European context. Conceptual approaches to the research of the global governance issues in the field of security are presented on an interdisciplinary basis. It is argued that global security management is a complex phenomenon whose structure takes into account a sphere specificity, in particular, in the field of security. National security in the context of changing the general nature of wars and armed conflicts is considered as an open, dynamic, social system that is an integral part of international security and global governance systems in this area. It is stressed that new contradictions, armed conflicts and new power centers of the multipolar international political system have appeared. It is inappropriate to exaggerate the role of intergovernmental organizations and institutions in resolving international security issues, since implementation of any global solutions is impossible without participation and without taking into account the interests of sovereign states. The features of "hybrid wars" and "hybrid threats" and their powerful destructive potential are revealed in the article. It is consistently stressed that the organization of counteractions to such a system of threats requires timely identification of them on the theoretical level and definition of the status and countermeasures-on the practical level,including obligatory coordination of efforts with international security structures and support from influential states.It is argued that the existing balance of forces and interests in the world has been disrupted, the nature, scale and content of global challenges, threats and risks formed at the regional and local levels, that aregetting more and more complex in nature, have been changed. It is noted that geopolitical rivalry and struggle of great powers for natural resources have a threatening influence at the regional and local levels.

Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century, 2020

In this outstanding volume, López-Claros, Dahl, and Groff document the existential challenges facing our global institutions, from environmental decline and the failure of existing international security mechanisms to mass population flows and the crisis of sovereignty and civil society engagement. The resulting landscape might seem hopeless and overwhelming, if not for the authors' innovative, wide-ranging, and thought-provoking recommendations for reshaping existing institutions to expand their relevance and effectiveness. Their ideas for updating our seven-decades-old structures include creating an international peace force, ratifying a United Nations Bill of Rights, reforming the UN Security Council and International Monetary Fund, establishing a civil society chamber, and beyond. Readers may not endorse every one of their suggestions, but they are invited into a fascinating game of 'what if?' and 'why not?' It is an invitation that should not be missed." Donald Steinberg, Board member, Center for Strategic and International Studies "The current UN-based world system of governance, largely formulated in the mid-20th century after the Second World War, is not up to dealing satisfactorily with 21st-century problems. But it is what we have. The authors of this book suggest radical, even breathtaking, reforms to enable global governance to cope with current and prospective global problems, from keeping and enforcing peace, to inhibitingif not preventing -financial crises, to protecting residents of all countries from governmental abuse, to mitigating and adapting to climate change. These are desirable objectives, not yet feasible in a world of nationalistic states devoted to narrow national sovereignty. But political leaders eventually die, and the authors take comfort that today's youth, tomorrow's leaders, are much more conscious of today's global problems. This book provides an illuminating and provoking starting point for expanding our institutional ability to solve them.

