An Introduction to Global Studies 9781138578937, 9781351263207

Table of contents :
Cover
Volume 1
Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of tables
About the authors
Introduction
1 Globalization
2 Global issues
3 Global economy
4 Global politics and global law
5 Globality
Index
Volume 2
Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
About the authors
Introduction
1 Global process
2 Global system
3 Global governance
4 Global civil society
5 Global interests and global ethic
6 Global order
Index

Citation preview

Global Studies

Since the 1950s, globalization has been an increasingly irresistible trend and one that has exerted a tremendous impact on the political, economic, military, environmental, and social fortunes of mankind – and yet, the existing theories in humanities and social sciences have been fundamentally built upon the traditional “nation-state” model. These two volumes, a pioneering work on global studies to be published out of China, aim at creating a new theoretical framework against the backdrop of globalization. This volume introduces core concepts and critical issues, deploying globalization as a theoretical framework and redefining the interrelationship between politics, economics, law, and globality. The two volumes are an essential reference for scholars and students in politics, economics, international relations, and law. Tuo Cai, Ph.D., is professor, doctoral tutor, director of the Institute of Globalization and Global Issues (IGGI) at the China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), and vice president and academic committee director at the National Institute of International Political Studies of Universities and Colleges. His main research areas include global studies and international relation theory; his main research issues focus on globalization, global governance, and cosmopolitanisms. Zhenye Liu is professor and deputy director of the IGGI at the CUPL. His main research areas include global governance and international relations theory, international organizations and institutions, NGOs and global civil societies, global issues, and global politics.

China Perspectives

The China Perspectives series focuses on translating and publishing works by leading Chinese scholars, writing about both global topics and Chinarelated themes. It covers Humanities and Social Sciences, Education, Media and Psychology, as well as many interdisciplinary themes. This is the first time any of these books have been published in English for international readers. The series aims to put forward a Chinese perspective, give insights into cutting-edge academic thinking in China, and inspire researchers globally. Recent titles in politics partly include: On East Asian Regional Cooperation I Ideality and Reality Zhang Yunling On East Asian Regional Cooperation II Ideality and Reality Zhang Yunling U.S.-China Relations in Strategic Domains Travis N. Tanner, Wang Dong Global Studies Volume 1: Globalization and Globality Tuo Cai, Zhenye Liu Global Studies Volume 2: Global Process and Global Governance Tuo Cai, Zhenye Liu The BRICS Studies Theories and Issues Xu Xiujun For more information, please visit https://www.routledge.com/series/CPH

Global Studies Volume 1: Globalization and Globality

Tuo Cai and Zhenye Liu Translated by Lei Ting

First published in English 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Tuo Cai, Zhenye Liu Translated by Lei Ting The right of Tuo Cai and Zhenye Liu to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. English Version by permission of Peking University Press. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-57893-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-26320-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of tables About the authors Introduction

vi vii 1

T UO CA I

1

Globalization

24

T UO CA I

2

Global issues

65

X I AOL I LY U

3

Global economy

88

LIN XIA

4

Global politics and global law

106

YA BI N CAO

5

Globality

128

T UO CA I

Index

143

Tables

0.1

Global Studies Educational Programs and Research Projects at Major Universities across the World 7

About the authors

Yabin Cao, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Marxist College in Northwest Normal University of China. His main research areas include global politics, states building and cross-border governance. Xiaoli Lyu, Ph.D., is an associate professor in Beijing Normal University. Her major research fields include globalization and global governance theory, Chinese public diplomacy and non-governmental organizations. Lin Xia, Ph.D. and postdoctoral researcher at Peking University, is a lecturer of the Institute of Globalization and Global Issues at China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL). Her research fields include global governance, global culture, international relations theory and China’s diplomatic history.

Introduction Tuo Cai

Global studies originated in the 1970s, when the Club of Rome initiated the research on global issues. As an emerging discipline, global studies has developed its unique sphere of interdisciplinary approaches, research frameworks, and discourses. To engage in such interdisciplinary research, it is essential to start with identifying the uniqueness of global studies as well as defining its disciplinary position and boundary through the lens of international relations, sociology, anthropology, and futurology. As global studies is at the early stage of its development, there still exist some uncertainties and even controversies, which in turn create space for further development. Arguably, global studies will have an increasingly broader reach due to the growing demand from social practices and human knowledge.

The rise of global studies Definition of global studies Global studies, also known as global research, is a burgeoning discipline and field of inquiry with its focus on transnational and global issues, carrying out interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research which entails a broad range of theories and methods from international relations to sociology, philosophy, economics, history, and culture. Global studies, defined as a new discipline, is oriented towards specialized academic spheres and educational programs which offer postgraduate degrees in global governance, global public affairs, global civil society, global development, global public health, global civilizations, and so on. Global studies originated in the 1970s from the Club of Rome’s series of inquiry into global problems. The early reports in Limits to Growth and Mankind at the Turning Point presented a global perspective, global awareness, and global concern regarding those issues, laying the foundation for the development of global studies. Alongside the deepening globalization and the growing impact of global problems, global studies started to blossom in the 1990s, witnessing the rising number of academic organizations, academic publications, and relevant educational programs ranging from

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207-1

2  Tuo Cai Bachelor’s, Master’s to PhD studies. It is in this blooming period that global studies continues to develop and specify its subject of study. However, it is noticeable that the academy has not yet reached a consensus on the definitions of this new field of interdisciplinary study. In general, common understanding and definitions tend to fall into the categories below. There is a tendency to treat global studies as a distinctively new discipline. Asian Association for Global Studies (AAGS) states that Global studies is a new field that has arisen due to the difficulty of understanding many of the world’s pressing issues within the confines of traditional academic disciplines. Primarily it aims for an integrated, multidisciplinary and critical understanding of social, political and critical understanding of social, political, economic and cultural phenomena in the world at large.1 The University of West Georgia specifies Global studies empowers us to see beyond our experiences, to understand the holistic nature of human interconnections. It utilizes a wide range of intellectual disciplines to broaden our understanding of our world and our place in it. These may include history, political science, science and medicine, philosophy and religious studies, geography and environmental sciences, as well as economics. It seeks to illuminate our understanding of such transnational and global phenomenon as environmental degradation, epidemic disease, mass migration, human rights issues, peace, conflict, global trade and economic linkages, and even spirituality. At its heart, global studies is about you as an individual and your global citizenship; it is about your identity within, experience of, and impact upon the world you live in. As a discipline, global studies prepares you to be better able to shape and improve your world.2 Moreover, American scholars Patricia Campbell et al. point out in An Introduction to Global Studies that the emergence of Global Studies as a distinct interdisciplinary field occurred at a time when globalization was increasingly and profoundly affecting multiple areas of people’s everyday lives. Scholars and students have found that global studies enhances our understanding of global phenomena by bringing the methodologies and discourses from a variety of disciplines to bear on many of the most pressing issues of our day.3 Some Russian scholars see global studies as a new discipline of the globalizing world which addresses the process of globalization and the attendant problems. As an interdisciplinary field of study, global studies draws on political science, sociology, cultural studies, and philosophy, but differs from those disciplines in its own methodology of problem analysis.4

Introduction  3 There exists another tendency which sees global studies as a new field of inquiry or research orientation. Some other Russian scholars think that global studies is an interdisciplinary scientific research aiming to reveal the nature and development of global issues, the core reasons for conflicts, and the accelerating globalization, and they explore the positive impact of those processes on humanity and the ecological environment as well as solutions to the negative effects.5 The term ‘Global Studies’ refers to the sum of scientific, philosophical, cultural, and applied research on global issues and different aspects of globalization, encompassing the research outcome and their practical application to economic, cultural and political fields across countries and the world at large.6 Likewise, the Global Studies Center at the University of Pittsburgh states that global studies focuses on the dynamics of globalization and its implications concerning resultant identity transformation, communications technology, society and globalization, global conflicts and solutions, global economy and global governance, global health, and sustainable development.7 However, some scholars hold the view that global studies cannot be pursued as a distinct discipline since its definition and conceptual framework are yet to be clarified. Russian scholar Kostin clearly points out that global studies, as an interdisciplinary research orientation, cannot be conceptualized or defined in its own research scope as do economics, philosophy, or political science.8 Despite the differences in understanding and defining global studies, the major common features or concerns have been identified as follows. First, global studies is premised on globalization and global issues, and it aims to explore global phenomena, global relations, and global values in the global age. Secondly, global studies emphasizes the holistic nature of the increasingly interdependent world which calls for repositioning of the individuals, nations, ethnicities, phenomena, structures, relations, systems, and values with which we are familiar. The holistic nature and operationality of the world have been the core of global studies, and much scholarship on global studies is concerned with the activities and relations of humanity as well as with the resultant transnational issues. Thirdly, global studies, as an emergent integrated discipline, cannot be defined within the traditional boundaries of the humanities and social sciences. One of its salient features is transdisciplinarity in research framework and methodology. In view of the above analysis, we would like to define global studies as follow: global studies emerges against the disciplinary background of globalization and aims towards global phenomena and global relations attendant on globalization. It is an emerging interdisciplinary field that intends to reveal globality and interconnectedness of the world as well as to seek global governance and the development of human beings in general.

4  Tuo Cai The emergence of global studies Academic disciplines crystallize with different backgrounds or conditions in their time. Those differing situations, on the one hand, necessitate social practices. For example, problems that threaten the survival and development of humanity arise in different eras and it takes time to solve them. On the other hand, herein lies the urgent need for advanced knowledge. When the existing knowledge cannot fully answer the new social problems or meet the challenges of new intellectual endeavors, it would therefore be necessary to open up a new field of inquiry and advance new theories or ideas. It is global studies that rises to the occasion. First of all, let us take a look into the need for social practice. The contemporary society is in a period of unprecedentedly large-scale transformations that features globalization, global issues, global governance, and concomitant challenges to the existing systems, concepts, values, and lifestyles. As human beings become interconnected across the world, the increasingly non-territorial, transnational issues should transcend the confines of national perspective and territorial boundaries and be addressed as a whole. However, in reality, our perception and action are influenced by the predominant state-centered systems and values that have been familiar to us, which create widespread confusions in perceiving and handling the exigencies and complexities of global transformations that bear on issues such as international financial crisis, global warming, rampant international terrorism, the accountability and sovereignty, the international protection of human rights, and the criticism of new interventionism. The very need to respond in theories and policies calls for the emerging discipline of global studies that focuses on globalization, global issues, and global governance to explore transnational, supranational, and global phenomena as well as their impacts. Secondly, there is a need for knowledge enhancement. As analyzed above, global studies responds to the demands of our time, highlighting new problems and challenges of human survival and development. In this sense, it can be defined as a practical and targeted research field. However, from the perspective of knowledge enhancement, global studies is to explore the issues that have never been confronted and yet pose challenges to the existing knowledge of our society, thereby producing new knowledge such as theories, concepts, and values, in response to globalization, global issues, and global governance. Undoubtedly, the resultant knowledge will primarily promote practical solutions to serve the needs for the survival and development of humanity. The second function of such knowledge is to expand the intellectual field of inquiry, enriching the sum of knowledge. It can be argued that global studies makes its distinct and significant contributions to the knowledge production of the world.

Introduction  5 Status quo of global research Global studies originated in the 1970s from the research on global problems by the Club of Rome. In the following two decades (up to the late 1980s), global studies has been basically understood as a study of global problems with a focus on global issues across the West, the Former Soviet Union, and China. In the West, the Club of Rome and the World Watch Institute continued to focus on the pressing global issues, taking the lead in the fundamental research dimension of global studies. In the Former Soviet Union, global issues were also the focus of researches in the 1970s, and the breadth and depth of the researches were in no way inferior to those in the West. What is worthy of note is that the very research tradition of aiming towards global issues has been upheld till now. Khozin G. Sergeevich, one of the leading global scholars in Russia, points out that the term ‘global studies’ (глобалиcmиka) appears on many academic publications and it can be understood as a scientific knowledge system of the origin and development of global issues as well as their categorization and solution. In his view, global studies can be structured around two basic parts: first, in terms of philosophical methodology, global studies draws on the achievements of philosophy. The second part would be the research outcome of all relevant subjects, as global studies embodies the sum of research on crises and conflicts unprecedented across countries or the world.9 The above view represented the characteristics of the Soviet academy on global studies in the 1990s in their perception of global studies. Likewise, research on global issues was regarded as global studies during China’s early period of reform and opening-up. Many dictionaries defined global studies from the perspective of global issues, as World Review of New Disciplines stated “Global studies, also known as Global Research or Study of Global Issues, is to explore ways or solutions to the pressing problems confronted by the contemporary society”,10 or “Global studies, also known as Science of Global Issues, is an emergent integrated discipline, seeking to explore ways to various problems of the contemporary world”.11 The impact of globalization and global governance has ushered in a new phase of global studies when much scholarship shifts from the mere research orientations towards global issues to the creation and development of global studies as a distinct discipline. Through 20 years of continued research on global issues, global studies has acquired the disciplinary sensitivity to the impact of globalization and global governance in the 1990s. The emerging awareness of global studies as a distinct discipline is first manifested in the expanding and integrating fields of research. While global issues are the major concern, globalization and global governance have become increasingly important in global research. With globalization, global issues, and global governance getting integrated into a distinct and research area, global studies takes on new dimensions in its subject of research. Moreover, the

6  Tuo Cai disciplinary awareness is embodied in the recent development of academic programs and research projects on global studies. Nowadays, the global era is marked by globalization, global issues, and global governance which highlight global relations, global entities, global space, global values, and global identities, hereby creating the urgent need for professional global mindset or global vision. Due to such global awareness, an increasing number of global research projects and academic programs have emerged in universities and research institutions. In 1995, the undergraduate program of global studies was first set up in the California State University, Monterrey Bay; in 1997, the Master’s program of global studies was first established in Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo; and in 2006, the first PhD program of global studies was set up in Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Meanwhile, a large number of education programs and research projects on global studies have emerged and expanded. To sum up, global studies emerged from the research on global issues initiated by the Club of Rome. The period from the 1970s to the 1980s saw the first phase of global studies within the science of global issues. Since the 1990s, global studies has broken through the confines of research on global issues to the second phase of shaping itself as a distinct discipline. With 40 years of development, global studies has gained the momentum towards its blossoming phase. First, there is a surge of global studies programs across colleges and universities. A rough estimate of global studies programs indicates that at least over 100 universities enroll undergraduates in global studies; over 40 universities have set up relevant Master’s and PhD programs; over 20 universities have post-doctoral programs; and over 100 universities have set up academic programs and research projects under their original disciplinary frameworks, such as global governance, global public affairs, global civil society, global public health, global development, global democracy, and global civilizations. At the same time, global studies goes global. Relevant research projects or courses have been established in colleges or universities across most of the world, including North America, Europe, Japan, Russia, India, and China. In 2012, China University of Political Science and Law established the PhD program and became China’s first research institution to grant the degree in global studies. Secondly, research institutions and educational programs on global studies are diversified. In Canada, for example, since the global studies program was created at McMaster University and the University of Victoria in 1998, 22 programs have been developed among 13 universities up till 2011 including Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD programs as well as non-degree programs in course training. In the United States, in addition to higher education institutions, community colleges also have begun to offer global studies programs. Some organizations such as the Community Colleges for International Development and the Community Colleges for International

Table 0.1 Global Studies Educational Programs and Research Projects at Major Universities across the World Country

University

Degree Programs

Educational Programs and Research Projects

The United States The United States The United States The United Kingdom The United Kingdom Canada

University of West Georgia

BA, MA, PhD in Global Studies

Global Issues

Yale University

MA in Global Studies

Global Affairs/Public Health

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

MA, PhD in Global Studies

University of Warwick

BA, MA, PhD in Global Studies

The London School of Economics and Political Science McMaster University

MA, PhD in Global Governance Studies MA in Global Studies

Canada Australia Sweden

MA, PhD in Global Governance BA, MA, PhD in Global Studies BA, MA, PhD in Global Studies

Germany Austria Japan India

University of Waterloo Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology School of Global Studies, Stockholm University University of Leipzig University of Vienna Hitotsubashi University University of Delhi

Global Civilizations and Educational Program Global Governance and Globalization Global Civil Society and Global Governance Globalization and Human Conditions Global Governance Global Issues Global Issues

Japan

Sophia University

MA in Global Studies

Russia

Faculty of Global Processes, Moscow State University University of Wroclaw China University of Political Science and Law

5-year Specialist’s Degree programs MA in Global Studies PhD in Global Studies

Analysis of Global Problems Dialogue of Global Civilizations Global Democracy and Education Global Cultural Diversity and Dialogue of Cultures International Relations in the Global Age Global Cultural Diversity Global Public Goods

Introduction  7

Poland China

MA, PhD in Global Studies MA in Global Studies MA in Global Studies MA in Global Studies

8  Tuo Cai Studies are committed to promoting global studies programs in American community colleges.12 It is worth noting that the number of academic organizations, conferences, and publications is also growing. In July 2000, the first Global Studies Association (GSA) was founded at the International Conference on Globalization, Culture & Everyday Life at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK, and in 2002 GSA-North America was founded. In 2005, the Asian Association for Global Studies (AAGS) was established in Japan.13 The 21st century saw the emergence of academic journals and publications dedicated to global studies. Many academic associations have their own publications, such as the Asian Journal of Global Studies by the Asian Society for Global Studies14 and the Global Studies Journal published by the Global Knowledge Community.15 Apart from those association-sponsored journals, some other journals such as Globalizations,16 Global Networks,17 New Global Studies,18 and Journal of Global Ethics19 also focus on relevant issues.

The basic category and logic of global studies Basic category of global studies To define the basic category of a discipline, its subject of research and disciplinary connotations should be taken into account. In other words, the basic categories of a discipline can be multi-faceted in interpreting and revealing its subject of research and disciplinary connotations. It is the dynamics of the disciplinary categories that help determine how the discipline develops and global studies is no exception to the rule. Global studies explores global phenomena, global relations, and global values, aiming to reveal the interconnectedness and the integration of the world in the era of globalization as well as the impact and prospect of all activities by human agency in general. This disciplinary connotation thus indicates three dimensions of the research. First, in global studies, the subject of research involves global phenomena, global relations, and global values. All the static phenomena, dynamic relations, and the emergent values constitute the fundamental global research. It is worthy of note that the phenomena, relations, and values explored here belong to the global dimension, differing from the established dimension of individuals, ethnicities, and nations. Secondly, global studies is predicated on the holistic world views. Global studies aims to reveal the globality of the global age and the integrity of human interdependent world, which is distinct from the traditional idea of nationality or ethnicity. Thirdly, in global studies, humanity is the subject of research. The major focus of social life used to be on separate entities including individuals, families, societies, companies, political parties, ethnicities, and nations, especially ethnicities and nations. What global studies stresses is human beings in general that transcend the limited understanding of entities and expand the boundary of the subject.

Introduction  9 Given the above analysis, we argue that global studies can be grouped into the 14 categories as follows: It first addresses globalization and global issues: these two categories reflect the unprecedented global landscapes, representing the core of global research and laying the foundation for its development; Secondly, the global research basically embodies the following eight categories, namely, global economy, global politics, global law, global culture, global system, global order, global governance, and global civil society; Thirdly, global studies aims towards globality, the global process, global interests, and global ethics. The first ten categories mostly describe and classify global phenomena, global relations, and global activities in the globalizing world to help develop people’s sensibility to the emergent phenomena and relations. The last four categories are to explore and reveal the complexity of globalization in the globalizing process, as well as the value orientation inherent in global phenomena, global relations, and global activities. Intrinsic logic of global studies The above-mentioned categories of global studies indicate fundamental concepts that the international academia has so far adopted in global research and they also reflect part of our existing research. The content of these categories remains to be improved but their intrinsic logic is embodied in the systematic and consistent development of global studies towards a distinct discipline. It is self-evident that globalization (including anti-globalization) and global issues serve as the logical starting-point of global studies. As globalization and global problems contribute to the social changes and transformation, the resultant new phenomena, new issues, new challenges, and confusions require theoretical and practical response, which lay the foundation for the creation of global studies as a discipline. Global studies originates from the research on globalization and global issues, and develops in the categories of global economy, global politics, global law, global cultural system, global order, global governance, and global civil society. These fields reflect new changes and problems of different levels that come alongside globalization and global issues, expounding from the perspective of phenomenology on the basic connotation of global research and offering analyses of the potential consequences and impacts of the emergent phenomena, relations, and activities. However, the above categories are not intellectually rigorous enough to be elevated as a systematic, consistent approach that would reveal the nature of social transformation in the era of globalization and specify the values sought by global studies. As globalization and global governance deepens, conflicts increase between the state-centered institutions, concepts, and the human-centered

10  Tuo Cai ones, while the global process is full of imbalances and complexities. Therefore, what is high on the agenda of global studies is to coordinate and regulate the global process and to research from the perspective of meeting the new challenges in the global age. Moreover, other categories matter as well in global research: research from the perspective of global interests reflects the increasing trend not only towards global interests but also the relationship between global interests and national interests; global ethics focus on the ethical dimension of new phenomena and relations, expounding on the implications of universal ethics and earth ethics for the global age; global studies highlights globality, stressing the reality of the global age featured by global subjects, global space, global system, and global values and urging people to recognize the globalizing trend in today’s world. Arguably, all those categories above form the logic of global studies at all times. In understanding the intrinsic logic of global studies, it is essential to attach importance to the four core categories – globalization, global issues, global governance, and globality. As mentioned above, globalization and global issues are inseparable and fundamental to global studies, and their complexities, uncertainties, and imbalances necessitate the scientific understanding of global studies, also known as the science of global issues for its prominent focus on global problems. To resolve global issues, global governance is brought into the focus of global studies together with globalization and global issues, and in that sense, global studies can also be seen as the Science of Global Governance. Those prominent areas of research in global studies have touched upon many disciplines as their focus or subfields include political science, law, sociology, economics, cultural studies, communication studies, and management science. However, it is not sufficient to portray the nature or core of global studies without reference to globality. Among other core categories mentioned above, globality is essential to global studies in its four dimensions that embody global subjects, global space, global system, and global values. It is only by featuring global perspective and global dimensions that global studies can be developed as a distinct discipline with a systemic framework integrating globalization, global issues, global governance, and globality.

Cross-disciplinary comparison and positioning of global studies As an emergent discipline, global studies is characterized by its interdisciplinarity and needs to be positioned by defining its own research subject, category, and discourse system, and by clarifying its relationship with relevant disciplines in terms of what to draw on and how to develop. The following cross-disciplinary examination helps reveal the disciplines that relate closely to global studies, namely international relations, sociology, anthropology, and futurology.

Introduction  11 International relations (international politics) and global studies International relations is narrowly defined as the study of relations between countries, with political territorialization, supremacy of sovereignty, and state-centrism as its three pillars and major representations of modern international relations. Since the 1960s and 1970s, international organizations and transnational corporations have begun to prosper and international relations have been increasingly enriched and diversified. Meanwhile, questions and challenges regarding the narrow definition of international relations have arisen. As a result, world politics emerged in response to the diversifying actors, political issues, and international mechanisms, but it failed to stress the wholeness of the world, simply featuring the mosaic of international political phenomena. Later, as the 1990s saw the deepening of globalization and the rise of global governance, global politics began to appear on stage. It seeks to overcome the ambiguity of world politics and stress the prospect of a new politics that emerges from the mosaic of world politics and features the globe as its ontology and dimension. Oriented towards globality in its definition of political subject, category, value, and conceptual framework, global politics is to transcend transnationalism and to break away from the confines of narrowly-defined international relations to respond to the challenges of profound changes and social transformation that attend globalization and global issues. Arguably, global studies can relate closely to global politics that is shaping up itself out of international relations. First of all, they both examine the new social reality of mankind caused by globalization and global issues with a global perspective and framework and take the humanity and the globe as the subjects of research; secondly, both of them emphasize the integrity of the world, reflecting on the globality of social life (including phenomena, relations, values, and systems) as compared with the nationality and state-centricity that mark the system, philosophy, and values of the traditional society. It can be argued that global studies and international relations have connections in their academic origins and development. In terms of academic research and discipline establishment, global studies can be grouped under a subfield of the international relations or global politics can be incorporated into global studies as an emergent branch of international rations, given the fact that their subjects of research, categories, and discourse systems are overlapping and integrating. Although global studies and international relations are closely connected, they are still mutually irreplaceable and cannot be mixed in their respective focus and dimensions: international relations studies political relations of various actors at the international level (in reality, primarily the relations at the national level or between countries), while the emergent global politics currently only appears as its non-mainstream sub-branch. In contrast, global studies focuses on global phenomena, global relations, global values, and global institutions.

12  Tuo Cai Moreover, its features of global issues and global vision in research go beyond the confines of political relations, with its inclusive cultural, ethical, and philosophical dimensions deeper than those of international relations. Sociology and global studies Sociology originated in the 19th century as a field of science to study the social structure and human activities through empirical examination and critical analysis. With an extensive coverage of subjects and content, sociology includes research at macro-level and micro-level that focuses both on the society as a whole and on individuals and their specific social behavior. Furthermore, two research traditions – social realism and social nominalism became prominent with their respective positivist and anti-positivist approaches. What characterizes sociology as a discipline is the focus on social reality, social phenomena or social behavior to explore social problems and relations, identifying the trend and law of social development. Just as politics in the 1970s, modern sociology focuses on the national society, as stated by Beck that societies were defined in terms of nation-states and societies were therefore treated as state societies, and that social order meaning much the same thing as state order.20 Politically and theoretically, modern sociology assumes that societies exist with the premise of state-controlled territories, supporting Beck’s “container theory of society” in which nation-states are isolated as territorial states and the world is divided into nation-state containers.21 Nevertheless, under the impact of globalization and global issues, traditional sociology is bound to go beyond the national society to explore the world society and the global society, as British scholars Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy point out that “Global changes demand that we extend state-centric theories, define new research agendas and develop an agreed comparative method”. In short, the interdependence of the local, national, and international demands a global outlook.22 In fact, many sociologists research into globalization and global issues, such as Roland Robertson, Martin Albrow, Anthony Giddens, and Ulrich Beck. They mark a new era of sociology by trying to extend the research of sociology to the global outlook and elevate the theories of sociology to the global dimension. In its shift from state-centric sociology to global sociology, modern sociology has begun to relate to global studies as both of them take the globe and the humanity as subjects of research, globality as the value criterion, and local-global as the basic framework, addressing new phenomenon, new reality, new relations, and new values as well as exploring new theories and solutions to the relevant problems. In addition, they overlap in many of their specific fields of research – globalization, global politics, global culture, ethnicity, religion, migration, population, NGOs, transnational corporations, social movements, identities, global society, and so on. The issues for research as listed in Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy’s Global Sociology reveal the close connections between global studies and global

Introduction  13 sociology. Furthermore, global studies and sociology are interdisciplinary and different from single disciplines in social sciences, such as economics, law, and political science; therefore, with the shared perspective and methodology, global studies can draw on sociology extensively, especially on global sociology. Although global studies cannot be equated with either global sociology or global politics, we should not deny that global studies tend to relate more closely to international relations in its category, paradigm, and discourse system in that global studies focuses more on the political nature of global changes while sociology (global sociology) shows concerns more about the social nature of global changes than those concerning global system, global order, global law, and global governance, highlighting the global community, the world community, and their new structures, functions, hierarchies, etc. In a sense, global studies is developed as a first-tier discipline with global politics and global sociology as its second-tier disciplines beneath. Anthropology and global studies Anthropology is most closely related to global studies in its subject of study that concerns the humanity itself to explore the human nature. Before the 19th century, anthropology was called the physical anthropology, or the science of anatomy and biology, as it aimed to understand the human biological evolution and the biological variations of humans across regions. After the 19th century, modern anthropology began to emerge, expanding in its research from human physical traits to culture, archeology, and language, and the four basic branches of contemporary anthropology were thus formed – cultural anthropology (social anthropology), archeology, linguistic anthropology, and physical anthropology. Those four branches reflect two major research dimensions of anthropology: physical anthropology as the representative of the human biology and biological research; and cultural anthropology as the representative of the human culture and cultural studies. Therefore, anthropology is interdisciplinary as its comprehensive studies of human beings range from the biological to cultural perspective: anthropology involves not only the biological and cultural evolution of mankind as a whole but also the variations of humans across regions, and it stresses positivist methodology in its research including fieldwork. To some extent, anthropology seems to be similar to global studies but they fundamentally differ from each other as academic disciplines, because anthropology is not a study of the human society focusing on general changes in economics, politics, laws, social transformation, and its impact. Nevertheless, its research achievements in cultural anthropology are central to global culture and value analysis in global studies. Due to the development of new interdisciplinary fields, anthropology relates closely to global studies and that explains why anthropology and global studies are likely to be grouped under the same department.

14  Tuo Cai Futurology and global studies Futurology is an interdisciplinary field, studying human futures, primarily exploring the impact on human society caused by the modern industry, developing science and technology, and predicting the possibilities of choices and realities based on human needs.23 It emerged in the 1940s, being overgeneralized and mixed up with other disciplines such as prediction studies, prospective studies, and later, global studies. On that note, it is necessary to examine the relationship between global studies and futurology, as global studies was mistakenly equated with futurology or seen as a subfield of prediction studies in its emerging phase. That was particularly the case in China in the 1980s when its research on global issues emerged and many dictionaries or even some monographs confused global studies with global futurology. Clearly, global studies and futurology are mutually irreplaceable: futurology features two basic points: first, its research is premised on the scientific and technological revolution. All research problems, program formulation, and prospective study hinge on the social impact of the scientific and technological revolution. Secondly, it is a study of postulating a possible future for the human society. Its major concern is about how the scientific and technological revolution will bear on existing society, politics, economics, military, education, technology, human morals, and values, as well as what could be the possible future trends of these areas. Global studies is characterized by the following two points: first, its research is based on globalization and global issues. Admittedly, globalization and global issues arise and vary under the impacts of the scientific and technological revolution, but the revolution only serves as the research background to global studies, whose major focus is on global issues that relate to human destiny. Secondly, global studies explores the social reality for the sustainable development of human society. Certainly, global studies addresses the future issues, but it is more concerned with meeting the present challenges or difficulties confronting mankind, and offering corresponding theories and resolutions. Therefore, global studies cannot be reduced to futurology, let alone to a branch of prediction studies. It is an emergent interdisciplinary field in its own right.24 Since the 1980s, future studies has started to shift its research focus from the far future to the near future and from the long-term trend prediction to the mid-term practical prediction. That change in futurology indicates a more reality-focused research is getting increasingly connected to global research, with far-reaching implications for global studies in terms of research perspectives and outcomes. From the analyses above, we conclude as follows. First, global studies is an emergent field with its own definition and boundary. It is not a mosaic of traditional disciplines, nor is it dependent upon any discipline. It is characterized by its interdisciplinarity, differing from other single disciplines like economics, law, and political science.

Introduction  15 Secondly, global studies is most closely linked to international relations, and sociology to a lesser extent. In its disciplinary development, global studies can draw considerably on international relations and sociology, but it is a different case when it comes to the relationship between global studies, anthropology, and futurology. Global studies needs to distinguish itself in its academic origins and categories from anthropology and futurology, for the lack of inherent shared academic links between those two disciplines while such links are revealed between international relations and sociology. Moreover, misunderstandings might arise in their respective research (e.g., human beings, as the subject matter of anthropology and global studies, differ in their research perspective and content). Likewise, global studies differs from futurology in terms of theoretical foundations and cannot be mistaken as a branch of futurology or prediction studies. To sum up, global studies is premised on globalization and global issues, seeking to explore global issues and global governance. It can be understood as a science of global issues if we stress the research dimension of global issues, or a science of global governance if we stress the research dimension of global governance. Either of these two dimensions reflects on global relations, global phenomena, values and system, embodying our research on humanity with its own characteristics in the global era.

Methodology of global studies Every discipline has its own research methodology, and an established discipline is featured with its well-developed research methodological framework. Global studies, as an emergent discipline, seeks to develop its own research methodology. Methodological globalism Methodological globalism is put forward in relation to methodological nationalism. Since the emergence of modern nation-system, methodological nationalism has gained popularity and developed into the predominant approach for the humanities and social sciences. Introduced in 1974 by a Portuguese sociologist Herminio Martins, methodological nationalism was developed and distributed with a new analytic perspective by Anthony Smith, a British sociologist and historian. Moreover, in the 1970s’ discussion of methodological nationalism, the famous British sociologist Anthony Giddens put forward the research on the significance of methodological nationalism in the construction of modernity. With the intensifying research on globalization theory since the 1990s, methodology nationalism has become more reflexive as a hot topic for critiques.25 The existing literature shows that methodological nationalism indicates the thinking that equates nation-state with society,26 and researchers see nation-state community as the ultimate unit of analysis and the boundary that defines the phenomena

16  Tuo Cai and problems in social sciences.27 More recent research focuses on methodological nationalism from the global framework and the global perspective. Sharing similar views to Ulrich Beck’s arguments, David Held and Anthony McGrew also stress that the recursive model of the interconnected world challenges the principle of the border society and assumptions concerning its dynamics and endogenous social forces. Globalization blurs the distinction between the domestic and international, the internal and the external, the endogenous and the exogenous, thereby directly challenging the methodological nationalism other than finding its full expression in classical social theory.28 It follows that methodological nationalism delimits the territorial and social boundaries, equating the society with the state and analyzing social phenomena as well as social relations in the container of nation-states without regard for the factors beyond the boundaries. However, this classic methodology cannot meet the needs of the era of globalization, and methodological globalism consequently emerged, as advocated by some scholars that our social analysis model needs to be improved with increasing awareness of the shared social space to account for the changes in all aspects that mark the global age.29 The analysis above of methodological nationalism sheds some light on the methodological globalism. To further understand the methodological globalism, we need to take account of methodological cosmopolitanism and methodological individualism. In the research on globalization, basic concepts such as globalization, globality, and globalism are inextricably bound up with each other. In general, globalization emphasizes the increasing interdependence of mankind, featuring the overall picture of the process from individual nation-states to a single world society. Globality is displayed as a series of indicators in marking the global phenomena and subjects, as stated by Martin Albrow that globality acts as the common denominator or terminology of relations to refer to the global things.30 Globalism espouses the value of globalization and globality, representing the new global values and ethics.31 The above three concepts serve as the basis for methodological globalism in its analytical framework and research approach. In reality, methodological globalism has not been widely acknowledged by researchers on globalization (not to mention the whole international academic community), while methodological cosmopolitanism seems to be well-received. As cosmopolitanism can be traced as far back as the period of stoicism, cosmopolitan ideas have since emerged and continued to this day when people tend to compare methodological nationalism with methodological cosmopolitanism. However, some well-known scholars on globalization give a biased interpretation of globalism that deviates from the conventional understanding and makes methodological globalism ambiguous. For example, Beck criticizes globalism as neoliberalism, and as a single economic world outlook that the world market rules the ideology, eliminating or supplanting political

Introduction  17 32

action. Beck’s assertion about the world market featured in globalism does not match the emergent global values or ethics. Unlike Beck’s critique of globalism, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye see globalism as a state of the world, an objective reality and a phenomenon to the extent that globalism is indistinguishable from globalization, which goes contrary to globalism that features the value dimension. In that case, the question about whether methodological cosmopolitanism can be equated with methodological globalism arises. The answer lies in how we conceive of methodological cosmopolitanism: methodological cosmopolitanism is equivalent to methodological globalism if the former simply distinguishes the latter from methodological nationalism with a broad interpretation of cosmopolitanism in the geospatial sense, just like how the world or the globe stresses the integrity or commonality of human social life. Since some contemporary scholars are more concerned with transnationality, transregionality, global phenomena, or relations that transcend territorial or sovereign boundaries, they do not see much difference between methodological cosmopolitanism and methodological globalism but the mere continuation of the prior knowledge or categories. However, the case is different when we examine globalism from a particular perspective that assigns new meaning to cosmopolitanism as typically adopted by Ulrich Beck. What he advocates does not conflict with methodological cosmopolitanism or methodological universalism in transcending territorial and national borders, internal and external differences, domestic and international opposition, but what matters most is Beck’s views on how to position the relationship with the other and otherness. In his opinion, cosmopolitanism differs from universalism and nationalism in that it acknowledges the otherness as fundamental in life, thoughts, and action, internally and externally alike.33 In contrast, universalism, be it interpreted in the sense of difference and inferiority or identity and unity, shares one common trait with nationalism in failing to recognize that the self and the otherness cannot be separated, thus resulting in the conflicts between self and otherness at the ontological level. To understand Beck’s perspective on cosmopolitanism, it requires acknowledging the coexistence of self and others in the ontological sense, and seeing cosmopolitanism as unbiased either towards difference or sameness, as Beck claims ‘cosmopolitanism is an antidote to both ethnocentrism and nationalism’.34 Since cosmopolitanism in Beck’s view is reflexive in the era of globalization, the methodological cosmopolitanism is naturally distinct from the conventional one. While taking Beck’s view cautiously, we are more inclined to equate methodological cosmopolitanism with methodological globalism. Methodological globalism is inherently related to methodological holism because the latter also focuses on the entirety of issues, prioritizing hierarchical groups or societies as the basic unit of analysis. It is this holistic view that links methodological cosmopolitanism to methodological globalism. Moreover, the following two points are worthy of note: first, methodological

18  Tuo Cai holism is constructed in relation to methodological individualism. The typical methodological individualism sees the society or groups as a collection of many individuals and studies social phenomena and things from an individual’s perspective. Karl Popper points out that methodological individualism presumes to construct and analyze sociology in terms of individual attitudes, expectations, and relationships. Likewise, Friedrich Hayek offers similar arguments while he also criticizes pseudo individualism, which stresses that the holistic nature and characteristics of the individuals are dependent on their society, unlike atomistic individualism. Deng Zhenglai points out that Hayek’s methodological individualism is not a reductionist version but an interpretive one which rejects methodological holism and atomistic individualism.35 That being said, we should see methodological holism from the perspective of methodological individualism, perceiving the individual initiative and freedom under the framework that prioritizes holism in order to prevent the whole and holism from overshadowing individuals. Similarly, while acknowledging the commonality between methodological globalism and methodological holism, we must be aware that human beings cannot be absolutized as a whole and the holistic globe should be prioritized in the trio of the individual, local, and global. Secondly, like other categories of social sciences, methodological holism and methodological individualism are premised on and applied to the framework of nation-states or territorial states, and their conflicts arise over whether the individual or the society should serve as the basic unit of analysis in understanding social phenomena. The society here can be understood as the state, the nation, or a collection of individuals in groups, societies, or ethnicities. In short, methodological holism does not include the global perspective in its original sense, or at least without reference to the world and mankind in its conceptual focus. Methodological holism, therefore, cannot supplant methodological globalism despite their commonality. The wholeness they both refer to differs significantly in that methodological holism takes the nation-state or territorial society as monolithic while methodological globalism sees humanity and the earth as the whole. Based on the above analysis, methodological globalism can be summarized as follows. First, from the perspective of epistemology, methodological globalism is a new methodology in social sciences that exists in contrast to traditional methodological nationalism. It aims to examine the global phenomenon, relations and values with the global vision and framework by seeking to break through the borders of territorial states, to blur the boundary between the domestic and the international, and to eliminate the opposition between the self and the other. It expands the boundary of the whole from the national society to the global society, highlighting the globality of today’s world in global subjects, global space, global system, and global values. Conceivably, without the awareness of methodological globalism, it is impossible to recognize new things in the era of globalization, nor to create a distinctive global studies.

Introduction  19 The second point is about the ontological level. As mentioned above, methodological globalism itself is epistemological, but it cannot break away from the ontological inquiries. Just as methodological individualism and methodological holism are under debate over whether individuals or societies should be seen as the origin and the basis of research, methodological globalism also provokes controversies over whether the world or humanity should be taken as the entity and which one should be prioritized - humanity, state, or individuals. In that case, we can draw on Hayek’s claim about the methodological individualism. First, methodological globalism itself does not involve ontological uncertainties because no controversies arise about whether to prioritize humanity, state, or individuals. Secondly, in research hypotheses and analytical models, humanity is undeniably playing a significant role in examining new phenomena, new things, and new relations in the era of globalization. Methodologically speaking, methodological globalism stresses the wholeness – human beings as a whole, thus differing itself from methodological nationalism. However, as globalism can be examined at the ontological level, methodological globalism tends to be connected with it as well. Ontologically speaking, globalism is relations-oriented, aiming to explore from the perspective of relations the contemporary social phenomena and issues, and fundamentally breaking through the separating, opposing, and hierarchical social structures and relations, thereby differentiating itself from the other ontology whose major concerns are about individuals or societies. Thus, to understand methodological globalism, it is necessary to take into account the ontological perspective of globalism in fundamental relations and non-hierarchical interactions. Lastly, the axiology of research is worth noting. Disagreements never cease on whether social sciences can maintain their value neutrality or objectivity as natural sciences do, but it seems that mainstream is witnessing the increasing value orientation in the research of social sciences, and research methodology is widely recognized as value-oriented. When being examined at the axiological level, methodological globalism shows its major focus on humanity, globality and categories concerning globalization, global issues, and global governance. This value orientation does not suggest the ontological sense of priority but the major concern about real-life phenomena, things, relations, and systems that reflect global values and global ethics. Therefore, it is unnecessary to avoid advocating the values of globalism in global studies that serve as the logic and outcome of methodological globalism. Approaches of complexity sciences In the 1960s, due to the development of research on complex systems, a number of sciences emerged from the field of classical sciences, generally known as Complexity Sciences which include General Systems Theory, Cybernetics, Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Autopoietic System Theory, Cellular Automata Theory, Mutation Theory, and Dynamic Systems Theory.

