Global Governance in the New Era: Concepts and Approaches

This book mainly introduces the concepts and approaches of global governance from the viewpoints of Chinese and Russian scholars and is divided into four parts. The first one deals with the concept of a new type of global governance, namely "Globalization 2.0". The second one is dedicated to institutions and multilateralism, including the importance and effectiveness of international institutions. The third part focuses on the important countries and regions in the new era, as well as such issues as the current global status quo, processes in Eurasia, the prospects of the U.S.-China-Russia trilateral relationship. The last part analyzes the future development of global governance and possible solutions of how it might be improved. Climate change, digital era, cyber security, financial and economic regimes, COVID-19 are all involved in this part. In short, this book is a profound and cutting-edge research on global governance. © China Social Sciences Press 2023.

China's Vision for a Future World Order and Its Implications for Global Governance

This analytical essay addresses authoritarian communitarianism as the normative and ideological underpinnings of the current Chinese foreign policy. In recent years, China has exhibited its ambition in bidding for its preferred world order, through both its rhetoric and behavior. Being well aware of this new development, people are debating about what is exactly China's world vision and its approach to a future world order. Driven by the puzzle in contemporary global affairs, this chapter focuses on the philosophical and ideological roots of China's world vision, rather than investigating its foreign policies directly. It is argued that China's world view today and its ensuing policy approach are substantially informed by the authoritarian version of communitarianism, deriving largely from the traditional Chinese thoughts of Confucianism. Inspired by authoritarian communitarianism as the main international ideology, China is envisaging a world order, based on values of international stability and communal harmony, emphasizing the role of nation states and vertical hierarchical order. This argument is further assessed with China's role and policy in the crisis of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic. Through this specific case, strength and limitation of China's world vision are better illuminated, with reference to global governance. It is concluded that the ideological struggle between China and mostly the West tends to generate substantial policy implications in contemporary global affairs. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

International Migration and Human Security Under the COVID-19 Pandemic

This chapter reviews the effects of the pandemic on population movements, following three human security frames of migration: (1) migration as a threat, (2) migrants as a population of concern, and (3) migration as a means for security. Despite great global efforts to debunk the myth of migration as a threat, the pandemic's nature has once again made the stereotype prominent. Distrust and xenophobia episodes have taken place worldwide, adding a new layer of complexity to the emergency. Moreover, an almost complete halt to migration closed the possibility of moving away from the direct disease threat and ensuing deprivation, not only because governments impeded new movements but also because people on the move found themselves in new precarious situations. The fall in remittances and relapses into poverty across the world are evidence of this trend, so any recovery strategy will have to include migration considerations. Finally, different migrants have fared differently against the pandemic's challenges: while specific vulnerabilities are notorious, contributions covering dangerous jobs during the emergency have also been exalted. Efforts to contain stigma and provide protection without discrimination will be necessary to potentiate the migration contribution to the pandemic recovery. Preventing further disease relapses remains a difficult problem to address. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 2022.

The Economics of Pandemics: Exploring Globally Shared Experiences

This book offers a lively account of the humanitarian, economic, societal, and planetwide impacts of the pandemics, the COVID-19 pandemic included, which are traced back to as early as the 14th century plague pandemic. Placing the pandemics along with other globally shared resources, such as global warming, AI singularity, and high-risk physics experiments, each of the nine chapters of the book discusses the global health crises from a variety of unique standpoints, including infectious diseases, economics, governance, and public health. Based on the historical records of past pandemics and the rich data from the COVID-19 pandemic, a conceptual framework is presented for the economics of pandemics as a globally shared experience. This book aims to critically examine salient features in the global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, including global governance, lockdowns, radical movements, and mRNA vaccines. The book will be a valuable resource to students, researchers, and policymakers who are working in the fields of environmental economics, global-scale public goods, and health economics. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022.

