The international community has achieved significant advancements in various fields, including engineering, agriculture and food production, healthcare, industrialization, digitalization, and communication technology. However, Our Global Neighborhood by the Commission on Global Governance suggests that the human race is far from achieving its peaceful co-existence and stability goals. According to its authors, the high prevalence of humanitarian crises, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and occasional conflicts between geographically bound countries, shows that the institutions established to oversee global governance are limited in their abilities. The author calls for envisioning a future where state actors do not only consider their interests but the interests of all other players, including their citizens, NGOs, and the environment. As a result, Our Global Neighborhood calls for collaboration and cooperation between states, strengthening international instruments, and active engagement and citizens’ participation in global governance. Thus, its policy suggestions are reasonable because they aim to minimize conflicts and individual suffering and assure the collaborative development of the human race.
Book Summary
Our Global Neighborhood is a book that touches on critical world issues, such as the role of states and international organizations in championing democracy and establishing a supportive environment for future generations. However, the authors suggest that significant shifts in people’s preferences and dynamics, such as the increased focus on human rights, democracy, demilitarization, equity, and environmental conservation, have altered approaches to global governance (Commission on Global Governance, 1995). Some institutions have more power than national governments and state departments. According to the authors, globalization, military transformations, widespread violence, civil conflicts, poverty, the media, limited resources, a growing population, and economic trends are among the factors that obligate states to pay more attention to their actions and responsibility of creating a better world (Commission on Global Governance, 1995). However, while some powers seek to enhance equality and assure peaceful co-existence, others are self-centred and destructive. Nevertheless, the increasing interdependence of state actors demands acknowledging the well-being of others in internal affairs and foreign policy.
The authors of Our Global Neighborhood note that sovereignty has both positive and negative implications on state relations and the behaviours of international actors. Sovereignty is a concept that assigns state governments total control of matters within their borders. As a result, it is unacceptable for countries to interfere with others’ issues without just cause. The power to rule over individuals within a particular jurisdiction has allowed many countries to gain their independence and fight off imperialism. However, powerful countries often misuse the concept of sovereignty to influence other countries by exercising control over international instruments (Commission on Global Governance, 1995). In other words, sovereignty allows superior nations to benefit more from participating in international community activities than weaker nations. Additionally, non-democratic governments use their principles to evade scrutiny and criticism for their human rights violations, unjust laws, and brutal policies. Therefore, although sovereignty is critical in assuring the security of national governments and limiting aggression between powerful and weaker nations, it allows some governments to deny people fundamental rights and access to the rest of the world.
Instruments such as the UN Charter significantly regulate global governments and drive positive national developments toward peace, stability, and sustainability. However, the authors hold that the changing landscapes require the United Nations to re-examine their methods of preserving world peace and focus on the well-being of people and the planet instead of only addressing state interests. Particularly, the security of individuals is assured when humanitarian organizations carry out initiatives to provide relief and oversee adherence to basic human rights and the safety of victims in conflict-stricken areas (Commission on Global Governance, 1995). Thus, the UN should prioritize establishing economic and social conditions where humans thrive. Similarly, the international community, through the UN Security Council, should enhance its capacity to anticipate, identify, prepare, and deal with conflicts before they escalate into military confrontations. Although International Law empowers the UN to act in extreme situations, the lack of global legislatures or police to reinforce its principles erodes its effectiveness in case of disobedience. Thus, embarking on strategies to encourage or obligate state actors to abide by the rules of International Law is vital to achieving global democracy and political stability.
Critique
The Commission on Global Governance’s main agenda is reducing the levels of insecurity brought by the sovereign nature of states and competing interests between countries. However, they propose that it is challenging to realize the dreams of global democracy without establishing specific and reinforceable guidelines to obligate national governments to adhere to human rights guidelines and stipulations (Commission on Global Governance, 1995). The authors call for a decreased focus on military capacity and collaboration to ensure collective advancement. Nevertheless, to achieve this, all countries should acknowledge their roles in international peace and stability by adhering to the stipulations of universal institutions and legal instruments that facilitate coordination (Fassbender, 2018). Thus, the authors offer a reasonable argument because the most significant threat to global peace and stability is the occasional conflict between countries seeking to increase their superiority over others and gain more control of natural resources. Issues such as ethnic clashes, genocide, terrorism, and the rise of militia groups occur because of turmoil facilitated by resource scarcity (Ghassim et al., 2022). Therefore, instead of the perception of garnering the most power, nations should focus on improving everyone’s lives by adhering to stipulations provided as a result of states’ treaties and agreements.