20  Tuo Cai The most essential difference lies in the philosophy and ways of thinking between the complexity sciences and traditional physical sciences, biological sciences, and social sciences: there is a shift of focus from equilibrium to non-equilibrium, from determinism to indeterminism, from linearity to non-linearity or randomness, from reductionism and mechanism to organicism and holism, from physical, biological, social phenomena and structures to convergences of a higher level and a greater complexity. Obviously, these new ideas and thoughts have methodological implications for studying all natural and social phenomena. The methods of complexity sciences can be applied to global studies. The complexity, imbalances, and multidimensionality that feature globalization, global issues, and global governance demand the shift in our understanding beyond the confines of simplistic balance, determinism, linear thinking, territoriality, ethnicity, and nationality. To some extent, these emergent social phenomena of globalization, global issues, and global governance embody the complexity sciences in social fields, thereby drawing on scientific approaches or methods in complexity sciences. In the contemporary applications of complexity sciences and their theories, Ervin Laszlo stands out with his evolutionary systems theory that advocates the dynamic morphology which explores systematically the characteristics and trends of the evolution from the physical system to the biological system and to the human social cultural system, as typically expressed in how non-equilibrium system evolves to higher stages of organization with greater free energy and less entropy the basic elements are nonequilibrium systems maintained by catalytic cycles within enduring flow of energy; the alternation of determinate orders in periods of stability with states of creative chaos during bifurcations; and the observed statistical tendency toward greater complexity on sequentially higher levels of organization36 Arguably, global studies can draw on some methods of complexity sciences in its development. Philosophical methods Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems in the world, featuring abstraction and rationality as well as holistic thinking and the ultimate concern. Since these characteristics in philosophy find full expression in global studies, philosophical methods can also be applied to global studies. For example, global studies focuses on humanity as the research subject, and its thinking on global consciousness, global ethics, global order, and globality points to the ultimate concern of human beings as a whole. It should be noted that the methods of systems philosophy typically fit into global studies. To understand the large system in the evolution of universe, biology, culture, or human society, we need to adopt the logic and

Introduction  21 perspective of systems philosophy. Objectively speaking, what global studies seeks and explores is the process and logic of the world, as likewise interpreted in systems philosophy. Therefore, their intrinsic relationship is self-evident. Besides, created by Ervin Laszlo, the systems philosophy relates itself closely to the general evolutionary theory, which is also applied to global studies. Interdisciplinary approaches Modern sciences include natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, and technological sciences. When it comes to interdisciplinarity, it refers to integrating and penetrating among three distinctive disciplines as well as within their respective disciplines. Global studies is such an interdisciplinary field that its research methodology demands approaches across the disciplines and no single approach can capture all the complexities of global research, be it the one of natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, or the one of technological sciences. Global studies involves globality of the earth, ecology in natural sciences, global values, ethics, economics, and politics in social sciences as well as technical aspects of policies, methods, mechanisms, and feasibility assessment. Specific issues such as global warming and global public health problems essentially demand research approaches and perspectives from natural sciences, humanities, and technological sciences that can be integrated into a comprehensive and rational solution. The key to the interdisciplinary approach is to break through the boundaries among the existing disciplines, and to draw on various disciplines by reviewing, summarizing, and integrating knowledge and approaches for its own subject of research. In addition, the interdisciplinary approach necessitates the concern or respect for the prospective knowledge and perspectives that have not been incorporated into traditional disciplines, as the increasing social demands and practices have spawned new knowledge and ideas, urging the interdisciplinary approach to integrate itself with the society, humanities, sciences, and technologies. Comparative methods Comparative methods are widely used in humanities and social sciences. They are also deemed necessary in global studies because globality, supranationality, and superterritoriality that characterize the concerns of global studies exist alongside regionality, nationality, territoriality, and ethnicity that feature the current systems, ideas, and values of the world. All the phenomena, issues, and ideas concerning globality take on a great significance only when put in comparison with those concerning nationality, through which the differences among them can be identified for a better understanding of the changes in the transforming world. Arguably, comparative methods should be adopted in global studies.

22  Tuo Cai

Notes 1 http://www.aags.org/global-studies. 2 Ibid. 3 Patricia Campbell, Aran MacKinnon, and Christy Stevens, An Introduction to Global Studies (John Wiley & Sons Publication, 2010), preface. 4 http://www.globalistika.vu. 5 A. N. Kostin, Ecological Politics and Global Studies (Translated by Hu Guming, Wuhan University Press, 2008), pp. 11–12. 6 A. H. Chumakov, “Globalizing World under the Way”, Teaching and Research, Vol. 43, No. 11, 2009, pp. 11–12. 7 http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/Global/about.html. 8 See also A. N. Kostin, Ecological Politics and Global Studies (Translated by Guming Hu, Wuhan University Press, 2008), p. 71. 9 Khozin G. Sergeevich, “Contemporary Global Studies and Questions in the Reform of International Relations System”, quoted in Social Political Science in Soviet Union, No. 5, 1990. http://onglobalisation.com/publications/journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1471-0374. 18 http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ngs. 19 http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/journals.html. Ulrich Beck, What Is Globalization (Translated by Chuang Hefang, East China, 20 Normal University Press, 2008), p. 2. 21 Ibid. 22 Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy, Global Sociology (Translated by Wenjun et al., Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001), p. 29. 23 Wang Bangzuo, Deng Weizhi, and Ci Hai, The Fields of Politics and Sociology (Shanghai Lexicographic Publishing House, 2010), pp. 660–661. 24 Cai Tuo, Contemporary Global Issues (Tianjin People’s Press, 1994); Global Issues and Contemporary International Relations (Tianjin People Press, 2002). 25 Daniel Chernilo, A Social Theory of the Nation-State: The Political Forms of Modernity beyond Methodological Nationalism (Routledge Press, 2007), pp. 9–14; Daniel Chernilo, “The Critique of Methodological Nationalism: Theory and History”, Thesis Eleven, Vol. 106, No. 1, 2011, pp. 98–117. 26 See also Daniel Chernilo, A Social Theory of the Nation-State, pp. 9–14. 27 Herminio Martins, “Time and Theory in Sociology”, in J. Rex, ed., Approaches to Sociology (Routledge Press, 1974), p. 276. 28 David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies (Translated by Wang Shengcai, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2009), p. 6. 29 Ibid., p. 7. Martin Albrow, The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity (Trans30 lated by Gao Xiangyi and Feng Ling, the Commercial Press, 2001), p. 129. 31 Ibid., p. 264. 32 Ulrich Beck, What Is Globalization, p. 11.

Introduction  23





1

Globalization Tuo Cai

Globalization has become a major feature of the contemporary world. It marks the modern era and defines the phenomena, relations, systems, values, and concepts of the contemporary human society that are unlikely to be isolated from the knowledge of globalization. Therefore, our time is marked as “the era of globalization”. Globalization, with its own evolutionary process, presents the contemporary patterns that are open to interpretations. Alongside the deepening and expanding process of globalization, the research on globalization has also evolved into different schools. However, there still remain puzzles in some fundamental theories of globalization, and the efforts to solve such puzzles will contribute significantly to the comprehensive study of globalization. In this sense, globalization serves not only as the historical premise of human life in the 21st century but also the theoretical cornerstone of global studies.

History and reality of globalization Historical evolution of globalization Globalization is seen as a social phenomenon and historical process with its own evolutionary law. The questions regarding its origin and periodization thus arise. Some argue that the early sign of globalization is the diffusion of human beings across the world,1 i.e., the first wave of globalization can be traced back to the human migration from Africa to the rest of the world. Taking different views from such a broad understanding which equates early human diffusion with the very process of globalization, some scholars like Roland Robertson and David Held focus more on modern times, especially the contemporary globalization. However, they acknowledge the long history of globalization and study the issue from different perspectives. Robertson argues that globalization can be traced back at least as early as the world religion that rose over 2,000 years ago.2 His publication on globalization argues that globalization can be traced and connected to the imperial power expansion, world religion, human migration, and the spread of diseases.3 Given the historical relevance of globalization, it makes much

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207-2

Globalization  25 sense to trace globalization back to the ancient times. However, it has been acknowledged in the mainstream of the academy that globalization started in modern times: it was marked by the Geographical Discovery at the end of the 15th century and followed by the mode of capitalist production and the rise of the Western world for centuries. Only from this period on has the world become interactive and increasingly interconnected with the developing technologies and institutions. The following represents influential views on globalization as a historical process: first of all we examine Held’s point of view.4 He divides globalization process into four phases: circa 9,000–11,000 years ago, the pre-modern globalization is the first phase that marks the emergence of agricultural civilizations in the scattered settlements in Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas. Globalization at the early stage was characterized by the political and military empires, the world religion, the migration of the nomadic tribes, the expansion of the agricultural society to the sparse and underdeveloped areas, and the relatively insignificant long-distance trade across civilizations in different regions. The time period between around 1500 and 1850 is defined as the second stage of globalization, and this early modern globalization features the political and military expansion of Europe, the transformation of the environment, the spread of epidemics, the movement of people between Europe, Oceania, and the Americas, and the rise of the transatlantic economic exchanges. Global mobility and connectivity in this phase were comparatively intensified, institutionalized, and formalized; the concept and the system of territorial countries and nation-states in particular started to develop and helped deepen and expand globalization. The following modern globalization between around 1850 and 1945 as the third stage was characterized by the global political and military expansion of Europe, the global spread of Western secular discourse and ideology, the rapid growth of global trade and investment, the emergence of the world economy, the transatlantic migration of Europe to the New World, of Asia to Europe and the Americas. It was much due to the advances on transportation (the emergence of the railway and mechanical handling) and the communications revolution (the invention of transoceanic telegrams) that the global flow in this phase was dramatically increased and the world became highly institutionalized, e.g., the emergence of globalization regime, the postal system, the navigation system, and the control system of weights and measures. The fourth stage—the contemporary globalization since 1945 – is characterized by the unprecedented breadth, intensity, velocity, and impact of global mobility, communication, and networking. The globalization model has reached the historical level of convergence and concentration: the worldwide nation-state system has replaced various forms of imperial system, and the multilateral governance or regulation is getting more institutionalized, challenging the territorial politics, and highlighting transnational politics and global politics.

26  Tuo Cai Robertson proposes five phases that outline the present circumstances of globalization5: the germinal phase (from the early 15th until the mid18th centuries) features the incipient growth of national communities, the decline of the medieval “transnational” system, the expanding scope of the Catholic Church, the emphasis on the concepts about the individual and the ideas about humanity, the heliocentric theory of the world and the beginning of modern geography, and the spread of Gregorian calendar. The incipient phase (from the mid-18th century until the 1870s) features the sharp shift of the European society towards the idea of a homogeneous and unitary state, the crystallization of the conceptions of formalized international relations, as well as the standardized citizenship of the individual and a more concrete conception of humankind. This period not only witnessed sharp increases in legal agreements and agencies concerned with international and transnational regulation and communications, but also the thematization of the nationalism and internationalism issues. In between the 1870s and mid-1920s, the take-off phase refers to this period during which the increasing tendency for globalizing was inexorable, and it centered upon four reference points which were the constraints of national societies, the generic individuals (but with a masculine bias), a single ‘international society’, and an increasingly singular but not unified conception of humankind. The period witnessed early thematization of ‘the problem of modernity’, the increasingly global conceptions of ‘the national society’, the thematization of ideas concerning national and personal identities, the inclusion of a number of non-European societies in ‘the international society’, the formalization and attempted implementation of ideas about humanity, and the globalization of immigration restrictions. The period also saw a sharp increase in the number and the speed of global forms of communications, the rise of ecumenical movement and the development of global competition, the implementation of world time and the near-global adoption of Gregorian calendar, and World War I. The struggle-for-hegemony phase that lasted from the mid-1920s until the late 1960s saw the disputes and wars over the fragile terms of the dominant globalization process established by the end of the take-off period. The League of Nations was established along with the principle of national independence before being replaced by the United Nations and the conflicting conceptions of modernity followed by the Cold War with a focus on the nature and prospects for humanity reflected on World War II. As the Third World was crystalized, the uncertainty phase began in the late 1960s and has lasted until now. During this period, global consciousness has been heightened with the emphasis on ‘post-materialist’ values. The end of the Cold War saw the increase in the number of global institutions and movements, the growing problems related to multiculturality and polyethnicity faced by societies, and the conceptions of individuals that were rendered more complex by gender, sexual, ethnic, and racial considerations. Civil rights have

Globalization  27 become a global issue. International system is getting increasingly fluid, and the interest of the world civil society is aroused by the greatly enhanced concern with humankind as a species-community. Islam rose as a deglobalizing/reglobalizing movement, and environmental issues have come to the foreground. It thus follows that Held and Robertson in their respective globalization research have focused on modern times (since the 15th century) in the world history, especially the period after World War II. What differs between Held and Robertson is that the former takes account of the premodern globalization and characterizes it as an independent phase, while the latter fails to do that although Robertson never denies the ancient origin of globalization. Moreover, the former’s research is comprehensive and multi-faceted in defining the forms and phases of globalization, and it elaborates on the temporal-spatial and organizational dimensions (eight indicators included), while the latter’s is premised on four reference points that map the global human conditions, i.e., the national societies, selves, world system of societies, and humankind. Arguably, Held’s research on the forms and phases of globalization is wide-ranging and systematic, with its theories and approaches being more closely related to international politics, while Robertson highlights the cultural dimension with implications for further research. Yang Xuedong, an acclaimed Chinese scholar of globalization, has focused on globalization since the 15th century and proposed three phases of globalization process with some variations in terms of the perspective and rationale of periodization. The first phase began from the 15th century as the origin of globalization and lasted until the 1870s when the British Empire established hegemony, also being known as the stage of the establishment of single power or its erosion of the multi-centered world configuration. This period featured the European Colonialism of the globe and in particular the British colonization, the gradual establishment of the West as the world center and the British Empire as the center of the West. The second phase lasted from 1880 until 1972 when the Dollar Standard System ended, also known as the stage for alternate single centers. As globalization was well underway, the US established its hegemony, and the European Center was replaced by the US Center, while the British Empire was also supplanted by the American Empire. The third phase lasted from the 1970s until the present, featuring the rise of a multi-centered world and the fall of the single-centered one. At this stage, American hegemony is on the decline and new forces have emerged, and the international system and configuration have diversified. As the globalization process tends to break up the dominant single-centered power pattern, global awareness, global consensus, and coordination are gradually taking form.6 Yang Xuedong’s accounts of globalization for the most part reveal the treatment of globalization as the process that varies with alternate dominant centers and it is worth exploring those implications for the globalization process.

28  Tuo Cai The discussions to date have facilitated our conceptualization of the globalization process as follows. The origin and germinal phase of globalization refers to the period before the 15th century. It features the political formation of empires, the spread of diseases across borders, the emergence of trans-regional/national trades, the normalization of immigration, the cultural communications and impacts concerning religion and schools of supra-regional/national thoughts like the Chinese concept of ‘world view’, the Stoic’s notions of ‘cosmic city’ and ‘world citizenship’. Despite their limited fluidity, intensity, and influence, these features remain the basic rationale for our research on the origin and incipient growth of globalization. The growth phase of globalization refers to the period from the 15th century until the 1870s. This period highlights three events that mark the entry into the world history era for humankind: the Geographical Discovery expanded people’s scope of time and space; the new capitalist mode of production entailed exploring the world market and world exchanges; the European and American industrial revolution in the 1870s laid the foundation for the rise of world economy. In the meantime, the world’s unity and interconnectivity were sustained by the technological developments (such as the railway and mechanized iron ships) and the institutionalization of world economy and international affairs management. Moreover, people’s awareness of the world as a whole and its interconnectivity was enhanced by the expansion of globalization in diverse fields and the relevant issues, ranging from the immigration wave, the contact and spread of different cultural thoughts, the alternation between secular and religious powers, and military wars. Arguably, this stage had seen globalization in its growing mobility, connectivity, networking, and institutionalization, but global features including the imperial hegemony, the European center, and elitism were yet to develop. The crystalizing and reshaping phase of globalization lasted from the 1870s to the 1970s. This century saw the progress and the crystallization of globalization as well as its uncertainty phase through the vicissitudes of two World Wars and the Great Depression. On the one hand, globalization revealed its unprecedented level of mobility, interdependence, and networking, while global production, global trade, and finance were normalized on the basis of a Gold Standard System; multilateral and multi-level regulation and management were institutionalized and standardized; supra-national and transnational affairs increased; and global consciousness, global values, and influences were enhanced. It can be said that the world in the 1970s rose to a new era of ‘the global village’. On the other hand, the world experienced the reversal of globalization after reaching the climax of globalization before World War I. The following two World Wars and the Great Depression in the 1920s witnessed the ravages of the world, the reversal of the globalizing process in political, economic, cultural, and social fields, and the emergence of deglobalization manifested in confrontation and blockade. The postwar reflection on the world’s regression went a long way

Globalization  29 towards revitalizing the globalization process, and globalization gained its momentum afterwards. The ascending and transforming phase refers to the 1970s until the present, also known as the Contemporary Globalization that experienced 500 years of development in late modern globalization. As indicated earlier in the third phase, globalization crystalized and fluctuated, and the 1970s marked a watershed in globalization for its unprecedented perceptibility and sustainability in the expansion of space and scope, institutional and organizational level, technical and material foundation, cultural concepts, and ethical values. Distinct from the contemporary globalization, the first three phases of globalization are defined as the historical globalization that features a state-centric political system and West-centered cultural values, since the globalizing process before the 1970s was characterized by the expansion of the capitalist mode of production, the rise of the Western powers, and the institutionalization thereof. It is the rightful mission for the fourth phase of globalization to break away from the state/West-centered globalizing pattern by transforming and transcending the dominant national/Western ideology and institutions. Arguably, the 1970s should be the demarcation line rather than the year 1945 or 1990 in consideration of the following points: firstly, global issues came to the fore of the international community in the 1960s/1970s concerning the environment, population, food, energy, and the North-South Divide. Against this backdrop, the Club of Rome initiated the research on global issues and promoted understanding of the global challenges facing humanity. Secondly, the disintegration of the Bretton Woods system proclaimed the decline of US hegemony and the rise of G7 highlighted the role of multilateralism. Meanwhile, the eastern European region of the Soviet Union plodded on through the reform and China started to open up and reform. Since then, the world has become increasingly interdependent and interconnected with the rising global issues, thereby laying the social foundations for the rethinking and transcendence of the state-centrism and West-centrism, and this trend was sped up and solidified with the disintegration of the bipolar world system in 1990. The discussions below will point to details of the ascending and transforming phase of globalization. Characteristics of contemporary globalization Globalization as a social phenomenon features the long history of development,development; however, it was only in the 1960s that globalization became the research focus with its terminology and theories. It follows that research on the contemporary globalization has become the major concern of humanity in comparison with historical globalization, and this entails the objective and comprehensive approaches to contemporary globalization. The following seeks to examine contemporary globalization from eight aspects.

30  Tuo Cai The technical basis of the information revolution The contemporary globalization differs from historical globalization on the technical basis as the former is based on the third technological revolution, while the latter was based on the Industrial Revolution (characterized by the steam revolution) and the second technological revolution (characterized by the electrical revolution). The third technological revolution since 1945 has changed dramatically, especially during the period between the 1970s and the 1990s when the information revolution evolved with the rapid development of computer science, communications, and information technology, and it is the information revolution in particular that served as the technical basis of contemporary globalization as well as its technological support and features. Thomas Friedman, one of the most influential contemporary US journalists, depicts the process and phenomena of world change in the bestseller The World Is Flat.7 In this book, he argues that the world is flattened by forces such as the internet, workflow software, uploading (e.g., blog, Wikipedia), offshoring, outsourcing, insourcing, supply chain, informing (e.g., Google, YAHOO), and personal digital devices. Since these information technologies and their modes of production and innovation reflect the processes of the information revolution, Friedman terms the new period as “Globalization 3.0”, differentiating it from the previous “Globalization 1.0” (1492–1800) and “Globalization 2.0” (1800–2000). The information revolution enables people to implement real-time global connection, computation, and cooperation at high speed with total ease over the space and language barriers, especially empowering individuals with free access to global affairs and opportunities that were inaccessible in the historical globalization, since the previous technological revolutions failed to produce the same level of changes as those caused by the widespread use of personal computers, the internet, and software technologies after the 1970s, or to be more precise, in the 1990s. It was in the early 21st century that the information revolution began to reveal its profound influence as a prelude to a new era. The global trend of economic operations It is the economic field that mostly reflects its trans-territorial/national features of the contemporary globalization. Notwithstanding their perceptible national affiliations, economic operations are essentially interconnected and increasingly integrated into the global economy, characteristics of global trade, global finance, global production, as well as the rise in the number and market share of transnational corporations (TNCs), and every country thus seeks consciously or subconsciously to achieve national interests by securing its own position in the global economic chain. In addition, the national economic sovereignty is bound up with the increasingly integrated world environment and other countries’ economic conditions, as the

Globalization  31 1997 East-Asian financial crisis and especially the 2008 international financial and economic crisis have shown. The enhanced global economic interdependence and restraints find full expression in the current Euro crisis, the rise of US economic protectionism, and the decline of China’s economic growth. Although the economic global trend emerged before World War I, it failed to reach today’s level in terms of economic scale, space, range, or speed and complexity of network. For example, a few countries were able to participate in the global economy before World War I, but today almost all the countries across the world are involved. In 1910, American export trade accounted for 11% of its GDP and rose to 24% in 1925. Over the same period, Britain’s trade rose from 44% to 57% of its GDP,8 and what matters more was a bigger increase in the capital flow and speed of financial assets, as well as the appearance of a 24-hour real-time financial transaction system. Therefore, it is in the contemporary globalization that the global economic operations have begun in earnest. Non-state politics vs. state politics With regard to the contemporary economic globalization, people have learnt to accommodate to the supra-national global economy that evolves, while the contemporary political globalization strikes fear and confusions into people’s hearts and even renders people resistant to the burgeoning nonstate politics. Given that situation, it is critical to deliberate on non-state politics and its challenge to state politics in the contemporary globalization. Non-state politics involves the following aspects: political actors, political issues, and transnational political scope. First of all, political actors that transcend the nation-states, including voluntary groups and communities from below, the international organizations (especially non-governmental organizations) and TNCs from above, as well as a variety of open organizations or groups are committed to addressing global issues. Secondly, political issues highlight the problematic field and non-normative politics. Thirdly, the transnational scope features prominently in politics. Given its dynamic actor, scope and issues, non-state politics comprises group politics and global politics. Group politics is characterized by various political activities and the manifestations of local governments, societies, and communities. It challenges the state politics at the micro-level, deepens the political connotations, and opens up a new field of politics. Global politics features political globality and global political activities that are oriented to global values, centering upon humanity and common interests. Globality here does not merely refer to the global scope but the political integration, commonality, humanity-oriented interests/values as well.9 Since the traditional state politics features the national domain as the political scope, the state or government as the political authority, the national interest as the political foundation, the mandatory and hierarchical top-down management as the social control pattern, its state-centrism (reflected in the

32  Tuo Cai system arrangement, management style, and value orientations) is bound to be challenged by the non-state-centrism that arises in the contemporary political globalization. Naturally, this would lead to the scenario that two political patterns coexist, interact, and compete, and that non-state politics rises, diffuses, and spreads, while state politics responds, adjusts, and resists even harder. It can be argued that non-state politics is gaining momentum despite that state politics still holds the dominant position. Global ecology and environmental issues Another dimension of contemporary globalization concerns the critical global environment. Human life cannot be separated from the global ecology, and there has long existed the tense relationship between humanity and nature. It was not until the 1970s, especially after the 1990s, that such tension resurfaced largely in serious social issues and persisted. Global ecology and environmental issues determine the sustainable development of humanity and nature, and they raise awareness today about resource shortage, environmental pollution, ecological imbalance, and climate change. It is no exaggeration to say that the contemporary globalization highlights the challenge of the relationship between nature and humanity as the dominant interpersonal relationship in human history. In the new context of global ecology, the relationship between humanity and nature comes first as the value concern and humanitarian concern, giving rise to the later reflections upon social and economic development patterns and advancing the sustainable ideology, strategies, and patterns. The major concern for humanity about its survival and environmental issues has found its full expression after nearly 40 years of progression, from the first environmental conference in 1972 to the first conference on environment and development in 1992 through the Kyoto Conference on global warming, until the Copenhagen conference in 2009. As the ecological resources and environmental issues concern the humanity and transcend national borders, they will entail the global vision, global values, global strategies, and global cooperation that fit in the context of contemporary globalization. Global ecology and environmental issues will certainly be highlighted today. Social public issues The contemporary globalization also saw the rise of social public issues that beset the public, disrupt social order, and endanger people’s life. Public issues here mainly refer to the ones in the social domain, such as population, food, refugees, immigrants, international terrorism, drugs, illegal money laundering, piracy, public health and epidemic prevention, information security, and human trafficking. The above-mentioned are categorized as the non-traditional security issues, also known to exist in other domains, including economic and financial security in the economic domain, ecological

Globalization  33 and environmental safety in the global ecological and environmental domain. However, it is in the social domain that people’s concern for social public safety figures prominently and the contemporary globalization brought the non-traditional security issues to the global level and enhanced people’s awareness of the impact of multifarious public issues, such as the “9/11” terrorist attacks, the rampant piracy off the coast of Somalia, the raging atypical pneumonia, the spread of AIDS, the rising tide of refugees, the war on drugs, the cyber-attacks, and the network paralysis. These public problems and non-traditional security issues call for the concerted efforts of the international community, and no countries should expect to tackle them alone. Most importantly, a wide range of social public issues highlight the interdependence of human beings, pointing up the need to promote global thoughts and policies across the world. Cultural particularism vs. universalism In contemporary globalization, culture should be given its due considerations as it is in some way short of economic and political transformation. The current cultural interactions point up the need to treat culture as an important constitutive dimension of globalization with the focus on particularism/universalism, diversity/unity, and global/local (local, ethnic, national). As culture is understood as the contextual expressions of history, locality, people, and environment, what has been reified as culture since the establishment of nation-state system in the modern times is mostly bound up with nation-states such as the Chinese culture, Indian culture, American culture, Russian culture, and European culture. In that sense, local and national perspectives are treated as social constructs as well as historical ones and will be translated into entrenched mindsets and ethical values. Conceivably, the local and national culture that features particularism is faced with the challenge of universal culture such as Stoic cosmopolitanism, ancient Chinese world view, modern natural law theory, liberal democracy, and other universal values in religious ethics. However, the challenge is somewhat vitiated by cultural and technological restraints as well as territorial limits on people’s communications and interactions, and cultural values and perspectives that feature universalism are yet to fully come into play. With the advent of the global village, human communications are supposed to be less restricted by spatiotemporal factors and more enhanced in their mobility and interconnectivity. The global movement of technology, goods, and people will ease the restraints of economic, political, cultural, and social borders, thereby generating the universal culture with increasing cultural exchanges and conflicts as part of the global landscape. Against the backdrop of economic globality, political supranationality, social and ecological interdependence, the global culture highlights the following concerns: is there a common culture or universal value for humanity? How does the native/national culture coordinate with the common culture of humanity?

34  Tuo Cai How do we understand glocalization or delocalization of culture? How do we cope with national/ethnic identity and human identity? How is national citizenship identified with global citizenship? All these beset the contemporary quest for the identity, position, or behavior, and bring cultural universalism and particularism to the fore in the domains of all humanities. Global governance and institutionalized regulation As human interdependence deepens and public affairs proliferate, there has been such a sharp rise in global issues to the extent that the huge challenges and their impacts make it imperative to enforce institutionalized regulation and governance. Contemporary globalization is evolving its system characterized by institutionalization, networking, and multi-level and multi-actor governance: the first point here is the normative role of international law. With the tendency to going global, contemporary international law is beginning to regulate and coordinate the relations beyond the national level up to the level of humanity and individuals, as exemplified in human rights law and international environmental law, as well as in the international criminal court. It follows that the global rule of law is no longer a delusion but actually on the horizon in contemporary globalization. The second point is the increase in the number of international organizations and their strengthened roles. The United Nations strengthened its role after the Cold War, and the three major economic organizations (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization) are unquestionably essential in their management and coordination of global production, trade, and finance. Besides, new organizations are emerging in the efforts of addressing global issues (e.g., ecological environment, AIDS, terrorism, information security, and financial crisis), and G20 can be taken as a classic example. Overall, an increasing number of international organizations with their evolving functions are dedicated to addressing cross-border issues and public affairs that confront mankind today, and they seek to institutionalize these issues and affairs through meetings, declarations, and statements. The third point is the increasingly complex management network of globalization, regionalization, and specialization. Given the fact that globalization coexists with regionalization and specialization, the complicated contemporary global issues and human public affairs require institutional arrangement and coordinated governance across the specialized, regional, and global levels. The whole process can be seen in the development of the UN-centered global system, the EU-patterned regional governance with the focus on integration, coordination of regions/sub-regions, and the problem-oriented management of specialized fields. As such, the contemporary international community seeks to manage public affairs and global issues by building the network of globalization, regionalization, and specialization undergirded by international laws and international organizations.

Globalization  35 Global citizenship and the rise of civil society Friedman believes that countries are the main protagonists of Globalization 1.0, companies are the main protagonists of Globalization 2.0, and individuals are the main protagonists of Globalization 3.0. Undoubtedly in some way being a sweeping generalization, Friedman’s thesis nevertheless points to the unprecedented opportunities of participation and freedom for individuals in competition or supply chain provided by the information technology, and individuals are supposed to get actively involved in every field of contemporary globalization. As it is, diversified personal identities and organized public affairs are the manifestations of contemporary globalization: the individual’s national citizenship is practically unaffected, but more identities such as the legitimate membership of a regional organization or the one of an international organization (inter-governmental organizations or NGO) have emerged. Held has pointed out that citizenship in the light of cosmopolitanism cannot be interpreted as an exclusive construct in administrative territorial divisions, but should be predicated on universal rules or laws that derive from diverse circumstances.10 As such, diversified identities of citizenship promote the global civil society by empowering citizens to break through the national limits, to examine public affairs and global issues in a macro-view, and to manage public affairs through NGOs. Conceivably, the 1970s saw the explosive growth of NGOs worldwide as an alternative to the established elitist model of government control and international governance, which gets the public more involved in globalization and global governance. In contemporary globalization, public participation is encouragingly high and indeed gaining momentum. Types of globalization Earlier, we discuss the historical and contemporary patterns of globalization, and this part will be focused on the types of globalization. Regrettably, little scholarship has been found in this field and the most illuminating and representative insights are given by Held into the types of globalization, and by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye into the types of globalism. Held proposes eight dimensions of globalization: spatiotemporal dimensions which include extensity of the global network, intensity of global interconnectedness, velocity of global flow, and impact propensity of global interactions; organizational profiles which involve global infrastructures, institutionalization of global networks and relations in the normal operation of organizations and agencies, power and stratification, and the dominant ways of global interactions. Based on this analytical framework, four types of globalization are identified: 1

Thick globalization: It is characterized by high intensity, high velocity, and high impact of the expanding global network across all domains of

36  Tuo Cai

2

3

4

social life from economy to culture. Held believes that contemporary globalization can be characterized as such, while skeptics argue that there already was such an epoch in the late 19th century. Diffused globalization: It is characterized by high extensity, high intensity, high velocity, and low impact of the global network. Contemporary economic globalization can be characterized as such in many respects, but there has been no such phenomenon in history. Expansive globalization: It is characterized by low intensity, low velocity, high extensity, and high impact. In other words, this type of globalization is characterized more by its extensity and impact than by velocity. The Western European expansion can be cited as an example of expansive globalization due to its impact on other civilizations during the earlier modern period. Thin globalization: It is characterized by high extensity, low velocity, low intensity, and low impact, as can be exemplified in the early silk and luxuries trade connections between Europe and China.

It should be noted that Held’s classification of globalization is not exhaustive as globalization can assume a variety of logical forms given its extensity, intensity, and impact. In other words, the overall shape of globalization cannot be limited to a single framework and should be analyzed with various models. Keohane and Nye have made contributions to theorizing interdependence and regimes. It is not until the late 20th century that they began to theorize globalization by first clarifying concepts of interdependence and globalization. Their rigorous research on globalization also distinguishes itself by defining globalism as distinct from globalization in its own dimensions. Globalism is defined as a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances, which is linked through flows and influences of capital and goods, information and ideas, people and force, as well as environmentally and biologically relevant substances (such as acid rain or pathogens). Both independence and globalism involve costly effects that may increase or reduce over a period of time. Globalization implies the increasing trend of globalism, including the vast expansion of networks of interdependence and transnational flows. As such, no fundamental differences can be derived from Keohane and Nye’s research on differentiating between globalization and globalism, and the following covers different dimensions of globalism discussed by them11: 1 2

Economic globalism involves the long-distance flow of goods, services, capital, information, and perceptions that accompany market exchange, as well as organizations linked to these flows. Military globalism refers to the long-distance networks of interdependence in which military forces and the threat or pledge of military forces are employed. It emerged during the Greek and Roman times

Globalization  37

3

4

5

6

7

when Alexander’s Empire was established and another contemporary example is the “balance of terror” between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Environmental globalism refers to the long-distance transportation of materials in the atmosphere or oceans or of biological substances such as pathogens or genetic materials that affect human health and wellbeing. Its long history dates back to raging epidemics over thousands of years and the contemporary examples include the spread of HIV and global warming. Social and cultural globalism involves the movements of ideas, beliefs, intentions, and people (carrier of ideas and information). Examples include religious movements, the diffusion of scientific knowledge, and the imitation of one society’s practices and institutions at the regional or global level. At the most profound level, social and cultural globalism affects the consciousness of individuals and their attitudes towards culture, politics, and personal identity. Moreover, the growth of the internet has increased the flow of culture and ideas at a dramatic rate. Political globalism refers to the ideas and information about power and governance. It can be measured by imitation effects (e.g., constitutional arrangements or the number of democratic states), or by the diffusion of government policies or international regimes. However, Keohane and Nye suggest that political globalism does not seem to be an independent category, but rather, a subset of social and cultural globalism since almost all forms of globalization have political implications. Legal globalism refers to the spread of legal practices and institutions to a variety of issues, including world trade and the criminalization of war crimes by heads of states. Likewise, Keohane and Nye treat legal globalism as the subset of social and cultural globalism to avoid proliferation in the categories since they cannot be exhausted in the research. However, such reductionist categories are likely to attract criticism since politics and rule of law are generally taken as significant domains. Globalization of informal violence refers to the networks of violence flow created by non-state actors via modern technologies of communication, transportation, explosives, and potentially biology, somehow weakening globalism alongside other dimensions. It was the latest response to globalization by Keohane and Nye after 9/11, and another new category of globalism as well.

The aforementioned study by Keohane and Nye focuses on human social domains and the relevant issues. In addition, they propose thick globalization (globalism) and thin globalization (globalism) as described by Held et al. Thick globalism involves not only many relationships that are intensive and extensive, but also long-distance flows that are large and continuous, affecting the lives of many people. In contrast, thin globalism is limited

38  Tuo Cai in its impact and flow. Take the Silk Road as an example: it only had a direct impact primarily on a small stratum of consumers along the road.12 Indeed, the research is still at its early stage and needs further exploration of the contents and phenomena in globalization, particularly in terms of theorizing and advancing the criteria of categories in globalization. The current literature seems to reveal the following four criteria. Firstly, the degree of globalization refers to the density of networks, the extensity and speed of flow, and the intensity and extensity of impact. Relevant research can be found in Held’s spatiotemporal dimensions and in Keohane and Nye’s density of networks, regime change, and transnational participation since all their research consider differentiating and evaluating the degree of globalization as fundamental aspects of globalization forms.13 Built on the aforementioned research, globalization can be characterized as thick globalization or thin globalization, strong globalization or weak globalization. Secondly, domains and issues that involve globalization can be understood as the most common criteria, which are wide-ranging, dynamic, and responsive to the manifestations of globalization. As such, globalization is divided into economic globalization, political globalization, cultural globalization, social globalization, military globalization, legal globalization, scientific and technological globalization, environmental globalization, information globalization, and linguistic globalization. Thirdly, history of globalization can be interpreted as a historical macro-approach to globalization, with two subsets included: the first one is to chronicle the globalization, examining the globalization in the historical order and summing it up as phases of globalization (such as Held’s classification of pre-modern globalization, early modern globalization, modern globalization, and contemporary globalization); the other one is to highlight the researcher’s views from the historical perspective (here lies the periodization of globalization: origin and germinal phase, growth phase, crystalizing and reshaping phase, ascending and transforming phase). This treatment of globalization renders it easy to conduct the theoretical analysis and comparative study at a macro-level, but it may well be too overgeneralized to cope with, such as the contemporary globalization and historical globalization. Fourthly, the technology that undergirds globalization is supposed to be the most popular criterion adopted in humanities and social sciences. As the epoch-making technology implies the revolution in producing changes in human lifestyles, it is essential for us to understand the material technology through different phases of globalization: pre-steam-era globalization, steam-era globalization, electric-revolution-era globalization, and globalization in the information age.

Theoretical schools and analytical framework of globalization Major theoretical schools of globalization Theories of globalization have been brought to attention since the 1970s, especially the 1990s, with the rapid expansion and widespread influence of

Globalization  39 globalization in real life. Today, theories of globalization have covered various disciplines and fields of the humanities and social sciences, and globalization has become the dominant discourse in the contemporary academia. The questions then arise: what are the major schools of globalization studies? What are their basic viewpoints? With regard to the theoretical conflicts and debates of globalization, David Held and Anthony McGrew conduct the most comprehensive survey and elaborate on their claims in the following publications: Global Transformations, Globalization/Anti-Globalization, and Globalization Theory. Built on their viewpoints, globalization research can be divided into three schools represented by globalists, skeptics, and transformationalists (see Global Transformations); also, the globalization/anti-globalization divide is characteristic of the contemporary globalization research: the globalists are advocates for globalization, while skeptics are against globalization (see Globalization/Anti-Globalization). Anthony Giddens proposes two distinct attitudes towards globalization: on the one side, hyper-globalizers trumpet a world of global transformations and global dynamics. On the other side, skeptics question and even oppose globalization. In his opinion, both of them are fundamentally wrong to conceptualize globalization in economic terms and globalization is supposed to be multi-dimensional.14 The aforementioned claims reveal the current schools of globalization studies in the international academia, yet there should be a note of caution about the broad generalization herein. In addition, the economic considerations seem to carry too much weight in the academic perspectives on globalization, and the political perspective and analysis need to be highlighted, in order to make schools of globalization more complex. Yang Xuedong, an acclaimed Chinese scholar of globalization, puts forward the globalization theory clusters that involve multiple disciplines. He suggests two criteria for the literature review on globalization studies, thereby specifying six distinct theories/schools. The first criterion is to observe and assess globalization from the perspective of phenomenology. Thus, theories are categorized as the hyper-globalizing camp, the skeptical camp, and the process camp: the hyper-globalizing camp is typical of globalists, advocating the omnipotent market and deeming nation-state obsolete; the process camp views globalization as a process of social transformations with its focus on multi-dimensional and dynamic globalization; the skeptics question the objectivity and reality of globalization. The second criterion is to predict and analyze the potential implications of globalization. Theories thus diverge as follows: the conflict theory, the transformation theory, and the new social oppression theory. The conflict theory paints the pessimistic scenario of global conflicts; the transformation theory resembles the process theory in their shared focus on global transformations across social domains/levels; the new social oppression theory is indeed linked with politics. It stresses the negative and dehumanizing aspects of globalization and suggests resisting and transforming the contemporary globalization via the aggregated social forces of the labor union, environmentalists, feminists, and many other actors.

40  Tuo Cai We argue that the current theoretical schools of globalization tend to be overgeneralized and overly reductionist. They set up a false dichotomy between advocates for and against globalization since both camps can be further divided and revised due to the existence of other academic views especially the political perspective. Moreover, it is arbitrary to categorize skeptics simply as the opponent camp. In light of this situation, we identify the following five intellectual schools. Hyperglobalists Hyperglobalists fall into the extremist camp that advocates globalization and they view globalization with the birth of global economy, global civilization, and global order. Economic globalization is supposed to break away from the original framework, system and social code of conduct that undergird economic, political, and social life, rendering it possible for the universal neoliberal values and institutions of mankind as well as the promising future of the world. Representatives of this camp mainly argue as follows: firstly, the omnipotent market suggests the emergent market civilization and its profound changes in human affairs; secondly, the outdated nation-state faces imminent demise given that the “borderless” economic landscape will lead to the declining power of nation-states in social affairs; lastly, the Eurocentric doctrine that trumpets the victory of Western civilization and values as the end of history given that globalization and market economy originated in the West. Obviously, hyperglobalists are typical neoliberal advocates with firm conviction in globalization (mainly, economic globalization) and clear ideological preference, and they overestimate the role of the market and the value of liberal democracy, ignoring the abuses, injustices, and uncertainties of globalization. Rejectionists Located on the other extreme end of the spectrum are rejectionists of globalization for they see globalization fundamentally as global capitalism or neo-imperialism. Alain de Benoist, a representative of this camp, points out that globalization is an imperialist process of expanding the Western market across the globe and it is an internalized imperialism upon the victims of globalization.15 Likewise, Pierre Bourdieu claims that the upshot of globalization is to dress up the effects of American imperialism as the trappings of economic fatalism.16 As a result, rejectionists of globalization argue that today’s globalization turns out worse than the military conquest and territorial occupation in the 19th century because the market and capital as the leverage of globalization take a heavy toll on developing countries who suffer the loss of markets, culture, and identity. Globalization in this sense serves as the disguised rhetoric of imperialism and people should realize and fight against the conspiracy.17 As such, rejectionists view globalization

Globalization  41 as the global expansion of capital, the latest/global form of capitalism or as the handmaiden of capitalism and imperialism, and they thus oppose globalization altogether, not merely the ills of globalization. Viewpoints of this camp are less of an academic perspective than of a political stance, and the majority herein are radical and revolutionary as revealed in the traditional Marxists, the new Left or the nationalists. Skeptics Skeptics of globalization are categorized as the anti-globalization camp since they dispute and criticize the limited nature of globalization. Their powerful criticism of the general misuse of the concept targets hyperglobalists and is linked to the following core claims: first of all, the world economy is not a truly global phenomenon but an international one. Secondly, the majority of economic activities around the world remain primarily national despite the increased regional/transnational activities, and it is ridiculous to call the phenomenon denationalization or label the role of nation-state as obsolete. In addition, current globalization is not only exaggerated in scope and extent but also deified and idealized in function. As it is, contemporary globalization has not reached the level existed before World War I and the brutal reality reflects the North-South Divide as well as abuses and injustices of globalization. Arguably, the neoliberals are under the delusion that the market prevails and nation-states will be transcended towards global civilization. What skeptics argue is thought-provoking and widely accepted in that they affirm the role of nation-state and economic regionalization, yet with a note of caution against the overexaggerated accounts of globalization and the concern for developing countries about the potential risk of being marginalized or penalized in economic globalization. Much due to this, skeptics are identified with the anti-globalization camp. Moreover, to avoid proliferation in their research, scholars such as Held and Giddens even equate skeptics with rejectionists. However, strictly speaking, skeptics and rejectionists are two distinct categories that cannot be confused with each other, as the former, premised on the academic perspective, embodies the intellectual rigor and objectivity while the latter is politically oriented, lacking theoretical depth and empirical evidence. Representatives of this camp are mostly identified with realism in international relations and new Marxism. Critics Critics of globalization seem to be such a broad concept as to include both rejectionists and skeptics for their shared criticism of globalization. We nonetheless insist on distinguishing critics from rejectionists and skeptics given the following factors: rejectionists are fundamentally opposed to globalization, and oriented more towards the political stance than the

42  Tuo Cai academic criticism; by contrast, skeptics are more academically oriented in their moderate analyses that acknowledge some manifestations of globalization including internalization or regionalization but not the fully globalized world for humanity. Critics also acknowledge the objectivity of globalization but strongly criticize the injustices, inequalities, and imperfections in the globalization process, as well as those that serve the interests of the Western developed countries, especially the US. Joseph E. Stiglitz, the noted American economist, is representative of this camp. Drawing on his personal experience as the chairman of the Council of the Economic Advisers under the Clinton administration and as the vice president of the World Bank, Stiglitz published his controversial book Globalization and Its Discontents, arguing more about the ills of contemporary globalization than the benefits. First of all, the inequitable profit distribution is a serious issue. Stiglitz points out that the effects of Washington Consensus policies lie in benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor, benefiting the minority at the expenses of the majority, and that the economic profits and values in many cases replace the concern for the environment, democracy, human rights, and social justice.18 The second problem is inefficient management. Stiglitz is especially critical of the ideological biases and corruptions of elite management within the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the WTO, insisting that globalization should be reshaped and that a new global economy is likely to emerge in due course when all countries all have their say in the policies that affect them.19 Communists of the Western developed countries also belong to this camp in that the majority of them take issues with neoliberalism that dominates the contemporary economic globalization while acknowledging the objective and inevitable tendency of international economic development towards globalization. For instance, they try to differentiate between the objectivity of globalization and the real manifestations of contemporary globalization as they acknowledge the former but criticize the latter as not only blatant worship of money that results from profit-driven acts of capitalists but also global intensification and expansion of conflicts that derive from imperialism of the 20th century.20 To sum up, critics differ mainly from rejectionists and skeptics in their acknowledgment of the objectivity of globalization. With regard to criticism of globalization, critics are closer to rejectionists in their shared clear-cut and strong political stance while the skeptics are less radical. Transformationalists Transformationalists are the most influential intellectual camp in globalization theory and representatives of this camp are noted scholars of the international academia, such as Anthony Giddens – the British social theorist and advocate of the Third Way; James N. Rosenau – the American scholar of international relations and proponent of Governance without Government; and Ulrich Beck – a German socialist. Comparatively speaking, scholars

Globalization  43 like Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, and Roland Robertson are more cautious in their views of globalization among this transformationalist camp. What distinguishes this camp from others is the mild stance and in-depth theory, diverse approaches, and eclectic viewpoints, as it assimilates and balances the aforementioned four schools, embodying creative thinking and intellectual foundation, advocating multi-perspective, multi-level, and multidisciplinary research as well as the rational insights into theories and practices. Arguably, the transformationalist school sheds light on the theories and practices of globalization, facilitating further research in this field. The following analyzes the basic claims of the camp. Firstly, globalization is an objective phenomenon and historical process, and it suggests the transformations in the scale of human organizations that enable the interconnectedness of distant communities and expand the influence of power relations across the world. Although seemingly controlling globalization in the real world, Western powers cannot manipulate the technical, economic factors/forces that undergird globalization, nor the manifestations of globalization in the economic, political, cultural, and environmental fields, as they are also subject to these factors and forces. Secondly, globalization has a long history, but it was not until the late 20th and the early 21st centuries that globalization became the contemporary theme as a central force to promote human social changes. Contemporary globalization is unprecedented, but it will continue to be a contingent historical process replete with contradictions, and it is therefore essential to adopt an open and dynamic perspective in examining and addressing globalization. Thirdly, globalization not only shapes the global society and global civilization but also shows a certain tendency towards supranationality, and hence there needs to be a rethink on and a transcendence of the state centrism in core theory, values, and approaches. However, contemporary globalization cannot and should not be simply viewed as the exclusion of necessity and rationality of the state. The essence of globalization is to reexamine and regulate the power, function, and authority of the state in order to co-manage human public affairs with new and different actors. As such, the state coexists with non-state actors, and the sovereign system coexists with emergent non-territorial economic and political organizations and their regimes. Neither of them could be replaced by one another. Fourthly, globalization entails and leads to global governance. As more and more public affairs transcend the territorial boundaries and are beyond sovereign states’ capabilities, there emerge non-state actors and corresponding regimes. Besides, the increasing global issues pose challenges to the existing governance at the national and international levels over the urgent needs of humanity; thus, the networked global governance will rise to the occasion as it features equal consultation with multiple actors at multi-levels. Conceivably, today’s global governance is far from mature and still needs to be improved in terms of democratic participation, system norms, operational efficiency, responsibility, supervision, and sustainability.