A Brief History of the G20 Institutional Dynamics (2008-2021)

The Group of 20 (G20) brought together leaders of the key advanced and emerging market countries to manage the 2007-08 financial and economic crises, reform the international architecture, devise a new global consensus, ensure recovery, and promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Established as an anti-crisis mechanism and designated by its members as a premier forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 transformed into a global governance hub. Since its first summit, the G20 has generated high expectations and has become a subject of research and assessment for analysts, mass media, and the general public. Each summit's deliberations, decisions, and engagements have been scrutinized. Critics of the G20 claim it has lost relevance and was not capable of responding to the degradation of multilateralism, or the COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis it induced. In this article, the logic of historical institutionalism is applied to explore the confluence of dynamics in the G20's evolution: demand for G20 leadership;agenda expansion and institutionalization;and legitimation, accountability, and engagements. It is concluded that the G20 changed global governance trends, creating a more inclusive global governance that integrates the G20's own extensive and diverse cooperation networks with the networks of the other international institutions and engagement groups involved in G20 policy processes. The networked governance, alongside the rotating presidency, the Troika, and various outreach mechanisms, augment the G20's authority and reduce the legitimacy gap perception. The benefits from the early decisions, established and expanding agenda, patterns of engagement, cognitive scripts, embedded ideas, and internalized norms became strong endogenous sources of stability, reinforced in positive feedback loops. Despite tensions between members, the value that the G20 provides and the global public goods it generates, real and expected returns, constitute significant incentives for the G20's continued engagement, sustain its evolving dynamics, and consolidate its path-dependency. The downside of the G20's resilience is its inability to undertake innovative initiatives in the wake of COVID-19 or to provide the powerful leadership the world needed to overcome the pandemic and the related economic and social crises. Notwithstanding these failures, the G20 remains the crucial hub of contemporary global economic governance. However, the lock-in may entail the risk of losing relevance to other institutions.

Politicizing Global Governance Institutions in Times of Crisis The Case of World Health Organization during the Coronavirus Pandemic

This article examines the politicization of the World Health Organization (WHO) over the course of the coronavirus pandemic ( January-December 2020), a paradigmatic case of politicization of global governance institutions. During the pandemic, the WHO was subjected to considerable scrutiny and contestation. This research focuses on politicization at the level of behavior and discourse. Conceptually, it leverages the analytic purchase of politicization and framing. Empirically, it is based on a corpus comprising 505 texts gathered from key actors involved. The analysis not only lays bare the varying demands and arguments vis-a-vis the WHO, but foregrounds the broad consensus among the actors examined (barring the Donald Trump administration) on the imperative to support the organization. Additionally, seven distinct frames on the WHO are identified: Puppet, Handcuffed, Scapegoat, Irreplaceable, Botched, Comme il faut, and Battleground. Together, they offer a holistic overview of the diverse perspectives on the WHO and its pandemic response.

COVID-19 and global governance

The COVID-19 epidemic has sent economic and social shockwaves reverberating across the globe, and has shaken governance institutions at every level and across a range of issues, from trade to health and climate change. The impact of COVID on these trends suggests some fruitful new directions for scholars of global governance and organizations. COVID has revealed the contingent, fragile nature of global governance institutions, as well as the limitations of power and authority in the face of large-scale crises. A disturbing implication is that threats need to be imminent and tangible to generate a meaningful governance response, but even then, actions are likely to be inconsistent and hard to sustain over time. The prospects are ominous for other looming crises such as climate change. The COVID crisis is likely to perturb the structures and processes of global governance, and particularly affect existing trends toward the rise in economic nationalism, authoritarian populism, and private and voluntary governance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Global health governance responds to COVID-19: Does the security/access divide persist?

This paper evaluates global health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic through the 'two regimes of global health' framework. This framework juxtaposes global health security, which contains the threat of emerging diseases to wealthy states, with humanitarian biomedicine, which emphasises neglected diseases and equitable access to treatments. To what extent did the security/access divide characterise the response to COVID-19? Did global health frames evolve during the pandemic?Analysis focused on public statements from the World Health Organization (WHO), the humanitarian nonprofit Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), and the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Following a content analysis of 486 documents released in the first two years of the pandemic, the research yielded three findings. First, the CDC and MSF affirmed the framework; they exemplified the security/access divide, with the CDC containing threats to Americans and MSF addressing the plight of vulnerable populations. Second, surprisingly, despite its reputation as a central actor in global health security, the WHO articulated both regime priorities and, third, after the initial outbreak, it began to favour humanitarianism. For the WHO, security remained, but was reconfigured: instead of traditional security, global human health security was emphasised - collective wellbeing was rooted in access and equity.

Global Diplomacy and Multi-stakeholderism: Does the Promise of the 2030 Agenda Hold?

