The book Our Global Neighborhood presents a political agenda for a new world order in the aftermath of the Cold War, with a significant emphasis on globalization and economic interdependence, global governance with expanded powers for the United Nations, along with the common security and the rule of law. Global governance is the primary concept of the book, suggesting that it is a complex interconnection between various stakeholders and communities in both formal and informal settings, including but not limited to countries, economic sectors, ethnic groups, grassroots movements, multinational corporations, and others. The authors viewed the United Nations as the fundamental part of the new world order, providing the formal global governance of nations cooperating to solve the world’s problems. One of the key secondary points is the need to introduce necessary reforms to the UN, which is based on the post-WWII status quo and does not represent current realities, with the Security Council needing new members and the veto power being removed transitioning to a majority vote. While the UN would oversee formal governance of states and governments, the new reality would also promote informal governance where people and people-driven groups are central to driving policy or socioeconomic norms.
In this “global neighborhood” described above, the authors suggest that shared values must be promoted. These are key values that people can support regardless of their political, cultural, or religious/philosophical ideologies. These are largely fundamentally human values such as liberty, justice, respect for life, equity, and integrity. The report suggests the creation of a global ethic that would be taught and applied to those engaged in key decision-making. At the same time, it will be a global community that is based on the rule of law. The international courts will attain the power of enforcement, and adhering to it would be necessary to participate in the UN and global affairs, while the International Criminal Court would be used for genuine legal purposes, not as a political tool.
Security is another large concept present in the report. This refers both to traditional security and economic security. The model proposed gives the UN extensive rights to intervene in states where there are evident violations of security and rights of the people. International conflict prevention would peak, and the international community could quickly respond to any situation with a potential for conflict or aggressive action by any member state against another, both via military and sanctions. Meanwhile, economic security is aimed at maintaining a healthy economy which ensures following necessary economic principles, providing jobs, and offering states the ability to provide for their people. The economic security would be achieved through long-term planning, continuous cooperation and interaction between policy and sustainable development (Commission on Global Governance 1995).
Overall, the report presents a vision of a world that is highly globalized and has shifted governance to the global arena. The primary premise and argument for this suggested status quo is that human society has become interdependent in the modern age, so systems and institutions should be created that would allow this to thrive and benefit people through collective cooperation and international policy. The fundamental concepts touched upon would allow devising strategic frameworks and reforms to attain a globalized society through existing and new institutions, while also focusing on key areas which have been problematic in the world to date.
Critique
The primary criticism of this report is that it is unrealistic by all and reasonable expectations of the realities of this geopolitical world. In many ways, this felt similar to reading a utopian vision, except instead of being fictional, it was adapted to the existing world with real-world institutions. The issue is that while many of the book’s ideas were good and viable, its overall presentation as a strategic direction for the world is out of reach. While undoubtedly the world was in transition post-Cold War in 1995, potentially bringing hope for new beginnings, the authors certainly must have realized that there is a myriad of challenges and issues that would have to be addressed before something even remotely similar could be attempted. Of course, the Eurozone was a flourishing socioeconomic experiment at the time, which was gaining mainstream traction, particularly as countries from the ex-Soviet sphere of influence were applying to join. However, it was yet to be determined if that would work in the long-term, and applying such principles to a global environment would be both unrealistic and irresponsible, regardless of how interconnected human society has become.
One of the primary criticisms of this international neighborhood that could be argued is the principle of sovereignty. Henderson (2010) argues that international law does inherently have a vertical structure, because it is difficult to punish whole countries. International law is true law because it relies on voluntary compliance. Furthermore, it is more based on a horizontal structure, where states are sovereigns, legal equals and free of a central authority. States support aspects of international law due to mutual benefits and the concept of reciprocity. The order of international relations is that countries interact with one another and cooperate on mutual or global issues while maintaining sovereignty and control over domestic affairs (Henderson 2010). The international order described by the Commission explicitly seeks to establish the UN as a world government, with powers to interfere in state affairs if it sees fit, including if it decides that the state is violating the global values.
