英语论文网

state and non-state actors, it is evident that sovereign states are gradually losing their competence to provide security and development in the new system. However, they have adapted themselves as partners in progress with non-state actors who now provide innovative forms of mobilisation, intervention and systems of material reward in the interests of global governance. (Duffield; 2002 77)
Process of Global Governance
Base on its definition, global governance is the process of governance which involves state and non state actors working through formal and informal ways to find solutions to the problems of development and security that is beyond the capacity of any individual public or private actor. Interdependent networks of action are formed in the process between all actors from the state level to the regional, continental and global plane.
James Rosenau captures this as the degree which authority is formally established to the degree it flows in horizontal and vertical order. (Sending and Neumann; 2006) Hence the variety of actors such as governments, transnational corporations, NGOs and IGOs involve in the process is of major interest.
The working arrangement shows that the result of the erosion of state power and the proliferation of NGOs and other actors resulted in the state losing its principal control of governing activities within or across its territories and adapted to the emergent system as a mediator to legitimise the powers of the new actors before its citizens. (Sending and Neumann:2006,655)
To assert sovereignty, the bedrock of government, states enact laws to dictate how the country is governed, while global governance replaces law with tactics. Tactics are used to enforce compliance from individuals, groups and the state as a whole (Sending and Neumann: 2006, 656). The conditions set by the Bretton Woods institution to dictate how states run their economy is a strong example of using means rather than laws to achieve set objectives. Sending and Neumann use the Graham Burchell work quoted below to drive home the point;
‘‘offering’’ individuals and collectivities active involvement in action to resolve the kind of issues hitherto held to be the responsibility of authorized governmental agencies. However, the price of this involvement is that they must assume active responsibility for these activities, both for carrying them out and, of course, for their outcomes, and in so doing they are required to conduct themselves in accordance with the appropriate model of action’’
Closely related to the compliance the Bretton Woods obtain from nation-states, NGOs also use tactics to model the states after internationally recognised principles. The efforts of NGOs and the Norwegian government to advocate the ban on landmines is a case in point.
Beside the clear forms of economic regulation, the conventional concept of political democracy is still emerging. However, the concept of democracy makes more understanding when it is view more as a system that affords participants the opportunity to deliberate, agree and disagree over common issues facing them and collectively seek for ways out of complex situations. This is the central theme of democracy and not elections. Base on this, an action is considered legitimate if it is a product of deliberation amongst the people subjected to it. (Dryzek, J; 1999, 43).
This perspective makes sense when applied to global governance