44  Tuo Cai Fifthly, globalization indeed widens the gap between the rich and the poor, and deepens global inequality. Skeptics and rejectionists should be given their due attention as they are correct in their criticism and judgment on this issue. However, the solution to the issue is not to flatly reject globalization but to develop better systems and strategies at the regional, national, and global levels so that globalization can progress towards mutual benefit and common prosperity. The pressing issues concerning poverty, global warming, and international trade and finance require the assistance of policy, money, and technology that would tip the balance in favor of developing countries, thereby making globalization more humane and conducive to the resolution of conflicts between nations and civilizations. Lastly, globalization presents a complex landscape of human life and world order that consists of multiple actors, intertwining and overlapping powers, coexisting and interlinking management systems and institutions, as well as diverse values and personal identities. There exists a challenge that varies in degree to the established systems, regimes, norms, values, and relations. In addition, the international society is also faced with the rising impact from the emergent systems, institutions, norms, values, and relations that seem unfamiliar or difficult for people to accept. Against such background, people have to learn to rethink and respond rationally, while recognizing the complexity of contemporary human social life, overcoming the habitual binary thinking, and adapting to the challenges and paradoxes in quest of the world transformations and civilizational progress. Research perspective and the analytical framework of globalization Globalization is a complex and comprehensive cluster of theories pervasive in contemporary humanities and social sciences, and it is subject to multidisciplinary research. The very characteristic has brought about varied perspectives and analytical frameworks in the globalization research. For example, the current study is undergoing a shift from the single economic perspective to pluralistic perspectives. Since economic globalization is dominant in the globalization process, the early stage of globalization study features the economic perspective, particularly neoliberalism. Robertson, noted for his cultural perspective, points out in the preamble to the Chinese Version of Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture that globalization is unfortunately seen in terms of business studies in many books or articles of globalization and he insists on promoting the cultural turn in the study of globalization.21 In addition to economic and cultural perspectives, globalization research to date involves other perspectives of politics, law, international relations, and international communications, as well as disciplinary perspectives of philosophy, history, anthropology, etc. Given the proliferation in globalization studies, it behooves us to identify the most influential research perspectives and analytical frameworks as follows.

Globalization  45 Held and McGrew put forward four waves of globalization research that represent different approaches and theoretical preferences. The first wave is the theoretical wave involving not only conceptions of globalization but also the main force, systematic and structural impacts of the secular process of social transformations across the world. Scholars that engage in this research include the noted theorists such as Anthony Giddens, Roland Robertson, James N. Rosenau, Martin Albrow, Kenichi Ohmae, and David Harvey. The second wave of history benefits from the global development of historical sociology, and it is mostly concerned with identifying the novel or unique aspects of modern globalization that initiate a new era or change in social economic and political organizations of human affairs. The third wave is of institutionalization that focuses on issues of institutional changes or flexibility and seeks to evaluate the scholarship on global integration (and disintegration). Representatives of this wave are skeptical of structural changes that globalization generates. Lastly, the wave of structuralism reflects the influence of post-structuralism and constructionism across and beyond the social sciences. It is characterized by the stress on reliable global construction, destruction and reconstruction of ideas, institutions, communications, possibilities, and conventional changes, and the very process can be interpreted as a historical process and hegemonic discourse.22 The aforementioned theoretical waves feature macro-scale research approaches. By contrast, Leslie Sklair proposes four methods of globalization research from the perspective of sociology, namely, the World-Systems approach, the Global Culture approach, the Global Society approach, and the Global Capitalism approach. The World-Systems approach is developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. According to the international division of labor in the capitalist economy, Wallerstein argues that the world is divided into core/periphery countries and that the world economy spreads from the core to the peripheries. In addition, he also articulates the attendant international relations and social issues. The theory and approach are linked to globalization because its perspective is global and holistic, but meanwhile, criticism is attracted from its rivals mostly due to its nation-centered approach and the fact that it lays much greater emphasis on economy than on culture in the World-Systems approach. Besides, “there is no distinctively ‘global’ dimension in the world-systems model apart from the inter-national focus that it has always emphasized”.23 It is nevertheless acknowledged that the World-Systems perspective assumes a central role in globalization research since the 1970s, given its holistic approach to world history and social change. The Global Culture approach is a response to and correction of the world-systems perspective in relation to its disregard for the cultural dimension. It rises to the challenge of emerging cultural issues and focuses on the following specific issues: the first is globalization of culture that focuses on the problems that a homogenizing mass media-based culture poses for national identities; secondly, it explores the global/local relationship from the

46  Tuo Cai cultural perspective, being characterized as ‘Globo-localism’. There is a great deal of overlap between this and the ‘globalization of culture’ model, but the researchers on Globo-localism tend to emphasize the ‘territorial’ dimension and the autonomy of local cultures in the face of an advancing ‘global culture’. Scholars of this school include Roland Robertson and Martin Albrow. Arguably, this analysis has shown its intellectual vigor in global cultural research. The Global Society approach focuses on the spatiotemporal compression, the emergence of the global village, global consciousness, and global issues. It seeks to explore the reality or possibility of global society that transcends traditional national society. This research approach is influential and dominant in contemporary globalization studies, as is generally adopted by scholars such as Anthony Giddens, Roland Robertson, David Held, James N. Rosenau, and Ulrich Beck. However, it is still a question whether the supra-national global society could be universally acknowledged. Leslie Sklair points out that while it is relatively easy to establish empirically the objective dimensions of globalization as they involve the large majority of the world’s population, the idea of a global society based on subjective relationships to globalization, planetary consciousness and the like, is highly speculative.24 The Global Capitalism approach focuses on the structures of an ever-more globalizing capitalism. Globalism has spread from the national/regional level to the global level, and the transnational capitalist class (TCC) acts “as a ruling class” with the dominant culture/ideology of consumerism that poses an unprecedented challenge to the third world development. Analyses of these emergent issues of globalization need to be related to the research on new characteristics of contemporary capitalism. This method provides a unique perspective on global studies, and its distinct origins and link with Marxism thus make it popular with today’s orthodox Marxism and neo-Marxism. As we noted in the previous part, David Held’s theory differs from Leslie Sklair’s in that the former is more abstract and macroscopic to the extent that it demands the literacy in international relations for better understanding, while the latter is more specific and academic but less demanding in terms of comprehension and application. Nevertheless, the aforementioned framework and approaches are adopted in research, and it behooves us to make sure that they are complementary in relation to varied issues or perspectives without needing to identify which is better.

The crux of globalization theory Globalization as an ideological product or objective historical process One of the primary epistemic problems in globalization is concerned with its objective dimension. Objectivity here refers to the historical inevitability

Globalization  47 and inherent logic of a phenomenon or matter in its emergence and existence, without being subject to the subjective will. As a phenomenon, globalization is an indisputable fact. The crux of the matter is whether this phenomenon is derived from the deliberate ideological invention or from the natural evolution, and hence the controversies ensue. Those against the objectivity of globalization argue that globalization is the ideological form fabricated on neoliberalism by the US/UK with its corresponding organizations (such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and OECD), and is imposed upon the international community as a trap. The authors of The Global Trap point out that the interconnected global economy is not a natural outcome but an intentional result of pursuing a goal-oriented policy, and that globalization for the majority of countries is a forced process that they cannot escape while for the US it is a deliberate process pursued and maintained by the political and economic elites.25 In brief, Chinese scholars hold that the US established the institutions of globalization after World War II, with the related conceptions formed in the 1950s and public opinions shaped in the 1970s,26 and in the 1990s globalization gained momentum. As noted above, this argument carries more weight than the general ineffective criticism of globalization as an illusion or a figment of the imagination. Global interests and issues intertwine and mark globalization as phenomena and processes, thereby making a strong case for criticizing and opposing globalization by exposing its ideological nature without disregard for its objective dimension. Besides, it is more logical to define globalization as the product of ideology than as mere neoliberalism doctrine, which stresses market omnipotence and efficiency. Strictly speaking, the idea of market omnipotence can only be taken as a perspective on globalization but not as globalization itself, since globalization is still a phenomenon and its objectivity mainly lies in whether there exists human interference. Thus, it smacks of reductionism to treat globalization as neoliberalism, for the doctrine is subjective and characteristic of deliberate generalization and abstraction, lacking its due attention to fundamental phenomena and the causes of globalization. Since viewing globalization as an ideological product is to affirm impacts of ideology on globalization and even to claim that as the latest capitalist ideology, globalization theory dresses up and shifts the disapproving Western values as the ‘global’ vision, defending the global expansion of capitalism on abstract global values. Apart from that, globalization with the homogenous connotations disguises the blatant capitalist mode of production in modernization theory as an abstract conception implemented across the globe, or, as the rationale for ‘the end of history’. In this sense, globalization as an academic discourse colludes with the claim of ‘the end of history’, serving the need of the current capitalist mode of production.27 As such, the interpretation of globalization as an ideological product denies the objectivity of globalization and sees this ideology as a tool of the current capitalism, and a handmaiden of the global capitalism.

48  Tuo Cai By contrast, those who advocate for the objectivity of globalization emphasizes the objective conditions and intrinsic logic in the globalizing process. The following are objective conditions and historical prerequisites of globalization: the first is the historic transformations of communications and transportation. It reduces the cost in transportation and communications, and more importantly, breaks the limits of time and space as a material technological means to the emergent ‘global village’, hence leading to the new world of global human exchanges. As the productive forces fundamentally determine the means of human labor/communication, and the primary productive forces of science and technology will in turn have a distinct impact on human social life, this Marxist thesis can be well applied to justify the objectivity of globalization. Secondly, the intrinsic attribute of market economy determines its tendency towards global expansion. So far, the market economy is considered the best economic form of humanorganized economic life, as the essence of market economy is to allocate capital, technology, and labor force rationally to pursue the maximum economic benefits. As it is, the market economy is not subject to the territorial restraints and bound to spread across the nation, beyond the national border to the regional and global level, thus evolving global production, global trade, global capital, and global market. Modern economic development also shows that a single national market cannot meet the objective requirements for the global allocation of factors of production, and as a result, today’s market-oriented economic life is bound to evolve global economic relationships and no human interference can impede the progress of economic globalization. In short, modern science and technology provide the unprecedentedly convenient communication tools and the playing field at global level, alongside the ever-expanding market as the internal driving force. It is the combination of the two factors that highlights globalization phenomena and processes, especially since the 1990s under the intense impact of globalization. Given the aforementioned objectivity, there lie various generalizations or accounts of globalization. The Group of Lisbon states that globalization consists of two different phenomena – extensity of impact (or extent of horizontal expansion) and intensity of impact (or degree of vertical effects). On the one hand, the concept points to a spatial dimension that accounts for a series of development processes throughout most parts of the planet, or with a worldwide impact. On the other hand, it indicates the strengthened relationship, horizontal relations, or interdependence between nations and societies that form the world community; thus, globalization does not come across as an abstract concept but rather as a familiar feature of modern life.28 In addition, the Group of Lisbon also lists seven domains and processes of globalization: the globalization of finance, globalization of market and market strategies, especially globalization of competition, technology and globalization of scientific knowledge, globalization of scientific research and development, globalization of lifestyles, consumer behavior and

Globalization  49 cultural life, globalization of regulation and control capacities, globalization of the world’s interconnected politics, and globalization of observation and consciousness.29 Likewise, Held defines globalization as “transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental or inter-regional flows”.30 Indeed, whether to acknowledge the objectivity of globalization determines the perspective on globalization. When the objectivity of globalization is denied, globalization will be viewed more as the subjective ideological construct or mere as the Western ideology, or even Americanization. When the objectivity of globalization is recognized, globalization will be more interpreted in the light of its historical premises of evolution, new characteristics of the era, and new trend of historical development. We insist on the claim of the objective dimension as the precondition for keeping globalization in perspective and for responding effectively to the challenge of globalization, with which contemporary human social life will be rationally understood. However, we should be cautious about globalization theory, as it is subjective, varied in perceptions and generalizations of globalization, and subject to diverse interpretations of individuals, classes, nations, or countries with their respective roles in social life and international relations at different phases. As such, globalization theory risks being ideologically biased and deviating from the truth of objective globalization, as the subjectivity of globalization arguably reflects in this respect. It is universally acknowledged that contemporary globalization is dominated by the West, be it for objectivity or subjectivity. Subjectivity here refers to globalization as a dominant discourse and theoretical framework as well as the globalizing processes, principles, contents, and consequences that the West formulate, interpret, and expect. This West-dominated ideology of globalization is the very aversion to developing countries because it is permeated by the conceptions such as ‘market omnipotent’, ‘capital domination’, ‘obsolete nation-state’, and ‘Western center’. Objectivity in the dominant sense refers to the rules or regulations, and the processes or profit distribution that are subject to the Western powers in the domains of globalizing economy, politics, culture, and society. As it is, the dominating position of the West as the winner reflects the unjust and unbalanced reality of globalization; hence, it is the internal impediment to the progress of globalization. Against this backdrop, we need to strike a balance in our perceptions of subjective and objective dimensions of globalization. It is insensible to exaggerate one-sided knowledge of globalization as the Western ideology or as the objective phenomena or processes since the exaggeration of subjectivity of globalization will lead to ignorance and even denial of its objectivity, which makes it difficult to respond rationally to the challenge of globalization. Meanwhile, the exaggeration of objectivity of globalization is likely to cause the loss of the initiative in response to globalization, resulting in the

50  Tuo Cai lack of awareness about globalization as an ideological trap. Therefore, it behooves us to examine globalization in the light of its objectivity and subjectivity to gain the competitive edge in globalization. Globalization, exaggerated or otherwise The second epistemic issue is the extent to which contemporary globalization has evolved and if it is exaggerated. Generally speaking, with the deepening globalization, the objectivity of globalization is less questioned, whereas more doubts are raised about the impact of globalization. In a sense, skeptics have become the most intellectually competent community of the various opinions and forces against globalization. So, what does this intellectual community question? Firstly, they question the authenticity of the global economy, or, more precisely, if contemporary economy is progressing towards global integration or if it could be called global economy. In their opinion, the majority of economic activities remain primarily national or local, and internationalized economy is a mere complement to the distinct national economy. As a result, the contemporary economy at best is the enhanced international version of economic exchanges between nations, which can be described as “the open world market based on the trade country, more or less regulated by the public policy of national and supranational institutions”.31” Therefore, there is a note of caution against the concept of globalized economy, claiming what really exists is the international economy based on national economy. Apart from that, skeptics view economic globalization as a myth and cite the following empirical evidence in favor of their criticism of the concept. Firstly, setting the Golden Age of World War I as the benchmark, the average ratio of national trade to GDP in 1913 was greater than that of 1973, and the ratio of current account balances and capital flows to GNP before 1914 was greater than that of the 1980s. Moreover, the 19th century saw the flow of labor when it was acceptable and advisable at that time for a large number of workers to move to the source of capital, but today it cannot be accepted unless for expediency.32 As a result, the world economy before 1914 was more open and developed than that of any period after the 1970s, but this open and integrated mode of international economy stagnated for more than half a century after World War I and did not revive until the 1980s and 1990s. The current globalization hence should not be overstated, still less to be deified. Secondly, the contemporary economy is mainly regionalized rather than globalized. Alan Rugman, a British academic, argues what globalization means is “the activities of multinational enterprises engaged in foreign direct investment and the development of business networks to create value across national borders”.33 The contemporary 500 multinational enterprises operating in the triad of North America, the European Union, and Japan – also known as the three economic blocs (regions) – are mostly concerned with enhancing their economic competence/competitive

Globalization  51 advantage within their home region, and such an exclusive mode is unlikely to lead to integrated global economy. The data show that in terms of output (production and distribution of products and services) and input (employees and funds), multinational enterprises create more than 90% of the products and services on a regional rather than global basis. As for members outside of the three major economic blocs, there seems to be a remote possibility for them to be integrated into the global economy due to the lack of the required economic strength. It is not surprising that Rugman claims “we are currently witnessing the end of globalization” and “Globalization is a myth; it never really occurred”. As analyzed in the book, the overwhelmingly dominant products and services are organized on a regional rather than global basis, and the multinational enterprises that are the engine of international business “think regional and act local”.34 Secondly, they question the impact of economic globalization. In the views of skeptics, contemporary globalization is overstated not only in its nature, scale, and integration but also in its impact, which can be summarized as follows. First of all, the claim that globalization is economic globalization is groundless, because economic globalization is fundamentally a regional economic activity of capital expansion and a global operation of transnational corporations. The same holds true in situations where globalization is labeled as global politics, culture, or society. Secondly, globalists claim that contemporary economy is borderless and transnational corporations are free of national attributes. By contrast, skeptics contend that TNCs are rooted in the nation-state, still staying within the national sphere of influence. The data show that over 2/3 to 3/4 economic operations of multinationals are on the national/regional basis in the major developed countries such as the US, Britain, Japan, and Canada. The national economy as the basis for most multinational economic operations actually helps to improve their economic efficiency in providing not only the mere low-cost infrastructure but also substantial intangible benefits from their unique national business cultures.35 In addition, the national institutional support and protection also sustain the national nature of transnational corporationTNCs. Indeed, their transnational operations are restrained in this sense, along with their independence. Whether in the eyes of the public or of the academia, the internationalization of economic operations is overstated.36 Thirdly, the end of nation-state is a myth like globalization given its undiminished role and function. Skeptics are in dispute over the real threat that economic globalization poses for national sovereignty or autonomy and claim that the present era is still the era of modern nation nation-states. They have made the assertion that the nation nation-state has not been undermined in the process of internationalization and its status is rather exaggerated in many respects.37 To be sure, what skeptics question has great implications for the perceptions of globalization: they alert us to the distinction between globalization and internationalization, to the risk of overgeneralizing globalization

52  Tuo Cai as well as to the inhuman and imbalanced aspects of global development. Therefore, we can objectively assess contemporary globalization and rationally position the role of the nation-state. However, their argument cannot be exhaustive and it behooves us to notice their one-sidedness as well. First of all, opinions diverge on the nature of the contemporary world economy, and it is arbitrary and incorrect to define it as the international economy, still less global economy. In terms of world production, trade, and finance, its corresponding system has begun to emerge upon 60,000 TNCs which control 820,000 foreign affiliates. The latest report from the Oxford Committee for Family Relief suggests that TNCs are linking producers of developing countries and consumers of rich countries closely through their production, investment, and marketing activities. In the late 1990s, around 50% of the world’s total manufacturing jobs were in developing countries, and in the year 2000, 65% of the exports were manufactured goods from developing countries to industrialized countries –- which rose by 13 times in less than 40 years. Meanwhile, world trade and finance have included most countries. Trade scale is much larger than that of the Golden Age before World War I, rising from 7.9% (1913) to 17.2% (1998) of the world output. The daily turnover in the foreign exchange market has exceeded US$ 1.2 trillion and the operation of global financial markets has led to the interest rate convergence in the major economies, as well as the convergence of their principles of floating exchange rates. While the global economy may not be as highly integrated as the most dynamic national economy, there is a clear tendency towards a new economy – the global economy which, unlike the international economy, transcends major economic zones and the majority of countries. Secondly, there lacks intellectual rigor in much scholarship on contemporary economic globalization. Skeptics have insisted that today’s globalization is not a novel phenomenon, and the statistics of production, trade, and finance reveal that it is not even as internationalized as it was before World War I. With regard to this issue, Chinese and Western theorists propose different ideas. American scholar Mila Wilkins claims that the biggest difference between contemporary globalization and the globalization before World War I lies in the quantum leap in international financial circulation network and direct transnational investment. Chinese scholar Yang Xuedong points out that the difference between the contemporary international economy and the early 20th-century international economy is mostly reflected in three aspects. Firstly, before the year 1914, most of the countries in the world were not involved in international activities, but today all countries across the world are involved in globalization. Secondly, the international trade before World War I was driven by the decline in transport costs, while it is driven by the cut in communications cost today. This technological innovation brings about changes in organizational modes of companies and society, and they are increasingly interconnected. Lastly, even if the overall capital flows fail to reach the level of the early 20th century, the

Globalization  53 international financial flows have greatly surpassed the previous age, especially in terms of the rapid development of securities and foreign exchange transactions.38 Therefore, the internationalization before World War I does not stand comparison with contemporary globalization, and it behooves us to re-examine contemporary globalization from the objective and comprehensive perspective. Thirdly, it smacks of reductionism in understanding the role and status of nation-states and non-state actors, ignoring what certain phenomena and activities signify. Since the skeptics are accustomed to examining globalization from the perspective of geopolitics, national politics, and international politics, they stress the role of the nation-state, the power struggle between nation-states, the imbalance of world development and the dominant position of major powers. What skeptics claim does make some sense in this respect, but their persistent standpoint of realism fails to make them assign due weight to the impacts of globalization on traditional systems, ideas, values, production, and ways of life as well as their adjustments and novel aspects in the process. As many scholars have pointed out, modern nations are increasingly subject to the interconnected regional and global networks of supranational, inter-governmental, and cross-border forces, and with the enhanced global connections, the single government is confronted with the shrinking scope of strategic political options and the diminishing effects of traditional political instruments.39 However, it does not necessarily lead to the claim of ‘obsolete nation-states’. To be sure, globalization is transforming the political power, but it manifests itself more in changing and reconfiguring the national power than simply in eroding or weakening the national power.40 Besides, globalization has expanded the scope and impact of political activities and authorities as more and more problematic fields have been politicized in the globalizing process, and national political regulation has been surpassed by the networks of policy-making and regulations, political mobilization, and rapidly evolving institutionalized domains.41 The pluralism of political activities and powers is characterized by the involvement of non-state actors in public affairs, hence the emergence of global governance. As it is, many formal activities of global governance are not controlled by public forces, and a considerable proportion of global public policies are developed and implemented by the expanding NGOs and global civic campaigns (such as the World Commission on Dams, the International Accounting Standards Board, the International Financial Action Task Force, the International Joint Campaign for International Criminal Tribunal, the Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, and the Campaign against Multilateral Investment Agreements). In addition, the power of TNCs cannot be neglected because the multinational corporations and their related organizations, such as the transnational business association and international Chamber of Commerce, have been extensively involved in non- economic issues including global warming, human rights, and the new international information order. With regard to global governance, private powers also

54  Tuo Cai interfere in establishing technical standards and offering humanitarian assistance, and alongside public powers, private powers (public and private institutions) co-enact rules, legislations, and public policies. These multilateral, trans-governmental, and transnational political patterns can help to restrain major powers and to create better global politics.42 As the aforementioned analyses of the skeptical views shed light on globalization and broaden our vision, it is favorable for us to keep globalization in perspective. Modernity of globalization, highlighted or otherwise The third epistemic issue is related to the modernity of globalization, namely the characteristics of contemporary globalization. Only through understanding the modernity of globalization can we distinguish contemporary globalization from historical globalization in order to avoid the overstated skeptical accounts of globalization and thus to clarify the political misunderstanding of globalization as the capitalizing process. To understand the modernity of globalization, we must first examine the history of globalization and its characteristics, namely what is historical globalization. There is not much scholarship in this respect and most research to date is concerned with when globalization originated. The following are five claims: one claim views globalization with a long history, at least as long as the reputed world religion which has over 2,000 years of history. In China, there is a claim of “five waves of globalization”, and the first wave dates back to the diffusion of humanity from Africa to the rest of the world while another claim argues that “the so-called globalization is the latest global trend of the 1990s”. Compared with the two extreme examples above, the third claim has reached more consensus that globalization began with the Geographical Discovery marked by the expansion of early capitalism as it accommodates the expansion of capitalist production, the industrialization process and the rise of nation-state. The fourth claim is that real globalization (or, to be precise, economic globalization) emerged in the mid-/late 19th century given the fact that there did not exist the value convergence or commodity trading life cycle before that period, as the commodity transaction was non-competitive and the trading commodity was not popular. The fifth claim emphasizes that the globalization of contemporary human concern and controversy is the social phenomenon after World War II, or, to be more precise, of the 1960s/1970s. Thirty years after World War II, it was the golden age for the rapid development of global economy, and the time when high technology profoundly started to affect human life, creating the landscape of deepening world interdependence, the prominent global problems, the explosive growth of transnational corporations, and the impact of informatization and networks. In particular, since the mid1980s, given the comprehensive and significant impact of globalization on real life, “globalization” has been formalized as the concept of academia,

Globalization  55 and has become the mainstream concept and buzzword of contemporary social sciences. This widely-favored claim is generally integrated with the previous third one. In other words, theorists of globalization note its historical root and contemporary focus, and Robertson is the most representative figure among them. The five claims above reflect different viewpoints of the origins of globalization in academia, but they all focus on the continuity and process of globalization without reference to the distinction between historical globalization and contemporary globalization as well as their dividing line in time; hence, they fail to explain when globalization ended. In our view, since globalization is interpreted as inherently related to human social life, it is reasonable to define historical globalization as one that originated from the 15th-century Geographical Discovery and ended in the 1960s or 1970s. In nearly 500 years, globalization varied at different phases not only in forms and contents but also in intensity and velocity and so on. Generally speaking, historical globalization is characterized as follows: firstly, as regards its forms, globalization manifests itself as the territorial expansion of human communications and exchanges, namely from the domestic to abroad, from surrounding areas to trans-oceans/continents across the world, breaking up the societies which were in long-time isolation from human contact. Secondly, in terms of its contents, globalization manifests itself as the global expansion of market economy. Factors of production are exchanged and allocated across the world, as reflected in the export of goods and capital, the market control and the struggle for raw material, etc. In this sense, globalization means economic globalization and marketization. Thirdly, originating from the modern market economy, the global expansion is linked to the capitalist mode of production and when both integrate with each other at a certain phase, globalization of market economy suggests globalization of the capitalist mode of production. In this sense, globalization is closely intertwined with the ideology of capitalism. Fourthly, since historical globalization is centered upon capitalism with its roots in Western countries, globalization theories at this phase tend to be Western-centric. Lastly, historical globalization reflects the “capitalism-centric” and “Westcentric” tendency, and is fundamentally “class-centric” and “state-centric”. Despite its appearance as forms and processes, globalization is essentially anti-global/human as related to its pursuits of goals and values. Compared with historical globalization, contemporary globalization refers to the globalization from the 1960s or 1970s, and it has several characteristics. First of all, modern science and technology as a means of communications and contacts breaks the spatiotemporal constraints of human communications, and globalization is no longer a vague inference, but a perceptible fact. In form, globalization has expanded to the limit and initiated a new page in human history – a history of the Global village. Secondly, contents of globalization are more diversified, not merely with economic globalization as the theme, but also with due attention to globalization of

56  Tuo Cai politics, culture, and social life. In addition, globalization shows a distinct anti-“Capitalism/West-centric” tendency. This tendency, on the one hand, is reflected in the examination of world civilizing processes, especially in the critique of capitalism by leftist scholars and enlightened statesmen in developed countries. On the other hand, there exists in developing countries the widespread criticism and resistance to capitalism and Western civilization. And finally, there is a fundamental change in its standpoint from the “class-centered” “state-centric” to the “global/humanity-oriented”. In other words, global consciousness begins to spread, recognizing the common interests of humanity and human life as a whole. Building on the previous accounts, contemporary globalization is arguably the extension and expansion of historical globalization given its spatiotemporal compression, expanding and strengthening interrelated domains, and the fact that it is Western power-dominated globalization so far. The continuity from historical globalization to contemporary globalization constitutes the theoretical framework of the aforementioned five claims. As it is, those claims do not transcend the perspective of historical globalization, which makes it unlikely to reveal any novel aspects, let alone the very essence of contemporary globalization. In our view, the essence of globalization can be depicted as follows: firstly, it is the fundamental change in the way of thinking. In other words, human beings should be examined as a whole in addressing and analyzing various problems. Secondly, it is concerned with adjustment of values. Supra-national common interests of mankind should be acknowledged to the extent that people do not merely pursue their class interest or national interest, but proactively promote the common interests of mankind. Viewed from this perspective, historical globalization can at best be the manifestation of globalization because, alongside global expansion of capitalist mode of production, the Western civilization is regarded as the universal model with the focus on the West in terms of interests, values, lifestyles, and ways of thinking. This biased ideological mindset goes against the nature of globalization. Today, so far as contemporary globalization is concerned, there exist some links to certain aspects of historical globalization but its fundamental shift is seen in the standpoint of globalization, which reflects the common interests of humankind or treats human beings as a whole. Arguably, commonality of human life and common values/interests of humankind constitute the essence of globalization and help us see beyond the external manifestations of globalization. To be sure, the novel aspects of globalization demand a new criterion for understanding contemporary globalization and thus enhance the difficulty of meeting the challenges of globalization. Ignorance of such changes will confine our attention to the superficial social life, rather than identifying the challenges of globalization to the mainstream culture, values, systems, modes of production, ways of life and social norms that we thus far acknowledged. In the actual globalizing process, be they wealthy developed

Globalization  57 countries that are more likely to gain vested interests or weak developing countries that are sometimes put at a disadvantage, nobody can escape unscathed from the challenges of globalization to humanity since such challenges have deep implications for the social structure and state-centric values/ways of thinking despite their preliminary limited impact in reality. In this regard, there lacks sufficient scholarship on current globalization. As we have emphasized in this part, knowledge of contemporary globalization is directed towards its modernity and historical globalization is globalization of capitalism. Therefore, contemporary globalization, although being Eurocentric itself, cannot be simply reduced to and confused with globalization of capitalism. Only in this way can we respond to globalization with a vision: firstly, we should fight against injustices and the abuses of Western-dominated issues and processes of globalization, taking steps to transform the unbalanced and inhuman aspects of globalization. Secondly, to address global issues, we should respond actively to the common interests of mankind by coordinating between national interests and common interests of mankind, thereby contributing to the intellectual turn from nationalism to globalism. Globalization reduced to economic globalization or otherwise The fourth epistemic issue is concerned with whether globalization is economic globalization or globalization on all fronts. Globalization is universally acknowledged as economic globalization, as typically reflected in IMF’s definition of globalization as the increase in the scale and forms of a cross-border transaction of goods and services, international capital flows, and strengthened interdependence among the world economies due to rapid spread of technology.43 Some Chinese scholars also contend that globalization tends to be generalized in its current use and globalization in question specifically refers to economic globalization,44 especially the development of world economy in the 1980s/1990s.45 As such, globalization is always equated with economic globalization and they are often used interchangeably. Today, many academic conferences or papers featuring globalization actually concern economic globalization and its impact, as if globalization is self-evidently economic globalization. However, this self-evident claim begs the question. In theory or in practice, the linchpin of globalization is economic globalization but it does not imply excluding globalization of politics and culture that accompany economic globalization. Generally speaking, economic globalization refers to the cross-border flow of goods and factors of production, the rapid development of international trade, transnational investment and international finance, the widespread expansion of new high technology, the rise of TNCs and the resultant highly correlated world economic activities, and the economic phenomena and processes that feature the unprecedented integration of world economy. As economic globalization seeks to allocate factors of

58  Tuo Cai production across the world and acquire global economic benefits, national economic activities are bound to be affected and regulated as related with the unifying world market, hence the far-reaching political and cultural implications, or to a large extent, globalization of politics and culture. Political globalization here refers to the expansion and increase of political exchanges between nations, as well as the unprecedented connections of their political life. As a result, the boundary between domestic politics and international politics is increasingly blurred, with the supranational power strengthened, and certain commonalities of political life and phenomena beginning to emerge and play a role. Cultural globalization suggests cultural homogenization and colonization, as well as close cultural interaction and relevance. In particular, humanity has become the cultural subject since the community, the country, and the nation, as well as cultural contents and identities, tend to converge. Meanwhile, the Western developed countries consciously or subconsciously impose their own cultural products and values via their dominant economic and political status on the contemporary international society, seeking to achieve cultural unity and cultural dominance in the form of cultural colonization. Nevertheless, the most universal form of cultural globalization is the cross-cultural interaction, namely different cultures interact in the global field. To be sure, in the globalizing process of economy, politics and culture also respond to globalization in different forms and degrees. Globalization is therefore not confined to economic dimension, but rather embodied in other dimensions as well. This argument conforms to the basic tenet of Marxism that economy is the base of politics with culture as the superstructure, and that politics and superstructure will adjust, sooner or later, to the change of the economic base. To our dismay, many Chinese scholars fail to adopt this objective perspective in analyzing globalization while some Western theorists and statesmen shed light on that. Robertson points out that globalization has unfortunately been understood by business researchers, and that debate on globalization has formed ‘what I intend to call economistic understanding’ in the public domain46; Giddens believes that globalization is a broad process and its contents concern the time-space transformations, not merely, still less mainly economic interdependence47; the Group of Lisbon in Limits to Competition argues that globalization involves a wide range of vertical and horizontal ties among many countries and societies48; Schmidt, the former Prime Minister of Germany, directly expresses that globalization is a political-practical subject, social-economic subject, and a subject of thoughts.49 The aforementioned arguments are proposed by non-Marxists but their Marxist method of analysis is thought-provoking. In that case, what contributes to the claim that globalization is economic globalization? The following seem to account for that: firstly, economic  globalization, in terms of its ultimate sense, is not only the base of globalization but also the perceptible facts and phenomena in reality to the extent that globalization is ready to be simplified and generalized. Secondly,

Globalization  59 globalization is viewed as a convergence and homogenization since economic convergence (integration) is hard to be resisted in reality and likely to benefit the nation-state in its economic development. It is thus understandable for people to accept economic globalization given the pressure and necessity of national economic development. On the other hand, it is hard to embrace political and cultural globalization for the sake of defending national sovereignty and preserving national culture. If confined to economic globalization, globalization in its homogenizing sense will not risk threatening the autonomy and independence of political and cultural domains. Lastly, economic globalization can be used as the pretext or gloss of political domination and cultural hegemony which render the world patterned after the Western system, values, modes, and ways of life. As noted in the previous accounts, the first one is caused by the one-sided understanding. To keep globalization in perspective we need to stress the base of economic globalization and the comprehensive aspects of globalization as well. In addition to the one-sided perception, the second one also shares the political concern. For the majority of developing countries, political and cultural convergence is their major concern, and it clouds the perception of globalization by making this concept merely mistaken as homogenization and convergence, rather than indigenization and heterogenization, or confining globalization to economic globalization. Indeed, contemporary globalization is Western-dominated and the concerns of developing countries are not groundless, as can be seen in the political and cultural globalizing tendency towards the West. However, the fear cannot be equated with the true perceptions of globalization; otherwise, it is hard to find the right way to cope with the situation. The third reason reflects the diffusion effects of ideology. Some Western statesmen and scholars deliberately misinterpret globalization as convergence/homogenization, in order to structure the world in accordance with the Western expectations, values, and modes. Meanwhile, they stress economic globalization as the prevailing ideology and evade the sensitive issues of political and cultural globalization. As for that myth, there should be a note of caution and it would be pathetic to echo the claim. Globalization, homogenization (convergence) or heterogenization (divergence) The fifth question is concerned with homogenization and heterogenization of globalization, namely how they relate with each other and in what sense they shed light on globalization. It is one of the iconic intellectual contributions to view globalization as homogenization, integration, or convergence. Arguments are concluded as follows: since globalization means homogenization, it behooves us to go beyond heterogenization, nationalization, and indigenization. Secondly, contemporary globalization is Western-dominated hence the convergence of

60  Tuo Cai western values, institutions and lifestyles, and in that case, globalization is no different from Westernization or Americanization. However, this is onesided understanding because it does not reveal the unity of globalization but merely equates globalization with homogenization. Firstly, theoretically speaking, globalization contains homogenization, seeking the unity (or commonality, universality), namely universal phenomena, experiences, and rules of human social life that are revealed in economic, political, and cultural domains. Market economy becomes the common choice of current resource allocation and economic development, while science and technology are recognized as the primary productive force and practiced by all countries. Moreover, common political pursuits are embodied in political democratization, anti-corruption campaigns, protection of human rights, extensive international exchanges and integration into international mechanisms, and so on. Cultural consensus is reflected in global consciousness, global ethics, network culture, ecological culture, sustainable development, consumer culture, mass culture, modernization concept, etc. These commonalities will expand as globalization deepens but there should be a note of caution against the rationality of the homogeneity in globalization, as it is historically contingent and subject to criticism in values. Take market economy as an example, its competitive orientation is generally examined and restrained, and the same is true to the aforementioned mode of production, lifestyles and values, consumer culture, mass culture, and the concept of modernity. However, that alone does not justify our flat rejection of homogenization, as it, on the other hand, brings hope and civilization to humanity. In addition, contemporary globalization is Western-dominated and bound to be intertwined with Western interests, values, and requirements, but the unity inherent in globalization goes its own way and is unlikely to be submerged or supplanted by Westerndominated homogenization. Secondly, homogenization is inherent in globalization but globalization cannot be equated with homogenization. The paradox of globalization is that it promotes homogeneity and also generates heterogeneity. In other words, globalization means the coexistence of homogeneity and heterogeneity as the dialectical unity, and neither side alone can truly reflect the process of globalization. Many scholars have elaborated on that point, for example, Robertson in his attempt to maintain direct attention to specificity and diversity, universality and homogeneity. As he points out, we are witnesses and participants in the huge process of duality involving the ‘universalization of particularism and particularization of universalism50’. In his preface to the Chinese version of Globalization, Robertson mentions, in particular, his concerns over the last few years that he would like to mention the topic of globo-localization (glocalization). According to the general assumption, glocalization refers to how ideas and products across the globe must adapt to the local environment. This consideration must be contrasted with the common view that the world culture is being rapidly homogenized.51

Globalization  61 Likewise, John Tomlinson points out that many critics take account of ‘localized’ cultural needs and observe that in the context of globalization. Arguably, globalization generates new desires, such as the desire for identity and difference, hence the need for new nations and states.52 Globalization means homogenization and heterogenization because they meet the dual needs of mankind. Homogenization lies in the pursuit of commonality/unity, which transcends the local and regional for the best or the optimum results across the globe in economic development, political or cultural restructuring, in order to meet the human needs for material wealth, political order, and spiritual life. In contemporary globalization, homogeneity/unity is pursued and embodied in market economy, democratization of politics, global consciousness, and sustainable development. Heterogenization stresses individuality which leads to the identification with the family, neighborhood, race, gender, and even the nation-state, trying to distinguish between ‘us’ and ‘them’, for the sake of nostalgia and attachment to the customs and locality. In addition, modern science and technology undergird homogenization and heterogenization. One typical example is the internet, as it enables human beings to better express themselves at will and makes the world truly compressed, breaking the time and space limits in human communication, thus favorable for the dissemination and sharing of new civilizational achievements. Indeed, all these features constitute progress towards unity, but what is worthy of notice is that the internet has become a tool for people of different interests to converge and become integrated into the community, expressing particular voices, and developing unique social activities. In this sense, the advent of the internet has enabled the free two-way exchange and enhanced the possibility of localization, individualization, and heterogenization. Thus, it is wrong to regard homogenization and heterogenization as incompatible in the process of globalization. This binary way of thinking is bound to cause confusions over the either/or dilemma and unlikely to put globalization in perspective. Meanwhile, due weight should be assigned to the novel trends or characteristics of homogenization and heterogenization in the globalizing process. Being the repeated subject of social and cultural research, homogeneity and heterogeneity is a fact of human existence and evolution. However, with the unprecedented all-round communications of human social life, globality has become an essential framework for rethinking and handling the real economic, political, and cultural life. In this sense, homogeneity is highlighted and heterogeneity can only be interpreted in the context of globalization, as typically reflected in the globality of heterogeneous forms such as fundamentalism, ethnic identity, gender identity, and community identity. As a result, some scholars have contended that the balance of forces will inevitably fluctuate in the antagonism between globalization and localization but the former will prevail over the latter as a basic trend. In other words, the dynamics of globalization are ultimately expected

62  Tuo Cai to be the basis of an orderly world scenario.53 Laszlo also clearly points out that today’s society, as in the past, has evolved through a twofold process of integration on the one hand and diversification on the other hand. Moreover, the contemporary world needs further integration, and the shift towards integration matters to all nations across the world.54 And it is essential to distinguish the Western-dominated globalization from mere Westernization or Americanization. Indeed, contemporary globalization is Western-dominated because the West takes the initiative and has the edge in policy enactment and implementation, as well as in profit distribution and arrangements of the globalizing process, due to its dominant position in terms of economic strength, scientific and technological level, international status, and influence. By contrast, the majority of developing countries, for historical and practical reasons, are at a disadvantage or in a passive position taking the brunt of globalization. It is incorrect to deny the harsh reality and it is also groundless to simply equate Western-dominated globalization with Westernization, especially A mericanization. In theory, globalization has its own normative stipulations, and in reality, globalization does not merely embody Western interests or defend the hegemony of the West but also benefit a considerable number of developing countries (including China). For sure, the benefit is not bestowed by the West but rather derived from the objectively positive effects of globalization. To equate globalization with Americanization or Westernization involves the risk of oversimplifying and misinterpreting globalization, and such sentiment will impair the development of developing countries as well as the progress of mankind. Therefore, while cautioning against the Western hegemony and beggar-thy-neighbor practices in globalization, we should engage in a moderate and rational fight against the abuses and injustices of globalization to protect and improve the situation of developing countries in the process of globalization.

