Global governance, security governance, and an imperious United States
Chapter
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
Other
View All
Overview
abstract
Global governance and security governance remain incomplete and under construction. Despite the evident need for global and security governance and the opportunities for broadening and deepening the project provided by the Cold Wars end, its future remains uncertain. Governance has been undermined of late, put at risk by a United States long considered one of its foremost cham pions. Its future and the prospects for a post-realist, post-Westphalian world depend in no small part on the future grand strategic choices made by this erstwhile champion. If a longer term governance crisis is to be averted, the system hegemon must be made safe for the global and security governance project. A distinctly institutional approach to global and security governance is employed here. Institutional arrangements, both formal and informal, are the infrastructure of governance. Without institutions, governance cannot be sustained. In the absence of a legitimate institutional framework, problems will not be addressed, managed, or solved collectively and cooperatively. The oft-noted distinction between government and governance thus should not be overdrawn. Global governance and security governance entail the development and the broadening and deepening of effective governmental-like functions and capabilities that can mitigate the effects of systemic anarchy and the security dilemma. This exercise in theoretical exploration and reflection, theory and practice, and protest proceeds in five parts. First, the concept of security governance is situated as it must be in the broader context of global governance; an attempt is made to convey the conceptual and, briefly, empirical essence of both. Second, the nature of the relationship between domestic and international governance is explored; questions are raised about the implications of departures from the practice of good governance at home and the embrace of global and security governance abroad. Third, Americas recent break with its previous support for the global and security governance projects2 are addressed and, as it cannot but be, lamented. Fourth, the European Unions embrace of governance is contrasted with Americas retreat from it. And fifth, the prospects that the governance projects will be restored to a prominent position in US grand strategy are considered.