Going beyond the fact that this could once again be used as a tool to pursue the political interests of some states over others, realistically, no country would agree to this even with guarantees of global security and order. Sovereignty at its core is a critical principle to a nation’s existence; even though the report suggests that countries keep their borders and governments simply to operate within the framework of the order, it is inconceivable that major powers of the Security Council members would give up their geopolitical influence and sovereignty for a common cause, this applies from both western democratic powers as well as the eastern autocratic ones.
However, the report does offer some well-deserved insight, particularly regarding the works of the United Nations. The element in particular about the need to reform the Security Council and provide the international courts with more power is not unfounded. Payne (2016) outlines the critical role of the ICC and ICJ as legal bodies in international law. However, they lack both outreach (not all international law goes through their jurisdiction) and enforcement mechanisms. This leads to a significant range of international law violations, including some of the most atrocious such as genocide, virtually unpunished. Meanwhile, the Security Council system with its veto powers is tremendously ineffective, as the western and eastern powers are ultimately divided in ideology. As a result, it is more of a rare occurrence that a resolution passes through the Security Council rather than it does not.
In the recent ongoing crisis of the Ukraine invasion, the UN was notably criticized for its inaction, particularly because Russia holds veto power on the Security Council. Ukrainian Pres. Zelensky notably said, “We are dealing with a state that turns the right of veto in the UN Security Council into a right to die” (Semler 2022). The UN needs reform at the most fundamental level, if not as an international governance organization, but at the very least as an international body that has the power to sanction, enforce, and respond to global threats and issues more effectively. The Commission was correct in suggesting these changes, accurately criticizing the various problems that arise from the current structure.
Applications
A major public policy issue in the modern day across virtually every country, both developed and still developing, is inequality. Inequality stems from a range of factors, with international commercialization being one of them. It is a two-way factor in that globalization has both contributed to inequality but has also helped to relieve it by providing opportunities for jobs and economic development in some of the most remote and poorest parts of the world. The book views inequality as an “inequitable impact of political, economic, and environmental change on different segments of a population often gives rise to violent conflicts” (Commission on Global Governance 1995, p. 54). The authors suggest that the best solution to this is prevention by seeking to remove factors that can contribute to conflict. The Commission proposes to introduce international and bilateral policies, including addressing root causes in civil society to alleviate the economic inequalities. The UN and national governments should consider petitions from citizens and NGOs to draw attention to specific injustices (55).
In the international order proposed in the report, the system functions in a close cooperation and interconnection between the UN as a global body, national governments, and local municipalities, as well as other NGOs and IGOs. Regional and country representatives offer information and insight to the UN, with the body than making appropriate decisions. The collection, analysis, and dissemination of information are critical to early warning and prevention of conflicts at the international level and seeking to correct inequalities and injustices.
Global inequality has reached a peak level in recent years. In 2021, the poorest half of the global population owned just 2% of wealth, while the richest 10% owned over 76% of wealth (Myers 2021). Inequalities typically go beyond monetary wealth; it also impacts a range of social consequences. This includes quality of life, access to education, healthcare, and other socioeconomic concepts. However, solutions for inequality often imply the specific proposals that are made in the commission, which is to improve the civil services and access to societal improvement, including education, healthcare, and social protections such as minimum wages and workers’ rights (Kanbur 2019). The Commission promotes an approach that ensures security by addressing the root cause factors on the ground through cooperative intergovernmental and inter-organizational cooperation. In an international society where elements are closely interconnected between governments, NGOs, and private companies, this could allow focusing on socioeconomic policies with the aim to raise the ability of the poorest populations to earn monetary potential and begin to decrease the level of inequalities.
Reference List
Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighborhood. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, Conway W. 2010. Understanding International Law. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kanbur, Ravi. 2019. “Inequality in a global perspective.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 35, no. 3: 431–444.
Myers, Joe. 2021. “These charts show the growing income inequality between the world’s richest and poorest.” World Economic Forum. Web.
Payne, Richard J. 2016. Global Issues: Politics, Economics, and Culture, 5th edition. Boston: Pearson.
Semler, Ashley. 2014. “Why isn’t the UN doing more to stop what’s happening in Ukraine? CNN. Web.