Notes 1 Yang Xuedong, Globalization-the Frontier of Western Theories (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002), p. 3. 2 Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (Translated by Liang Guangyan, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002), p. 9. 3 David Held et al., Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture (Translated by Yang Xuedong, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001), pp. 200–210. 4 Ibid., pp. 574–602. 5 See also Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, pp. 84–86. 6 Yang Xuedong and Wang Lie, “The Dialogue between Globalization and China Study”, in Hu Yuanzi and Xue Xiaoyuan, eds., Globalization and China (Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, 1998), pp. 4–5. 7 Thomas Friedman, The World Is Flat (Translated by He Fan, Xiao Yingying, Hunan Science & Technology Press, 2010).

Globalization  63 8 David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds., Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies (Translated by Wang Shengcai, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2009), p. 228. 9 Cai Tuo, Globalization and Political Transformation (Beijing University Press, 2007), pp. 149–152. 10 See also David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds., Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies, p. 304.

12 Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Power and Interdependence, p. 280. 13 Ibid., p. 288. 14 Anthony Giddens, Runaway World (Translated by Zhou Hongyun, Jiangxi People’s Publishing House, 2001), pp. 105–106. 16 He Zengke, “The Nature of Neo-Liberalism-Talks by Pierre Bourdieu”, Foreign Theoretical Trends, Vol. 4, 1999, pp. 14–16. 18 Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents (Translated by Xia Yeliang, China Machine Press, 2004), p. 14. 19 Ibid., p. 15. 20 Xu Chongwen, Changes of Contemporary Capitalism (Chongqing Publishing House, 2004), pp. 82–85. 21 Roland Robertson, “Preface”, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, Chinese ed. (Translated by Liang Guangyan, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2000), pp. 1–10. 22 See also David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds., Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies, pp. 7–9. 23 Leslie Sklair, “Competing Conceptions of Globalization”, Perspective on Globalization (Compiled and Edited by Liang Zhan, Sanlian Press, 2002), p. 36. 24 Ibid., p. 43. 25 Hans-Peter Martin and Harald Schumann, The Global Trap (Translated by Zhang Shipeng, Central Compilation and Translation Burea, 1998), p. 11. 26 Lin Fangshi, “An Analysis of US and British Strategic Traps behind Globalization”, in Yu Keping, ed., Globalization, Westernization or Chinization (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002), p. 135. 27 Hu Daping, “Globalization and Contemporary Practices of China from the Historical Perspective”, Philosophical Researches, Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 13–20. 28 The Group of Lisbon, Limits to Competition (Translated by Zhang Shipeng, Central Compilation and Translation Burea, 2000), p. 40. 29 Ibid., pp. 38–39. 30 See also David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-Globalization (Translated by Chen Zhigang, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2004), p. 1. 31 Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, Globalization in Question (Translated by Zhang Wencheng, Xu Baoyou, He Hefeng, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002), p. 21. 32 Ibid., p. 38. 33 Alan Rugman, The End of Globalization (Translated by Chang Zhixiao, Shen Qunhong, Xiong Yizhi, Sanlian Press, 2001), p. 5.

64  Tuo Cai 34 Ibid., p. 1. 35 Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, Globalization in Question (Translated by Zhang Wencheng, Xu Baoyou, He Hefeng Zhigang, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002), p. 346. 36 Ibid., p. 147. 37 Ibid., p. 23. 38 See also Yang Xuedong, Globalization-the Frontier of Western Theories (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002), p. 2. 39 David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-Globalization, pp. 20–21. 40 David Held, At the Global Crossroads: The End of the Washington Consensus and the Rise of Global Social Democracy? (Translated by Zhou Junhua, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2005), p. 8. 41 Ibid., p. 118. 42 See also David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-Globalization, p. 63. 43 The International Monetary Fund, ed., The World Economic Outlook (China Financial Press, 1997), p. 45. 44 Zhong Yaping,“Literature Review of ‘Globalization’ Issues”, Philosophical Researches, Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 30–31 45 Zhang Shipeng, “What Is Globalization”, Europe, Vol. 1, 2000, pp. 5–13. 46 Roland Robertson, “Preface”, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, p. 2. 47 Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, pp. 30–40. 48 The Group of Lisbon, Limits to Competition, pp. 39–40. 49 Helmut Schmidt, The Ethics of Globalization (Translated by Chai Fangguo, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001), p. 3. 50 See also Roland Robertson, “Preface”, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, p. 144. 51 Ibid., p. 3. 52 John Tomlinson, Cultural Imperialism, A Critical Introduction (Translated by Feng Jiansan, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1999), p. 333. 53 James N. Rosenau, “The Complexities and Contradictions of Globalization”, Globalization and the World, p. 213. 54 Ervin Laszlo, The Choice: Evolution or Extinction? (Translated by Li Yinbo, Zhang Wujun, Wang Zhikang, Sanlian Press 1997), pp. 134–138.

2

Global issues Xiaoli Lyu

It is an era of globalization, and attendant upon globalization, global issues have become an important background and variable for contemporary human society. Global issues have transcended the state-centric political and social space, penetrating the global scope and affecting daily human life. Meanwhile, the resultant adjustments and changes across the globe cannot be neglected and avoided. Arguably, throughout the 21st century, human beings have been under the impact and constraints of global issues.

The emergence and impact of global issues Global issues refer to matters of concern or interest to human survival and development that confront the contemporary international community and transcend national and regional boundaries.1 The emergence and development of global issues are closely linked to the process of globalization, even intertwined with globalization issues. Perceptions of these global issues and approaches to the solutions are also distinguishing characteristics of globalization. The root cause of global issues The root cause of global issues is that contradictions and confusions arise due to the failure of mankind to properly cope with the following major relationships: the first being the relationship between man and nature. Nature breeds humanity and people depend on nature for survival, with all cultural values based primarily upon natural values, hence the presumed ideal harmony between mankind and nature. However, the harsh reality remains antagonism between man and nature. As primitive inhabitants, mankind was once oppressed by nature and passively depended upon nature. But with the advances of science and technology, humankind has turned from nature’s slave into its master, relentlessly pursuing material life, plundering nature, and creating cultural values at the cost of natural values, thus causing resource depletion, environmental pollution, and ecological imbalance. The second relationship is the interpersonal relationship. From the very

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207-3

66  Xiaoli Lyu beginning, people were born into the subjects of inherent conflicts of interests at the sub-conscious level and later evolve into conscious aggregates of interests including the family, clan, nation-state, and national group; human society is complicated with discordant views of material and spiritual interests. This disharmony is reflected in the global issues we see today, ranging from ecological issues and resource problems, nuclear threats, to ethnic conflicts, terrorism, and crime. Therefore, in the age of globalization, such global issues have become the greatest shackles of human development. Features of global issues Global issues differ from other problems in the international community, as they feature the following aspects.2 First, Globality refers to the global scope and impact of global issues. The global scope means a global extent in terms of locations and consequences of issues, such as North-South relations, the threat of nuclear war, ecological deterioration, and environmental pollution. Furthermore, the global impact refers to the global significance of issues. Although manifested in regional phenomena, these issues are linked to the international community on the whole, in terms of their solutions and consequences, e.g., population and food issues. Overpopulation is mostly confined to developing countries, manifested in regions of Africa and Asia, but the shockwave of population explosion is of worldwide significance, as overpopulation will exacerbate environmental pollution, resource consumption, and refugee flows, hence creating a global threat. Secondly, Comprehensiveness refers to the multi-faceted aspect of global issues in the domains of economy, politics, military, society, culture, science and technology, environment, and education. It involves three major aspects including interpersonal relationships, the relations between people and society, and humanity as the subject, reflecting the contemporary dilemma and challenge, behavioral mode, and survival strategy to be adjusted. Compared with the globality, which stresses the scope and impact of issues, comprehensiveness focuses on the diversity and richness of issues. It is worthy of note that the comprehensiveness of global problems is manifested not only in the wide range of areas but also in the comprehensiveness of the issue itself, concerning various factors like economic, political, and cultural factors, as typically reflected in North-South relations, ecological crisis, drugs, and so on. Thirdly, Overall Connectedness refers to global issues as inherently related to an indivisible system. Global issues arise in the era of interdependence, factors of social life mutually penetrating, entangled and in some ways restrained. As sciences have started to shift from specialized research to more holistic research approaches, research methods and perspectives on issues also vary correspondingly. It will thus be of no avail to ignore links and constraints of global issues and to solve problems in one area alone.

Global issues  67 Fourthly, the Supra-ideology of global issues reflects the supranational, universal contents of human social life in contemporary times. Global issues are no respecter of socialist countries or developed countries and no rigid ideological perspectives will work. Solving universal issues is of great significance to the current interest of mankind, and demands transcending the differences of political ideologies and prejudices of the group, the nation, and the state in strengthening our cooperation to address global issues. Lastly, global issues pose a Fundamental Challenge to human survival in their social environment and natural environment. They differ from general problems that mankind has encountered in history, in terms of the severity of contents and urgency of solution. With the rapid development of material civilization and science and technology, the unprecedented globalization and interdependence has caused global issues to rise to such an extent that their resultant problems and pressures are challenging or even close to exceeding the limits of nature and humanity. Therefore, it behooves people to take precautions against the imminent threat to human survival. To be sure, rising global issues pose unprecedented challenges to mankind: first, global issues threaten the survival of humankind. Gone are those days for human beings to survive poor natural and social conditions. Faced with the threat of nuclear war and ecological catastrophe, human life has become fragile and likely to go extinct in today’s highly civilized society. In addition, global issues have threatened the development of human society. The world’s population explosion, particularly in underdeveloped countries and regions, will have serious consequences for the economic development and social stability. To meet the explosive needs of the population, human societies have to extract more food and resources from the Earth through overgrazing, overfishing, excessive use of fertilizers, and predatory practices. The ecological pressure from overexploitation is translated into economic pressure (low yields, inflation, and unemployment), and economic pressure, in turn, begets social pressure (poverty, hunger, and violence). Such a vicious circle with the triad of ecological pressure, economic pressure, and social pressure poses a big threat to the development of human society.

The traditional security dimension of global issues Security issues are among the top political agenda of global issues, as revealed in the ancient Chinese saying “The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin, hence a subject of inquiry that can on no account be neglected”. According to the data by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global expenditure on armaments amounted to $1.747 trillion in 2013, with a dramatic rise in non-Western countries, 23 of which increased their military spending by one-fold over the past nine years. However, that figure does not necessarily suggest the peak of global military spending, and it is likely to grow in the future as long as the world remains insecure.

68  Xiaoli Lyu Military conflicts Historically, war has always been in company with humankind and it has become a fundamental issue of international relations. After the end of the Cold War, the international situation tends to ease off with the expanding and strengthening international cooperation, but the armed conflict is still a serious challenge to human society, manifested in the following novel characteristics and trends. Firstly, Armed conflicts after the Cold War break out more frequently, but there is a notable drop in the proportion of major armed conflicts. According to the statistics, the duration of global armed conflicts during the Cold War totaled 1239 years, with an average duration of about five years.3 By contrast, the average duration of the post-Cold War armed conflicts has considerably dropped to 3.8 years, indicating that the duration of conflicts is shrinking.4 In addition, the last 20 years after the Cold War witnessed various conflicts among major powers, but no direct armed conflicts ever broke out. Arguably the international security situation is generally moderate as armed conflicts after the Cold War are mostly regional, with their scale and impact limited to the location of events. Secondly, conflict areas are relatively concentrated. After the Cold War, international conflicts broke out from time to time, but the conflict areas have not been evenly scattered across the world but relatively concentrated, e.g., one of the current frequently conflict-ridden areas is in the “soft underbelly” of Eurasia, from the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia to South Asia and South-East Asia; and the other is in Africa, particularly sub-Saharan African regions. The statistics show that the conflicts in these areas account for more than 90% of the global conflicts and the rest of the world is relatively stable. Thirdly, conflict subjects are increasingly diversified. According to the statistics, the majority of armed conflicts after the Cold War are not between governments, but instead non-governmental armed groups have become the protagonists. From 1997 to 2006, 34 large-scale armed conflicts occurred, only 3 of which were between States, i.e., 9% of overall conflicts, and the other 31 were mainly for the struggle over government power or territorial conflicts.5 Fourthly, conflict causes are more diversified. International conflict causes after the Cold war are not merely limited to the traditional factors such as territorial border conflicts, but other important factors contribute as well, like conflicts of resource interests, conflicts of national identities, and political parties or even “human rights interference”. For example, the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War were both due to conflict over oil resources. History shows that scarcity of resources gives rise to conflicts and conflict protagonists will stay regardless of political regimes, alliances, or international treaties. It is particularly worthy of note that the intensified antagonism between heterogeneous cultures also constitutes an intrinsic

Global issues  69 element of conflict, as in the protracted conflicts between Israel and Palestine, and India and Pakistan. Herein political, economic, and social factors are intertwined in a mess on the surface, but what matters is the underlying cultural conflicts that arise from mutual exclusiveness of religions. Last, due to interference of external forces, conflicts intensify and asymmetric features emerge. Earlier at the end of the Cold War, Western countries, particularly the US, intervened in other countries or regions under the pretext of “humanitarian intervention”, labeled “counter-terrorism” after 9/11. The statistics show that the 1990s alone witnessed 42 US military actions abroad, averaging 4.2 times a year. Those conflicts highlight major powers that overwhelm others, as exemplified in the Gulf War, where the US led 28 of the most developed countries of the world to attack Iraq, a small developing country, and the Kosovo War, where the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia opposed NATO – comprising 19 countries with their combined economic power about 700 times stronger. The US deployed 98% high-tech weapons, while the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia used only less than 10% of them, hence leading to this war being subsequently labeled as a “surgical strike” and a miracle in the history of human war with 78 days of fierce fighting with zero casualties on the US side. Nuclear proliferation The birth of nuclear weapons resulted from the 20th-century advances in science and technology combined with strategic needs of major powers. So far with its unparalleled power, the nuclear weapon has considerably transformed the forms of world military confrontations and struggles, branding the Nuclear Age on important diplomatic activities and power struggles in the international political arena. Nuclear issues, particularly proliferation of nuclear weapons, have come to the fore of international nuclear politics, especially in the post-Cold-War era. In recent years, the world configuration and regional security situation have been heavily affected by the IndiaPakistan nuclear issue, the North Korean nuclear issue, the Iranian nuclear issue, and the comprehensive nuclear test ban. Of the 192 state actors across the world, only 8 countries, a small number of them, have so far possessed nuclear weapons (originally the US, Russia, the UK, France, and China, and later India, Pakistan, and Israel are generally believed to possess them). Libya and North Korea have nuclear programs, and some carried out nuclear tests, but for a variety of reasons or because of constraints, the nuclear programs have not yet legalized. It is, however, of great concern to us that, in addition to countries with nuclear weapons, nuclear technology has reached a high standard in some 30 countries around the world. Once they withdraw from the international non-proliferation regime, those countries will have the technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons in the short term. Meanwhile, there exists the increased risk of nuclear terrorist attacks as international terrorists can gain access to sensitive

70  Xiaoli Lyu nuclear technology and high-purity nuclear materials through underground smuggling tunnels. Nuclear proliferation has been taboo to the world, particularly to the nuclear powers, but nuclear technology keeps spreading. As regards their openly possessed or suspected nuclear capabilities, Israel, India, and Pakistan have all breached the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and nuclear issues concerning the DPRK and Iran nuclear programs have been outstanding. As such, it takes all countries the long-term concerted efforts to engage in the endeavor of non-proliferation. However, it is worthy of note that current nuclear powers are the primary beneficiaries of non-proliferation, and the international security regime is left fundamentally untouched; hence, nuclear disarmament issues remain practically unresolved among nuclear powers. Such an international situation begs the question of whether the concern of fair and just international security order will be eclipsed by the one-sided focus on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Therefore, while concerned about the DPRK and Iran nuclear issues, the international community should be dedicated to universal security problems in the long term. In particular, for the last 30 years, the following issues should be given due attention.6 First, the risk of the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons mainly lies in nuclear hegemons. With powerful nuclear technology alongside other technologies, nuclear hegemons are devoted to pursuing ever more sophisticated nuclear weapons in order to maintain their unique hegemony and superpower over others. For them, this is best achieved via the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons, but this double-edged sword, in addition to expanding their nuclear power, will generate a nuclear arms race that may threaten them as well. In particular, once manipulated by hostile non-state actors, the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons will have catastrophic consequences. Secondly, the risk of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons mainly lies in non-state actors. As for state actors, there are many constraints to nuclear proliferation, especially for the vast majority of small and medium-sized countries, unlikely to withstand the nuclear burden, nuclear retaliation, or various international sanctions imposed by nuclear proliferation. Thus, nuclear proliferation is limited and easy to detect and control among the state actors, but these constraints do not apply to non-state actors. Without clear physical/territorial boundaries or stable state forms, non-state actors are not easy targets for attacks or sanctions. So, in a sense, they have few qualms about retaliation and there should therefore be a note of caution against potential horizontal proliferation among non-state actors. Thirdly, nuclear non-proliferation should be opposed as a pretext for promoting hegemonism. Recent years have witnessed evidence of an abnormal but not uncommon phenomenon, that some hegemonic powers use the pretext of nuclear non-proliferation for their relentless pursuit of hegemonism for their own national interests. This is typically reflected in a handful of Western countries that, in the name of nuclear non-proliferation, initiate

Global issues  71 “voluntary joint action”; arbitrarily intercepting and checking passing vessels on the high seas that they deem suspicious. To be sure, this blatant act has not been authorized by the UN or endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the UN members, and the pretext of non-proliferation cannot mitigate their crimes of infringing upon other countries’ legitimate rights. As a result, we should caution against the double standard imposed from the strategic interests of major powers and against the impacts of hegemonism on nuclear non-proliferation of the international law system. To conclude, International security can be compared to a building, based on fundamental systems and norms of human peace and security and supported by the pillar of nuclear non-proliferation. With the fundamental security of human peace, the solid nuclear non-proliferation pillar will be conducive to the stability of the entire building, and vice versa. So, nuclear non-proliferation, although not the primary and fundamental way to solve international security issues, acts as an important part of international security. Terrorism Terrorism reflects sharp and complex contradictions among countries, ethnicities, classes, and religions of today’s world. It is essentially treated as a cancer in society due to the accumulated domestic economic, political, and cultural contradictions intertwined with the unbalanced economic and political development of the world. Since the mid-20th century, there have been over 1,000 terrorist organizations under various banners, and the shocking terrorist attack of 9/11 marks an unprecedented stage in the worldwide wave of terrorism. Terrorism is not only a “political plague of the 20th century”, but also a top priority for world security issues of the 21st century. With the outbreak of the 2008 global financial crisis, the domestic economic and social order has been disrupted in some countries and new trends, in turn, emerge in world terrorism.7 Firstly, ideological terrorism began to deteriorate, particularly since the global financial crisis in 2008, when poor economic situations emerged in Europe and the US and income gaps widened in developing countries like India. The year 2010 saw 45 extreme-left and anarchist terrorist activities in Western Europe, including Greece, taken as an extreme example, with 20 terrorist activities by 5 terrorist groups in 2010 alone.8 Unlike Europe, the US is faced with the rising threat of right-wing forces, 363 new patriotic organizations were added in 2009, the number rising by 244% to 512 in 2009.9 Secondly, there is a distinct trend towards minimized, decentralized grass-roots terrorist organizations. After being severely targeted after 9/11, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda have broken up a hierarchical organizational system into parallel networked ones.10 In fact, many of the so-called Al Qaeda affiliations have moved away from the system and engaged in activities outside of its strategic objectives as Osama bin Laden’s

72  Xiaoli Lyu death has provided an opportunity for the continued decentralization and diversification of the Al Qaeda network. Besides, other types of terrorist campaigns tend to be popularized at the grassroots level.11 Thirdly, new forms of terrorism have materialized. There has been a long-standing debate in academia over the issues of cyber terrorism and mass destruction terrorism.12 Except for the use of sarin gas in the 1995 Tokyo Subway Attack, these types of terrorism are largely confined to conceptual and academic research. In September 2009, a computer virus called ‘Stuxnet’ emerged and disrupted few computers, but it was identified as the first to damage the real world via virtual space by automatically searching and attacking specific software programs to cause the device to self-destruct. Since then, there has been the increased risk of virtual space in attacking tangible targets like the water and electricity supply or communications.13 Arguably new forms of terrorism, like cyber terrorism, are no longer a controversial notion but a materialized trope. Finally, the relationship between terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations is more complicated, and the transnational criminal organizations begin to develop into terrorist organizations. For example, the perpetrators of the 2004 Madrid train bombing used to belong to a drug-trafficking organization. Under the influence of Al-Qaeda, the drug traffickers in the name of terrorist organizations have used their own funds and human resources to engage in this unprecedented terrorist activity. In addition, there are indications of a tendency towards terrorism among pirate organizations. Due to the sprawl of terrorist organizations, there are “few places of refuge” from the threat or influence of international terrorist activities in the world. A rising number of signs show that terrorist activities are mostly embedded in an international background and it can be no easy matter to eradicate terrorism. As it is, it has been a lengthy endeavor to fight against terrorism. In the future, we first have to eliminate the double standards of counter-terrorism and combating terrorism of all forms. The increasing globalization of terrorism also demands exerting high pressure on terrorism and strengthening contacts and cooperation in the anti-terrorism struggle among the countries across the world, particularly through the United Nations, who should take the lead in this. Due weight should also be assigned to terrorism’s root causes and symptoms as well; violence should be in moderate use in counter-terrorism measures. It takes time to reach a global consensus on these aforementioned points, but it will go a long way towards success in the international counter-terrorism efforts.

Sustainability and economic dimensions of global issues Financial crisis Economic globalization is an important part of globalization, but it does not necessarily accompany global economic recovery and development, and

Global issues  73 financial crisis bubbles emerge on occasion. As widely understood, the term ‘financial crisis’ refers to rapid deterioration of all or most financial indicators in the financial sector, impacting multiple countries, regions, or even world economic stability and development, and reflected in stock market plunge, capital flight, damaged normal credit relations, accompanied by bank runs, money shortage and massive bankruptcies of financial institutions, sharp cut in official reserves, currency depreciation and inflation, and debt repayment difficulties. Following the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, the 2007–2008 global financial crisis once again proved the fragility of the international financial system, devastating Western developed countries, developing countries even more so.14 To make matters worse, vulnerable to the influence of the West, developing countries are generally weaker in their defense system against financial crisis and this, in turn, can trigger political crisis and social unrest. Financial crisis also reminds people of the financial impact on national security. In the era of globalization, financial innovation has become a double-edged sword, increasing or weakening a country’s economic security, hence the contribution and attendant harm. Compared with the loss of US$ 338 billion in World War I and of US$ 4 trillion in World II, the 1997 financial crisis alone caused a loss of US$ 2 trillion, and the 2007–2008 financial crisis plunged the world’s stock market by US$ 29 trillion, equivalent to seven times the loss of World War II. As previously stated, financial innovation is a double-edged sword that can enrich or deplete a country, and it is now of critical importance to a country’s survival. Thus, the financial issue should be given priority on the agenda of national security. In addition, the recent financial crisis compels us to contemplate the postCold-War liberalism doctrine, namely whether to weaken the role of national sovereignty in global governance or the status of the nation-state in international relations.15 The harsh reality of the financial crisis makes us rethink state-controlled economic management, and even government intervention, reexamining the relationship between globalization and nation-state system with due weight assigned to the efficiency of national governments as well as basic responsibility and accountability of the nation-state in international economic and political relations. Today’s international system is essentially composed of nation-states, and to promote the prosperity and stability of the world depends on how to strengthen the coordination between the nation-state and international regimes in their respective function. Population Population, as the original source of national strength, serves as the basic condition for economic development as well as the progress of science and technology in a country. The demographic factor, as the basic element of international politics, affects political relations among countries, for national strength and position in the international arena is attributed to the quantity, quality, and composition of population.16 The trend of world politics is bound to be influenced by the dynamics of population, as shown below.

74  Xiaoli Lyu First, worldwide population continues to swell. Since 1950, the declined mortality rate and higher fertility rate have led to a surge in the population of developing countries, ushering in what Western academics called the “world population crisis”. It is noted in the UN report that developing countries accounted for 89.9% and developed countries only 10.1% of the world’s population growth from 1950 to 2005 and that in 2050 the total population of developing countries is expected to increase from 5.25 billion in 2005 to 7.84 billion, rising from 81.3% to 86.4% in proportion to the world’s population. In that case, of ten countries with the largest population in the world, nine are developing countries, of which Bangladesh and Ethiopia are the least developed.17 Secondly, there exist sharp conflicts in population composition. The population composition reflects the country’s natural condition and social structure of the population at a certain phase. Of the current conflicts of population composition, the aging population problem stands out due to the resultant insufficient supply of labor and heavy social security burden, thus threatening potential national economic growth, the national defense strength and the budget balance. In addition, the population gender imbalance is one of the most prominent concerns, particularly for East Asia, where there are more males than females, due to the traditional concept of male preference and improvement of fetal gender identification technology. The gender structure of the population not only affects the marriage rate and the fertility rate but also contributes to social instability including a rising rate of crime committed by a cohort of male singles, particularly in areas with extreme gender imbalance. Thirdly, new problems arise from increased international migration of people. In addition to refugees as a major concern, in international migration trends, there emerges a novel trend towards the desire for talented or skilled labor among regions and countries, much due to the fertility decline, the aging population, and growing labor shortage in the world. Therefore, things will be more complicated with rising international immigration and attendant economic, social, and political problems in the multicultural context.18 In short, the 21st century will feature the internationalization and politicization of population and it behooves us to explore critical issues like changes to the global demographic trend and its impact on world politics. Resources Resources serve as the indispensable material base for the survival and development of a country. Today, resource problems have become very serious and complicated as one of the global issues that affect people’s lives, that they are one of the top causes for concern, and that they are typically reflected in resource shortage, resource waste, and unbalanced resource distribution. Resource shortage is most evident in water resources. It has been confirmed in the joint report of the World Bank, the UN Environment Programme, UNDP, and the World Resources Institute that water scarcity will be exacerbated in 30 years. In the 21st century, the sustainable development

Global issues  75 of the global economy and society will be constrained by a shortage of freshwater. Secondly, there is a further severe crisis of land resources. Land used for human life and production takes up 29% of the Earth’s surface area, about 150 million square kilometers, of which only 30% can be cultivated, excluding deserts, frozen soil, non-arable mountainous areas, and other poor soil. As such, there is little land for human use and the crisis of land resources will become acute as world population swells and economies continue to develop. Moreover, the consumption of finite mineral resources is staggering. At present, nearly 200 kinds of minerals are found worldwide. Evidence shows that during the past 30 years since the 1970s the world’s metal consumption has almost exceeded the sum of the previous 2,000 years. Furthermore, the past 20 years of energy use alone was three times that of the previous 100 years. As reserves of mineral resources are limited, world development will undoubtedly exert great pressure on the production of mineral resources. Finally, a great concern is oil shortage. The use of oil has brought human society into an extraordinary phase of development, and in the late 1950s, oil became the basic source of energy and the basis of postwar economic growth. The statistics show that world oil consumption increased by 21% in the 20 years of 1975–1995. Oil production is increasing, but oil resources are limited. Since 1985, newly discovered oil reserves have averaged less than 9 billion barrels a year, while total consumption has averaged more than 23 billion barrels a year. If we look at this issue globally, the newly discovered reserves do not catch up with the increasing demand for oil production. In addition, resource waste is typically found in developing countries. In mining, for example, there is a large proportion of small-scale mining and illegal mining. Miners are generally lacking in awareness of resource protection hence rampant, indiscriminate, unregulated mining operations thrive, e.g., selective mining, unplanned mining, or even predatory mining. As a result, mineral resources are severely damaged and wasted, and considerable resources are lost in mining, due to low-quality choice of ores, or metallurgy technology that is not economical or fails to meet requirements. Moreover, the situation is worsened by low technology and poor management in mining countries, as revealed in the low efficiency of resource extraction and selection, metallurgical recovery, and utilization of resources. Therefore, resource waste and overexploitation have caused a bottleneck in human development. It should also be noted that there exists an uneven spatial distribution of global resource reserves, as well as uneven supply and demand. Most resources are concentrated in few countries, including the US, Russia, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Chile, and South Africa. Accompanied by conflicts between supply and demand, the resource issue cannot be a mere geographical or economic issue, but, to some extent, a major political issue that impacts national security. There has been intense struggle for global resources, particularly strategic resources among countries, and consensus is thus hard to reach on a mode of cooperation that could ease the tension. Emerging countries, in particular, are faced with the bottleneck of resources, slowing their development.

76  Xiaoli Lyu

Environmental and ecological dimensions of global issues Global ecological and environmental crisis The ecological and environmental issue is the most urgent and representative global issue of our time, high on the agenda of international society. The contemporary ecological and environmental crisis is characterized as follows. First, environmental and ecological issues have local and global implications. The contemporary ecological crisis is not merely confined to a particular issue in a country or a region, but related to the universal issue of the interests of mankind, as reflected in the worldwide occurrences of environmental issues. Regarding the global implications of the contemporary ecological crisis, concerted efforts are required among countries and regions to address the issue, regardless of their differences or even conflicts of interests. Meanwhile, the regional implications of the ecological crisis should be considered, for the crisis varies in forms and causes with countries and regions due to different levels of economy, society, science and technology, as well as moral and cultural conceptions. For developed countries and regions, the ecological crisis is mainly attendant on the development of economy, science and technology, concerning environmental quality, and resource issues. For underdeveloped countries and regions, the ecological crisis is mainly caused by their backward economy, as well as science and technology that lag behind, hence many land, grain, and population issues. As such, these countries and regions are confronted with different tasks in the ecological crisis that call for different solutions. Secondly, environmental and ecological issues arise with the advance of science and technology as well as the improvement of human capabilities.19 It is industrial development and the progress of science and technology that greatly improve the human capabilities of transforming nature, disrupting the natural evolution of the entire biosphere. Unfortunately, the contemporary ecological crisis is attributed to the very fact that human beings are capable of destroying nature. On the other hand, for some developing countries, the ecological crisis is caused by the underdeveloped science and technology, alongside low productivity. As it is, direct harm is done to environment and resources due to population pressure and attendant needs of material necessities that low productivity fails to meet. Thirdly, environmental and ecological issues are increasingly politicized. The international community has given full attention to the issues and their implications for economic development, political struggle, and international cooperation. In addition, with an increasing awareness of their connection to security issues, environmental and ecological issues are placed on the top of the agenda in international relations. After the Cold War, new international phenomena emerge, such as “environmental diplomacy” and “War on Environmental Protection”, as environmental protection and governance concern a series of political issues, such as national interests, policy-making, and technology transfer. For example, in March 2001, the

Global issues  77 US refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol under the pretext that the agreement did not cover all developing countries and undermined the interests of the US, actively back-peddling on the previous government’s commitment to the international community and abandoning its responsibility to reduce emissions. In August 2002, the US then blatantly refused to attend the “Earth Summit” on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. Although the “common but differentiated responsibility” was reaffirmed in the Johannesburg Declaration, developed countries also advanced extra political requirements such as human rights and domestic “good governance”. These voices have been echoed in a series of environmental summits, and until now, environmental issues, in particular the North-South differences on climate change, have not been substantially bridged, hence the difficulties of international environmental and ecological cooperation. Environmental security Generally speaking, environmental security refers to freedom from the threat of environmental deterioration and conflicts, namely, one is concerned with the direct threat of environmental deterioration to human survival and the other is the security threat from environmental conflicts. The aforementioned aspects of environmental security show that environmental security as a novel concept of security is yet to be refined, but its practical significance cannot be underestimated.20 First, environmental security expands the concept of security, thus reinvigorating current security research. If we cling to the traditional sense of security, it is hard to explain the security threats from non-military and non-violent acts and to go beyond the state-centric perspective in addressing global issues, especially concerning the security threat from environmental issues. Compared with economic security, environmental security relates little to the traditional concept of security, typically reflecting the global dimension and non-military perspective. Therefore, there should be a note of caution against the rigid theory of research on security issues. Secondly, environmental security reflects our major concern of emergent security issues; hence, the research is more oriented towards the practical issues of human life. The global environmental issue highlights environmental threats to the survival of mankind, and if neglected, will have catastrophic consequences for human security. Analysis of the environmental reality and trends are of great significance for the human being to gain more freedom and to take the initiative in ensuring human peace and development. Thirdly, environmental security promotes the adjustment of security strategies and policies, thus conducive to national stability and the steady development of international relations. As strategies and policies adjust to the change of security theory, the confirmed importance of environmental security finds full expression in security strategies and policies of individual countries and the international community. For example, in the US, environmental issues were first considered as affecting the national interest in

78  Xiaoli Lyu the 1991 international security strategy. Since the 1970s, the international community has enacted and signed over 180 international environmental treaties to standardize and coordinate contemporary international relations, covering the atmospheric environment, the marine environment, the Antarctic environment, water resources, biological resources and the prevention of waste pollution, nuclear pollution, etc. Finally, environmental security not only sheds new light on traditional security but also relates to the sustainable development of humanity from a unique perspective, hence creating more profound and wider implications for the future. In a sense, environmental security is of critical importance to sustainable development and the proposal of environmental issues is the inevitable corollary of sustainable development, as it clearly stated in Our Common Future that peace and security issues, in some respects, are directly related to sustainable development and in some sense are at the core of sustainable development. As noted previously, environmental security and sustainable development are highly correlated so it is essential to coordinate the relationship between man and nature for the common good of humanity, however, to achieve that demands broad vision, effective strategies, and creative approaches. It is with such potentials that environment security will rise to the challenge of international relations and human survival.

Global issues in the social and political domains Global issues in the social domain Representative issues in the social domain are the global drug issue and AIDS epidemic. Drug issue In today’s world, the drug issue has become a global social ill. Drugs seriously damage people’s health, their families, and other social relations, in many cases causing family separation or tragic death. In addition, drugs are a large source of violence and crime, harming societies and countries and imposing a heavy burden. Therefore, it is an important and arduous task for governments all over the world to address drug-related issues. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, an overview of the global drug situation indicates that recent years have witnessed the continued upward trend in the number of drugs and drug abusers as well as a considerable increase in new drug crimes with prominent crossborder and transnational characteristics. As drug issues transcend national borders, no country alone can solve them and close cooperation between drug-exporting countries and consuming countries is required, as well as among national governments. The international community has begun to strengthen efforts to solve drug-related issues, but a series of problems are yet to be solved in international anti-drug cooperation.

Global issues  79 First of all, national interests need to be coordinated in international anti-drug cooperation. To solve non-traditional security issues like drugs, countries are confronted with weighing up national interests, global interests, and regional interests, handling the conflict of interest concerning drug issues at home and abroad. Secondly, international anti-drug cooperation mechanisms need to be improved. The current situation of international anti-drug cooperation first reveals a lack of specialized personnel and institutions. To solve drug issues, concerted efforts are required expertise in integrating medical science, sociology, and psychology. In addition, the demanding techniques of anti-drug cooperation necessitate specialized institutions, personnel, and funding; otherwise, it is extremely difficult for anti-drug cooperation to be carried out, still less to remain sustained in the future. Meanwhile, the world still lacks a sound international anti-drug cooperation regime. Although anti-drug cooperation is at the top of the agenda in many countries, its practical operations will be affected by a variety of factors: first, the perception of drug control and how best to solve the resulting problems varies with the legal systems and cultural assumptions of individual countries. With differences in the legal system, each country is reluctant to undermine its own legal authority. For example, China and several Southeast Asian countries have established a liaison officer system, but some thorny issues of drug smuggling cannot be effectively solved on the spot, only with the hope that the drug trade will be fundamentally curbed by cooperation afterward through criminal law enforcement. AIDS epidemic Since the US diagnosed the first AIDS patient in 1981, HIV has dramatically spread across the globe. UN AIDS data show that the number of HIV infections in the past 20 years has risen from a handful of people to over 30 million, and the total number of deaths from AIDS approaches 30 million. The global AIDS epidemic is characterized by its global reach and uneven distribution. As a result of increasing transnational links, the AIDS pandemic threatens health across the world and intertwines with many other global public diseases. In addition, it has an uneven impact on regions and countries with different levels of development, mostly concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, where the epidemic is widespread and rampant due to underfunded national responses. As it is, there is the world’s largest population of people living with HIV/AIDS in Africa. However, the situation in Asia is not encouraging, as India, alongside South Africa, is rated as one of the two countries with the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS across the globe. The increasing average lifespan contributes to the rise in the number of HIV carriers, on average two more people are infected when one patient begins to receive antiretroviral medication. Therefore, the reduction of HIV infections is the key to global AIDS prevention and treatment.21 The global AIDS prevention and treatment response is faced with a serious challenge. It first bears the brunt of the global fiscal cuts. Due to the

80  Xiaoli Lyu economic crisis, many countries adopt fiscal austerity policies, with the attendant funding slash that endangers some ongoing achievements and future progress of AIDS prevention and treatment. Secondly, social prejudices need to be eradicated. Thirty years of development has witnessed the improved social environment for AIDS patients, but social discrimination persists. Last, the exorbitant cost of medication prevents HIV/AIDS patients from receiving continued antiretroviral treatment, and they can therefore suffer recurrent infections, typically in developing countries. It is thus urgent to put more efforts into lowering the cost of medication. To some extent, the AIDS and drugs issues are not confined to the healthcare sector but related to the concentrated and integrated response of the economic and political domains. The drug issue, for example, should not be tackled by merely cracking down on the consumer market, but also examined from the source of cultivation, involving the cultivation of alternative cash crops, and the necessary economic assistance. Drug addiction is often linked to crime and the AIDS pandemic; therefore, the working response system should be designed to address AIDS and drug issues in tandem, calling for the concerted effort of global actors into the substantial improvement of the grim situation.

Global issues in the political domain Human rights and nationalism are at the core of global issues in the political domain. Human rights Human rights, as the universal concern of our time, have been recognized as the notion that transcends social systems, cultural traditions, and ideologies. On the other hand, there has been a heated debate and fierce struggle between socialist countries and capitalist countries over the universality and particularity of human rights, in addition to the relationship between human rights and sovereignty. The contemporary international human rights debate shows that human rights issues are at the forefront of international politics, impacting on the international political configuration as well as on foreign policies and domestic politics of all countries. The dynamics of the international situation have shaped new trends in international human rights, as shown in the following aspects. First, human rights issues figure prominently in international counterterrorism efforts.22 Since the 9/11 terrorist attack, all the countries have strengthened their defense against terrorism and international counterterrorism cooperation has made much progress in containing terrorist forces. However, the world situation is still grim with emergent terrorist attacks all over the world. Moreover, the US-led war on terror, far from liquidating terrorists, causes a spate of scandals, and the international community is thus compelled to reflect on existing counter-terrorism policies

Global issues  81 and measures, notably the implications for human rights. Besides an attack on the US counter-terrorism policy from many international human rights organizations, dignitaries and scholars have pointed out that the War on Terror has violated international human rights law and humanitarian law. Secondly, human rights issues have officially related to corruption. In November 2008, the 13th International Anti-Corruption Conference was the first to raise the issue of human rights and corruption in the forum titled “Integrating human rights and anti-corruption policies: challenges and opportunities”, stressing the human-rights principle as the guide and limit of the legal premises for the anti-corruption measures established by the United Nations Convention against Corruption. In February 2009, the International Council for Human Rights Policy launched a report Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection, officially linking human rights to corruption, developing a conceptual framework that enables users to describe how acts of corruption are linked to human rights and how human rights can be promoted while working to reduce corruption and bring corruption to justice. Last, the United Nations Universal Periodic Review has materialized. On March 15, 2006, the General Assembly adopted the resolution 60/251 to establish a new Human Rights Council and the universal periodic review mechanism under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, designed to ensure equal treatment for every country in review of their human rights and thus to improve the human rights situation in all countries. In the process, all 192 UN Member States are provided with the opportunity to declare what actions they have taken to fulfill their human rights commitments and obligations, hence the universality and indivisibility of human rights embodied. The Universal Periodic Review, compared to its predecessors, is considered the greatest innovation of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the international community has pinned great hopes on it. The mechanism was fully launched in 2008. Nationalism Nationalism, in short, refers to the thought or movement that puts the particular nation as the subject of politics, economy, and culture linked to certain dominant values. Anthony Smith, a noted theorist of nationalism, argues in Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach that nationalism can be defined as the “an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity on behalf of a population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential ‘nation’”.23 Isaiah Berlin stresses in Nationalism that no one has even suggested nationalism will dominate the latter one-third of this century and that as far as its impact is concerned, any social movement or revolution will ally with nationalism for the likelihood of success, at least not in direct confrontation.24 Indeed, nationalism from birth has considerably transformed the history of mankind, for example in 2012, nationalism was particularly active and exerted far-reaching effects in

82  Xiaoli Lyu Asia, Europe, and Africa, to some extent transforming the geopolitics and world configuration. Nationalism is essentially the public sentiment; hence, it is mainly irrational. Yael Tamir, a renowned scholar of liberal nationalism, views the irrational characteristic of nationalism, including the lack of intelligible structures, logic, and intrinsic consistency. Of all social groups, ethnic and religious groups are often characterized by a strong and natural identity and the resultant social-political movements are powerful. Given that, nationalism provides a sense of belonging for ethnic and religious groups, arousing in members the strong desire to maintain their identity, and helps distinguish people from enemies when it comes to political mobilization. Varied as its forms, nationalism is essentially derived from humanity (sense of belonging) in its operating mechanism, hence its ever-lasting mobilizing capability. But it is thus subjugated to all forces in the name of mobilizing and manipulating members. To be sure, nationalism plays a powerful role, direct or indirect in the world situation, such as the dispute concerning the South China Sea and the East China Sea, the political struggle between different factions of the Arab Spring countries in West Asia and North Africa, the conflict between the West and Syria, Iran and Hamas, the tension between the EU and its Member States, and the game between the EU Member States and their domestic ethnic separation regions. Nationalism, the ideological form of “hyper-ideology”, is not the product of rationality or freedom. Freedom is doomed to extinction as nationalism connotes irrational and violent conflict tendencies, fanatical romanticism, and political messianic belief. However, it does not signal the end of history. The utopia of international liberalism remains elusive, and nationalism will exert a far-reaching influence on the future of human history.