The inclusion of non-state actors such as civil society, businesses, and research institutes as well as the establishment of partnerships as implementation mechanisms have become an integral part of global governance and intergovernmental diplomacy for sustainable development. This chapter assesses in how far the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals have held their promises for introducing innovative reforms in global diplomatic practices related to multi-stakeholderism, by making it more inclusive, integrative, and accountable. A mixed picture emerges, which is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This chapter also discusses the voluminous literature about multi-stakeholderism, and offers recommendations on strengthening the role of diplomats and international bureaucrats, and for making the UN system more fit for this purpose. Global diplomacy has a crucial role to play in leveraging innovative forms of multi-stakeholderism, and substantive shifts are needed. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

The role of BRICS in global governance to promote economic development

Background: The article assesses the significant role Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries, which comprise Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, play in economic development, and challenges experienced in realisation of economic goals. It is an area that is least researched in the domains of public administration. Aim: The focus of the article is on the role of BRICS in achieving economic development. Setting: The descriptive nature of the article provided a detailed explanation regarding the role of BRICS in the promotion of economic growth. Methods: The qualitative research method was adopted in this article to compile information. The information was compiled through the review of available secondary data (literature and document reviews) that include scholarly books, Internet sources, articles and official documents. Results: The findings confirmed that BRICS can achieve global governance through intercountry partnerships, which requires work on internal strategies to strengthen intra-BRICS relationships. Conclusion: The article is an effort to discuss the role of BRICS, emphasising their relevance to economic development, especially during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The suggestions can be applicable in country-specific contexts. Contribution: The article intends to advance knowledge of the possibility that the BRICS' combined economic strength may significantly contribute to the expansion of the world economy and, consequently, to the promotion of global economic governance.

BRICS and Global Health Diplomacy in the Covid-19 Pandemic: Situating BRICS' diplomacy within the prevailing global health governance context

BRICS have been cast as a bloc with the potential to make significant changes in Global Health. The management of the Covid-19 pandemic has shown divisions in the bloc and the limits of its ability to formulate policies or even act upon previously agreed positions. This paper employs an examination of BRICS Health Ministerial declarations and an analysis of power in International Relations to reflect on BRICS' Global Health diplomacy during the Covid-19 pandemic, covering the key questions of vaccine research and development, vaccine nationalism, and travel bans. It finds that multiple dimensions of power matter in Global Health leadership. © 2022, INSTBRASILEIRORELACOESINT. All rights reserved.

Changing Global Governance Context for Food Security and Nutrition

Through collective action, global governance helps identify, understand, and address problems that spill over national boundaries. Those problems include maintaining peace and security;developing and implementing rules with regard to trade in commodities and services, capital flows, and migration;containing transboundary pests and diseases;slowing global warming;and providing aid for needy countries and peoples. Specific international organizations (five discussed in Chapter 6) address these issues). The difference between global and national governance is that there is no global government. Global governance, through various international bodies and institutions, complements regional, national, and local governance in an important way and is the sum total of the informal and formal ideas, values, rules, norms, procedures, practices, policies, and institutions that govern all actors—states, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, nongovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, and the general public. The number of actors on the global governance scene has proliferated, as has the sheer number of international initiatives that have been started to mobilize incremental international funding in support of food security and nutrition since the 2007 food crisis. Many of the initiatives are reviewed in this chapter, showing that the amount of incremental funding in support of food security and nutrition, beyond traditional sources raised, was insignificant compared to the number of international consultations held. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program was a notable exception, as well as the Agricultural Market Information System. This situation appears to have changed for the better since the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter examines the relationship between global, regional, national, and local governance. © Uma Lele, Manmohan Agarwal, Brian C. Baldwin, and Sambuddha Goswami 2021.

Geopolitical shift at a time of Covid-19 and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: A case study of Chinese innovation in multilateralism

How China will contribute to global governance has become a critical question in international relations, amplified by the linkages between the Covid-19 pandemic, escalating geopolitical contest and multilateralism in crisis. China has been doubling down on its authoritarian model of domestic governance while becoming more internationally assertive, including in existing and new multilateral institutions. Meanwhile, the United States appeared in recent years to be undermining the institutions, norms and rules of the liberal international order that it, itself, built. The subsequent decline in international cooperation poses grave risks to public health, economic and other forms of security. Can China cooperate with other actors to contribute public goods and stabilisation of global governance in such a deteriorating international environment? While there is a wide range of institutions in which to examine China's growing role in international governance, from United Nations bodies such as the World Health Organisation and World Trade Organisation to regional initiatives such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, this paper examines the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), an example of Chinese innovation in multilateralism. Established amidst geopolitical contest, the new institution seeks to address the Asian deficit of financing for sustainable development. The bank challenges a number of prevailing norms, including replacing the disproportionate power of the US and the advanced economies in the multilateral system with a more proportionate role for China and other developing countries;a new focus on infrastructure-led development which is built on Chinese confidence in the East Asian development model;and a shift away from the Bretton Woods practices of using financing conditions to drive liberal democratic and neo-liberal economic reforms. At the same time as representing a challenge to the traditional order, the bank exhibits – at least to date – best practices in implementation and addresses previously unmet concerns of the developing world. While it is not possible to extrapolate from only one initiative to draw comprehensive conclusions about China's likely future role in global governance, the AIIB case nonetheless suggests that, at least in some fields, China will challenge liberal norms to reform rather than revolutionise the international order.