2015

2012

He is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and v honorary professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland. Bellamy is director (international) of the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, having served as the centre's founding executive director (2007-2010). He is co-editor of the journal Global Responsibility to Protect and co-editor of a book series on the same theme. Bellamy was cochair of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific study group on R2P. His research interests are international peace and security, civil war, genocide and mass atrocities, UN conflict/mass atrocity prevention, peace operations and R2P. Dr Malte Brosig is a senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and holds a PhD from Portsmouth University. Brosig is co-chair of the working group on human rights at the German Political Science Association. He has published widely on the organisational overlap between international organisations in peacekeeping and norm promotion in Europe and Africa. Brosig is an editorial board member of the Journal on International Organization Studies. Dr Lars Brozus is a senior associate in the European Union (EU) External Relations research division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) based in Berlin. Brozus was managing director of the Berlin-based Collaborative Research Center 700 (SFB) (2006-2010) and worked as a foreign policy consultant to the German Parliament (2002-2006). Before that, he worked as a research associate at the University of Bremen/Technische Universität Darmstadt (1995-2002). Brozus's areas of expertise include the EU and global governance, fragile/limited statehood and international foreign and security policy, and conflict transformation and post-conflict peace building. Carl-Wendelin Neubert holds a law degree from the University of Freiburg. He is a researcher and doctoral candidate at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg, Germany, with a PhD scholarship from the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. His research area focuses on questions of counter-terrorism using criminal law, the generation of criminal law through the UN, and the blurring categories of criminal law, police law and international humanitarian law. His thesis investigates the legality of the use of lethal force by German security forces abroad. vi Dr Eduarda Passarelli Hamann holds a PhD in international relations and is a senior researcher at Instituto Igarapé, Brasilia. Her areas of expertise include peace operations, Brazilian foreign policy, and South-South cooperation. She is also a consultant to the World Bank and the Brazilian Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger. Her activities include coordinating a programme on Brazilian cooperation for international development, especially targeting activities in fragile and post-conflict countries. Passarelli Hamann advises the Brazilian government in the recruitment, training and deployment of civilians to missions in these contexts and discusses key foreign policy challenges, including the 'responsibility while protecting'. Katharina Wolf is currently studying for an MA degree in International Relations at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. She has worked as an intern at the office of the German deputy Andreas Jung and at the German Bundestag. She has also worked at the Paris office of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), and was awarded a KAS scholarship in 2010 for her high academic achievements. The Hanns Seidel Foundation (HSF), the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) and the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) are grateful to all those involved in the projects and activities leading up to and including the publication of this volume. Special thanks go to Dr Malte Brosig for his work as content editor, and to the authors for their insightful contributions -their innovative ideas and policy recommendations will move the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) debate one step further. Thanks also go to Lucy Kormann of the HSF for coordinating this publication, as well as to Dr Judy Smith-Höhn of SAIIA, Jennifer Schuster of KAS and Dr Festus Aboagye of the ISS for their valuable input. Our sincere appreciation goes to the German Embassy in Pretoria, which has supported the project since its inception in early 2011. Finally, the project would not have been possible without the generous support of the German Federal Foreign Office through the Institute for Cultural Relations (Institut fur Auslandsbeziehungen). viii The publication of The Responsibility to Protect -From Evasive to Reluctant Action? The Role of Global Middle Powers is the conclusion of a series of activities that started in 2011. Among the activities was a dialogue meeting to debate the many issues surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept from the perspective of four middle-power countries -Germany, India, Brazil and South Africa (GIBSA) -which are also aspiring permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members. The meeting, entitled 'The Responsibility to Protect -Views from South Africa, Brazil, India and Germany', took place on 7 June 2012 at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria and brought together some 80 participants. This assembly included high-ranking representatives of the foreign ministries of South Africa, Germany, India and Brazil, diplomatic personnel from these four embassies in Pretoria, representatives of international think-tanks from all participating countries, members of the South African parliament, scholars from Germany and South Africa, and civil society representatives. In this publication, researchers from leading think-tanks in the four GIBSA countries present a variety of viewpoints on R2P. While the GIBSA countries demonstrate widespread support for R2P, there is no single overriding position. Many of their official standings mirror the arguments on R2P in the global discourse. Considering the prominent role that GIBSA countries play in their respective regions and their increasing importance on a global level, this publication provides a fascinating insight into their debate on R2P, which, too often, is overshadowed by the views of the permanent members of the UNSC. In addition, two young scholars take a fresh look at R2P and add a new dimension to the on-going dialogue. The Responsibility to Protect -From Evasive to Reluctant Action? The Role of Global Middle Powers aims to stimulate new thinking and to nurture a common understanding of the use and limitations of R2P. This discussion is urgently needed given that many internal conflicts are still being waged that put civilian populations at risk. We trust that this publication will make a small but important contribution in this regard.

THE ROUND TABLE: THE COMMONWEALTH JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Vol 103, No. 3, June 2014, pp. 362-364.

One of the more fascinating themes of the present debate about the role of the State in international relations is the concept of human security. It was first introduced in the Human Development Report published in 1994 by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as one of the five pillars of a new “people-centred world order”. It was used to identify a new approach to security based on a two-fold conception of the term: “first, safety from chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life”. Since then, it has developed within the new policy framework of human security governance. My interest is thus to investigate the relation between human security governance and the State as it is implied in current debate on human security. I will attempt to draft the central features of multiform policies, set to work by – and by means of – multiple actors, including the State, in order to bring about economic development, security and democratic government. I will focus on migration and global policies on recovery and support of displaced people so to highlight the role attributed to the global market and to economic actors. Lastly, I will briefly discuss global security governance as an expression of a non-statal government over populations, which necessitates the strengthening both of statal institutions and of autonomous dynamics of the competitive market. In fact, the relation between human security as a framework and economic development has not received enough attention so far in current literature on human security.

The Developing Economies, 2016