Review and response to global issues25 A new perspective on the world development Since the 1960s, global issues have come to the fore, so themes in international relations have begun to shift from war and revolution of the past to contemporary peace and development, and cooperative politics has risen to the occasion. Meanwhile, the 1960s witnessed the sudden outbreak of latent issues of environment, resources, population, food, alongside the plague of emergent issues that arise from the desperate need for development, such as the struggle for a new international order, debt crisis, financial crisis, trade frictions, exploitation of oceans resources and international development, rampant drug abuse, and the spread of AIDS. Confronted with these cross-border, transnational global issues, no country can cope alone and the traditional confrontational mindset and policies cannot help but aggravate the plight, thus necessitating a transformation in international relations. It is under the combined impact of world themes and global issues that the contemporary world is being reconfigured.

Global issues  83 First, state actors have considerably adjusted their external objectives. All countries across the world, voluntarily or reluctantly, have made peace and development their basic goals. It has become a common choice for most countries to adopt peaceful means to expand the international influence and enhance the international status via their comprehensive national strength. This choice symbolizes a significant change of themes in international relations. Secondly, there emerge more dialogues, coordination, and mutual respect among actors of international relations, and considerable progress has been made in international cooperation. As noted previously, with peace and development positioned as national external goals, the world interdependence starts to highlight common interests and global issues, hence the corresponding changes in mindsets and approaches of various actors in international relations: it will not work to be a single winner pursuing their own benefits at the cost of others and the price will be paid for this temporary advantage. It will be a historical trend to replace “zero game” (one person’s loss is another one’s gain) with a “stag hunt game” (cooperation and assurance), as the core of the latter is international cooperation that seeks common interests. Granted, the world has started to change, but there remains a note of caution where the new international order is still plagued by the Cold-War mentality, hegemonism, North-South disparity, and conflicts. A new perspective on state actors and non-state actors National security has long been the focus of international relations. In the traditional sense, international relations mainly refer to the relations between nation-states, and international politics thus mainly feature state actors. Up to today, the situation has not fundamentally changed since the nation-state is the protagonist of international relations, and the sovereign state takes the lead in international affairs as the basic actor of the international community. However, the dominant state actors are part of contemporary international relations. With the adjustments of international relations and the rise of global issues, state actors are faced with the imminent challenge of emerging non-state actors, such as international organizations and transnational corporations. First, the number of non-state actors has increased and their sphere of influence has expanded. Secondly, non-state actors are equipped with the unique power to address the issues of contemporary international relations, hence the enhanced role in international relations. Thirdly, nonstate actors are more flexible and less subjugated to political forces, thus opening up new prospects for international dialogues and promoting the development of international relations. As it is, the emergent global issues will give rise to non-state actors, thereby transforming the state-dominant international relations. The future will therefore witness a gradual shift from bilateral relations to multilateral relations that in turn will be placed in the larger context of international organizations so that members will be treated as equals herein.

84  Xiaoli Lyu A redirected focus on national interests in lower politics Since the 1960s, due to the global expansion of market economy and rapid economic integration, the world has become more interconnected, strengthening the role of several aspects, such as economy, culture, science and technology, environment, and education. This, on the one hand, increases normal interactions between countries and furthers their development, but on the other hand, relations between countries become more intricate, hence the emergent global issues and restrained international relations. It is against this background that people have come to realize that the contemporary international relations cannot be interpreted merely from the perspective of the political and military security but due weight should be assigned to the non-military aspects concerning economy, culture, science and technology, environment, etc. Non-military aspects in international relations are called “low politics”, distinct from the traditional “high politics” that focus on military security. The “low politics” are accorded full attention because they cover a wide range of matters that are vital to the real life of contemporary human beings, e.g., the North-South divide and global poverty due to the unbalanced world economic development, the ecological disputes, and environmental diplomacy caused by the environmental deterioration, the social unrest due to population expansion and resource shortage, and social issues like AIDS, drug abuse, and trafficking that arise from the combined effects of poverty, social injustice, and the loss of humanistic spirit. In contemporary international relations, these issues of low politics are of high importance alongside “high politics”. Political and military security has, in the past, been the major concern of sovereign states as territorial disputes and military confrontations occur on occasion. Generally speaking, as those issues concern sovereignty, territory, and resource disputes, a more moderate approach is adopted given the full considerations of national interests. Britain and Argentina, for example, engaged in a substantial naval battle over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands in 1982 and 13 years later in 1995, the two countries signed a joint agreement to develop the oil resources of the Malvinas Islands at this point, but the Malvinas sovereignty issue was left unresolved. To sum up, “low politics” begin to figure prominently in international relations and compels urgent attention in national interests. Against the background of world peace and development as well as emergent global issues, the actors in international relations have turned their attention to low-politics issues like economic, cultural and environmental issues. Traditional political and military security is not always on the top agenda when national interests are examined. Therefore, “lower politics” has been placed in the same league of “high politics” and even tend to be accorded more weight in terms of its urgency in national interests. The need for global governance The direct consequence of globalization is a rise of global issues and the inadequate capacity of existing political entities to solve these issues, creating

Global issues  85 the urgent need to figure out how to solve them with current global forces. Many proposals have been advanced in the international community and among other things, global governance stands out. Global governance is a form of democratic consultation and cooperation among governments, international organizations, and citizens in order to maximize their common interests, with its core of a newly developed international political and economic order that aims to uphold the security, peace, development, welfare, equality, and human rights of mankind, with global rules and institutions included in addressing international political and economic issues. In a sense, global governance is an extension of domestic governance in an international context. As in international relations, governance is first and foremost a product of agreements and practices between countries,26 especially among major powers, so global governance is considered an innovative political approach, expressing the need and desire to solve problems through multi-faceted and multi-leveled negotiations. Global issues require global governance, and the following principles need to be taken into account. First, the innovative principle. As global issues are demanding, intertwined, and persistent, mechanical solutions via techniques alone are incapable of coping, calling for an innovative dose into the forms, behavior, and lifestyles of mankind. What matters is the shift of the social system from “current domination over Nature” to “coexistence with Nature” for the sake of sustainable existence and development for mankind and nature. Secondly, the principle of sustainability refers to the sustainable existence and development of mankind and nature, stressing the sustainability of nature as the fundamental premise, generating many principles like symbiosis, holism, and balance of interests. It has become a necessity for mankind to follow the aforementioned principles in solving global issues. Thirdly, the principle of global cooperation. As global issues are no respecter of race, class, and national boundaries, every citizen in the world is faced with the common crisis, and it is everybody’s responsibility to contribute. But reckless acts are likely to have consequences, and a global perspective and global cooperation are especially demanded in the sophisticated situation. Consciousness needs to be strengthened in the sense of harmony and “common fate of community”, thus creating a favorable international atmosphere to counteract the negative effects of global issues. The United Nations and a number of non-governmental organizations, such as the Club of Rome, have been dedicated to this endeavor and made some progress in this respect, but there is still a long way to go. A call for global identity To solve global issues demands the fundamental changes in values and ethics that highlight the theory of humanity and common interests as evolved in globalism. Global ethics, as a set of values and social norms universally recognized by mankind, aim to defend the common interests of mankind,

86  Xiaoli Lyu to advocate tolerance and cooperation for the sustainable development of mankind. Alongside, global awareness and spread of universal values are expected to work together as the ultimate solution to global issues. First, new conceptions should be introduced.27 “Multiple governance” needs to replace “monopoly” or “hegemony”. Only if the idea of pluralism materializes can we establish a system of multiple governance, and in turn, global issues can be solved in a practical way. Secondly, the relationshiporiented governance is to remedy the deficiencies of order-oriented governance. Partnership is positioned as a relationship based on trust and identity among global actors and embodies the new concept of governance. Thirdly, the collective identity needs to be shaped through active participation in governance. An effective model of governance is conducive to the formation of collective identity as it involves the participation of the international community members in global governance, designing, formulating, and implementing the international system. Secondly, nationalism is advocated as related to globalism.28 In this sense, nationalism differs from the ideal globalism and the traditional nationalism in that it aims to examine the development of human society from the macro-historical perspective and to identify the trend of globalization and globalism while recognizing the relativity of sovereignty and exploring the essence and new manifestations in the era of globalization. For a substantial period of time, the nation-state has been the pillar of human social life and it is irrational to rush into the idea or practice of transcending nationalism on all fronts. It thus behooves us to advocate defending national sovereignty against the injustices of international order, particularly in the case of developing countries, and to put further effort into eliminating the global poverty and promoting the development of mankind.

Notes 1 Cai Tuo et al., Global Issues and Contemporary International Relations (Tianjin People’s Publishing House, 2002), p. 2. 2 Cai Tuo et al., Global Issues and Contemporary International Relations, pp. 9–12. 3 Tang Yongsheng et al., “The Evolution and Characteristics of Global Armed Conflicts in the Post-Cold-War Era”, Contemporary International Relations, Vol. 8, 2008, p. 1. 4 Ibid.,p. 1. 5 Lotta Harbom and Peter Wallensteen, Patterns of Major Armed Conflicts, 19972006, UCDP, from SIPRI. 6 Xu Guangyu, ‘The Historical Perspective and Future Development of Nuclear Proliferation’, World Economics and Politics, Vol. 1, 2008, p. 65. 7 Zhang Jiadong, ‘Main Characteristics and Trends of World Terrorism’, International Review, Vol. 5, 2011, p. 8. 8 “EU Terrorism Situation and Trend 2010 and 2011”, https://www.europol.europa.eu/latest_publications/2. 9 Mark Potok, “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism”, http:// www.splcenter.org/getinformed/intelligencereport/browseallissues/2010/spring/ ­ ­ ­ ­ rageontheright. ­ ­ ­

Global issues  87





















3

Global economy Lin Xia

The global economy is the inevitable trend and form of human economic behavior and transnational economic phenomena in the process of economic globalization. This chapter is organized around frequently discussed issues of the global economy with a genealogical account of the key conceptions and their major trajectories in relation to controversial issues in addition to a critical analysis of the prospects for the global economy.

Interpretation of global economy From international economy, world economy to global economy International economy and global economy International Economy, also known as the economy between the states, was initially defined as related to National Economy. British scholars Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson portray the following dimensions of international economy: first, the national economy constitutes the international economy as the main economic entity and independent national economies get interlinked in the international economy. Secondly, international trade and international investment are the main economic forms, and international investment is of greater significance, compared with the international trade that depends on the international division of labor. Thirdly, the domestic economic policy does not relate to but reflects on the international economy. Fourthly, the international economy has Western-centric tendencies in terms of its structure and internal distribution of power. Sustained by the world market that shares real-time information, the international economy originates in the 1970s and develops with the rise of international companies as typical carriers.1 Similar to the national economy, the international economy involves the following economic activities: production, distribution, trade, investment, and services, alongside the attendant issues like resource allocation, income distribution, and economic growth. It is taken as a further extension and expansion of the national economy, but given the broad

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207-4

Global economy  89 scope of economic operations and lack of macro-regulation for unity. As in nation-states, the international economic exchanges are more complicated along with respective national economic systems that remain unchallenged from either the national economy or international economy. As it is, the international economy does not differ fundamentally from the national economy in terms of the economic entity and standpoint. It can be argued that the nation-state will remain the mainstay of economic activities in the future, but the era of globalization has witnessed the emergence of global economy and the division of standpoints between the international economy and the national economy. The global economy stands out with the altruistic objective so that its starting point is not confined to the individual but promoted to the overall interests in pursuit of the maximum net profit. With a “planetary” tendency, global economy embodies the economic relations of the Earth as a whole, but the international economy, with its tendency to “internationalize”, emphasizes the trade growth and increasing economic linkage between countries, as reflected in the flow of (across national boundaries) goods, trade, investment, services, and economic ideas. Given the increasing amount, frequency, and impact of flow between regions, nation-states become more interdependent. International firms are the main participants of international economic activities. As a relatively loose group, the international form is comprised of independent subsidiaries and departments, with international economic activities generally restrained by the domestic economic policy and motivated in the interests of the national economy. By contrast, transnational corporations (TNCs) are the major players in global economic activities. Composed of economic entities that are respectively located in two or more countries irrespective of their legal form or range of activities, the TNC operates through one or more often, multiple centers in accordance with certain decision-making mechanisms that can formulate consistent policies and common strategies. Individual entities herein are linked by ownership or other factors, with the possibility for one or more exerting influence on the activities of others, especially in sharing knowledge, resources, and responsibilities.2 In a sense, the TNC can be labeled as capital without borders or national identities, hence the feasibility of supra-national management and the pursuit of mere profits in global grade. As such, the finances will not necessarily hinge on the national monetary policy but respond to the world market through advanced modern means of communication; forces of production will flow smoothly in global procurement of raw materials, global production, distribution, exchange, and consumption; transparent global operations will prevail, aiming towards harmonious order in the global market. In short, the TNC differs from the international firm in that it is free from the interference or control from national policy, and the global economy is thus unique in this respect.

90  Lin Xia World economy and global economy In terms of the standpoint and subject, issues and trends, there is a degree of resemblance between the world economy and the global economy, but remarkable differences remain. The Economic Dictionary defines the world economy as the sum of all national economies, which has formed complex interaction and interdependence at a certain phase of social development.3 In this respect, we can make the following assumptions: first, the world economy can be regarded as a composite global market economy system that operates on the market economy of eah country. Secondly, the world economy involves the whole process of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption under the intervention of sovereign states, also known as “the process of reproduction”, due to external interconnections of each country in the process of production. Thirdly, the world economy is an interconnected and interdependent mechanism jointly operated by countries or national groups with different levels of development. Likewise, the global economy is also a composite operating mechanism of the market economy, but the world economy cannot be put in the same league, as it is categorized as one of the general social economies and the global economy is supposed to be the top category of the general social economies.4 Until today, with deepening globalization, the global economy is gradually brought into full play in its regulation and coverage, while the world economy, despite its rising macro-vision, is comparatively confined in its analytic perspective so as not to solve efficiency or justice issues related to economic globalization. Secondly, unlike the world economy, the global economy is no longer the process of reproduction derived from external relations of national economies but an independent system of production and reproduction, concerned with the overall interests of mankind in the multidimensional economic domain rather than with the mere aggregate efficiency of local economies. For the time being or long into the future, we need to bear in mind that actors of global economy are still unable to exclude nation-states, but in comparison to the world economy, global economic activities highlight the subject of TNCs and global economic organizations with the global vision and the independent economic standpoint. The world economy was formed in the 1860s/1870s when the global economy was only beginning to germinate, and a century later emerged, in the 1980s/1990s, alongside economic globalization. As a product of the third Technological Revolution, the global economy surpasses the previous two Technological Revolutions in its scale, range, and impact. The unprecedented level of productivity has significantly transformed global trade and the resultant change in the trade structure of individual countries has affected the geographical flow of global trade significantly. As it is, the postwar scientific and technological revolution transformed the traditional trade model, so that in contrast to the initial vertical division of labor between agricultural and industrial countries, the trade model featured the

Global economy  91 flow of technology-intensive industrial products to the country, with comparatively advanced scientific and technological levels, with the horizontal flow between developed countries that shape the global network of trade and factors of production today. Besides, there has been a significant change in sectors and patterns of foreign direct investment among the countries, as reflected in their increased investment in manufacturing and the tertiary industry, particularly new industrial sectors related to the advances of science and technology, also taken as the main object of mutual investment in developed countries aiming for the platform of the global economy. Conceptions and characteristics of global economy Definition of global economy The historical process of economic globalization has evolved the world economy to a “globalized economy”, also called the “global economy”, an emergent economic system distinct from the international economy and the world economy. This change profoundly transforms the operating mechanism and structural characteristics of the world economy that features the division of labor as its base and international trade as the link. The research herein involves the world market and the aggregate national economies in the world economy alongside economic models between nation-states in the international economy, and the global economy can be examined as the latest development of the international economy and world economy in the global era. As compared with the international economy and world economy, the global economy has undergone long periods of development from its inception. Building on the implications of world economic structural adjustments and transformations since the 1990s as well as the overall trend of the world economy in economic globalization, our argument assumes that, with the development of economic globalization, the global economy reveals the tendency of global integration, meets the overall needs of mankind, and promotes common human interests via the optimal allocation of world market resources. It further embodies the aggregate of economic relations that unfold in global economic activities of production, trade, and finance, highlighting the global subject of TNCs in their interdependence and interactions in accordance with the certain economic law. Characteristics of global economy The standardized market Based on the market economy and subject to the market regime across the world, the global economy develops with the progress of economic globalization: Firstly, it’s in response to trade liberalization. In the global economy,

92  Lin Xia the invisible hand causes global trade subjects to voluntarily reach agreements and establish economic links. The liberalizing tendency in international trade finds full expression in the fundamental characteristics of the world market, which requires breaking barriers to the maximum and settling disputes through negotiations in the economic domain. Secondly, it’s in response to mechanism marketization. In the global economic system, the supply and demand of the world market is supposed to play a bigger part in regulating significant economic variables, such as commodity prices and interest rates, rather than the government’s forced interference or even dominance. In addition, the marketization of economic operation mechanisms suggests that economic ties are increasingly strengthened in the market, with far-reaching implications for the overall situation, and mutual impact of economic variables start to appear prominently, deepening the interdependence among nation-states, economic organizations, TNCs, and enterprise groups. Thirdly, it legalizes the economic management. The market is supposed to act according to its laws, but this needs to be guaranteed by law for a long time in the future. When engaging in economic activities, economic subjects need to abide by rules and regulation in signing agreements or fulfilling obligations. It is worthy of note that global economic institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (WB), are increasingly authoritative in reconciling the interests of all parties, enacting economic rules, and arbitrating economic disputes. Multidimensional mechanism The global economy is a pluralistic mechanism of national economies, inter-state economies, transnational economies, and supranational ones. It embodies multidimensional economic perspectives that range from the micro-/meso-perspective to the macro-perspective. Furthermore, increasing complications arise from the complicated global situation of intervention from multiple subjects, as reflected in a variety of international economic organizations or transnational groups that try to shape global economy in their own way, and also in nation-states that have, for the time being, or for a long time, intervene in the global economy, particularly in emerging countries. The 2015 World Trade Report by the WTO pointed to an upward fluctuating tendency in the import/export performance of developing countries and developed countries within five years of 2010–2014. Export of goods grew by 3.3% and 2.3%, respectively, in developing countries and developed countries, with developing countries higher by 1.1% in 2014. However, in 2015, export reached 3.6% and import 3.7% in developing countries and emerging economies, both higher than that of developed countries (3.2% imports and 3.2% exports). Among other things, China surpassed Japan’s GDP to become the world’s second-largest economy in 2010, and in 2014, China took

Global economy  93 the lead in the world’s total export of goods and second in the total import, alongside its rapid growth rate of 10.3% (the first in the world5). The period 2015–2016 witnessed a slowdown of economic growth in emerging economies, but the World Economic Outlook released by the IMF in October 2016, predicted continued slight growth of the global economy in 2016–2017 due to the momentum from strong emerging markets. According to the IMF’s forecast, the global economy grew at 3.1% in 2016, rising to 3.4% in 2017, with merely 1.6% growth in developed economies, lower than the previous year. By contrast, emerging economies rose dramatically to 4.2% growth in 2016, expecting to reach 4.6% in 2017.6 Overall, China has maintained the strongest competitiveness among emerging economies, taking the lead in market scale and the macroeconomic environment, and national innovative capacity significantly improved as well. Arguably nation-states, especially emerging economies, matter a lot to the global economic recovery. Economic integrity Martin Albrow, the British Sociologist, contends that economic globalization, beyond the scope of the national economy, is organized around the world as a reference point with the framework of economic theories and operations underpinned by the assumption of replacing the government with the globe.7 The global economy is supposed to exist as an organic whole mainly because its integrity is derived from the evolution of commodity trade to capital flow and global integration in factors of production. The contemporary transformations of the global economy have fundamentally affected the perception of the global economic structure, and the changes of individual countries’ economic positions will, in turn, impact upon their positions in the global economy and finance. All this makes the globe more interconnected today than ever before, as the economic globalization has considerably eased the border barriers via tariff reduction and non-tariff measures, initiating a new stage of globalization in normalizing domestic institutional arrangements. In this sense, globalization will ensure a smooth normative international flow in factors of production, generating the coordination and synergy among national economic systems, thus conducive to the overall global economic operations. Global economic integrity also suggests that the contemporary global economic law points to the pathway of integration that helps dissolve various barriers and handles economic events and economic relations beyond the restraints of national boundaries. The global economy is a super macro-level issue, but economic globalization is derived from two micro-level changes in its foundations. One of the micro-level changes is concerned with the organizational level that refers to the change of enterprise forms. TNCs correspond to the global economy and generate the internationalization of production, hence the organizational foundation of enterprises in economic globalization. The other is concerned with economic operations more by

94  Lin Xia the aggregate TNCs than by sovereign states. TNCs correspond to rising globalization from their internal organizations and management to global competition and marketing strategies. On the surface, the issue of transnational operations is related to enterprise management, but it is essentially a way to adapt to the change of perspective from micro/meso to macro in the global economy, as the global economy necessitates transnational operations without which the enterprise is unlikely to enter the world market. As it is, the traditional economic operation that features the production at home and ensuing export to the world market is giving way to the unified model of the world market that integrates all the factors of production including even the derivative factors such as economic strategies. Most importantly, the integrating process highlights the globe and economic integrity.

Core elements of global economy The logical starting point of global economy The global economy grows with the trend of economic globalization. Arguably, the contemporary global economic model would not have emerged without the new wave of globalization beginning in the 1990s. First, economic globalization has encouraged the economies of individual regions and countries to interweave, interact, and merge into a unified one, namely, a “unified global market”. The global economy is underpinned by global rules of normative economic practices and corresponding mechanisms for economic operations that are established worldwide. Therefore, we claim that the new wave of economic globalization in the 1990s provides further impetus for the global economy. Since the beginning of 1990s, globalization has been taken as the primary driving force and the logical starting point of the global economy because it is from that period onwards, that globalization has produced changes in the nature of economic activities and forms of interdependence. Economic activity is getting more interconnected than before, practically covering all the countries across the world and going beyond the visions of the scholars of liberalism before the 1990s. Such interdependence has featured so prominently in the international relations that, for many participating countries in contemporary economic affairs, the current global economic market cannot be regarded as a mere international extension of the domestic market, but a necessary condition for the operation of their national economy. Contemporary economic globalization is compatible with the knowledge economy, especially information technology. In the global economic system, new technology like the internet upgrades the level of production liberalization, trade liberalization, and financial liberalization. Thomas Friedman has introduced to us in The World Is Flat, ten flatteners, most of which are concerned with the huge transformation of the world generated by the rapid development of information technology since the 1990s.8 Especially in the

Global economy  95 mid-1990s, with the advent and growth of personal computers, Windows, and internet technologies, globalization has transcended the traditional globalization of production and trade and transformed into information globalization. In recent years, the advent of We Media and cloud computing technology has ushered in the era of global users, more private, civilian, and autonomous economic units emerging and breaking up the global economic model that is controlled by traditional nation-states, international economic organizations, and TNCs, hence the shift of economic producers from organizations to individuals. In this sense, individuals are accorded more attention as the basic social unit and enterprises focus not only on their business partners but also on the wills, demands, and opinions of their customers. To be sure, information technology has a revolutionary impact on economic globalization and therefore the basic contents of the global economy are undergoing a profound transformation. The future will witness the progress of information technology and a quantum leap in the global economy. Carrier and driver of global economy Richard H.K. Vietor points out that in the contemporary global economy the government is still the key to success in the competition because it not only dominates the important fiscal and monetary policy but also creates and cultivates the key mechanism to promote economic growth.9 However, the contemporary global economy breaks the monolithic governmentdominant economic model and highlights the increasingly prominent role of emerging economies such as TNCs, supranational economic institutions, and sub-national economic institutions, esp. the power of TNCs in shaping the global economy. The biggest economic transformation of globalization is the unprecedented transnational phenomena of production, trade, and capital circulation. TNCs have become the main drivers of economic globalization, and their economic activities have profoundly affected the level of industrialization and the macroeconomic structure in their host and home countries. Through their global trade activities, TNCs are accelerating globalization as a new form of market organization, evading government intervention in economic activities and overcoming the defects of market barriers. The TNC is a characteristic of depoliticization, with its attendant capability of manipulating, commanding, harnessing, and even destroying the political control of sovereign states in a global context. As the major driver of globalization, the TNC, via its global business, capital, and employees, exerts a deep impact on the world configuration as well as on global economic development, scientific and technological progress, industrial adjustment, cultural exchange, and political diplomacy. The scale of the TNC also contributes to its prominent participation as an explorer of markets and resources in globalization. Given the economic operations of its subsidiaries

96  Lin Xia in different countries, the TNC is rated as a large seller and purchaser of products, services and raw materials in the global economic system, as well as the largest investor and loaner in the world’s financial markets, transforming the world financial market and order in its continued investment, fund-raising, loaning, and rent-seeking. As it is, the globalizing production and sales effectively link up the economies of different countries, and their resource advantages enable the TNC to achieve the optimal resource allocation worldwide. Therefore, economically speaking, despite our national political identity, the TNC enables us to become world citizens. According to the latest data of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 2016), TNCs grew by 7.4% and 6.5% in sales and added value, respectively, in 2015, with the continued expansion of global production. The top 100 TNCs have pulled out of declining commodity trading, but the employment rate continues to grow in this industry, with TNCs in the mining sector (oil, gas, minerals, etc.) accounting for the world’s top 20% of overall employment. Coincidentally, the top 100 TNCs in Central Africa also experienced a decline in sales (4.9%) in the financial sector, but the number of employees reached a new high with an increase of 6.4%.10 The report also suggests that the structure of direct investment and ultimate investment has changed significantly due to the de-ethnic identity of investors and the complex composition of investors in TNCs, i.e., it is difficult for contemporary multinationals to determine the identity of their home countries, or even to determine on the biggest beneficiaries. As a result, the global attribute is highlighted in contemporary TNCs, hence the gradual development towards the most persuasive carrier of the global economy. Performance of global economy Globalization of production Globalization of production refers to the cooperation in the production of a value chain among different enterprises across the world. In this case of production, the national border is breached along with the enterprise boundary and the internal production and management activities are extended to other enterprises, so the division of production and operation reveals the relationship between enterprises in their respective production of different parts of the same value chain. The globalization of production relies on the rise of TNCs. Compared with a variety of globalizing patterns of production in the pre-globaleconomy era, the contemporary globalization of production has become the mainstay of the world economic development. Furthermore, it has considerably evolved a new global production and management system, hence the reconfiguration of global productivity for the optimal resource allocation and globalization of quality competition. At the micro-level, globalization

Global economy  97 of production impacts on the TNCs through the formation of global strategies for enterprises and the innovation of the global system for TNCs, and they are thus promoted to the forefront of the global economy. In 1996, the average business income of the world’s top 500 TNCs reached almost US$ 22.5491 billion, and statistics from 2015 show that in 2014 the business income of Fortune 500 TNCs averaged US$ 62.1169 billion with a growth rate of 175%. Arguably, the past 20 years have witnessed the rapid development of TNCs. Since the 1990s, the upgraded modern communications technology, particularly the emergence and popularization of the internet, has provided the advanced technical support for the globalization of production so that TNCs can control the production and management around the world. Apple, for example, has a total of 451 supply chain partners worldwide, with over 1,500,000 production workers in 30 countries across the world, and in China alone, Apple has created over 1.5 million jobs (including all Apple products). Modern TNCs like Apple can make the most of regional advantages for their respective roles and develop global economic ties with minimum costs and maximum benefits. Therefore, globalization of production is called the basic stage of the global economy and without the globalization of production; there would be no transnational operation, trade globalization, and the global economy. Trade globalization Trade globalization is accompanied by the globalization of production as reflected in the reduction of trade barriers, the rising status of TNCs in globalization, the continued improvement of the multilateral framework of trade and investment, and the importance of intra-company trade as commodity trade. Since 1992, the global market has gradually materialized in the wave of economic globalization and many TNCs have made a series of global strategic adjustments to reallocate resources in accordance with the function of the enterprise management mechanism. The emergence of a global market enables companies to choose the most productive markets around the world as their business focus, for example, emerging markets and economies have transformed previous TNC practices, creating competition for the market of developed countries. The possibility of global resource allocation encourages the maximum pursuit of cost-efficient factors of production such as labor, raw materials, energy, capital, and technology, hence the potential global value chain. In short, the emergent global market places a high demand on the globalization of production, calling for the “unrestricted” TNC (termed “global company” by some scholars) and the involvement of the state as the second subject in the global economic system.11 In December 2015, over 50 WTO member countries reached an agreement on the largest tariff concession of nearly 20 years, eliminating trade

98  Lin Xia restrictions on 201 IT products, worth US$ 130 million. This process greatly enhances the level of trade liberalization and globalization, revitalizing the global economic downturn caused by the volatility of US dollars in 2015. However, in recent years as trade protectionism prevails, the international economy has plunged into a state of low growth, with a mere 1.7% growth in 2016, far less than that of the same period, and the lowest level since the financial crisis. In 2015, WTO members adopted over 2,000 restrictive import measures, compared with 464 in 2010. The prevailing protectionism does not necessarily mean a backward progression of the global economy, as pointed out by Minouche Shafik, deputy governor of the Bank of England. The global economy is experiencing a slowdown in trade growth and international capital flow, and globalization is fluctuating not necessarily moving backward. We should caution against global financial risks and “light intervention” measures are encouraged. We believe that transformations of trade globalization will bring the global economy back on track. Globalization of capital In short, the globalization of capital is the transnational flow of capital. Transnational investment suggests that the fundamental transformation from the world economy to the global economy, and the complicated global economic reality, has defied the traditional international division of labor. Since the 1970s, as a result of the unprecedented development of TNCs, international trade is not confined to the “international division of production” but embodied in the form of investment, namely “global cooperation in factors of production”, suggesting that regardless of whether the product will enter the international market or not, the process of production takes on the implications of globalization, instead of the home or host country. Transcending the traditional international trade, the international direct investment is actually characterized by international cooperation in factors of production, with resource advantages of individual countries integrated through the flow of factors of production, hence the integration of initial production for national economies. In the operations of global economy, international direct investment replaces trade between nations and creates a new form of trade, linking national economies as a whole, through integrated production and promotion of economic globalization to a higher level. Among other things, foreign direct investment (FDI) refers to the investment practice where investors in one country invest capital in production or management of another country with certain rights of business control. In 2015, the global FDI rose by 36% to US$ 1.7 trillion, a record high since 2007. Mergers and acquisitions of transnational enterprises gradually become the mainstream of FDI, with the rise of total cross-border mergers and acquisitions by 61% to US$ 644 billion, of which manufacturing grew by 132% to US$ 339 billion.

Global economy  99 The direct impact of international direct investment on trade and economy is that the international movement of capital is gradually replacing the transnational transfer of currency, as the core carrier of production factor. This constitutes the essence of the global economy in addition to the micro-foundation for current global economic mechanisms. Compared with other forms of investment, international direct investment gains benefits by participating and controlling the right of business operation, hereby maximizing the scale of operations and shifting capital one-way flow to two-way flow, hence causing increasingly active investment in emerging and transitional economies. It is due to the international flow of capital that the TNC can generate the flow of production factors such as technology, management, brand, and sales network. Given that fact, some scholars claim that the current global economic system shifts from the trade-led to the investment-led. Positive and negative results from this included: on the one hand, the global economy requires individual countries to adopt more open policies and to promote the rational allocation of production factors such as capital so as to ensure sustainable economic prosperity; on the other hand, to avoid the potential crisis of their involvement in the economic trajectory of developed countries, the countries adopt protectionist measures hereby increasing the difficulty of economic growth and flow of production factors in the world economy.12 Globalization of services Incidental to technological innovation, globalization of services evolves alongside the traditional forms of economic globalization. The globalization of technological factors ensures the global reach of the technological development, of technology transfer and cooperation, etc. namely, breaking the national border, the technical resources flow without restraints, the chain of technology extended worldwide and technological innovation maximized and promoted around the globe; thus, the whole world is integrated with the progress of technology. Arguably, the global economy is unlikely to materialize without the progress of modern technology, especially the free flow of technological factors worldwide since the 1990s. Take TNCs, for example, their economic operations mainly rely on the revolutionary achievements of modern science and technology, as reflected in high technology, especially the internet, setting up an information superhighway between TNCs and users, linking the consumers with production, process, and sale across the regions of the world and upgrading the TNCs’ organizations and management mechanism. The globalization of services also suggests a global flow of talent. Some scholars point out that one of the important manifestations of globalization is the cross-border spread of technology along with other major factors like the international flow of skilled workers, international trade of goods and services, and the flow of FDI.13 Because of the changes in the organizational

100  Lin Xia model, TNCs are increasingly “globe-oriented” in their operations, preferring to hire better managers worldwide, making the best use of management practices and talent in different countries.14 Globalization of services herein provides conveniences for ordinary people around the globe and breaks the national barrier against the flow of talent. The latest report from UNCTAD indicates that the global service industry accounted for two-thirds of the total in 2014, well above 27% of manufacturing, especially in Asia with a rapid growth of the service industry in its majority of developing countries.15 The development of global services directly reflects the critical position of the tertiary industry in the global economy, and it relates closely to the globalization of services.

Controversies and prospects of global economy Major controversies of global economy Reality of global economic integration As regards the reality of global economic integration, skeptics contend that the global economy, from the historical perspective, is very loose and interchangeable with the international economy or world economy.16 In their opinion, the national economy can meet the needs of the contemporary world economic development and the global economy, at best, is the external extension of the national economy. Today, there is an unprecedented flow of capital between the major economic powers, but the net flow of capital between these countries is lower than that in the early 20th century and the openness and globalization of the contemporary world economy is no match for that in the early 20th century. So, skeptics argue that the contemporary global economic integration is fairly low.17 Secondly, skeptics point out that the nation-states actually dominate and command main actors of the global economy like TNCs and related international organizations such as WTO, WB, and IMF. Their argument suggests that the current trend is a limited degree of economic and financial integration even in countries of OECD (undoubtedly the most interconnected countries of all economic forms). By contrast, given the unprecedented scale and quantity of interactions of various economies in the contemporary world, globalizers advocate the global economy with the firm belief in the contemporary tendency towards economic integation. First, globalizers note the reality of the global economy with worldwide economic networks. The global production of TNCs surpasses the world export level and reaches all the major economic regions so that national economies are more involved in the global production/exchange system and the contemporary global economic model extends well into the world’s major regions hence the economic community of fate. In addition, globalizers are also convinced of the inevitable trend towards global

Global economy  101 economic integration. Highly integrated as the most dynamic national economies remain, the global economy is gaining momentum as reflected in the increasingly integrated inter-regional and trans-regional economies. The operations of TNCs integrate national and local economies into regional and global networks of production, economic operations and organizations increasingly irrelevant to national boundaries and national economies no longer viable as an independent system of wealth creation.18 Global economy or global capitalist economy Given the contemporary globalizing economy, alongside recent outbreaks of global economic crises, skeptics question or resist the idea of economic globalization and its ideological implications, arguing that the contemporary global economy is nothing less than a further development of capitalism. As such, they reject the concept of “global economy” and the idea of the momentum of the global economy as transcending the capitalist economy. Globalizers do not refute the claim that the global economy evolves from the global capitalist economy, but their argument favors unique aspects and novel essence of the contemporary global economy characterized by market principles and profit-driven production. Recent decades have witnessed the profound economic restructuring of the economic center that has actually shifted from an industrial economy to a post-industrial economy, just as the global spread of industrial capitalism in the 20th century. Global capitalism is reconfigured at the new historical stage. Hence, the remarkable changes in its forms and organizations, in particular the qualitative changes in the spatial structure and dynamics, reveal the denationalized tendency of major economic activities. It is not an ideological issue as to whether the global economy means global capitalism or not. Subjects of the global economy can be categorized as the State and non-State factors. Nation-states remain considerably dynamic, and particularly in recent years, emerging economies have evolved into the mainstay of global governance in global economic operations and global issues. The economic ties between nation-states are also strengthened due to exchanges of trade and finance, and nearly 40 years of globalization witness the profound structural transformation of the world pattern.19 As a result, global economic development has gone far beyond the limits of capitalist development, to a higher level. To be sure, there are a large number of trans-national or even supra-national economic organizations, and they figure prominently in macro-control and policy coordination of the global economy. Especially when the invisible hand is weak, those economic subjects help to ensure continued economic development and seek the way out, in addition to the powerful laws created to manage the related global issues and to open up more space for the healthy and sustainable economic growth. Therefore, the global economy cannot equate to the global capitalist economy.

102  Lin Xia Relationship between global economy and national economy As regards the relationship between the global economy and the national economy, skeptics insist that national governments remain the center of world economic governance because of the unique political right to manage economic activities. Most countries today depend to various degrees on international trade and financial flow to ensure the growth of their national economy, despite the attendant restrictions on their autonomy and sovereignty. This argument also claims that contemporary economic development does not necessarily pose a threat to national sovereignty or even economic autonomy but, in a sense, strengthens the capacity of many countries, i.e., the nation-states will take joint action and share sovereignty via their enhanced control of external forces. So, in the view of skeptics, the global economy is subordinate to rather than a substitute for the national economy. Globalizers argue that the global economy is increasingly running out of the control of national governments. Some radicals assert that global markets are actually no longer under political regulation and that economic globalization is on the brink of a “runaway world” where national governments have no choice but to adapt to global economic forces. As economic globalization portends the end of the welfare state and social democracy, they claim that the global economy will replace the national economy.20 We believe that for a long time in future nation-states will continue regulating the global economy through domestic policies, but the subjects and governance activities will continue to diversify as the global economy is on the rise. So, over a long period, the global economy is neither an alternative to the national economy nor its subordinate, the two intertwine or coexist in the direction towards the continued growth of the global economy. Prospects of global economy Academic prospects of global economy First of all, the global economy is the most dynamic fundamental category of global studies. The globalizing process is premised on globalization of the economic domain, such as trade, finance, and factors of production; the IMF’s definition of globalization can be taken as a description of the global economy.21 Although globalization has already transcended the single economic dimension, the global economy, as the basic category of global studies, remains the most perceptible and most recognized among the domains of globalization. Thus, oriented towards the economic interdependence of diversifying actors across the globe, research on the global economy is sensitive to the needs of individuals, enterprises, countries, and regions herein. Secondly, global economic development and operations will inevitably affect other related disciplines of global studies, such as global politics,

Global economy  103 global law, and global order. Since the economic base generates the changes of the superstructure, the rapid development of global economy promotes the globalization of politics, law, and conceptions, just as scholars of the international political economy claim that the political structure and world order will inevitably vary in accord with transformation and innovation in the economic domain, like the economic system and operating mode. History shows that the economic crisis of the 1930s impacted on the political concepts, institutions, and diplomatic orientation of many major countries, with far-reaching implications for World War II and thus the new order and the world system. As it is, the study of the global economy gives due weight to the interaction among the basic disciplines of global studies, in particular stressing the deep impact of the global economy as the economic foundation, concerning its trend of development and operation in relation to global politics, global culture, and global rule of law. Practical implications of global economy As noted previously, the global economy meets the overall needs of mankind and promotes the human common interests through the optimal allocation of world market resources, embodying the aggregate of economic relations that unfold in global economic activities of production, trade, and finance, highlighting the global subject of TNCs in their interdependence and interactions in accordance with economic law. This definition suggests that the global economy is not only concerned with the physical process of globalization but also tinged with the value orientation of globalism. First of all, the economy itself involves governance and today’s examination of the global economy is not only a description of an objective existence but also reflections on how to develop global economic governance. Given the rapid development of global economy with its potential spillover effects, policymakers and academics need to deliberate on global economic governance, concerning who should govern the global economy, a nation-state, an international mechanism, or a civil power; how to govern the global economy, to deregulate to allow for the free market economy or to engage in mild intervention; how to pinpoint the value orientation of global economic governance, efficiency, or equality. Our world will be directly affected by the answers and responses to these questions above. Secondly, from the macro-perspective, economic organizational forms are evolving from the natural economy to the contemporary global economy, the scope expanded and the content enriched alongside the increased risks and uncertainties. There should therefore be a broad concern and a longer-term perspective on the complexities of the global economy, to avoid short-sighted policies such as reverting to autarky or intense protectionism in response to the momentary economic turbulence. Granted, global economic development is the most fundamental driving force of globalization, but globalization has been shaped by comprehensive development in all

104  Lin Xia domains and is a long-term strategy to make the best use of global governance to address the issues of the global economy and thus to promote the global welfare of humanity.

Notes 1 Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, “Introduction”, Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance (Translated by Zhang Wencheng, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2002). 2 http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia 2010v192_en.pdf. 3 Yu Guangyuan, The Economic Dictionary (Shanghai Dictionary Publishing House, 1992), p. 403. 4 Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, World Economy and Imperialism (Social Sciences Academic Press, 1983), p. 9. 5 World Trade Report 2015, World Trade Organization https://www.wto.org/ english/res_e/publications_e/wtr15_e.htm. 6 World Economic Outlook-Subdued Demand: Symptoms and Remedies, International Monetary Foundation, Oct 2016. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ weo/2016/02/index.htm. 7 Martin Albrow, The Global Age: State and Society beyond Modernity (Translated by Zhou Xian, Xu Jun, the Commercial Press, 2001), p. 205. 8 Thomas Friedman, The World Is Flat (Translated by He Fan, Xiao Yingying, Hunan Science & Technology Press, 2013), p. 11. 9 Richard H.K. Vietor, How Countries Compete: Strategy, Structure, and Government in the Global Economy (Translated by Liu Bo, Xu Qing, China CITIC Press, 2009), p. 255. 10 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016--Investor Nationality: Policy Challenges (United Nations Publication, 2016), pp. 43–46. 11 David Held et al., Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture (Translated by Yang Xuedong, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001), pp. 326–328. 12 Zhang Youwen, Flow of Factors of Production-Principle of Global Economics (People’s Publishing House, 2013), p. 342. 13 Assaf Razin and Efraim Sadka, eds, “Preface”, The Economics of Globalization– Policy Perspectives from Public Economics (Translated by Wang Genbei, Chen Lei, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics University Press, 2001), p. 2. 14 He Xiaohong et al., Globalization and International Business (Science and Technology of China Press, 2009), p. 163. 15 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016, p. 13. 16 Paul P. Hirst and Grahame G. Thompson, Globalization in Question, 2nd ed. (Polity, 1999). 17 David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-Globalization (Translated by Chen Zhigang, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2004), p. 35. 18 See also David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-Globalization, p. 43. 19 Some scholars suggest that global economy is evolving into the three major plates. The first big plate is the plate of Western developed countries; the second plate is the Asia-Pacific plate on the rise, also known as “pan-Asian vertical supply chain”, including South America, Africa, and other regions. The third plate is the energy sector, including Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Kuwait. Their economic policies are shared, along with almost the same cycle of

Global economy  105 economic operation, and many similar economic practices. These three plates are still undergoing changes. See also: the speech on the changing World in the lecture of the World Economic Society of China & the Institute of Finance by Zhu Min, vice president of the International Monetary Fund, titled “the three major trends that shaped the global economy”. 20 See also David Held and Anthony McGrew, Globalization/Anti-Globalization, p. 50. 21 The International Monetary Fund, ed. World Economic Outlook (China Financial Publishing House, 1997), p. 45.