Health Silk Road: A Chinese Tool towards Global Governance?

Inserted in its strategy of Belt and Road Initiative, People's Republic of China (PRC) has been implementing some actions and programmes in health sector, leading to what is known as the Health Silk Road. Starting from internal healthcare reforms in the last three decades - aiming to achieve universal health coverage and a good network of primary care services - PRC is defining its strategy in order to be a relevant player in global health governance. Methodologically based on a literature review and a content analysis, this paper intends to shed light on several topics, such as: (i) the purposes of Health Silk Road - is it a way of reinforcing Chinese position in global order through health governance? (ii) PRC's management of the crisis caused by pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2 - can the Chinese approach to fight the virus be applied as a role model worldwide? These parameters will be framed in the context of geopolitics, soft power and global governance looking at provisional trends for medium-term future.

COVID-19 pandemic, global spread, issues, and challenges

COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly has a long-term implication for various aspects of governance. The coupled impacts of COVID-19 pandemic and natural hazards in global perspectives provided the opportunities to researchers, academicians, decision-makers, and practitioners to opening up new research avenues and policy requirements. Integrated assessment to quantify the societal consequences of the pandemic is the need of the hour to develop a comprehensive global response and recovery plan to regain the unprecedented impacts to global governance. The book is an attempt to conduct the assessment for regaining global phenomena;it is important to understand the cutting-edge vulnerability and deprivation to address inequalities between countries and shifting modality in risk governance. The case studies of COVID-19 pandemic impacts, governance, and consequences have been analyzed from various perspectives at the local, national, and regional levels. © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE G20 INSTITUTIONAL DYNAMICS (2008-2021)

The Group of 20 (G20) brought together leaders of the key advanced and emerging market countries to manage the 2007-08 financial and economic crises, reform the international architecture, devise a new global consensus, ensure recovery, and promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. Established as an anti-crisis mechanism and designated by its members as a premier forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 transformed into a global governance hub. Since its first summit, the G20 has generated high expectations and has become a subject of research and assessment for analysists, mass media, and the general public. Each summit's deliberations, decisions, and engagements have been scrutinized. Critics of the G20 claim it has lost relevance and was not capable of responding to the degradation of multilateralism, or the COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis it induced. In this article, the logic of historical institutionalism is applied to explore the confluence of dynamics in the G20's evolution: demand for G20 leadership;agenda expansion and institutionalization;and legitimation, accountability, and engagements. It is concluded that the G20 changed global governance trends, creating a more inclusive global governance that integrates the G20's own extensive and diverse cooperation networks with the networks of the other international institutions and engagement groups involved in G20 policy processes. The networked governance, alongside the rotating presidency, the Troika, and various outreach mechanisms, augment the G20's authority and reduce the legitimacy gap perception. The benefits from the early decisions, established and expanding agenda, patterns of engagement, cognitive scripts, embedded ideas, and internalized norms became strong endogenous sources of stability, reinforced in positive feedback loops. Despite tensions between members, the value that the G20 provides and the global public goods it generates, real and expected returns, constitute significant incentives for the G20's continued engagement, sustain its evolving dynamics, and consolidate its path-dependency. The downside of the G20's resilience is its inability to undertake innovative initiatives in the wake of COVID-19 or to provide the powerful leadership the world needed to overcome the pandemic and the related economic and social crises. Notwithstanding these failures, the G20 remains the crucial hub of contemporary global economic governance. However, the lock-in may entail the risk of losing relevance to other institutions.