The book’s main strengths are its acknowledgement of all international actors responsible for guiding policy decisions and the quality of state relationships. Like national governments and global humanitarian organizations, citizens should play a significant role in their governance because they experience the most implications from ineffective policy decisions that do not prioritize their rights and safety (Ghassim et al., 2022). Bodies such as the UN have achieved significant advancements since their establishment but have several weaknesses that limit their goals of securing human life. There is no binding instrument or policing strategy to bring human rights violators to justice. Therefore, international institutions depend on treaties and states’ willingness to be subjected to justice in case of going against the law (Wallace & Martin-Ortega, 2020). As a result, some nations take advantage of their sovereignty to carry out heinous acts against individuals within their borders and other less powerful nations. Additionally, the close association of non-state actors with politics allows superior powers to yield global initiatives to their benefit (Fassbender, 2018). Thus, it is necessary to create conditions that champion justice and integrity for all international community members to help spearhead collective advancement and democracy.
Nevertheless, the reasoning provided by authors regarding establishing a national guard to oversee adherence to international law is not feasible since it can draw states into conflict and facilitate another revolution to oversee changes. The sovereignty of states is the most critical feature of international relationships because it facilitates interdependence through rewards and punishments (Mingst et al., 2018). No state has access to all the resources it requires, thus obligating them to cooperate with others to achieve sustainability. However, a universal institution to police state initiatives poses a risk to underdeveloped or developing states as these institutions are under the control of some superior nations. Subsequently, superior states with conflicting interests may not adhere to these stipulations, plunging the global community into an era of power struggles and potential conflicts (Schachter, 2019). Rather than using force to police states, it is advisable to strengthen the effectiveness of existing strategies, such as imposing sanctions and making the implications of non-adherence more severe. In addition, universal institutions should focus on individuals’ critical needs instead of state demands, which will help avoid unnecessary conflicts.
Application
The current structure of global relations results from conflicts due to state differences and others’ ambitions to control international resources. However, several other factors contribute to conflicts between human beings, including cultural differences, religion, beliefs, and natural resources (Remler, 2020). Therefore, although sovereignty has flaws as it encourages nations to seek solutions to enhance their powers through any means necessary, the concept is beneficial as it assists nations in focusing on issues within their borders and dealing with them without external interference (Mingst et al., 2018). However, global governance is still a significant issue as some states take advantage of their sovereignty to rein terror. Moreover, some resolutions made by the Security Council, including assigning its members veto powers, are destructive since they allow them to escape international law (Schachter, 2019). For example, although Russia has gone against the stipulations of the UN Charter several times, its position in the US council prevents action over its atrocities in Ukraine (Remler, 2020). Thus, revisiting these principles and creating laws focusing on people’s safety and human rights is necessary.
Additionally, increased focus on state interests while neglecting the needs of the people creates tension within the global community due to increased power struggle. For example, China is currently locked in disputes with the US over numerous economic sanctions and conflicting foreign affairs interests (Fassbender, 2018). As a result, prioritizing state needs guides decisions that seek to protect their superiority instead of citizens’ development. International organizations should refocus their initiatives on joint economic prospects and collaboration between states while maintaining their sovereignty, as this will help prevent conflicts as both sides lose (Remler, 2020). Using force to achieve ambitions is considered adequate, especially when some parties provoke retaliation for human rights violations and immorality. Ecclesiastes 3:8 suggests a time for war, peace, a time to hate, and a time to love (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). However, God also clarifies that he hates war and hands that shed innocent people’s blood. Therefore, a more suitable solution to help advance positive developments in all nations is increasing the advantages of conforming to global community standards and human rights principles.
The principles of international relations guide the behaviours of state actors toward one another and their ambitions. Therefore, the structure of the global community is critical in facilitating peaceful relations, as cooperation and joint ventures will ensure more effective communication and advancements toward similar interests. Although international organizational play a significant role in establishing positive relations between countries, they should adopt an approach that promotes peace and stability instead of competition and conflicts. That being said, these bodies should focus on assuring the security and rights of the people through a system of rewards and punishments to obligate adherence. Hence, although the numerous changes in global dynamics have led to complex human problems, cooperation and limiting violence will ultimately allow individuals to reach their goals by sustaining current developments and facilitating continuous developments.
References
Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our global neighbourhood: the report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford University Press.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. Web.
Fassbender, B. (2018). What’s in a name? The international rule of law and the United Nations Charter. Chinese Journal of International Law, 17(3), 761-797. Web.
Ghassim, F., Koenig-Archibugi, M., & Cabrera, L. (2022). Public opinion on institutional designs for the United Nations: An international survey experiment. International Studies Quarterly, 66(3), sqac027. Web.
Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguin-Toft, I. M. (2018). Essentials of international relations. WW Norton & Company.
Remler, P. (2020). Russia at the United Nations: law, sovereignty, and legitimacy (Vol. 22). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Schachter, O. (2019). Authorized uses of force by the United Nations and regional organizations. In Law and Force in the New International Order (pp. 65-93). Routledge.
Wallace, R. M., & Martin-Ortega, O. (2020). International law. Sweet and Maxwell.