4

Global politics and global law Yabin Cao

Since the late 20th century, the political structure has undergone a fundamental transformation worldwide. National political power has shifted from the exclusive mode to the inclusive mode, from the mode of struggle to the mode of cooperation, and its exclusivity to the state has gradually weakened, with political power diffusing into non-state actors at different levels across the world, creating emerging multiple forms of power. These transformations pose a serious challenge to the traditional political conceptions of the state-centric actor; the dichotomy between the domestic/international; and the combatant and coercive practices, thus necessitating a change in our perception of political operations and the corresponding political design. Under the circumstances, emerging global politics is endowed with greater impact and explanatory power as a cognitive framework and will substitute national politics as the core paradigm of political theory. Meanwhile in the era of globalization, the international rule of law is becoming closely linked to the domestic rule of law and it is high on the agenda for humanity to exert their due influence on current global issues. As society comes to terms with the increasing intensity of several far-reaching global issues, subsequent strengthening of domestic and international legislation and construction of the global rule of law is required, in order to normalize and regulate people’s behavior, adjusting and coordinating international relations via the comprehensive legal means and mechanisms.

History and characteristics of global politics Core characteristics of global politics Premised on the common interests of humanity and oriented towards global values, global politics embodies novel characteristics of political activities and phenomena within a global dimension, as reflected in the globality of the political domain concerning the political subject and scale, rules and mechanism, and interests and value orientation.1 As a new mode of political operation, global politics differs fundamentally from other political paradigms. These distinct differences highlight the core characteristics of global politics as follows.

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207-5

Global politics and global law  107 Holistic way of thinking In contrast to the individual way of thinking, the holistic mode of thinking holds that studies of social sciences focus on the behavior of the society as a whole, for example, groups and nations, class and society, the civilized world, and so on. These societies are regarded as experiential subjects and treated in the same way as biological research on animals and plants.2 It is the interconnected unity associated with the holistic way of thinking that contributes to our correct perception of the object of study. So, in the era of globalization, various political issues, when analyzed in the framework of global politics, as compared with an individualistic framework with the nation-state as the major unit, predominantly use the holistic perspective, namely unity and historicity, interaction and interdependence. To be specific, the following examples reveal the holism of global politics. First, global politics refers to humanity itself, or even the world itself as the subject of political analysis. Global interdependence has intensified the mutual influence between domestic politics and international politics, including both the internationalization of domestic politics and the domestication of international politics. As a result, to generalize a fair conclusion about the global political phenomena necessitates a global dimension and the standpoint of humanity. For example, human beings are currently faced with a universal threat to their survival and an urgent reality of common interests, and to solve this issue demands the perspective of mankind as a whole, as the subject of study. In addition, globalization has fundamentally transformed the relationship between man and nature. With more knowledge about this complicated relationship, people no longer view nature as the passive object of human influence and the subjectivity of nature starts to unfold alongside the interdependence between man and nature. In this case, the political subject is expanding from humanity to nature and the entire Earth. Secondly, it also refers to the global change of political ideas from relativity and particularity to commonality and universality. Globalization synchronizes global issues and provides a material basis for emerging universal political ideas. For example, global issues are characterized by commonality and indivisibility, as reflected in their inclusiveness of actors, as can be seen with global environmental degradation, population issues, NorthSouth divide, international terrorism, drug crime, AIDS, refugee issues, and the global financial crisis. As a result, the indisputable commonality of such “circumstances” creates the possibility of a political consensus on these global issues. Moreover, the holistic way of thinking provides a logical basis for the emerging universal political ideas. As pointed out by a Chinese scholar Cai Tuo, if political life and phenomena are examined from the perspective of the entirety of mankind, the common tendency will be found in the kaleidoscope of politics, e.g., the shift from state politics to non-state politics, the emerging political conceptions like political democratization and diversification, networking, respect for human rights, international rules, and recognition of win-win situations and equal dialogue.3

108  Yabin Cao Values of global orientation Values of global orientation can also be called global values, in comparison to values of individual orientation. Global values require taking account of the interests of mankind and nature, generations and groups, so as to develop the consciousness of humanity and global interdependence. For example, in the pursuit of their own interests, each group should be aware of safeguarding the interests of mankind and nature, contributing to the development of human society and the harmonious coexistence of mankind and nature, thus evolving the integrated and coordinated “mankind-naturesociety” system. Global values are stressed in global politics as the ultimate goal of political pursuit, underpinning all the political planning and operation, thus differing from the state-centrism and anthropocentrism. The following features reveal the globality of political values. First, global politics advocates the value of humanity. In traditional national politics and international politics, ethnic and national interests motivate various political activities and serve as the value orientation of political practices. Therefore, traditional politics is state-centric, with nationalism embedded in all its norms and practices. Global politics, by contrast, advocates the common interests/values of mankind as reflected in the rising concern around global issues that deserve universal attention and concerted pursuit, guiding current political activities, alongside sustainability being the primary principle for political planning.4 Secondly, global politics advocates the value of harmonious coexistence between man and nature. Premised on anthropocentrism, traditional politics stresses the value of human interests, with human wellbeing as the ultimate purpose, claiming rationality as supreme and science the solution to all problems. As such, it is characteristic of human conceit that the relationship between man and nature is conceived as “centered upon man” rather than “harnessed for man”. As noted previously, the value of harmonious coexistence between man and nature is highlighted in global politics, suggesting the perception of man and nature combined with the desired practice of reintegrating the life of mankind into nature, and treating all forms of life as not only a means to an end but also as ends in themselves.5 In this sense, global politics is closely linked to green politics and environmental politics. History of global politics As regards the process of interaction, global politics can be traced far back in history. Despite differences in the scope, frequency, depth, and connotation at historical stages, these political activities evolve with their continuity in accord with contemporary global changes. It is therefore useful for us to have an overview of global political activities in history. In brief, global political activities can be divided into four phases, namely inception, growth, crystallization, and transformation.

Global politics and global law  109 The germinal phase (before the 15th century) highlights the empire and its military conquest. The imperial form dominated the world for centuries with scale and grandeur, including the Holy Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire, characterized by strong military strength used to occupy vast territory with profound effects on the configuration of the world. However, as the violent power of expansionist empires declined, the imperial system began to disintegrate. It is the expansive nature of the empire that necessitates its interaction with external political actors for the sake of survival and by conquering these actors, the empire incorporates their territory and forces upon them its control, hereby engaging in the activities of spreading political institutions and organizations, information, and personnel across the world. The phase of growth (from the 15th to the mid-19th centuries) highlights the emergence of modern countries and the frequency of global colonization. In the late 15th century, due to the combined effects of factors such as the germinal capitalist economy, the intensified struggle between the Church and the Crown, the revival of the Renaissance and the reform of military technology, modern countries emerged in the European region, causing the following phenomena. First, the frequent interaction between modern countries generated the concept of international politics in Europe. After 30 years of war, the Westphalia system emerged as the starting point of international politics and by the end of the 17th century, Europe was no longer merely a patchwork of political organizations but a society of nation-states that prioritized the principles of territory and sovereignty. Secondly, the politics of European countries started to have a global reach via colonial activities. European colonization of the world created the need for organizations that could engage in such large-scale activities, affecting all the basic types of modern social organizations.6 The crystalizing phase (from the late 19th century to the 1970s) is characterized by the worldwide birth of nation-states and the emergence of a global rule system. At the end of the 19th century, nation-states were established in Western Europe, and the system of nation-states began to expand, popularized in Europe after World War I and evolved into the major form of global political control at the beginning of World War II. After the war, the number of nation-states grew so rapidly with rapid decolonization, that by the 1970s almost all the countries were involved in the system. As far as the global rule system is concerned, the period from the late 19th century to the 1970s witnessed the emergence of the global rule system named “Pax-Britannica” and “Pax-Americana”. With the help of military power, economic resources, transport infrastructure, and communication tools, Britain and America, respectively, established the dominant international order with new rules and affiliations in the major regions across the world. Under this circumstance, political interaction was frequent between various regions across the world, enhancing the role of international institutions and organizations.

110  Yabin Cao The phase of transformation (from the late 1970s until today) is characterized by the proliferation of non-state actors and the prominence of new global political ideas. In comparison to the previous phases that feature the state as the single subject of political activities and the pursuit of national interests as the sole aim, this period embodies radical transformations in forms and connotations of global politics, with the emergence of new global political ideas and non-state actors into the political arena. Multiple authorities coexist in the global political landscape, with the increase of numbers and types of non-state actors. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for example, have increased in number and scale since the late 1970s, with activities involving human rights, drug control, environmental protection, peace, and nuclear non-proliferation. Furthermore, new political conceptions are brought to the fore, global values and global awareness gradually pervading political activities. For example, in the 1970s, the Club of Rome published The Limits to Growth, Mankind at the Turning Point, and other reports, warning the potential catastrophes for humanity that arise from the conflicts of the exponential economic and population growth with the finite supply of resources. Under the influence of these reports, global awareness of this issue and the idea of sustainable development are globally recognized, and the environmental protection movement has become an important part of global political activities.

Manifestations of global politics The subject of global politics Sovereign states Globalization has considerably impacted the capacity of sovereign states, but this has by no means ended their participation in the global political arena. Sovereign states continue to carry considerable weight in global politics by virtue of their own characteristics: with a strong capacity for action, sovereign states constitute an important force of global governance and it would be unrealistic to attempt to eliminate nation-states, as they remain the best human political system. Recent years of development highlight the prominent role of nation-states. As the global crisis intensifies, emerging powers show remarkable performance and attract the attention of the international community to the dynamic model of nation-states. “China Model” is a case in point, as John Naisbitt theorizes that China will affect the rest of the world by creating a “vertical democracy”, a brand-new social, economic, and political system, advocating the government’s top-down directive combined with the people’s bottom-up participation.7 Francis Fukuyama also explains the “China Model” in a dialogue that indicates the combination of a market economy and the competent nation-state, allowing the state to handle its relations

Global politics and global law  111 with the market from a positive perspective, demonstrating how state intervention will promote social equality and development.8 However, it is noteworthy that the significance of nation-states does not necessarily suggest a shift from the coexistence of multiple actors, to the world of single actors (nation-states) in the era of globalization, nor does it justify the absolute rationality of nation-states that could dispense with the fundamental changes to the forms of nation-states. International organizations In the contemporary global political arena, international organizations are playing an increasingly important role. First, they provide the institutional foundations for global cooperation. A model of rights and obligations is established, corresponding to the issues concerned, so that opinions of global actors tend to converge in their expectations and sanctions against default, hereby reducing the asymmetric information problems and attendant uncertainty of interaction along with the cost of legal bargaining. In addition, international organizations provide the institutional platform for international exchanges, enabling global actors to engage in regular and in-depth dialogues on a variety of issues, enhancing the equality of subjects and the transparency of dialogues, thus favorable for clearing the misunderstandings and reaching a global consensus. Since the late 1980s/early 1990s, the end of the Cold War has eased the tension between countries and they are increasingly interdependent due to deepening globalization. Meanwhile, global issues are on the rise, making international cooperation ever more in demand. Under such circumstances, international organizations become the mainstay of the global political arena due to their sound organizational system – capable of effective action and the established coordinating mechanism that is favorable for global dialogue and cooperation.9 To fulfill expectations, international organizations are striving to strengthen their capacity for independent action through internal organizational reforms and cooperation with sovereign states, hence creating a desirable performance in many areas like security, society, and economy. Global civil society The global civil society is an independent “global tertiary sector”, oriented towards global awareness, global values, and composed of nongovernmental sectors and organizations, non-profit sectors, and social movements in pursuit of a public goal.10 Attendant upon global politics, the global civil society embodies and promotes global politics. Since its inception, global civil society has been actively involved in global political affairs and exerted a profound influence on the global political order and political scenario. By raising awareness and advocating for greater

112  Yabin Cao focus on worsening global crises and joining together with other global actors to apply pressure or monitor the implementation of certain policies,11 global civil society has done substantial work in a number of areas such as global peace and development, security, human rights, women issues, minority rights, overpopulation, poverty, and the environment and biodiversity conservation, hereby making great contributions to addressing the global crisis, promoting global democracy and global development. The 21st century has witnessed the rapid development of global civil society in the range of activities, the number of participants, the subject areas, the extensity and velocity of communication, hence causing a rapid increase in its influence. The 2001 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, serves as a typical example that has greatly encouraged the collective action of global civil society. It also crucially laid the foundations for further action, and was followed up with a large number of global social actors in successive World Social Forums, creating consensus in many areas of global concern and increasingly strengthening collective action.12 Transnational corporations The rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) as the core of the global market is one of the important landmarks of globalization. After decades of development, TNCs have become important actors in global affairs and play a pivotal role in the global political arena. At present, tens of thousands of TNCs have control over more than half of the world’s resources, nearly 90% of the cutting-edge technology, and have created about half of the global economic values. Some statistics even show that the annual sales of the world’s top 10 multinational companies surpass the GDP of over 100 countries. The major activities of TNCs in global politics are revealed as follows. First, TNCs reconfigure the global political pattern by restructuring the global economy. For example, global polarization has been exacerbated as TNCs push the global economy forward: with the unbalanced and asynchronous global economic development, TNCs will promote the prosperity of some countries while others will be marginalized and even reduced to bearing the brunt of the costs of economic development. Some scholars point out that developing countries are confronted with changes in terms of trade, like the price of their exports, particularly primary products, which has dramatically dropped over the past 20 years in comparison to the price of imports from developed countries, and this has curbed the flow of world income to low-income areas.13 This economic situation has profound implications for the future of global politics. Secondly, TNCs exert an influence on the global political arena via their direct interventions in political affairs. As endowed with global liquidity and the great capacity to stimulate the economic development of the host country, TNCs have gained an edge over sovereign states, namely through “foot voting”, thus placing restrictions on the sovereign states in many

Global politics and global law  113 aspects like security, defense, finance, and welfare. As it is, sovereign states have difficulty dominating the national economy, effectively maintaining employment, sustaining economic growth and balance of payments, or controlling the interest and exchange rates.14 However, TNCs also actively shoulder their social responsibility, and it has become the major concern since the mid-1990s for all circles of society to call on TNCs to be socially accountable while benefiting economically, and as a consequence, many TNCs have engaged in role-repositioning and activities to alleviate those concerns. The operations of global politics Issue-oriented politics The traditional international politics takes the state as the main subject with the sovereignty and the territory as the boundary, hence the natural expression of relations between countries. Despite involving all aspects of social life that range from military security to political disputes, from diplomatic activities to economic exchanges, everything comes down to national security and national interests. In other words, the traditional politics prioritizes national politics, centered around the state’s power, interests, and security. Global politics, by contrast, are more concerned with the common fate of humanity than with the national sovereignty and territorial boundaries, oriented towards the issues of global concern, such as ecology, drugs, international terrorism, refugees, human rights, and even some specialized areas like climate change and mine banning. Those issues are high on the agenda of global politics because many of them cannot be solved by individual countries alone, and require the concerted efforts of mankind. As such, the supranationality of issue-oriented politics characterizes global politics not only in its manifestations but also in its operations, as reflected in the following categories of political operations. Ecological politics is premised on the claim that human beings are social but restricted and restrained by the natural environment. If political practices merely take account of the social relations between people, and mankind and society, excluding the impact of natural ecological law, then mankind will be brought to the brink of ruin due to their ignorance and blatant violation of the natural law, and relentless pursuit of national political and economic interests at the cost of the human ecological environment and resources for a handful of groups, classes, and countries. To solve the ecological issues derived from ecological politics we cannot rely on the efforts of individual countries alone and the whole international community needs to join hands in addressing global warming, the ozone layer depletion, and the biodiversity reduction.15 The ecological political movement originated with civil society organizations. The late 1960s saw the emergence of ecological political parties and

114  Yabin Cao the strengthened role of international environmental organizations, hence the rise of the ecological political movement. The 1970s saw the development of the eco-political movement from a single goal to pluralistic goals, until the late 1970s and the early 1980s when the eco-political movement evolved into a diversified global mass political movement. Since the 1990s, the eco-political movement has developed from public concern about the ecological environment to the concern of the public and the government about global environmental issues and sustainable development. As a result, the ecological implications for public decision-making transform the ecological movement into a veritable eco-political movement. At the same time, many eco-related international organizations have been established, including the UNESCO, Man and the Biosphere Programme, the UN Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme, the World Commission on Environment and Development, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Institute for Environment and Development, and Friends of the Earth. They take substantial actions to solve many global ecological issues and raise awareness via extensive communications, changing the conceptions of ecological politics all over the world. The active intervention of sovereign states highlights the issues of ecological politics, and subsequently, subjects of ecological politics diversified and operations of ecological politics crystallized. For example, since the UN Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and later the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol were signed, the participation of various actors worldwide has increased substantially. The joint consultation and collective rule-making are therefore universally recognized as the best operation of ecological politics. Humanitarian politics is premised on the argument that politics is the conscious pursuit of a better human condition through organized public means. Critical to realistic politics, ethics serves as one of the core bases for the legitimacy and rationality of political operations.16 With increased global awareness, global ethical values have come to be acknowledged by more and more people around the world, hence the emergence of various humanitarian political activities as important aspects of global politics. In reality, humanitarian aid and humanitarian intervention are the main manifestations of contemporary humanitarian politics. Humanitarian aid is material or logistic assistance to people who need help to save lives, relieving the distress and safeguarding human dignity, provided by government agencies, international organizations, NGOs, and other non-governmental humanitarian agencies in accord with humanitarian principles. For NGOs, humanitarian aid is an important aspect of their participation as global political actors. Current world-renowned NGOs involved in humanitarian aid include Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, and Kyle International.17 In addition, a number of economic powers or alliances and international organizations are also the mainstay of humanitarian aid.

Global politics and global law  115 Humanitarian intervention involves the threat or use of military force against another state for humanitarian reasons without the consent of the host government.18 As global interdependence deepens, the humanitarian crisis of one country is likely to result in regional or even global insecurity with more restrictions imposed on national sovereignty, hence the evolution of human rights issues from internal to international. As such, humanitarian intervention has come to be widely recognized as an imperative, just as Michael Walzer points out that when sovereignty is proved to be the primary offender of human rights and the domestic forces are incompetent to handle, the ultimate solution is to subject the sovereignty to other powers above.19 Global governance The supra-nationality and supra-territoriality of global politics defy the hierarchical management and national governance of traditional politics in addressing the global issues and issue-oriented politics. As compared with the limits of traditional political governance, emerging global governance features the non-hierarchical, supra-national management, and dialogue between governments and NGOs. It therefore serves as the management mechanism of public affairs and requires a basic consensus and norms to coordinate relations, hence becoming a global mechanism in this regard. Moreover, viewed as a process of addressing public affairs, global governance features flexibility and tension concerning procedure arrangements and options of operation on specific issues. Granted, global governance, in a sense, is a political authority and its legitimacy and viability defy the traditional theory of national democracy, thus necessitating the research on global democracy and cosmopolitan democracy. As far as global politics is concerned, the global dimension is highlighted in its subjects and interest, value-orientation and operating mechanism that generates the changes in political conceptions and practices towards global governance. The following are devoted to major concerns and priorities of global governance. First, global security governance is top of the agenda given the rampant proliferation of nuclear weapons, transnational crimes, arms and drug trafficking, and terrorism. Attendant upon the deepening global exchanges, these security issues are so transnational and sophisticated that traditional security measures are incompetent to handle them. Global terrorism, for example, has been top of the security agenda since 9/11. Global terrorism is on the rise, with the declining cost of global transportation and communications, recent years have witnessed increased terrorist attacks worldwide in the wake of international financial turmoil, like the bloody attack in Mumbai, the havoc of piracy in Somali and other regions, which has escalated from the regional to the global. As such, it is set high on the agenda of global actors to maintain security through comprehensive measures that integrate economy, diplomacy, law, and military force.

116  Yabin Cao Affected by international anarchy and imbalance of power among the states, global security governance has not fully developed; however, as global mechanisms are at work and global awareness is enhanced, global security governance is gaining momentum under the severe threat of security issues.20 Secondly, global economic and financial governance is deemed necessary in economic globalization as increased global risk leads to a serious imbalance in the global economy. Moreover, the global flow of monopoly capital impacts the financial activities of nation-states, and national supervision fails to regulate the capital outflow. Under such circumstances, there is an urgent need for global economic and financial governance to mitigate the negative effects of economic globalization to ensure the global economic order for mutual global interests. Contemporary global economic and financial governance is promoted by global institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the G20, the International Relations Committee, and other business groups. Through multilateral coordination and cooperation, global economic and financial governance has considerably mitigated the negative effects of economic globalization and promoted the establishment of global economic and financial order. Last, global environmental governance is brought to the attention of global institutions, with the continued progress of human industrial civilization and its attendant environmental issues, like global climate change, and in particular global warming. With its implications for other issues concerning politics, economy, and peace, the climate issue is not confined to the domain of natural sciences. As a result, the complexity and urgency of environmental issues makes it imperative for global environmental governance to highlight global interests and the extensive sphere of action for global multiple actors. Certainly, sovereign states, as the most important actors, take the lead in global environmental governance, and international mechanisms, with their sound global cooperation and management, serve as an important basis for guiding and motivating global actors in global environmental governance. As for global civil society, its various global NGOs play an important role in appealing to cooperation among countries and to encourage the addressing of environmental issues. The same is true of other international economic groups, e.g., TNCs. While pursuing economic benefits, some TNCs have also come to realize their own responsibilities for resolving global environmental issues and have therefore taken active measures to protect the environment, as reflected in their cooperation with the federation of private enterprises, proposing technical standards, and offering technical and financial support to facilitate the global environmental governance. A new analytical framework for global politics The rapid growth of global political activities has made it imperative for us to keep these activities in perspective, since the shackles of traditional

Global politics and global law  117 political ideas cloud our perception of these new political activities and the existing analytical framework fails to provide an effective analysis of the situation. It is incumbent on us to explore the new analytical framework and the following are representative of conceptions for the close analysis of global political reality. Global political community Composed of multiple global actors with a shared internal social contract or social network, the global political community is dedicated to global interests, highlighting global cooperation as the means of interaction, and global ethics as the principle of action. As the most advanced form of integration, the global political community emerges in the process of interactions between the state and the non-state, transcending the traditional concept of sovereignty, claiming that such form of political community in the era of globalization cannot be interpreted by the traditional concept of sovereignty since sovereignty is a mere social construct that will vary with the ever-changing political reality. For example, the global political community is a conception and a reality, as extensive transnational links have been and are established, due to the increase of governmental and NGOs’ global reach, hence creating the emerging world community that coexists with the international system of nation-states.21 The emergence of a contemporary global political community suggests that politics will transcend national borders involving all countries in the interconnected network so that political change in one country will, in turn, affect global politics. For example, one country’s political model will impact the political development of other countries and its political turmoil will affect the political stability of others too. The political development or evolution of one country is sometimes so pervasive and contagious that it unfolds in different forms in the political process of others, and even coalesces into a global wave of political development. In a sense, this domino effect marks the new global political age for mankind. Spheres of authority Spheres of authority suggest that different actors of global politics may have different spheres of influence, and the authority acquired in one realm does not necessarily generate compliance in other realms. In this case, it is imperative for any global actor to take action to acquire its power and accountability from different spheres of authority. Negating state-centrism and territorialization of politics, spheres of authority are not territorial or transnational in nature, as they are no respecter of nation-states and affairs within the national territory are thus reexamined herein. Compared with other actors, sovereign states do not have priority, as James Rosenau points out that the state is just one of many sources of

118  Yabin Cao authority and new spheres of authority emerge in the contemporary society. The non-territorial political landscape can be outlined as follows: NGOs, non-state actors, non-sovereign actors, issue-oriented networks, policy coordination networks, social movements, global civil society, transnational alliances, transnational lobbying groups, and knowledge communities. However, spheres of authority are very flexible and are not necessarily consistent with the division of territory. New medievalism Similar to the political landscape of overlapping authority, multiple loyalties and competing conflicts in medieval Europe, new medievalism reflects the modern political stalemate of competing nation-states, transnational market economies and global civil society for legitimacy in the global political arena, none of which will absolutely win in the entanglements of cooperation and conflict of interests. Regarding autonomy disputes, it is of no avail to apportion blame but instead to take precautions: the global civil society should be wary of the centralized power while opposing the invasion of market forces into social life; transnational market economies cannot allow for political exploitation, nor should they adopt the social values against the market logic; nation-states need to consolidate and maintain their collective action, fighting against the privilege of social actors, and organized economic interests.22 As noted previously, the new medievalism offers an account of mutual competition as well as checks and balances among multiple actors in the era of globalization. Contemporary globalization has reconfigured the relations of the states hence the redistribution of power between the state, the market, and the civil society. Legitimate forces like politics, market, and society thus emerge in different forms in the global political arena: the nation-state is the only authority at the international level endowed with the legitimacy and capacity to take collective action; the transnational market economy commands legitimacy due to its efficiency and puts forward its principle of the world political organization alongside the nation-state, but neither can take the edge, cooperating and competing at the same time. As their differences leave much leeway at the regional, national, and transnational levels, social actors are more likely to go beyond state control, some of which start under the banner of human rights and religion to influence the process of world politics, and global politics has thus become a level playing field for politics, market, and society. Sovereign responsibility Sovereign responsibility is premised on fundamental changes to the social background of sovereignty so that with deepening interdependence and severe global issues, sovereignty can vary in contents from absolute power to

Global politics and global law  119 also called ‘sovereign responsibility’ with weakened sovereign immunity but increased emphasis on responsibility. As Karsten Nowrot points out, in the contemporary and future global community, the scope of national jurisdiction will gradually narrow, and the legitimacy of government (regime) will be subject to global governance and international regulations. International law will not simply proceed from the will of the state but will pursue the common interests of the international community, namely, constitutionalization of international law. It is the realization of international public interests that points to the significance of international law in the regulation of global governance.23 The conception of sovereign responsibility not only adapts to the social structure and characteristics in the era of globalization but also helps shape the harmonious global order and effective global rule of law. Meanwhile, sovereign responsibility can well justify the development and enforcement of sovereignty. As compared with the vertical power structure and mandatory regulation or voluntary adjustment within the domestic community, the international community is characterized by anarchy and power hierarchy, hence the uncertainties of operations and imbalance of sovereignty. Under such circumstances, the legal rights and interests of weak states are inevitably violated or neglected; therefore, regulation of sovereignty and responsibility is paramount so that sovereign states cannot exercise their sovereignty arbitrarily without consideration of their accountability as a member state of the modern international community. Overall, the essence of sovereignty lies in the justice and responsibility of respecting and defending the rights and interests of others as well as the common interests of the international community.24 Global democracy Global democracy is premised on the argument that democracy needs to be separated from the state and extended to the global level, i.e., democratic rules should incorporate all global actors including sovereign states, international organizations, global markets, and global civil society; in addition, citizens’ democratic rights should apply to the whole of humanity. Today in the era of globalization, democracy is deemed fragile and one-sided unless democratic rules and rights are spread worldwide, as David Held argues that democracy needs reshaping at local, national, regional, and global levels to solve different public issues and disputes. Therefore, for better democratic practice, the political order of democracy requires extensive links, vertical and horizontal, across a broad range of powers.25 Theorizing global democracy serves as an academic endeavor to solve global issues: by highlighting the conflicts between the state and civil society, the theory attempts to explore how contemporary social changes will create favorable conditions beyond their conflicts, generating a better understanding of the relationship between sovereign states and global markets with

120  Yabin Cao the eventual goal of finding a solution to the dilemma between sovereignty and global market. As some scholars have argued, global democracy poses a challenge to the binary logic of liberalism that demands state control of politics and the market domination of civil society, suggesting that market need will destroy the democratic will. However, we do not necessarily flinch from the market since the market can be a good servant and a bad master. Just as global governance is premised on the democratic principle, market mechanisms will come into full play under the democratic law of rights and obligations.26 Controversy and prospect of global politics As a new type of politics, global politics generates many questions and controversies due to its broad range and complexity of contents briefly covered as follows. First, the reality of global politics can be called into question. This argument claims that global politics is an ideal version or at best a fragmented interpretation of the real world as a desirable political scenario and it is lacking in viability and feasibility due to its ignorance of the political reality, power struggles, and war in traditional international politics. Any claim about international governance must take the fundamental human situation into account, but unfortunately, advocates of global politics are blind to the power issue and convinced that we shall all live a better life based on universal humanitarian values.27 Secondly, issues arise concerning the discursive power of global politics. Granted, global politics provides a good analytical perspective and framework for action in response to emerging issues of globalization, as shown in global civil society, the transnational environmental movement and the design of international institutions. However, a large number of traditional political issues fall outside the sphere of global politics and its explanatory power is thus limited. Given this situation, the novel discursive power of global politics is unlikely to be dominant and sustainable. As some scholars contend, nation-states are the primary actors in international affairs and other actors exert influence under the nation-led framework. In addition, international institutions are considered ineffective or largely epiphenomenal.28 The criticisms above must be examined dialectically. On the one hand, these arguments are derived from the traditional perspective on international politics, failing to take account of the novel characteristics of globalization, thus reducing the rationality of emerging global politics. On the other hand, these questions, to some extent, point to the potential dangers in the evolution of global politics, and it is of great significance to deepening the research on global politics. Arguably, the prospect of global politics depends in part on how these criticisms are examined and how potential problems are addressed. To keep the novel contents and characteristics of global

Global politics and global law  121 politics in perspective, it behooves us to examine its relationship with traditional politics and traditional international politics as well as to position its academic value and practice. The following relationship is worthy of note. First, we should maintain the unity between the theory and practice of global politics. Global politics marks a new starting point of politics, reflecting its new nature, so it is imperative for us to examine these novel characteristics and to follow through, but there should be a note of caution towards its distinction from the reality of international politics or world politics given the theoretical implications of global politics. As it is, the globality of global politics is far from the mainstream politics as state-centrism dominates the real politics and without knowledge of that, global politics is merely empty talk lacking rigor and the explanatory power of reality. Nevertheless, if confined to the mainstream international politics, global politics will fail to exert its impact as a new framework of reference for the political reality, still less as the political practical guidance. Secondly, we should maintain the unity between innovation and the inheritance of global politics. Global politics differs from traditional politics and international politics in that the former highlights global values of human holism and common interests as compared with the state-centrism and nationalism of the latter. With knowledge of the differences, we can understand the innovative nature of global politics and its contents. However, to examine the relationship between global politics and others in practice demands ridding ourselves of binary thinking and incorporating instead diverse political paradigms to address different issues – allowing for traditional politics that prioritizes national interests and security in the evolution of global politics. If not fully aware of the coexistence and integration among various politics, we cannot keep global politics in perspective and bring it into full play.29

Global law and global rule of law Global law and its practice The emergence of global law For a long time, people were accustomed to defining and interpreting the law in light of the relationship between the state and law, emphasizing the influence on law from “the will of the state”, “the will of the dominant class”, and “national coercive power”, until the Austrian jurist Eugen Ehrlich advanced the theory of “living law” in light of society and law, and broke the traditional thinking about the hegemonic position of national law in the rule system. According to Ehrlich, the essence of the law is not legislation or jurisprudence, nor judicial decision, but society itself, and the law is the internal order of unification and social order itself. “Living law” is such law that focuses on the social effect and function of law, namely maintaining

122  Yabin Cao the social order and regulating people’s behavior in real life, covering all the rules, systems, order, behavioral process, and other irregular elements. The theory of “Living Law” lays the foundation for the concept of global law. In the process of globalization, some independent rules of international organizations irrespective of national laws or international treaties have evolved, such as the internal rules of TNCs, the rules of international trade organizations, “standardized contracts”, and the arbitration of international arbitration institutions. These rules are labeled by some scholars as “the merchant law” or “stateless-global law” by others. Regarding global law, some scholars argue that it differs from the traditional national law and international law in that it is not based on nation-states but on invisible networks that transcend territorial boundaries like markets and affiliates, industries and occupations, and departments and groups. Closely linked to the integrating global economy, the global law in a sense results from economic globalization and embodies the legal features of globalizing socio-economic domains, operating as part of global economic law on the periphery and applying to the global economic organization and exchange. In other words, global law emerges from the technical and economic globalization process, evolving from the quasi-law on the legal periphery. The practice of global law International human rights law requires the state or international organizations to cooperate to guarantee fundamental human rights in accordance with universally recognized norms of international law and to prevent or punish the violations of human rights.30 As the international human rights law is concerned with individual rights, many domestic issues related to individuals have become involved in international conventions and activities, and the state thus no longer acts as the sole subject of responsibility for protecting domestic human rights. International human rights law stipulates the obligations of states for the fundamental rights of peoples, attempting initially to set a limit to the absolute control of the host state in its domestic human rights issues with the implication that sovereignty is not absolute but restrained in relation to human rights under international rights law.31 As an effective means of protecting international rights, national sovereignty shifts from the absolute sovereignty to relative sovereignty, with the development of international human rights, showing that the protection of human rights issues largely depends upon domestic mechanisms but that states must assume their obligations under international human rights law as follows: being committed to respect, protect, and promote the human rights of their citizens as well as to fulfill the obligations under the international supervision, including submitting the report of human rights protection, accepting the supervision of Human Rights Committee, addressing international allegations, and individual complaints.32 Today, most countries in the world have reached a consensus on the

Global politics and global law  123 international protection of human rights, acknowledging the international trend of human rights, and the principle that domestic affairs and sovereignty should be subject to international human rights conventions. International environmental law aims to protect the environment and humanity with a view to improving the international ecological environment and living environment. The former involves minimizing the consumption of non-renewable resources and protecting the Earth’s biodiversity and vitality while the latter is dedicated to improving the quality of human life, protecting human health, promoting the economic development and social progress, and ultimately building a sustainable human society. With social progress and the advances of science and technology in modern society, the era of globalization highlights the interdependence of relations and independence of the international environmental law as a new field of international law. This has far-reaching implications for humanity in modern international relations, involving preventing the deteriorating biosphere for the common interests of mankind, improving human living conditions for human health, and promoting international economic development and sustainable development of human society. The international criminal law posits that all individuals should be regarded as the subjects of decision-making and enforcement in international crimes, and that sovereign responsibility cannot exempt the nation-state from its legal liability. In international wars and domestic armed conflicts, individuals, especially national leaders, should assume their responsibility for their people and justice as well as for international peace and justice. Similar to the nation-state in a sense, the individual should become the subject of international responsibility through official duties, translated in the system of rights and obligations as the subject’s fulfillment of obligations and judicial relief to the substantial effects of law. Trials at the International Criminal Court in the 20th century reveal that individualization of perpetrators in international criminal law embodies the trend in the development of human common interests and social community. War crimes and crimes against humanity do not simply threaten the fundamental rights of the individuals but also the entitlements of humanity as the subject of law. History shows that despite their differences in criminal acts, these crimes all violate common human interests and disrupt the social order, indicating the relation to and interaction with subjectivity of humanity. This generates problems in some sovereign states and their legal systems, which nevertheless could be alleviated to some extent with the disintegration of state actors, the individualization of criminal responsibility and the rise of social forces like NGOs in international criminal law. Evolving initially from the legal system under the impetus of war crimes, international criminal law, with the deepening globalization and interdependence of individual countries, shifts in core contents from crimes of war to crimes against humanity, hereby theoretically consolidating the fundamental human rights and rationalizing the subject status of humanity in international law.

124  Yabin Cao Global rule of law and its realization Definition and characteristics of global rule of law Global rule of law refers to the social state that people and their collective behavior are effectively regulated by the universally recognized legal norms in order to realize the common interests of mankind, as specified with the following characteristics. Global rule of law highlights global values. First, as common interests of mankind are a precondition for globalization, it follows that the global rule of law aims to realize the common interests of mankind, highlighting the increased global awareness and common interests confronting the rising global issues as well as the shared global responsibility and the strengthened global cooperation. Secondly, the legal norms under the global rule of law are universally recognized as a means to maintain the world order. In this sense, the law is characteristic of universalism so that it breaks through the limits of traditional territorial politics and aims to make effective adjustments on the global level, not only to current contents and forms but also to the extended public space, including the Poles, outer space, the high seas, and international sea beds. The aim of the global rule of law is mainly to make legal norms. In addressing global issues, global rule of law advocates the joint efforts of international community via the legal means, namely legally binding principles and norms, based on full participation and democratic consultation of nation-states and other subjects so that globalization can be properly regulated and governed, thus conducive to narrowing the North-South divide, promoting the prosperity of all countries, benefitting all members of the international community, particularly developing countries, for the balanced and sustainable development of the world economy. The core of the global rule of law is to maintain the unity between the international and domestic rule of law. As it is nation-states that enact national and international law, the international law will naturally relate to the domestic law, as all countries will take account of the international law in their communications or even consolidate their negotiating positions in diplomatic negotiations by conforming to principles of the international law. Therefore, being mutually complementary, the international and domestic rule of law will continue to interact and contribute to global governance. Global rule of law embodies “good law” and “good governance” in practice. The current crisis of globalization makes it imperative for us to transform the traditional conceptions and make a sound and virtuous law from hereon. Good law refers to the pursuit of common interests of mankind as value orientation in exacting norms to regulate people and their collective activities; good governance stresses the stable virtuous social order via the credible and effective legislation, law enforcement, and judicial procedure.

Global politics and global law  125 Realization of global rule of law As an important tool to safeguard the common interests of humanity, the global rule of law protects the rights of subjects of the international community through the enactment of legal principles and norms. These rights include full sovereignty of nation-states and public rights for all subjects of the international community in international relations. First, the international rule of law should be strengthened. As an important means of resolving international conflicts and issues, the international rule of law will have a deep impact on the new international economic and political order, the fair and just situation of which will, in turn, affect the operations of international relations and the ultimate solution to the issues of globalization. To achieve the goal demands the compliance of all nation-states under an international mechanism, as a new order is to build a harmonious world with the democratization of world politics and to prioritize peace and development.33 Building on this, the international law is undergoing a transformation from peaceful coexistence to international cooperation with the far-reaching implications for global governance so that it behooves us to join hands together and strive to perfect the international law towards the stable and peaceful, just and rational international economic and political order. Secondly, the domestic rule of law should be improved. With its own sphere of influence, domestic law cannot conflict with international law, otherwise, the state should be held accountable, since the international law directly binds the state rather than its institutions and people. In other words, when conflict arises, the domestic courts take care of enforcing domestic law but the state is liable for breach of the international obligation. As it is, domestic law cannot contravene international law and it is imperative for the state to enact the law that takes account of its accountability in international law. So, in conformity with the international law, the state is also held accountable for international misconduct or breach of international law by any official or government department or affiliate as far as international relations is concerned. No domestic law can override international law and no states can force their domestic law upon others. As seen in many international judicial decisions by the International Court of Justice or the International Arbitral Tribunal, payment of damages can be inflicted if domestic courts disregard or wrongly apply international law.

Notes 1 Cai Tuo, “The Essentials of Global Politics and its Research”, World Economics and Politics, Vol. 4, 2005, pp. 29–35. 2 Karl R. Popper. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Translated by Fu Jichong, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1986), p. 486. 3 See also Cai Tuo, “The Essentials of Global Politics and Its Research”.

126  Yabin Cao 4 Ibid. 5 David Ray Griffin, The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals (Translated by Ma Jifang, Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, 1998), p. 44. 6 David Held, Anthony McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2001), p. 54. 7 J. Naisbitt and D. Naisbitt, China’s Megatrends: The 8 Pillars of a New Society (Translated by Wei Ping, China Industry and Commerce Publishing House, 2009). 8 “Globalization, Contemporary World and China Model: the Dialogue between Francis Fukuyama and Yu Keping”, Beijing Daily, March 28th, 2011. 9 Sun Kuanping and Teng Shihua, Globalization and Global Governance (Hunan People’s Press, 2003), p. 58. 10 Cai Tuo and Liu Zhenye, “The Global Civil Society and Contemporary International Relations”, Contemporary International Relations, Vol. 12, 2002. 11 Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Translated by Han Zhaoying, Peking University Press, 2005), pp. 21–28. 12 Cai Tuo and Liu Zhenye, eds., Theorizing Global Studies and Global Governance (China University of Political science and Law Press, 2013), pp. 224–225. 13 David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, Taming Globalization: Frontier of Governance (Translated by Tong Xingeng, Shanghai Century Publishing Group, 2005), p. 17. 14 Susan Strange, “Globalization and the Erosion of the State”, Marxism and Reality, Vol. 3, 1998. 15 Zhao Jianjun et al., The Balance between Ethics and Science & Technology (Hunan People’s Publishing House, 2002), pp. 226–229. 16 Leslie Lipson, The Great Issues of Politics (Translated by Liu Xiao, Huaxia Publishing House, 2001). pp. 19–20. 17 Sheng Hongsheng and He Binzhu, eds., The Third Party of Contemporary International Relations: Research on Non-Governmental Organizations (Current Affairs Press, 2004), pp. 304–305. 18 Yang Zewei, History of International Law (Higher Education Press, 2011), p. 233. 19 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (Translated by Ren Huixian, Jiangsu People’s Publishing House. 2008), pp. 120–121. 20 Yu Zhengliang, Chen Yugang, and Su Changhe, Global Political Paradigms of the 21st Century (Fudan University Press, 2005), p. 185. 21 Akira Iriye, Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary World (Translated by Liu Qing, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2009), p. 13. 22 Jorg Friedrichs, “The Meaning of New Medievalism”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2001, pp. 475–501. 23 Karsten Nowrot, Global Governance and International Law, November, 2004, http: //www.wirtschaftsrecht.unihalle.de/sites/default/files/altbestand/Heft33.pdf. ­ 24 W. Michael Reisman, Understanding and Shaping International Law (Translated by Hong Lan, Law Press, 2007), p. 441. 25 David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Translated by Hu Wei, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2003), p. 23. 26 Keith Faulks, Political Sociology: A Critical Introduction (Translated by Chen Qi, Huaxia Publishing House, 2008), p. 177.

Global politics and global law  127









5

Globality Tuo Cai

Globality reflects novel qualities and characteristics of social life in the era of globalization. Distinct as it is from modernity, nationality, and publicness, globality as an emerging construct can be better understood with reference to these concepts, involving four dimensions: subject, space, system, and values. As the core category, globality embodies the essence of global studies as well as the pursuit of common values of all categories herein. Therefore, to view globality in its proper perspective is fundamental to global studies research and education.