COVID-19 from the lens of Global International Relations

Although the initiation of COVID-19 vaccination brought hope, IFM forecasts that the main fault line to global recovery is access to vaccines, an argument that reinforces the idea that COVID-19 is a syndemic and not a pandemic. This article argues that from the lens of Global International Relations three elements impact vaccine access and affordability: human security, global governance, and International Law. First, the health emergency requires rethinking security considering the multiple risks and threats centred on the human being. Second, inefficiency of global governance led to the success of vaccine diplomacy over Covax Facility, as well as India and South Africa's long and uncertain struggle for a waiver in the World Trade Organisation. Finally, although Law plays an essential role in building resilience in situations of vulnerability, the international legal system lacks treaties that rule pandemics or establish limits to intellectual property if the immunity of herd requires it. (English) [ FROM AUTHOR] Aunque el inicio de la vacunación contra la covid-19 trajo esperanza, el Fondo Monetario Internacional pronostica que la principal falla en la recuperación global es el acceso a las vacunas, argumento que refuerza la idea de que la covid-19 es una sindemia y no una pandemia. Este artículo sostiene que, desde la perspectiva de las relaciones internacionales globales, tres elementos impactan en el acceso y asequibilidad de la vacuna: la seguridad humana, la gobernanza global y el derecho internacional. En primer lugar, la emergencia sanitaria requiere repensar la seguridad considerando múltiples riesgos y amenazas centrados en el ser humano. Asimismo, la ineficacia de la gobernanza global condujo al éxito de la diplomacia de las vacunas sobre el Mecanismo Covax, así como a una larga e incierta lucha de India y Sudáfrica por una suspensión temporal de las patentes en la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Finalmente, si bien el derecho juega un papel fundamental en la construcción de resiliencia en situaciones de vulnerabilidad, el sistema internacional carece de tratados sobre pandemias o que establezcan límites a la propiedad intelectual si la inmunidad de rebaño así lo requiere. (Spanish) [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of OASIS - Observatorio de Análisis de los Sistemas Internacionales is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Especiales (CIPE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

World Without End: Which Future for Governance? Reasons and Aspect of a Political-Institutional Paradigm’s Crisis

«Governance» seems to be a magic word, to be used (and abused) in different contexts. In the Seventies, it was used in the economic field, in terms of corporate governance, for indicating a deliberative process adopted by companies, especially in the US. At the end of the Eighties, governance became a political-institutional global order aiming to govern transformations brought by globalization. Despite of its success, governance showed its weakness in terms of legitimacy, consensus and accountability. It has been especially the Great Recession (2008-2015) to highlight the vulnerability of a political global order based on the autopoiesis and rationality of markets. Nevertheless, we cannot say that governance is ended: political and economic interdependence amongst national States, the Covid-19 pandemics, climate changes, immigration and other global instances show us how important is to rebuild a global good governance. © 2022. Ragion Pratica.All Rights Reserved

Bioethics After Covid

This chapter will analyze the implications of Covid-19 experiences for bioethical discourse. Mainstream bioethics operates with the ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence, and justice. Within this framework, ethical dilemmas are identified between personal freedom and public health, for example in regard to quarantine, face masks, and testing. The framework also encourages balancing benefits and harms of policy interventions and potential medical treatments and vaccines, as well as weighing different values such as health, freedom of movement, and employment. This chapter argues that from the perspective of global bioethics, a wider framework of ethical considerations should be used, especially vulnerability, connectedness and community, solidarity and cooperation. As a global phenomenon, the pandemic cannot be only interpreted from an individual point of view;it problematizes social and communal relations and requires a social and global ethical perspective. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

The Transformation of Global Governance System from the Perspective of National Governance: China's Participation in Global Governance as an Example

In the year of 2020. the Covid-19 global epidemic poses a major challenge to national and global governance. On the one hand, this epidemic is a test of national responses to major public emergencies, and on the other hand, it exposes the dilemma of global governance in non-traditional security areas. International health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), have not played their proper role in the prevention and control of the epidemic, while national actors have been brought back to the center of global governance. After the Covid-19, non-traditional security threats have brought harm to countries and international communities even beyond the traditional security threats. Against this backdrop, the failure of global governance by international organizations and major power politics has been demonstrated, while the governance capacity of national state has provided the strongest support for the global governance system in terms of cross-border solutions, and diversified development ideas. China's concept of global governance is rooted in its national governance philosophy. It has evolved from its original position as a participant in the global governance system to a recent position as a defender and facilitator, and then to the current position as an innovator and leader after several transformations of governmental functions. Being a responsible power, China is continuously strengthening the modernization of its national governance capacity, advocating the concept of consultation, contribution and shared benefits, and promoting the reform of the global governance system. © 2022 Aalborg University. All rights reserved.