Perspective on globality Globality and modernity As the core of globalization theory, globality embodies the phenomena and essence of globalization, differing from the modern society that has dominated the values and ways of life of humanity for centuries. To view globality in perspective demands first examining the relations between globality and modernity, as the emerging characteristics and qualities of globalization are highlighted in comparison to those of modern society. Above all, the comparison between globality and modernity serves as the most fundamental and representative part of the research. Modernity marks modern society and embodies the pursuit of modernization as the ultimate goal of said society. However, modernity first emerges as a time concept that differs from the pre-modernity, denoting the present or the contemporary. Meanwhile, it serves as a value yardstick denoting novel and creative spirits or qualities that differ from traditional ones. To understand the connotations of modernity should take account of the two dimensions above and its interpretations or generalizations will vary with the preferences and perspectives of scholars. As in the Dynamics of Modernization, Black points out that the modernity of society is examined by five categories: intellectual, political, economic, social, and psychological revolutions and that much importance is attached to knowledge, science, and technology as well as people’s rational thinking and values hereon.1 Giddens

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263207-6

Globality  129 suggests that modernity refers to modes of social life or organization which emerged in post-feudal Europe and which subsequently in the 20th century became more or less worldwide in their influence.2 Albrow refers to modernity as a set of interconnected external traits that reflect a dominant lifestyle and a core institution of the West in the modern Western epoch.3 Building on the scholarship above, modernity involves industrialization, urbanization, welfarization, democratization, legalization, stratification, social atomization, religious secularization, popularization of education, mobility of social strata, information exchange and expansion, as well as the emphasis on nation-state, citizenship, knowledge, and rationality. What is yet to reveal behind those modern manifestations are economism, materialism, anthropocentrism, nationalism, individualism, rationalism, and scientism. The above-mentioned research on modernity sparks lots of debate and our major concern is characterization of the fundamental difference between globality and modernity. Space vs. time Globality is premised on space, considering the world as a whole and a single place for human relations, various flows of materials and information that need examining from the global perspective, thus incompatible with things and phenomena that are confined to certain fields or territories. As Robertson repeatedly emphasizes, globality refers to a state of consciousness of the world, including the human species, as a whole.4 Likewise, Beck views globality as the state that we live in the world society with the mutually closed territory increasingly blurred.5 Derived from the arguments above, globality is premised on space and concerned more with the role of space, not merely confined in time to the global phenomena of the present, ancient, medieval, or modern times like the Silk Road, migration, and epidemics across continents. In other words, free from time restraints, the spatial concern of globality finds full expression in global phenomena wherever there exists the process of globalization. Granted, globality varies in its manifestations over different time periods. The globalization after the 1970s holds more attention due to its distinguishing scale, impact, and level of institution. By contrast, modernity is premised on time, stressing common features of worldly, contemporary and current phenomena with new values or spirits distinct from the pre-modern ones. Such a distinction embodies itself in the time framework, so the value dimension like spirits and values, fundamentally hinges upon the temporal dimension, to some extent, in a subordinate position. As noted previously, globality is premised on space, and modernity on time so that the former is granted much leeway in perception, highlighting the spatial perspective, namely the globe, for its detachment from temporal issues. Despite the argument of the 1990s as the starting point of

130  Tuo Cai globalization and globality, it is widely acknowledged that globalization and globality can be traced further back, with a longer evolutionary process. Modernity instead is subjugated to the time framework and its endogenous nationality or territoriality, which is specified below. Relation to the nation-state As noted above, globality is premised on the world, the globe and humanity with reference to the nation-state in theory and in practice. Modernity, by contrast, is inseparable from the state, and among modern manifestations and features are the system, values, and ideas of the nation-state that are closely examined in relation to globality. Territoriality, for example, is the distinguishing outcome of territorial states, with its attendant values including the democratic system, bureaucracy, citizenship, nationalism, and national allegiance. Whereas globality involves transcending the nation-state to restructure the democratic system, citizenship, new values, and concepts hence the emerging noteworthy issues such as global politics, global democracy, global ethics, global value, and global citizenship. Following the differences between globality and modernity, a pertinent question arises to clarify the relationship between globalization and modernization, and globality and modernity. One argument claims that globalization is the latest stage and manifestation of modernization and that globality results from the global expansion of modernity. Beck, for example, sees globalization as a second modernization that highlights globality, distinguishing itself from the first globalization that features modernity.6 Giddens categorizes modernization as simple modernization and reflexive modernization, seeing globalization as the important impetus of reflexive modernization, leading to the post-traditional society. In his opinion, modernity originates in the West but has expanded or is expanding to the rest of the world, and in this sense, the globalization of social activities is derived from modernity as a process of intensification of world relations.7 As a result, Giddens endorses the globalization of modernity and characterizes unique connotations of modernity as four institutional dimensions; namely industrialism, capitalism, surveillance system, and military power, specified as the international labor division system, the world capitalist economy, the world system of nation-states, and the world military order. This begs the question of whether the global expansion of modernity or globalization of modernity, is synonymous with globality, from which a paradox emerges: on the surface, modernity does appear to expand from the West to the rest of the world, forming the globalization of modernity. However, in essence, modernity does not break through territorial restraints, and every country that has experienced modernity adheres to nationalism, with postmodern countries tending to stand firm, which implies that globalization of modernity leads to anti-globality. Therefore, it does not follow that globalization (or globality) is the inevitable outcome

Globality  131 of modernization (or modernity) and arguably globality bears no relationship to modernity and modernization. Another argument claims there is an inherent tension between globalization and modernization – globality and modernity – or indeed a manifestation of rupture and discontinuity. A representative of this view is Martin Albrow, arguing that “Globalization, far from being the end to which human beings have aspired, is the termination of modern ways of organizing life which they took for granted. The global shift is a transformation, not a culmination”,8 hence the epochal shift from the “Modern Age” to the “Global Age”, supplanting of modernity with globality. Acknowledgment of the “Global Age” means discounting the previous hypothesis of historical direction, no longer viewing globalization as another stage of modernity or culmination of changes from modernity but rather a preparing status where globalizing practices are becoming part of life and globality a fundamental element of any locality, domain, and mechanism.9 Albrow stands firm on his conviction of contingency in the process of globalization and globality that directly relates to people’s limited perception of the earth as a whole and as a physical entity. By contrast, Roland Robertson holds moderate views, opposing globalization and globality as the direct outcome of modernity, yet in the knowledge that some aspects of modernity considerably magnify the process of globalization. Explicit in his stand on the initiation of contemporary type was set in motion long before whatever we might mean by modernity.10 Robertson observes that globalization is a process with a long history, suggesting a non-causal and illogical relationship between globalization and modernization, globality and modernity. To sum up, we can draw the following conclusions. First, there is a fundamental difference between globality and modernity in that the former is premised on space, namely the globe, with its internal logic and requirement of transcending nation-states, while the latter is based on time with the necessity of coexisting with nation-states. Secondly, there is no causal relationship between globality and modernity, since each develops in its own way. If examined from the perspective of the process, globalization that evolves globality is characteristic of a long history and diversified regions while modernization starts in modern Europe. Despite the fundamental rupture between globality and modernity, the two do mutually influence each other and interact due to specific historical and practical factors. It befits us to see the relation between globality and modernity with the right perspective, as we cannot simply perceive a dichotomy between them the way we do to the traditional and the modern. Globality and nationality As compared with complexities and controversies of the relationship between globality and modernity, the relationship between globality and nationality is seemingly clear and it is relatively easy to distinguish one from the other.

132  Tuo Cai The globe vs. the nation-state Globality is not only a spatial concept but a comprehensive one, an abstraction of global matter like the subject, space, system, and value, with the globe as their external manifestation and globalism as their conceptional representation. As compared with the boundless universe, the earth as a physical entity is nothing but a drop in the ocean. However, humanity fails to recognize the earth as a whole and this limited perception is derived from the habitual way of thinking concerning territorial division and national boundaries, political and cultural communities shaped by institutions and customs, i.e., intense nationalism, localism, and nativism. By contrast, globality stresses the earth as a whole, the planetary consciousness and global consciousness, as reflected in the real feelings of astronauts when looking down upon the earth from space. A Soviet astronaut observed that when in space, national boundaries are invisible and this generates new thoughts about the earth, a consciousness of your global responsibility and humanity’s common fate, about which some visionary thinkers have made abstractions but failed to reach a common understanding.11 Likewise, Edgar Mitchel, an American astronaut, upon viewing the earth from space, expressed that he could no longer view himself as an American resident but an inhabitant of the earth, and upon his return to earth he felt a planetary consciousness.12 Scholars also elaborate on the scenario in theory: Martin Albrow, for example, points out that globalism is crystallized once humanity treats the world as a whole and assumes their responsibility to it or value is established with the earth as the reference point.13 Roland Robertson emphasizes the world in its entirety when referring to globality.14 Ulrich Beck further observes that as globality suggests, our everyday occurrences are no longer restrained by geography and all the inventions, victories, or disasters have implications for the world, rearranging and redirecting our life and activities, organizations and systems along the “local-global” coordinate.15 It follows that whether from the experiential dimension or the theoretical one, the “globe” is the essence of globality, embodied in global subjects (entities), global space (the whole earth), global system, global consciousness, and values. In other words, globality means nothing without the globe, global matter, global perspective, and thought. Nationality is an equally comprehensive concept, an abstraction of various matters on the national basis like the subject, space, system, and value. In contrast with globality, nationality takes the nation-state as an external manifestation and statism as a conceptual one. This is highlighted in two frames of reference: individuals and humanity, with the former pointing to state-centrism in the relationship between the state and the individual, while the latter points to the relationship between the state and humanity. Therefore, our major concern with nationality, is how it pervades every aspect or dimension of national and social life, confining public affairs to the territorial state, mandating the state as the only subject to exercise public power

Globality  133 and to manage public affairs, with the irreplaceable systems formulated around the state and dominant ethics, values or conceptions of serving the country for citizens to observe and embrace. A follower of state-centrism writes that the state has met the ultimate demand of human organization and order and it is against the nature and costly to establish any new hierarchy of power beyond the state.16 Such worship or obsession of the state and adherence to statism are hotly debated in relation to “methodological nationalism”.17 To be sure, the distinction between globality and nationality is undisputed and it is thus far from feasible to understand globalization and globality with the traditional mindset and theoretical framework of nation-states. Just as many scholars call for the “global turn of social sciences”, we need to shift the paradigm in social analysis in favor of globality, so that the enhanced awareness of the world as a shared social space can be understood and interpreted in every respect.18 Independent categories As noted previously, there are several debates and misunderstanding over the causal relationship between globality and modernity, and the view tends to prevail that globality originates from modernity or evolves as the latest manifestation of modernity. However, regarding the relationship between globality and nationality, the opposite is true, with a clear consensus on whether or not there is a causal relationship between the two, due to the fact that they are independent categories and can never overlap. As it is, nationality cannot evolve into globality, nor can globality evolve from nationality, as globality embodies global matter and endogenous globalism while nationality embodies national matter and endogenous nationalism. Granted, the development of globality and nationality tends to ebb and flow over time but it should be made clear that there is no causal relationship between globality and nationality. Globality and publicness Publicness is a wide-ranging concept, subject to the interpretations of different disciplines. Science of public administration and public management view publicness as just and fair, democratic and legitimate public spirit embodied in the exercise of public power, highlighting the interests of the people as the starting point rather than personal interests. Political science directs its attention to Habermas’s public sphere and emphasizes publicness in the social space that embodies the will of citizenry rather than the power of the state and government. Publicness from the perspective of economics is concerned with the public interests or commonality of economic activities and phenomena, like production and management of public goods. It is noteworthy that the rise of public philosophy aims to address issues of

134  Tuo Cai public importance and to reveal the nature of publicness by integrating the scholarship of all disciplines from the macro-perspective of philosophy. As public space has emerged in globalization, public philosophy is to pursue the wisdom of public life and to explore the value of publicness, necessitating “the public turn” of philosophy, namely from the individual’s subjectivity to intersubjectivity and further to publicness or common subjectivity, with the general tendency to evolve the better society that embodies publicness.19 Herein lies the social attribute of publicness that finds expression in praxis, namely symbiosis and interdependence between people. Despite the differences in interpretation, all the disciplines emphasize “the public” with reference to “the private” as their original stipulation. Externalities of publicness concern public needs, public goods, public affairs, and public domains while the significance of publicness lies in the core of publicness, namely in the public spirit involving public consciousness and public rationality, public ideas and public ethics, as well as public culture. As noted above, the original stipulation of publicness depends on the distinction between “the public” and “the private”: “the public” cannot simply be reduced to the nation-state nor can “the private” to the individual. Within the sphere of nation-states, publicness is traditionally understood and acknowledged as being distinguished from individual awareness and social requirement. Even in the public sphere, as elaborated by Habermas (distinct from the sphere of the state and public authority), it is concerned with the individual, the one with citizenship. However once transcending the nation-state, whether between states or between individuals across the national border,20 publicness takes on a new dimension of humanity and the globe, the state either converting to “the private”, representing the private realm (seeking publicness between states) or losing its reference to “the public” or “the private” (seeking publicness between individuals across the national border). It thus suggests that perception of publicness will not suffice for the reality if confined to traditional nation-states in the era of globalization when publicness has expanded beyond the state to the public and herein emerges the relationship between globality and publicness. Globality as a dimension of publicness Publicness used to be interpreted within the state, involving social relations, public values and praxis at different levels in groups, regions, and nation-states, i.e., the state is the ultimate boundary of the public, and nationality is a basic dimension of publicness. However, up until now, people’s social relations have expanded globally, the individual is, first of all, a member of humanity before a member of a country or a nation. This points to the global dimension of publicness, with the global expansion of social relations. According to Inge Kaul, a global public goods researcher, globality can be seen as a dimension of publicness that transcends the national border, so that the publicness of global public goods is manifested in two aspects, being publicly-owned, not privately-owned and global, not national.21 Building on the aforementioned,

Globality  135 publicness can be summed up through two dimensions: the public in relation to the private and the globe in relation to the state. The former highlights the public as the measure of value and the latter highlights the globe as the spatial dimension of publicness. To be sure, although directed towards global public goods, Inge Kaul’s claim is equally applicable to the publicness of public affairs and public domains. Publicness as a pursuit of globality Publicness takes on the global dimension, extending from the state to the globe and it cannot be simply reduced to a spatial expansion. Shifting from the national dimension to global, publicness is indicative of the pursuit of just and fair, legitimate and public values in the interests of humanity, breaking through the territorial limits up to the global level, and highlighting the social attributes of human life as “universals” that serve as the very humanistic underpinning of publicness. Arguably, values concerning publicness can, in reality, be more closely related to globality, i.e., globality does not only come across through its spatial implications but also through the far-reaching implications of values worthy of our notice. Definition of globality Following the analysis of globality and modernity, nationality and publicness, we come to define globality as follows. Globality embodies commonality, integrity, and new public features of humanity, in addition to the common interests and values as a pursuit for humanity in their social activities, which transcend modernity and nationality, cutting across the national and regional borders. This definition first of all highlights globality as a novel quality or characteristic of human social life in the era of globalization, in that humanity as a single distinct subject has been brought to the fore with all of its generic features like commonality, integrity, and publicness, suggesting these features would mean nothing without humanity as the core category, given their prior existence as part of the nation-state. Secondly, globality fundamentally differs from modernity and nationality, statism, and regionalism in that its intrinsic logic is to transcend and become global. However, historical and specific factors cannot be excluded in its evolution and it is clear that one should caution against an absolute or reductionist approach and to instead view globality in perspective.

Four dimensions of globality Subject The first dimension of globality involves the subject, addressing the issue of who is the subject of globality or who embodies globality. Individuals are

136  Tuo Cai known to be the cells of social life, forming communities like families and tribes, nationalities and countries, as well as classes and associations, and the sociality of human life is reflected through collective activities. These communities herein have become the subjects of affairs at different levels across various domains, assuming corresponding values and functions. To be sure, of all those communities and nation-states have hitherto been the most influential as a majority of subjects of social life. It is due to the establishment of nation-states as the dominant status that statism is manifested in the design and management of social life with its corresponding systems and referents of values, ethics, and norms, mainly characterizing the state as the center and the territory as the boundary. Today, with the increased cross-border flow of affairs including economy, politics, culture, environment, and information, the sociality of human life has evolved beyond the state to the globe. It thus won’t suffice for the reality if social life and public affairs are examined from the mere perspective of the state, given the fact that globalization and globality start to figure prominently in current social relations and public affairs, necessitating the establishment of humanity as the emerging subject. What embodies the globality of the subject is the very shift from the nation-states to humanity, together with its holistic perspective on social life and public affairs. The globality of the subject has fundamentally transformed the coordinate of understanding and handling social life and public affairs, thus elevating social relations to the level of humanity and highlighting the universals of humankind. As it is, the transformation is not merely concerned with the shift of subjects but with the structural adjustment of social relations and social life, including space, system, and value. Therefore, the subject serves as a solid foundation for the dimensions of globality. Space The second dimension of globality involves space, examined in relation to territorial and regional space. As we all know, social lives in the past were limited in their subjects as well as in space and scope, reflected in geographically-based tribes, territorial countries, and even communities that were confined to a particular region or culturally-defined nations that were largely bound by their traditional colonies, despite their diasporas across the world. To break through the limits of space and scope, globality takes the globe as the place of activities and focus on affairs concerning the survival or development of humanity across the globe. Since globality of subject concerns humanity as the subject of social life and relations, globality of space in response is bound to transcend the traditional regionality and territoriality, taking account of the whole world and humanity rather than affairs concerning only particular nations or states, initiating the epoch of “ world history”, as specified by Marx that it is the world that is to

Globality  137 satisfy the needs of individuals in every country or every civilization and that regional individuals are to be replaced by universal individuals that exemplify historicity and experience.22 Although mainly manifested in the expansion of human social interaction across national boundaries from the region to the globe, globality of space also concerns another noteworthy aspect, namely deterritorialization, resulting from the increased ease of mobility created by modern transportation and communications, hence the “nonplace” is defined as distinct from the traditional locality. “Deterritorialization” herein refers to the attenuating effect of the local, particularity on our cultural issues, and the increasing relevance to distant places, processes, and incidents of our life.23 “Nonplace” refers to spaces of transience that do not hold enough significance and build common clear reference to groups, such as shopping malls, airports, gas stations, multiple-hall cinemas, and bank halls with ATMs. It is the very mobility and the resultant space of transience that space has been extended to the globe and people experience the globality of social interaction herein. Arguably, the cultural perspective that Tomlinson adopted in globalization is equally applicable to interpretation of the globality of space. System The third dimension of globality involves the system. As the social life of mankind needs to be systematically regulated and managed, the system (including rules, norms, and corresponding institutions) serves as the guarantee of social life and the basic element of social mechanism, categorized by some scholars as four series of rules, namely technical rules, international system rules, rules of the nation-state, and rules of freedom. Technical rules, as the most wide-ranging level, govern how people relate to nature; the rules of the international system involve the relationship of actors in international relations, with the equality of sovereign states as the cardinal principle; rules of the nation-state cover the domestic institutions and power structures, with the state as the modern dominant political unit; rules of freedom take the individual as the basic unit and ultimate value of human society. These series of rules govern the fundamental categories of relationships in the international society, namely, the relationship between individuals, between states, between the state and the individual, and between humanity and Nature.24 Certainly, all the rules herein constitute the system that covers all the social relations of humanity. If examined from the evolution of the system, the systemic design and arrangement are characteristic of statism, given the fact that most of our life is traditionally confined to the national scope, thus explaining why domestic institutions have hitherto been familiar to or identified with people. Even in international relations or affairs, the nation-state is equally the foundation. Therefore, traditional international relations, to be precise, are the relations between

138  Tuo Cai states, and the international rules established by the Westphalia system, the mere international extension and variation of the domestic institutions. As far as globality is concerned, the corresponding system is to break through the limits of territorial states and framework of the relationship between states, namely the sovereign state system and Westphalia system, so as to address global issues and pursue common interests from the holistic perspective of humanity. In the context of globalization, globality of the system involves the above-mentioned relationship between individuals, and between humanity and nature, typically reflected today in the international laws, such as international human rights law and international humanitarian law for upholding universal human rights, international environmental law for preserving and managing common human resources and heritage. All these examples are of laws that limit the rights and interests of sovereign states and enhancing the legal status and rights of individuals as well as the role of the global community. In addition, the globality of the system is gaining momentum with the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the strengthening of international responsibility, the signing of the Antarctic Treaty, Declaration on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In short, global communications and global social relations necessitate the arrangement and management of global institutions. As it is, with the subject and the space oriented towards the globe, the corresponding system will inevitably evolve from the national to the global. Values The fourth dimension of globality involves the values that reveal the significance of globality, addressing the question of what is the pursuit of globality and how can one position the values and ethics of globality. As compared with globality of the subject, space and system, globality of the values represent the essence of globality, revealing the novel elements and qualities of fundamental changes to social life in the era of globalization, as distinguished from traditional human life, transcending nationalism and nativism, racial prejudice and class differences, highlighting global interests of humanity rather than of particular nations or states for a better understanding of the global community and global identity, rights, responsibility and freedom of individuals. Manifested in common interests, common civilization, universal conceptions of human rights, universal ethics and earth ethics, global awareness, and global system and order, globality of the values are those that integrate the values of the global community. These values are such that individuals are able to meet the demands of global interaction in the era of globalization, which is beyond the reach of former national values or individual values. Building on the analysis above, globality of the values is the logical outcome of the globality of subject, space and system, the latter in turn the inevitable requirement of the former. To be sure, the globality

Globality  139 of the values has imparted a new dimension to human social relations and social life hence the humanistic underpinning of globality.

Significance and value of globality Practical implications of globality Rooted in reality, globality is of great practical significance to examine and guide contemporary social life. Since the 1970s, global issues have been on the rise, impacting the international community on all fronts ranging from economy and politics, society and culture, to environment, military, science, and technology. Since the 1990s, with the increased accessibility of the internet, contemporary relations and everyday life have been profoundly affected by globalization and global governance so that people increasingly feel the supra-national and supra-territorial power of the material, concepts, values, and systems. As regards the material dimension, we witness the universalization of transnational operations, military interventions, financial crises, and the resultant economic turmoil. The dimension of systems finds expression in the increasing binding force of UN Security Council resolutions and the establishment of the International Criminal Court, while the dimension of values and concepts unfolds in the binding effects of universally recognized ideas like sustainable development, human rights, responsibility, win-win, and cooperation. To be sure, state authority and domination are challenged, the confirmed established national system and ideology no longer undisputed or invincible, and there emerge global phenomena and rules as a fresh dynamic framework of reference. Granted it is exaggerated and alarmist to claim that the state is obsolete and that globality has fundamentally shaken nationality and territoriality, yet it cannot be denied that global phenomena are starting to appear prominently in today’s era of globalization, necessitating the change of our vision and mindset to transcend the nation-state and to break the myth that the state is conceptualized as the best system or the ultimate unit of our organized social life. With the global expansion of social relationships and social life, new institutional arrangements, as distinguished from those of the state and characteristic of globality, will rise to the occasion and manage public affairs along with the state. It will nevertheless take time for globality and its mechanism to replace nationality and state system, therefore for a long period into the future we will witness the conflict, dialogue, and coordination between the two, with a view to addressing globalization and global issues to promote the progress of human civilization. In short, globality will act as the new coordinate of human society and therefore needs to be put in its proper perspective. It is necessary for us to identify with globality and its necessity in the era of globalization, for the international community to make the smooth transition from confusion and turmoil to order and rationality.

140  Tuo Cai Theoretical value of globality As noted previously, globality points to a new direction of social life and public affairs in practice, namely a supranational and holistic orientation to humanity, while in theory, globality challenges the values, conceptions, and thought of deep-rooted nationalism. Emphasizing the state-centrism and the supremacy of national sovereignty, the sanctity of national interests and the legitimacy of state acts, the doctrine of nationalism justifies the state to override the rights, interests, and demands of individuals in contempt of human rights and to the exclusion of society at home. All the while, in external affairs, advocating confrontational thinking and maximizing national interests as well as their concern for the world, with a view to achieving the strategic goal of world domination. Therefore, nationalism is likely to result in autocracy and totalitarianism at the national level and to breed conflicts and hegemony abroad. Cautioning against the abuses of nationalism, we do not necessarily deny the rationality of nationalism in contemporary human social life, after all, the nation-state still acts as the basic social unit of our life in reality and it will not perish quickly, hence the material foundation for nationalism and its practical appeal of defending the national power and improving the international status. As distinct from nationalism, globalism features globality that embodies global values and ethics, global awareness and orientation towards humanity so as to reveal the fallacies of nationalism and contain its potential dangers. To be sure, in terms of logical origin and end, globalism differs from the hitherto dominant nationalism in that the former takes humanity as the subject of research and explores its universals of existence concerning activities, values, ethics, and institutional arrangements. Such contrast necessitates a shift in the research paradigm and way of thinking from the methodological nationalism to methodological globalism. Any attempted modifications or adjustments within the framework of methodological nationalism will be of no avail to perceive and address multifarious supranational phenomena and issues of globalization, given its distinct nationality in the theoretical focus, value orientation and institutional arrangements. In other words, methodological nationalism, whether from a theoretical perspective or practical concern, is essentially confined to territorial states and their corresponding values, thought and cognitive framework are unlikely to break the shackles of the state. By contrast, methodological globalism transcends the state, pointing to the global thought and perspective on the reality of globalization that the world is interdependent as a whole, with attendant new values, issues, and phenomena of humanity that defy the belief and explanatory power of methodological nationalism. Herein lies the very theoretical value of globality in addressing the rising supranational issues that confront humanity as well as coordinating globality and nationality, globalism and nationalism, thus underpinning the rational development for humanity from the epoch of nationalism to the epoch of globalism.

Globality  141 The core and essence of globality As distinct from modernity, nationality, and publicness, globality reflects the novel qualities and characteristics of human social life in the era of globalization. Therefore, it is epoch-making with far-reaching implications for human survival, communication, and development. With this clear premise, let us examine the role of globality in global studies. First of all, as the core and essence of global studies, globality runs through all categories herein and this last chapter is devoted to the analysis of globality. In addition, to all the other book chapters, globality is analyzed from different aspects across all domains, concerning the multifarious issues of its phenomena, in addition to its evolution and interaction with nationality. This is specified as globalization and anti-globalization reveal the background of the globality, while global issues call for globality as a necessary response, hence the global thinking and action. Novel phenomena and qualities of globality are explored in four basic domains of social life, namely global economy, global politics, global law, and rule of law, as distinguished from the traditional international economy, politics, law, and culture. Global governance, global civil society, and global community, respectively, engage in the analysis of the global subject and system from the perspective of the carrier and the system of governance over globalization and global issues. The global process focuses on the dynamics, complexity, and imbalance of globality and its evolution, exploring the conflicts of the game between nationality and globality for a better understanding of the global process. Global interests and global ethics, respectively, analyze the necessity for the emerging globality of interests and ethics as well as their resultant impact and challenge. The global system and global order, premised on the macro-social structure, address the manifestations of globality and its orientation towards the global civilization and the system of justice and order. To conclude, the analysis above contributes to presenting and illuminating globality as the core of global studies and the major line of inquiry in theories of global studies. Secondly, globality embodies common values, as the pursuit of all categories in global studies, answering the question of the academic pursuit concerning a value orientation towards humanity. Emerging in the era of globalization, global studies takes globalization and global issues as the research subject, global governance as the research approach and ultimate goal, exploring the world as a whole as well as the process and trend of development of humanity, thus highlighting globality as the core and defining feature of global studies. All the categories involved are to present and illuminate the manifestations or characteristics of globality, the rationality of globality as well as its evolution and prospect. In addition, as the new values of academic pursuit, globality provides the underpinning of values for theorizing global studies in terms of the following categories: global economy, global politics, global law, global culture, global issues, global governance,

142  Tuo Cai global civil society and global community, global processes, global interests, global ethics, global system, and global order. Given these tightly intertwined categories of globalization, globality, and nationality, global studies can best illuminate the origin and evolution of globality, providing a new approach to addressing global issues, which confront humanity in the era of globalization, and promoting the exploration of global values and thought.

Notes 1 C.E. Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (Translation by Duan Xiaoguang, Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 1988), pp. 14–16. 2 Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity (Translation by Zhao Xudong, Fang Wen, Wang Mingming, Sanlian Press, 1988), p. 16. 3 Martin Albrow, The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity (Translation by Gao Xiangze, Feng Ling, the Commercial Press, 2001), p. 86. 4 Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (Translation by Liang Guangyan, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2000), p. 112. 5 Ulrich Beck, What Is Globalization (Translation by Chang Hefang, East China Normal University Press, 2008), p. 12. 6 See also Ulrich Beck, What Is Globalization, pp. 11–13. 7 See also Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, p. 23. 8 See also Martin Albrow, The Global Age: State and Society beyond Modernity, p. 157. 9 Ibid., pp. 169–170. 11 See, Ninery Streliczova, Reflections on Future (Translation by He Yude, Ding Shichao, Inner Mongolian University Press, 1988), p. 263. 12 Peter Russell, The Global Brain Awakens (Translation by Wang Guozheng, Liu Bing, Wu Ying, Oriental Publishing House, 1991), p. 2. 13 See also Martin Albrow, The Global Age: State and Society beyond Modernity, p. 131. 14 Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, p. 254. 19 Guo Zhan, “From Subjectivity to Publicness”, Journal of Social Sciences in China, Vol. 4, 2008, pp. 10–18. 20 Shen Xiangping, “On Four Typical Dimensions of Publicness”, Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, 2007, pp. 18–23. 21 Inge Kaul et al. (eds.), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization (Chinese Translation by Zhang Chunbo and Gao Jing, People’s Publishing House, 2006), pp. 10–11. 22 Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin Works Compilation Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, Marx Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1 (People’s Publishing House, 2006), pp. 86, 114. 23 John Tomlinson, Globalization and Culture, in David Held, and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies, p. 173. 24 Wayne Sandholtz, Globalization and the Evolution of Rules (Selected and Edited by Liang Zhan, Shanghai Sanlian Press, 2002), pp. 170–174.

Index

academic organizations 2, 8 academic prospects of global economy 102–103 agricultural civilizations 25 AIDS epidemic 79–80 Albrow, Martin 12, 16, 45, 46, 93, 129, 131, 132 Al Qaeda affiliation 71 American industrial revolution 28 anthropocentrism 108 anti-“Capitalism/West-centric” tendency 56 anti-drug cooperation 79 anti-globalization camp 41 armed conflicts 68 Asian Association for Global Studies (AAGS) 2, 8 atomistic individualism 18 Beck, Ulrich 12, 16–17, 42, 46, 129, 132 de Benoist, Alain 40 Berlin, Isaiah 81 “borderless” economic landscape 40 Bourdieu, Pierre 40 Bretton Woods system 29 British colonization 27 Cai Tuo 107 Campbell, Patricia: An Introduction to Global Studies 2 capital, globalization of 98–99 carrier and driver of global economy 95–96 “China Model” 110 civil rights 26–27 civil society 35 Cohen, Robin 12; Global Sociology 12

Cold-War liberalism doctrine 73 collective identity 86 collective rule-making 114 comprehensiveness 66 conflict theory 39 “container theory of society” 12 contemporary anthropology 13 contemporary ecological crisis 76 contemporary economic globalization 31, 36, 42, 52, 94 contemporary global economic governance 116 contemporary global economic law 93 contemporary global financial governance 116 contemporary globalization 24, 25, 29, 60–62, 118; cultural particularism vs. universalism 33–34; global citizenship and rise of civil society 35; global ecology and environmental issues 32; global governance and institutionalized regulation 34; global trend of economic operations 30–31; knowledge of 57; non-state politics vs. state politics 31–32; social public issues 32–33; technical basis of information revolution 30; types of 35–38 contemporary global political arena 111 contemporary global political community 117 contemporary international community 34, 65 contemporary international human rights 80 contemporary political globalization 31, 32

144 Index contemporary scholars 17 Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection report 81 cosmopolitanism 16, 17, 35 “counter-terrorism” 69, 72 crimes against humanity 123 cross-disciplinary examination 10 cultural anthropology 13 cultural colonization 58 cultural consensus 60 cultural globalization 58, 59 cultural particularism vs. universalism 33–34 cyber terrorism 72 decentralized grass-roots terrorist organizations 71 deglobalizing/reglobalizing movement 27 democratic rules 119 “deterritorialization” 137 diffused globalization 36 disciplinary awareness 6 disciplinary frameworks 6 disciplinary sensitivity 5 diversified personal identities 35 Dollar Standard System 27 domestic community 119 domestic economic policy 88, 89 domestic law 124, 125 domestic rule of law 106, 124, 125 drug issue 78–80 drug-trafficking organization 72 Dynamics of Modernization (Black) 128 East Asian financial crisis 31, 73 ecological dimensions of global issues 76–78 ecological political movement 113–114 ecological political parties 113–114 ecological politics 113, 114 Economic Dictionary 90 economic globalism 36 economic globalization 40, 44, 50, 51, 57–59, 72, 90–91, 94 economic integrity 93–94 economic operations: global trend of 30–31; mechanisms 92 eco-political movement 114 eco-related international organizations 114 effective model of governance 86 Ehrlich, Eugen 121 environmental crisis 76–77 environmental deterioration 77, 84 environmental dimensions of global issues 76–78

environmental globalism 37 environmental issues: ecological and 76–77; global ecology and 32 environmental protection movement 110 environmental security 77–78 epoch-making technology 38 Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach (Smith) 81 Eurocentric doctrine 40 European Colonialism 27 European colonization 109 European industrial revolution 28 expansive globalization 36 fetal gender identification technology 74 financial crisis 72–73; East Asian 31, 73; global 71, 73, 107 financial innovation 73 finite mineral resources 75 fiscal austerity policies 80 foreign direct investment (FDI) 50, 91, 98 Friedman, Thomas 35; The World Is Flat 30, 94 Fukuyama, Francis 110 fundamental challenge to human survival 67 gender structure of population 74 Giddens, Anthony 12, 15, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 58, 128–130 global awareness 6, 86, 110, 114, 116, 124 global capitalism 40, 45, 46, 101 global capitalist economy 101 global citizenship 35 global civil society 35, 111–112, 116, 118 Global Culture approach 45 global democracy 119; theorizing 119 global ecology 32; crisis 76–77 global economic governance 103, 115 global economic integration 100–101 global economic integrity 93 global economy 50, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101; academic prospects of 102–103; carrier and driver of 95–96; characteristics of 91–94; controversies and prospects of 100–104; core elements of 94–100; definition of 91; globalization of capital 98–99; globalization of production 96–97; globalization of services 99–100; international economy and 88–89; and national economy, relationship between 102; trade globalization 97–98; world economy and 90–91

Index  145 global environmental governance 116 global ethics 10, 85, 117 global financial crisis 71, 73, 107 global financial governance 115 global governance 5, 9, 11, 15, 43, 53–54, 115–116, 120, 125; and institutionalized regulation 34; need for 84–85; science of 10, 15 global identity 85–86 global interdependence 107, 115 globalism: economic 36; environmental 37; ideal 86; legal 37; methodological 16–19, 140; military 36; social and cultural 37; thick 37; thin 37–38 global issues 111; environmental and ecological dimensions of 76–78; features of 66–67; in political domain 80–82; review and response to 82–86; root cause of 65–66; in social domain 78–80; sustainability and economic dimensions of 72–75; traditional security dimension of 67–72 globality 66; definition of 135; and modernity 128–131; and nationality 131–133; and publicness 133–135; significance and value of 139–142; space 136–137; subject 135–136; system 137–138; values 138–139 globalization 1, 2, 5, 9; accelerating 3; of capital 98–99; characteristics of contemporary 29–38; exaggerated 50–54; historical evolution of 24–29; homogenization (convergence)/ heterogenization (divergence) 59–62; hyperglobalists 40–44; as ideological product/objective historical process 46–50; major theoretical schools of 38–40; modernity of 54–57; of production 96–97; reduced to economic 57–59; research perspective and analytical framework of 44–46; of services 99–100 “Globalization 1.0” 30, 35 “Globalization 2.0” 30, 35 “Globalization 3.0” 30, 35 Globalization and Its Discontents (Stiglitz) 42 ‘globalization of culture’ model 45–46 Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture 44 globalization theory 49 “globalized economy” 91 global law: emergency of 121–122; practice of 122–123 global polarization 112

global political community 117 global politics 113; history and characteristics of 106–110; new analytical framework for 116–121; operations of 113–116; subject of 110–113 global research see global studies global rule of law 34, 106, 121–123; and its realization 124–125 global rule system 109 global security governance 115, 116 Global Society approach 45, 46 Global Sociology (Cohen; Kennedy) 12 global studies: basic category and logic of 8–10; core and essence of 141; cross-disciplinary comparison and positioning 10–15; definition of 1–3; emergence of 4; methodology of 15–21; status quo of 5–8 Global Studies Association (GSA) 8 global terrorism 115 “global tertiary sector” 111 The Global Trap (Martin and Schumann) 47 global values 31, 108, 121, 124 globe vs. the nation-state 132–133 ‘Globo-localism’ 46 Gold Standard System 28 good governance 77, 124 “good law” 124 Group of Lisbon 48, 58 group politics 31 Harvey, David 45 Hayek, Friedrich 18 hegemonism 70, 71 Held, David 16, 24, 27, 39, 41, 45–46, 49, 119 heterogenization (divergence) 59–62 “high politics” 84 Hirst, Paul 88 historical globalization 29, 30, 54–57 holistic way of thinking 107 homogenization (convergence) 59–62 horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons 70 humanitarian aid 114 humanitarian intervention 69, 115 humanitarian politics 114 human rights 80–81, 118, 140; issues 80, 81, 115, 122; violations of 122 Human Rights Council 81 “human rights interference” 68 human social cultural system 20 human social interaction 137

146 Index human social life 17, 48, 55, 60, 61, 67, 86, 135, 141 hyperglobalists: critics 41–42; rejectionists 40–41; skeptics 41; transformationalists 42–44 hyper-globalizing camp 39 hyper-ideology 82

Kaul, Inge 134, 135 Kennedy, Paul 12; Global Sociology 12 Keohane, Robert 17, 35–38, 43 knowledge enhancement 4 Kostin, A. N. 3 Kyoto Conference 32 Kyoto Protocol 77, 114

ideal globalism 86 ideological terrorism 71 independent categories 133 Industrial Revolution 30 institutionalized regulation 34 interdisciplinary approach 21 interdisciplinary research orientation 3 interdisciplinary scientific research 3 International Anti-Corruption Conference 81 international anti-drug cooperation 78; mechanisms 79 international community 76, 78, 81, 119, 139 international conflict 68 International Council for Human Rights Policy 81 international criminal law 123 international direct investment 98, 99 international economic exchanges 89 international economy 50, 52, 88–89, 91, 98 international environmental law 34, 123, 138 international environmental organizations 114 international financial system 73 international firm 89 international governance 35, 120 international human rights law 122 international law 119, 121, 138 international migration of people 74 international non-proliferation regime 69 international organizations 11, 111, 121 international political economy 103 international politics 11–12, 73, 80, 83, 107–109, 121; traditional 113, 120, 121 international rule of law 106, 125 international security 71; regime 70; situation 68; strategy 78 international trade and investment 88 interpersonal relationship 65 An Introduction to Global Studies (Campbell) 2 issue-oriented politics 113–115

Laszlo, Ervin 20, 62 legal globalism 37 The Limits to Growth, Mankind at the Turning Point 1, 110 “living law” 121–122 lower politics, national interests in 84 low politics 84

joint consultation 114

“mankind-nature-society” system 108 man-nature relationship 65 market omnipotence 47 Martins, Herminio 15 Marxist thesis 48 mass destruction terrorism 72 McGrew, Anthony 16, 39, 45 medieval “transnational” system 26 methodological cosmopolitanism 16, 17 methodological globalism 16–19, 140 methodological holism 17–19 methodological individualism 16, 18, 19 methodological nationalism 15–19, 133, 140 military conflicts 68–69 military globalism 36 mineral resources 75 Mitchel, Edgar 132 modern anthropology 13 modernity 135; conceptions of 26; construction of 15; globality and 128–131, 133; of globalization 54–57 multidimensional mechanism 92–93 “multiple governance” 86 Naisbitt, John 110 “national coercive power” 121 national economic sovereignty 30 national economy 50–52, 100; extension and expansion of 88; international economy and 89; relationship between global economy and 102 national interests in lower politics 84 nationalism 81–82, 86; methodological 15–19, 133, 140; methodology 15; traditional 86; traditional methodological 18 nationality, globality and 131–133 national monetary policy 89

Index  147 national political power 106 national security 73, 75, 83, 113 nation-centered approach 45 nation-state 12, 33, 40, 101, 122–124, 130–133; community 15; framework of 18; globe vs. 132–133; individual 16; relation to 130–131; role of 41, 52, 53, 110; significance of 111; status of 53 neoliberalism doctrine 47 new medievalism 118 non-equilibrium system 20 non-European societies 26 non-governmental armed groups 68 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 110 non-military aspects 84 “nonplace” 137 non-state actors 37, 43, 53, 70, 83, 110 non-state-centrism 32 non-state politics vs. state politics 31–32 non-territorial political landscape 118 non-traditional security issues 32, 33, 79 Nowrot, Karsten 119 nuclear non-proliferation 70, 71 nuclear proliferation 69–71 Nye, Joseph 17, 35–38, 43 ‘obsolete nation-states’ 53 Ohmae, Kenichi 45 oil production 75 Overall Connectedness 66 overpopulation 66 Oxford Committee for Family Relief 52 “pan-Asian vertical supply chain” 104n19 “Pax-Americana” 109 “Pax-Britannica” 109 philosophical methodology 5 physical anthropology 13 “planetary” tendency 89 political actors 31, 109, 114 political domain, global issues in: human rights 80–81; nationalism 81–82 political globalization 58 politics: ecological 113, 114; group 31; high 8; humanitarian 114; international 11–12, 73, 80, 83, 107–109, 121; issue-oriented 113–115; low 84; non-state vs. state 31–32; traditional international 113, 120, 121; traditional national 108; traditional 108, 113, 115, 121; traditional state 31 Popper, Karl 18

population 66, 67, 73–74, 76, 79; gender imbalance 74 ‘post-materialist’ values 26 practical implications of global economy 103–104 pre-modern globalization 25, 38 primitive inhabitants 65 ‘the problem of modernity’ 26 production, globalization of 96–97 publicness, globality and 133–135 reductionism 20, 47, 53 regional/transnational activities 41 rejectionists 40–42, 44 relationship-oriented governance 86 resources, global issues 74–75 resultant knowledge 4 Robertson, Roland 12, 24, 26, 27, 43–46, 55, 58, 60, 129, 131, 132 root cause of global issues 65–66 Rosenau, James N. 42, 45, 46, 117–118 Rugman, Alan 50 Schmidt, Helmut 58 science of global governance 10, 15 science of global issues 5, 6, 10, 15 scientific knowledge system 5 security issues 67, 76, 77, 115; nontraditional 32, 33, 79 Sergeevich, Khozin G. 5 services, globalization of 99–100 Shafik, Minouche 98 skeptics 36, 39–42, 44, 50–53, 100, 102 Sklair, Leslie 45–46 Smith, Anthony 15; Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach 81 social and cultural globalism 37 social domain, global issues in: AIDS epidemic 79–80; drug issue 78–79 social life 8, 136; contemporary 139; globality of 11; human 17, 48, 55, 60, 61, 67, 86, 135, 141; of mankind 137; superficial 56 social nominalism 12 social public issues 32–33 social realism 12 sovereign responsibility 118–119, 132 sovereign states 43, 83, 84, 90, 94, 95, 110–114, 116, 119, 137, 138 space: dimension of globality 136–137; vs. time 129–130 spheres of authority 117–118 “standardized contracts” 121 standardized market 91–92 state actors 70, 83

148 Index state-centric sociology 12 state-centrism 11, 108, 117, 121, 132, 140 state-controlled economic management 73 status quo of global research 5–8 Stiglitz, Joseph E.: Globalization and Its Discontents 42 ‘Stuxnet’ 72 subject, dimension of globality 135–136 supra-ideology of global issues 67 supra-nationality of global politics 115 supra-territoriality of global politics 115 system, dimension of globality 137–138 Tamir, Yael 82 technical basis of information revolution 30 technological revolutions 14, 30, 90 territoriality 130 terrorism 71–72 terrorist organizations 71, 72 theoretical value of globality 140–142 thick globalism 37 thick globalization 35–38 thin globalism 37–38 thin globalization 36–38 Thompson, Grahame 88 TNCs see transnational corporations (TNCs) Tomlinson, John 61 trade globalization 97–98 traditional economic operation 94 traditional international politics 113, 120, 121 traditional international relations 137–138 traditional international trade 98 traditional methodological nationalism 18 traditional nationalism 86 traditional national law 121 traditional national politics 108 traditional political and military security 84 traditional politics 108, 113, 115, 121 traditional security dimension of global issues 67; military conflicts 68–69; nuclear proliferation 69–71; terrorism 71–72 traditional state politics 31 transformationalists 42–44

transformation theory 39 transnational capitalist class (TCC) 46 transnational corporations (TNCs) 11, 30, 53, 89, 93–97, 99, 112–113, 116 transnational criminal organizations 72 transnational environmental movement 120 transnational market economies 118 trans-territorial/national features 30 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 70 UN-centered global system 34 UN Conference on Environment and Development 114 “unified global market” 94 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 96, 100 United Nations Human Rights Council 81 universalism, cultural particularism vs. 33–34 “unrestricted” TNC 97 US counter-terrorism policy 81 US economic protectionism 31 values: dimension of globality 138–139; of global orientation 108 “vertical democracy” 110 vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons 70 Vietor, Richard H.K. 95 “voluntary joint action” 71 Wallerstein, Immanuel 45 Walzer, Michael 115 war crime 37, 123 Western-dominated globalization 62 Westphalia system 138 Wilkins, Mila 52 world economy 25, 28, 41, 45, 50, 52, 90–91, 98 The World Is Flat (Friedman) 30, 94 “world population crisis” 74 World Review of New Disciplines 5 World-Systems approach 45 Yang Xuedong 27, 39, 52 Zhenglai, Deng 18

Global Studies

Since the 1950s, globalization has been an increasingly irresistible trend and one that has exerted a tremendous impact on the political, economic, military, environmental, and social fortunes of mankind – and yet, the existing theories in humanities and social sciences have been fundamentally built upon the traditional “nation-state” model. These two volumes, a pioneering work on global studies to be published out of China, aim at creating a new theoretical framework against the backdrop of globalization. This volume discusses globalization on the supranational level. The editors reveal the complexity of global studies by examining the multi-level and multi-dimensional nature of globalization, analyzing processes and systems of global society against the backdrop of globalization, and exploring the construction of a stable and rational global order. These two volumes are an essential reference for scholars and students in politics, economics, international relations, and law. Tuo Cai, Ph.D., is professor, doctoral tutor, director of the Institute of Globalization and Global Issues (IGGI) at the China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), and vice president and academic committee director at the National Institute of International Political Studies of Universities and Colleges. His main research areas include global studies and international relation theory; his main research issues focus on globalization, global governance, and cosmopolitanisms. Zhenye Liu is professor and deputy director of the IGGI at the CUPL. His main research areas include global governance and international relations theory, international organizations and institutions, NGOs and global civil societies, global issues, and global politics.

China Perspectives

The China Perspectives series focuses on translating and publishing works by leading Chinese scholars, writing about both global topics and Chinarelated themes. It covers Humanities & Social Sciences, Education, Media and Psychology, as well as many interdisciplinary themes. This is the first time any of these books have been published in English for international readers. The series aims to put forward a Chinese perspective, give insights into cutting-edge academic thinking in China, and inspire researchers globally. Recent titles in politics partly include: On East Asian Regional Cooperation I Ideality and Reality Zhang Yunling On East Asian Regional Cooperation II Ideality and Reality Zhang Yunling U.S.-China Relations in Strategic Domains Travis N. Tanner, Wang Dong Global Studies Volume 1: Globalization and Globality Tuo Cai, Zhenye Liu Global Studies Volume 2: Process and Governance Tuo Cai, Zhenye Liu The BRICS Studies: Theories and Issues Xu Xiujun For more information, please visit https://www.routledge.com/series/CPH

Global Studies Volume 2: Process and Governance

Tuo Cai and Zhenye Liu Translated by Gao Yi

First published in English 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Tuo Cai, Zhenye Liu Translated by Gao Yi The right of Tuo Cai and Zhenye Liu to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. English Version by permission of Peking University Press. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-57894-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-26316-0 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of figures List of tables About the authors

vi vii viii



1

Global process

28

Y U N FA NG WA NG

2

Global system

46

ZHEN YE LIU

3

Global governance

72

X I AOL I LY U

4

Global civil society

98

ZHEN YE LIU

5

Global interests and global ethic

137

Z H E N Y E L I U A N D X I NG CAO

6

Global order

156

H AO YA NG

Index

180

Figures

1.1 1.2 1.3

The inequality between the rich and the poor in the poorest countries is serious Neo-liberal economic policies reduce poverty Countries that reject globalization have low economic growth rates

37 37 38

Tables

1.1

Globalization timetable

29

About the authors

Xing Cao,  Ph.D., is an professor of School of Political Science and Administration at China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL). His main research areas include global ethic, globalization nations and nationalism, religions and international relations. Xiaoli Lyu,  Ph.D., is an associate professor in Beijing Normal University. Her major research fields include globalization and global governance theory, Chinese public diplomacy and non-governmental organizations. Hao Yang, Ph.D., is a lecturer of the Institute of Globalization and Global Issues at China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL). His research focuses on global governance and the left-wing cosmopolitanism. He is the author of An Analysis to The Motivation of Nation States in Providing Transnational Public Goods (Current Affairs, 2018). Yunfang Wang, Ph.D., is an associate professor and master tutor of Minzu University of China (MUC). Her main research areas include global issues, globalization and nationalism, ethnic theory and policy.

Introduction Tuo Cai

Globalization is the theme of contemporary human society, and it opens up the global process of human civilization. The complexity of globalization requires us to examine, think, and perceive from a multi-dimensional, multi-level, and multi-domain perspective. Only through a macro, historical perspective and with in-depth theoretical analysis, can we truly understand the impact of globalization on contemporary human life and truly recognize its significance. The global process of globalization brings not only progress and joy to human beings but also twists and turns, confusion, conflict, and pain. So, on the one hand, we perceive global ethics and global interests are guiding human beings forward, and on the other hand, we witness the efforts to construct the global system and global order, and at the same time, we are pleased and excited for the joint promotion of global governance by multiple actors. Whether the positive actions of the global civil society or the reflection caused by the anti-globalization movement, they have made unique contributions to the global process initiated by globalization.

The multidimensional concept of globalization The complexity, diversity, and uncertainty of globalization create the multiple dimensions of the concept of globalization. In other words, it is not advisable to try to understand and generalize globalization from a single perspective or on a single level. Based on the understanding of globalization and the summarization of the existing research results, we believe that the concept of globalization should include the following dimensions. The time-space dimension This is the very basic dimension of globalization. Globalization is to break the existing boundaries and expand the human social activities from local areas, nations, and regions to the whole world. It is the exchange that flows across countries and regions, which leads to a fundamental change in social relations and organizational structure. At the same time, the limitation of time has gradually been broken. Communication across countries

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-1

2  Tuo Cai and regions can be achieved within a few hours, a few minutes, or even instantly rather than years, months, or days. This is what we call “time-space compression” today as well as the “global village”. And just in this small village of unprecedented time-space compression, people are more closely and frequently related to each other. Obviously, the premise or foundation of time-space compression is the historic evolution of communication and transportation, particularly the arrival of the information era. The economic dimension The flow of products, capital, finance, information, and the population is vastly increased and improved due to the global connections promoted by globalization. These elements collectively make up the economy. Thus, it can be seen that the cross-border flow of production factors, market transactions, and economic relations is the economic globalization people can experience, and is therefore the foundation of globalization. Today, economic globalization is more in-depth and comprehensive. Multinational corporations (MNCs) keep themselves active around the world. Labor export and waves of immigration have intensified. They are also the inevitable product of economic mobility. In other words, it is a basic fact that we must recognize and define economic globalization before defining globalization as a whole. The cultural dimension The cultural dimension is becoming increasingly important in cognizing and defining globalization. After perceiving time-space compression and economic globalization, people increasingly feel a sense of culture shock created by the increased global connection and flow. Thus, the self-identity, national identity, concept identity, the relationship between native and global culture, the relationship between the universal and special value, the relationship between global and national ethics, and how to view cultural globalization based on the integrated mass media, especially consumption culture, have become an increasingly severe problem in the process of globalization. How to maintain unity within the theory of globalization and still maintain the complexity of cultural diversity should undoubtedly be included when discussing the impact of globalization. The social dimension The social dimension of globalization is concerned with the society and social issues that are separate from and different to state affairs. Society is different from the state, and since modern times, the status of the state has been increasing, reaching its peak by the 20th century. By contrast, the status and function of the society is declining. With the continuous expansion and deepening of globalization, the relationship between state and society

Introduction  3 must be discussed. Since the state neither should nor could cover all the public affairs of human society, and since there are mistakes and failures under both government management and market management, it has important theoretical value and practical significance to examine and improve social function, strengthen social self-management, and create an orderly society. The problems and phenomena associated with the social dimension of globalization are: the rise of NGOs and global civil society; the construction and prospect of global society; the relationship between social management and government management; and the response to non-traditional security issues like immigration, information security, and public health security. It is certain that the social dimension of globalization in addition to the cultural dimension will become more and more important in cognizing and defining globalization. The state dimension This is the core dimension of globalization, because all dimensions of globalization are related to the state, pointing to the state, and challenging or requiring the territoriality and the sovereignty beyond the state in addition to the exclusivity and monopoly to power and public management. Time compression, global production, global trade, global finance, global markets, global awareness, global ethics, universal values, and global society all have the means to break through the space limits and a variety of institutional arrangements of the state system. They are further able to build up the new social relations, social structure, and social groups that could respond to and adapt to the global connection and flow in the globalization era. Therefore, the impact of globalization on the state and the relationship between globalization and the state has become the most critical and core issue in the theory and practice of globalization. It is mainly political, but it cannot be simply equated and attributed to the political dimension. It includes a broader and more profound connotation. The power dimension Human social life needs authority and power, and considering that the state is still the basic unit of social life, it is so hard to remove the infiltration of its power and influence. The power dimension of globalization is to enlighten people to be aware of and think about the power relations in the process of globalization, including the generation, application, and comparison of power. The imbalance of globalization leads to the appearance of the active and the passive, leaders and followers, winners and losers in the course of globalization. The scale of this kind of division gives power to globalization. Therefore, the power dimension cannot be ignored, and the process of globalization is full of power games, and also requires the reconstruction and redistribution of power.

4  Tuo Cai The conflict dimension If we recognize that power necessarily accompanies the globalization process, it is inevitable that conflict and contradiction should also be a part of globalization, as both are based on the imbalance, injustice and uncertainty of globalization. The imbalance and injustice of globalization not only refers to the difference in development levels, but also the distribution of power and interest which is unequal and deviating, creating conflicts from those seeking fairness and justice. Due to the differences in status, development stage, and value preference, the uncertainty of globalization can also lead to disharmony through the process of formulating and dealing with this uncertainty. This is the real globalization. In today’s world, from the material level to the spiritual and cultural level, there are new conflicts and contradiction brought by globalization: developed countries and developing countries, transnational elites and ordinary people, the rich and the poor, environmentalists and governments or MNCs that one-sidedly pursue profits and economic benefits, racist and anti-racist, terrorism and anti-terrorism, national culture and global culture, and local value and universal value. We cannot forget or discard the conflict dimension. The governance dimension After the break of state system and its limitations, the governance dimension focuses on the positioning of new social relations and organizational frameworks, the construction of new institutions, and the shaping of new value and new ethics. From a long-term point of view, it is necessary for globalization to “dilute” or “discard” the concept of the state and to seek a new system and order. But this is a long, historical process. During this process, the various shocks and impacts need to be governed, alongside the unfolding global issues. Furthermore, the relationship between state governance, international governance, and the new global governance must be coordinated; the global co-governance of the government (state), market, and global civil society must be promoted; and the cosmopolitical democracy beyond the traditional democracy within a certain country, and the possibility and mechanism of multiple citizenships must be explored. All these are questions have to be answered regarding the governance dimension of globalization. The process dimension The importance of the process dimension should also not be underestimated. This dimension requires us not only to understand the objectivity and complexity of globalization from the perspective of phenomenon and fields but also to understand the history, variability, and pluralistic

Introduction  5 coexistence of globalization, and to treat globalization with a calm mind and rational thinking. Process thinking and the understanding that globalization is a long historical process, leads us to focus on the evolution and changes of globalization, understanding that globalization cannot be a linear progression, with setbacks and fluctuations during the process, and understanding the pursuit of unity in theory and essence of globalization is based on the premise of pluralistic coexistence. This is similar to China’s traditional harmonious culture with the feature of pursuing Datong (Great Harmony) and maintaining and accepting diversity. Furthermore, through this dimension we can understand that globalization is plural rather than singular, so it must properly coordinate and further solve the conflicts and contradictions between the new characteristics brought by globalization and the traditional state system, rather than simply cutting off contact with, or even abandoning the state. According to the above analysis, we can define globalization as follows: globalization refers to the objective process and trend of contemporary human social life that crosses state and regional boundaries with increasingly comprehensive communication, connection, flow, and interaction on a global scale, which causes the fundamental change of human social relations, social organization, and lifestyle from state to global level.

The epoch significance of globalization and its enlightenment Globalization highlights the interdependence of the international community The first epoch significance of globalization is that globalization highlights the interdependence of the international communities, and interdependence has become a way of life and basic law of contemporary humans. Interdependence refers to the interrelated and interpenetrative relationship, and the state formed by the actors of international relations in the fields of economy, politics, military affairs, and culture. Interdependence firstly appears as unbreakable economic ties and is the result of the global expansion of the market economy. Today, the active performance of global production, global trade, global finance, and carriers of these economic activities (transnational corporations, TNCs) show “the tangible growth in the enmeshment of national economies in global economic transactions – for nearly all countries a growing proportion of national economic activity involves economic exchange with an increasing number of countries.”1 Products produced in a single country 20 years ago, now generally are assembled with components from dozens of countries. The highly specialized new form has emerged in international production specialization, and TNCs have crossed every production sector global economy, which increases economic ties to an unprecedented level. World trade continues to rise, and in 2000, it accounted for 29% of the world’s GDP, with the increase in the proportion of

6  Tuo Cai developing countries better proving the integrity of the world economy. The growth of world trade shows that the interdependence of countries has been enhanced. World financial flows are growing exponentially, the daily turnover of foreign exchange market has exceeded US$ 1.2 trillion, and very few countries are free from the global financial market. This situation not only provides opportunities and possibilities for countries in need of capital, but also is fraught with risks, which was proved by the financial crisis of East Asia in 1997. During this crisis, Indonesia’s GDP in 1998 fell by 15%, and Thailand’s fell by 8%. In short, whether a country is beneficial or impaired by economic exchanges, the contemporary international community is now necessarily economically interdependent. Economic globalization is nothing but a deeper degree of economic interdependence. Of course, economic interdependence is not symmetrical or equal. Three core regions of Europe, North America, and Asia play a leading role, with the developed countries occupying the leading position. Nevertheless, the interdependence of the economy cannot be simply considered as the interdependence of developed countries. Take China after the reform and opening-up as an example. China’s current foreign trade dependence has exceeded 40%. Having increased by 143 times compared to that in 1978, the total import and export volume of China amounted to $2.974 trillion in 2010, and China’s share of world exports and imports of goods increased to 10.4% and 9.1%, respectively, making China the world’s largest exporter of goods and the second largest importing country. China’s outward investment increased from US$ 2.9 billion in 2003 to US$ 107.8 billion in 2013, becoming the world’s third largest foreign investment country. China has 31,594 overseas companies in the world, and on the latest list of the Fortune Global 500, the number of Chinese companies has reached 100. At the same time, China is currently the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the world with US$ 117.5 billion in 2013. This fully demonstrates China’s growing dependence on the world economy. On the contrary, the world’s dependence on China is also significantly deepening. China’s contribution to world economic growth continues to rise, from 2.3% in 1978 to 7.4% in 2000, and then to 22% in 2008. Clearly, we can say that China’s economy cannot be separated from the world, and the world economy cannot be separated from China. The global economy is highly interdependent, and we must recognize this basic fact. The political performance of interdependence is the internationalization of domestic politics, the nationalization of international politics, and the growing strength of supranational power. The traditionally internal affairs of a country are now the concern of the international community, and political events that occur in the international arena cause domestic chain reactions. International organizations and other supranational institutions form a variety of international mechanisms to involved themselves in national politics and coordinate the complex international relations in order to safeguard the overall interests of the international community. Gradually a new

Introduction  7 system and mechanism of power has been formed, that many are confused and uneasy about, but have to admit its legitimacy will be forged. The conclusion drawn from the comprehensive study of global governance also emphasizes this viewpoint: today most citizens greatly underestimate the extent to which most nations’ shipping laws are written at the IMO in London, air safety laws at ICAO in Montreal, food standards at the FAO in Rome, intellectual property laws in Geneva at the WTO/WIPO, banking laws by the G-10 in Basle, chemicals regulations by the OECD in Paris, nuclear safety standards by IAEA in Vienna, telecommunications laws by the ITU in Geneva and motor vehicle standards by the ECE in Geneva.2 Clearly, this new power is different from sovereignty, and different from the authority represented by inter-government organizations. It is not based on the nation-state but on the whole human society. The characteristics of power show duality, namely negotiability and coerciveness. The subjects of power include states, inter-governmental organizations, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), and global civil society. On the basis of coordination, this kind of power is identified and established in the form of international law, international conventions, and international agreements, and plays its role through the implementation of corresponding international mechanisms. Although its coerciveness cannot be compared with sovereignty, its binding force is increasing and unneglectable. It is not difficult to find: The locus of effective political power can no longer be assumed to be simply national governments – effective power is shared and bartered by diverse forces and agencies at national, regional and international levels. All parties agree on this. Furthermore, the idea of a political community of fate – of a self-determining collectivity – can no longer meaningfully be located within the boundaries of a single nation-state alone. Some of the most fundamental forces and processes which determine the nature of life chances – from the organization of world trade to global warming – are now beyond the reach of individual nation-state to resolve by themselves. The political world at the start of the twenty-first century is marked by a significant series of new types of political externalities or ‘boundary problems’.3 In other words, the blurring of domestic and international politics and the strengthening of supranational powers makes contemporary politics present an obvious global nature. The interdependence of politics makes the choice and formulation of national policies and the choice and formulation of the international community’s policy on human public affairs subject to increasing constraints, which makes them more cautious and rational.

8  Tuo Cai Contemporary human beings must learn to live in a network of multiple powers and authorities. The cultural expression of interdependence is the communication and spread of cultures on a larger scale and through more fields and the resultant emergence of global cultural landscape. The assimilation of daily life and daily consumption reflects the mutual acceptance of different cultural patterns and traditions. Behind the scenes, it preliminarily shows the expansion of national culture and regional culture to the global culture. In other words, while preserving national culture and national consciousness, people begin to consider issues from the perspective of mankind as a whole and recognize certain commonalities of human culture. Thus it has brought about new cultural ideas and ways of thinking adapted to a global culture. The cultural interdependence, on the one hand, shows that culture is meaningful only in mutual communication and comparison and can get developed only in mutual acceptance and appreciation. On the other hand, it means that when we face common interests and common problems, different cultures must go beyond themselves and look at the world with a broader mind, seeking and gradually establishing a new common culture, values, and ideas. In short, globalization highlights interdependence, not just in the general sense of interaction and mutual influence but that this necessarily creates a price to pay. That is to say that interdependence is not only different in terms of quantity, with higher and more regularity, but more importantly, it has a qualitative difference. This kind of qualitative difference means that interdependence has a price, and the strong binding force of the price makes various actors unwilling to choose to leave or betray interdependence. Here, it is important to note that interdependence can neither simply be characterized by mutual benefit, nor by balancing each other or complete relational equality. However, the interdependence undoubtedly has structural binding force, and any country cannot break away from the interdependent structure and seek to survive and develop alone. This shows a distinct break from the past and is the reality of contemporary human existence. It is in this sense that interdependence is the way of existence of contemporary human beings and the law with internal logic. Globalization highlights the common interests of mankind The second epoch significance of globalization is that globalization highlights the common interests of mankind, which are intertwined with the interests of states and nations and affecting people’s lives together. Interests are the deepest feeling of people and one of the central topics of academic studies, which penetrate into the fields of philosophy, politics, law, sociology, cultural studies, economics, and so on. The reason why people feel deeply about interests is that interests come from the needs of people, and these needs must be satisfied in society. This means that while recognizing that interests are based on the needs of human nature, we need to know the

Introduction  9 social conditions and environment of the existence and realization of interests, as well as the social relations reflected by the interests. Since interests come from the needs of human nature, the subjects of interests are, above all, the individuals, and the interests we pursue are certainly the interests of the individuals. However, as people live in a variety of social relations and form a variety of social groups, those groups become the subjects of interests corresponding to the individuals, pursuing and realizing group interests and common interests. The individuals and the interests of the individuals are the most basic elements here, and “throughout history the ‘general interest’ is created by individuals who are defined as ‘private persons’”4. Obviously, it is the priority of individuals and the interests of the individuals in origin that easily leads us to individual centricism, while losing our sight of the social conditionality, which initiates the eternal topic of the relationship between the individuals and the society. However, in regard to the relationship between interest parties, there is not only the relationship between the individuals and the society, but also the relationship between individuals as well as the relationship between groups. Therefore, around different groups such as families, communities, social strata, social classes, nations, countries, and even today’s various regional communities can emerge the political and social relations based on the consideration of the interests. Not only do these interest relations affect people’s lives, but also many issues concerning interests have become the object of academic studies. The debate over utilitarianism and morality in political philosophy, the different theories about the origin of human rights in law, the theory of the “economic man” in economics, and the hypothesis of national rationality in international relations, all reflect the influence of the consideration of interests. From the point of view of political science, especially in international relations, interest is the basic motivation of various political behaviors, and is also the basis of the establishment of various political institutions and international mechanisms. For a long time, at Chinese domestic level, the existence of the differentiation and opposition of social classes forced each class to strive for and maintain its own interests, which inevitably leads to acute class struggle. In the international level, the existence of conflicts and disputes among nations forces each nation to safeguard national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interests by every possible means, leading to ethnic conflicts and wars between nations. In other words, the conflict and scramble for interests is the normal state of politics and the basic content of international relations. Therefore, it is necessary for nations to fight for greater interests, which is the objective requirement of national rationality under the state of anarchy, as well as the basic connotation of national rationality, and reflects the logic of realism that people are familiar with. The logic of realism undoubtedly has strong vitality, and is today’s most influential guiding principle in the practice of international relations. According to the logic of realism, the common interests of human beings not only are without rationality but do not exist at all.

10  Tuo Cai The logic of realism has realistic foundations. As mentioned above, the realization of interests depends on social conditions and social relations in the specific historical period. When the development of human society is still subject to many qualifications, the achievements of human civilization are still quite limited, and social relations are far from forming the “community of common destiny” that is being discussing today. What exists and is embodied in social classes, nations and states, which are regarded as the most important groups of individual life, only involves more confrontation and scrambling for interests, and therefore it is difficult to see and there is no time to care about the common interests of society and all mankind. Today, the reality of human life has undergone historic changes. First, the conditions for the existence and realization of interests have changed. The revolution of transportation and communication not only has greatly promoted the development of productive forces and dramatically enriched the material wealth of mankind but also has enabled people living in different parts of the world to conduct more rapid and convenient communication and dialogue. Since the 1970s, the process of globalization has greatly strengthened the integral connection of human beings. Whether economic, political or cultural, regional, and territorial boundaries are constantly being exceeded. People have come to realize that only by carrying out economic, political and cultural exchanges within the global context, can we truly realize the interests of the nation and the state. At the same time, it is through this global openness and exchange that we have a clear sense of the existence of the common interests of mankind. In short, in the face of global exchanges caused by globalization and growing global issues in addition to the common interests those issues are related to, it is impossible for humans today to close a country to outside contact, develop alone, and be completely constrained by the vision and interests of the nation and the state. Secondly, the social relationship and the subject of interests have a new connotation. The social relationship, on which the logic of realism is based, is a kind of simple and confrontational relationship, and the game between different interest groups is a zero-sum game. But contemporary globalization requires a relationship of dialogue, cooperation, and coexistence, and a win-win result in the non-zero-sum game. This new social relationship has gradually nurtured and integrated a new subject, and that is humanity as a whole. It can be imagined that when this new subject of interests is recognized by more people, the common interests of mankind will be further realized. The common interests of mankind are the common interests in the truest sense, and the common interests represented by nations and states are the common interests in a special sense. Although contemporary globalization has begun to highlight the common interests of mankind, as nations and states are still the basic unit of human life and most international institutions and mechanisms are built on the nation-state, the interests of the nation and the state are still recognized as the most basic common interests. In this regard, there should be no misunderstanding. It is particularly important

Introduction  11 to understand that, just as people live in a power network of multiple powers, people also live in a network of multiple interests. The relationship of the network is not simply a mutually exclusive one but an overlapping and mutually restrictive relationship. The common interests of mankind and the interests of the nation and the state are difficult to separate from each other. For example, the ideas that the international community has repeatedly called for and put into practice, such as narrowing the gap between the developed and the developing countries, maintaining ecological balance, managing environmental pollution, controlling population growth, conserving resources, punishing terrorism, and cracking down on drug trafficking, not only bring benefits to all mankind but also play a positive role in promoting the development of every nation-state. Therefore, we must learn to understand the network of interest relationships. For the interweaving and merging of the common interests of mankind with the interests of the nation and the state, there are two different opinions: (1) independent national interests have become increasingly scarce and pointless and the common interests of mankind are rapidly increasing until nations and their interests will withdraw from the world stage, and (2) there have never been independent common interests of mankind, and the international community’s dialogues, exchanges, and necessary coordination actions are merely a means of seeking the interests of the nation and the state. Fundamentally speaking, the interests of the nation-state are in the supreme status, and the common interests of mankind are illusory. Obviously, both of these views are one-sided. The common interests of mankind highlighted by global issues neither have replaced nor will completely replace the realistic interests of the nation and the state, because the world is still far from being developed to this stage. However, the common interests of mankind are certainly not just a simple appendage of the interests of the nation and the state. They have an independent value and meaning, showing the historical trend of constant growth. We should be aware of this historical trend, and deal with the relationship between the common interests of mankind and the interests of the nation and the state with an open mind. Globalization highlights the common interests of mankind, and the recognition of the common interests of mankind reflects the degree of political development of a nation and a country. Taking China as an example, with the deepening of reform and opening up, the degree of China’s integration into globalization is also increasing, thus the recognition of the commonality of human social life is also significantly enhanced. Before reform and opening up, China rejected and criticized the idea of the common interests of mankind. However, by the beginning of the 21st century, China has made clear to the world in the report of the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China: “We stand for going along with the historical tide and safeguarding the common interests of mankind”. The new concept of a harmonious world further strengthens China’s recognition of the commonality of human social life. While publicizing its own characteristics, locality and

12  Tuo Cai nationality, China is examining human civilization with a broader mind and a more peaceful attitude, and accepting all the outstanding achievements of human civilization. All the outstanding achievements of civilization reflect some commonalities of human survival and development. China’s political development shows that recognition of the common interests of mankind will not affect the interests of the nation and the state, but will create a better international environment for striving for and safeguarding the interests of the nation and the state, and in this process, promote the overall progress of human civilization. Globalization highlights the historical role of international regimes The third epoch significance of globalization is that globalization highlights the historical role of international regimes. It has become common understanding that the best way to govern human society is by coordinating international relations through laws, systems, and rules. Globalization not only reveals the interdependent lifestyle of contemporary human beings, the integrity of mankind, especially their common interests, and the theme of the times of peace and development, but also highlights the historical role of international regimes in coordinating and dealing with contemporary international relations from the institutional level. International regimes refer to a series of binding institutional arrangements and rules of communication established by the international community to stabilize the international order, promote common development, and regulate international behavior. It involves two levels: norms and organizations. Norms are embodied in international law, international agreements, international treaties, and binding provisions and principles recognized by most countries in international conferences, which are used to guide international acts. Organizations include many intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations, which undertake the function of implementing norms. The objective binding force of interdependence and human integrity, and the value orientation of peace and development, require all ethnic groups and countries to strengthen dialogue, communication, contacts, and cooperation in order to coordinate global policies in dealing with public affairs and to seek legitimate national interests and the common interests of mankind. This will inevitably enhance the status and role of international regimes, because international regimes are fundamentally based on and advocate for the concept of dialogue and cooperation, and the concept of a legal system. The strengthening of contemporary international regimes is an indisputable fact. First of all, fields involved in international regimes are expanding and numbers of international regimes are increasing. When it comes to international regimes, people are most familiar with economic regimes in the fields of international production, trade, and finance, United Nations

Introduction  13 regimes related to politics and security (mainly Security Council regimes) and disarmament and arms control regimes. But nowadays there are some new regimes, such as the environmental regime, anti-drug regime, anti-terrorism regime, anti-AIDS regime, anti-money laundering regime, and anti-corruption regime. It can be said that almost every international regime has been established in response to a major global issues. Secondly, the international regime has intensified in standardizing and integrating international affairs, so as to increase the mandatory characteristics. For example, the United Nations, which has intervened frequently in international political and security affairs after the Cold War, has played an important role in maintaining peace, dealing with international crises and appeasing regional and ethnic conflicts. The mandatory characteristics of the regimes are even more obvious. The WTO has the power to punish violations of trade rules and to arbitrate trade disputes. IMF loans are often conditional on domestic reform of lenders. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims that anyone who violates the nuclear-use agreement will be subject to inspection of its nuclear facilities without the consent of its government. Controversial international intervention regimes even involve fields of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thirdly, the recognition of international regimes has gradually increased. Although the status and role of each country in the international community are quite different and their benefits from the international regimes are not the same, generally speaking, countries are increasingly aware that the normative and integrated role of international regimes is not going away, and after all, as it is superior to the hegemonic system, while maintaining a prudent attitude towards international regimes, most countries take a positive attitude. Even developing countries that severely criticize the unfairness of existing international regimes and the Western dominance over them, are not trying to deny or reject international regimes, but to make them more reasonable and just. In this regard, China’s transformation is the typical. Before the reform and opening up, most people in China had a skeptical and critical attitude towards existing international regimes. Believing that if China recognized or joined international regimes, it would lose sovereignty, endanger national security, and even be “peacefully evolved” by the West. After the reform and opening up, especially since the 1990s, China has taken a stride that has shocked the world in actively participating in international regimes and even creating them. From resolutely safeguarding the authority of the United Nations to relentlessly joining the WTO and from fully acceding to sensitive world arms control treaties and regimes, to establishing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Boao Forum for Asia, China has fully realized that the construction of a harmonious world depends on mature and diverse international regimes. Identifying and participating in international regimes is the best choice for contemporary human beings to deal with mutual relations, coordinate global public affairs and formulate global public policies in an interdependent world.

14  Tuo Cai The prominence of international regimes and the strengthening of their role will undoubtedly impact on the existing state-based international regimes that people are familiar with and recognize, that have existed for centuries, since the Westphalia Treaty. However, it must be made clear that international regimes and global governance are not meant to abandon or replace the existing state-based international system. For a long time, the relationship between them will be interwoven. That is to say, the monopoly of power in international politics has been broken, and international regimes with super-state tendencies will share the function of managing human public affairs with the state-based international system. New political power and traditional political power need to establish their position in international affairs by running in. Needless to say, the state-based international system will still play a strategic role in this particular period, and even in many cases, the leading role, but it will not dominate everything. The state-oriented international system must learn to adapt to the new political mode and adjust its political function and ways of political operation. In terms of trend, the role of international regimes will be further strengthened. Therefore, the contemporary mankind should examine this trend from a more open and macroscopic perspective. However, the disadvantages exposed in the practice of international regimes are indeed worrying. First of all, the international regimes are rooted to a large extent in the balance of international forces, which inherently determines its congenital shortcomings – the dominance of Western powers. Secondly, big powers arrange and enforce rules. As most of the existing international regimes are dominated by the leading Western powers, these countries rely on their strength to formulate systems for their own good and control the implementation of those systems, thus objectively gaining more voice in international affairs for their own countries and effectively safeguarding their own interests. On the contrary, the vast number of developing countries with weak comprehensive national strength can hardly control the arrangement and implementation of those systems, thus causing injustice in the international regimes. Thirdly, super-state tendencies in international regimes not only lead to disputes over legitimacy, but also may be used by hegemonists to wantonly violate sovereignty and seek private interests. On the one hand, the international regimes are constantly strengthened, which shows that the international regimes are needed by contemporary international relations and have historical rationality. On the other hand, the drawbacks of international regimes have led to inequity in the international community and have challenged international relations. In the face of this contradiction, rational conclusions and practices are as follows. First, international regimes are an inevitable choice for dealing with international affairs and relations in an era of globalization and interdependence. Although they are extremely imperfect, and there exist obvious drawbacks concerned with the dominance of big powers and institutional hegemony, the concept of cooperation that they embody and advocate for

Introduction  15 conforms to the trend of the times in accordance with the principle of the rule of law. After all, they have replaced the hegemony of great powers and adapted to the situation after the Cold War. Therefore, they cannot be surpassed at this stage. Secondly, in reality, international regimes still find it difficult to achieve the ideal of comprehensive fairness and justice. We can only follow the principle of comparison to confirm their rationality and progress, and strive to nudge them to develop in a healthy direction. Thirdly, there must be a rational, beneficial, and restrained struggle against the tendency of the big powers to arrange and lead systems in the international regimes. To this end, the international community needs to further appeal and strengthen the binding role of international morality on international regimes, while the vast number of developing countries should enhance their voice in institutional arrangements through improving their overall strength in order to promote the improvement of international regimes in a more just and reasonable direction. Globalization highlights new consciousness and new values The fourth epochal significance of globalization is that globalization highlights new consciousness and new value, namely, global consciousness, sense of cooperation, sense of seeking common ground while reserving differences, and sense of coexistence and competition, in addition to global values. These new consciousness and values help people to examine heterogeneous civilizations and cultures with a peaceful mind and a rational eye, and to pay attention to the progress and development of human beings as a whole. The significance of globalization today is multifaceted. In addition to the existing ways, interests, themes of the times, and the significance of international regimes, the significance of globalization at the cultural level cannot be ignored. Fundamentally speaking, consciousness, ideas, and values are the reflection of human practice. When globalization presents the themes of the times of interdependence, common interests of mankind, peace and development, and the rise and role of international regimes in the contemporary social life, people’s consciousness, concepts, and values will inevitably change. The prominent manifestation of the change is that the traditional consciousness, concepts, and values are impacted, while the new consciousness, concepts, and values are constantly examined and criticized until their rationality and advancement are understood and accepted by the society. Of course, new things are not necessarily good, and traditional things are not necessarily bad. The key lies in whether there is a core with new nature and new meanings. The new consciousness highlighted by contemporary globalization contains a new nature. From national consciousness to global consciousness, from the philosophy of struggle to the philosophy of cooperation, from “either-or” thinking to seeking common ground while reserving differences, the significance of this change is profound.

16  Tuo Cai Global consciousness is of the utmost importance within the new consciousness created by globalization. This is due to the holistic nature of the impact of global consciousness on contemporary mankind. That is to say, the global consciousness impacts all other group consciousness, especially ethnic consciousness and national consciousness, and it is the consciousness that all regions, all countries and all nationalities recognize and abide by. Love for the nation and loyalty to the country have melted into the blood of every member of the nation and its citizens. For a long time, people had little knowledge of the larger community beyond their own nation and country, which would appear only in mythology and imagination. But globalization has begun to turn what was once a distant fantasy into daily reality. Numerous events, issues, and phenomena show that the world is a whole and mankind is becoming a new subject, different from individuals and groups. It is in this sense that we say that global consciousness is the inevitable product of globalization and global issues, because globalization and global issues show the universality, integrity, and the profundity of internal links, which require a new way of thinking to understand the contemporary world. This way of thinking is global consciousness. A more precise definition can be expressed as follows: Global consciousness refers to a way of thinking that transcends the differences between social systems and ideologies, overcomes the limitations of the interests of national states and groups, and inspects and understands social life and historical phenomena from a global perspective on the basis of recognition of the common interests of the international community and the commonality of human cultural phenomena.5 It can be seen that global consciousness has two core elements: (1) Recognize the commonality of human social life (common interests and common culture are manifestations of the commonality of social life). Individuality and commonality, particularity and universality are not only eternal subjects of philosophical research but also questions to be faced and answered in real life. Over the centuries, real life has shown more individuality and particularity to people, thus forging the concept and complex of nationality, locality, class nature, and nationalism. Contemporary globalization has begun to show the commonality of human social life, thus giving birth to the concept of global consciousness and globalism. Obviously, denying the commonality of human life leaves global consciousness as nonsense. (2) Acknowledge that mankind is a new independent subject. Consciousness does have its subject. Individuals and nation-states are the subject of consciousness that people are familiar with. But human beings are beyond people’s vision. It seems that human beings are just individuals, especially the aggregation of such groups as nation and countries, where it is difficult to have independent subject value and significance. Similarly, contemporary

Introduction  17 globalization has brought the long-term vague or generalized concept of human beings to the forefront of people’s imagination again, requiring people to rationally examine and identify the independent subject value of human. Without understanding and recognizing the new subject of human beings, it is not possible to discuss global consciousness. The significance of global consciousness to contemporary social life is self-evident. It reflects and strengthens the integrity and commonality of mankind and the earth. It reveals the problems, contents and significance of human social life, and from another side, balances the narrow thinking and concepts created by geopolitics and nationalism, and restricts contemporary international relations to a great extent. Due to the lack of adequate preparation and understanding for the transformation of contemporary human society and the perplexity of new international relations phenomena, global consciousness plays an important role in explaining confusion, raising awareness, creating a more peaceful international environment and promoting the normal development of international relations. Cooperation consciousness is the second consciousness highlighted by globalization. Cooperation and the general sense of cooperation themselves are not unfamiliar to people, because in real life, cooperation between different subjects is always needed. In a sense, cooperation and its corresponding consciousness is a necessary element of social life for social beings. However, here we are talking about the cooperation consciousness in international relations, that is, international cooperation consciousness. To sum up, international cooperation can be defined as: “coordination actions that the actors of international relations take, aiming at their common interests at the policy and action levels”.6 Thus, international cooperation requires recognition of common interests firstly, and mutual coordination secondly. Without those two points, there can be no international cooperation. For a long time, because individual outlooks have mainly been confined to national and ethnic interests while believing in and following the logic of realism when it comes to international relations, many do not recognize or believe that the international community has common interests. Many believe that rational states are in a state of anarchy and can only strive for interests and security in accordance with the principle of self-help, therefore believing that there can be no real international cooperation to achieve winwin or multi-win results. What exists can only be the struggle for interests and power. Although there are many cases of international cooperation, in reality, generally speaking, before the 1960s and 1970s, international cooperation was limited and unstable, often affected by emergencies. Contemporary globalization provides a new historical condition for international cooperation, and interdependence objectively promotes the deepening of international cooperation. As mentioned earlier, it is in the context of globalization that the interdependent international community is increasingly highlighting the common interests of mankind, and requires people to learn to talk to and respect each other, to coordinate global public policies in

18  Tuo Cai dialogue and communication, and to achieve the overall progress of mankind. In fact, without cooperation, there would be no harmony and development in the world or even an effective realization of national interests. Cooperation consciousness is the necessary consciousness of contemporary human beings. Of course, contradictions, dialogues, and struggles have not disappeared in international relations, but the dominant tendency of the world today requires dialogue and cooperation. We must have a clear understanding of this historical transformation. Consciousness of seeking common ground, while reserving differences and coexistence in competition, is the third consciousness highlighted by globalization, and it is closely related to international cooperation. The so-called consciousness of seeking common ground while reserving differences and coexistence in competition means a way of thinking that urges different nationalities, countries, political groups and social organizations to respect each other, to talk with each other, and to deal with differences in a peaceful and civilized manner, while competing using frank communication and long-term coexistence on the basis of recognizing the diversity of social systems, ideologies, value orientations, economic modes, cultural traditions and national characteristics.7 First, consciousness of seeking common ground while reserving differences and coexistence in competition are the objective requirements of globalization and interdependence. On the one hand, interdependence creates conditions for development and brings vulnerability. If the actors of international relations lack foresight, sincerity and understanding, and are not good at making necessary compromises, the contradictions and conflicts between them will be difficult to resolve and even bring disaster. Secondly, consciousness of seeking common ground while reserving differences and coexistence in competition takes the existence of different social systems and different types of countries in the contemporary international community as necessary conditions. This reality requires all countries to recognize others and learn to seek common ground. Because emotional factors are not helpful, rational dialogue and coexistence are the only options that can benefit all parties. Consciousness of seeking common ground while reserving differences and coexistence in competition includes the following three key aspects: (1)  changing antagonistic political thinking, (2) learning to compromise, and (3) basing actions on the common goal of development instead of eliminating opponents. If these three points are clarified, then we will treat heterogeneous civilizations and cultures with a peaceful attitude. In the process of dialogue, coexistence, and competition, we will not only achieve our own development but also promote the common development of mankind. Global value is relative to the familiar local value, class value, ethnic value and national value. Like global consciousness, the subject of global

Introduction  19 values has transformed from family, village, community, class, nation and state to the whole human race. In other words, Concern for value and ethical norms have been upgraded from family, local, and regional to global level. This is globalization’s great impact and change in terms of values and ethics. Global values are also called universal values because they are applicable to all mankind and the whole world. Nowadays, global values have been reflected in every field of social life: in bottom-line ethics (such as not to commit adultery, steal, and impose on others what you do not want); the increasingly emphasized earth ethics of treating nature kindly, respecting nature, protecting ecology and environment; safeguarding human rights, freedom, and democracy; recognizing and implementing sustainable development; respecting the rule of law; safeguarding fairness and justice; cultural pluralism and the principle of independent development, and so on. These values, rules, and concepts are universal, which requires people to understand beyond the traditional and customary values and ethics of ethnic and national centralism. We should pay attention to: (1) Global values are not the value system that a central or dominant country, who claims to be human leaders, imposes on the rest of the world, but the values that have been proven meaningful and recognized by people in the course of human civilization development, regardless of which country, nationality or region they originated. (2) Global values and local, ethnic and national values are not simply confrontational or substitutive relationships, but the relationship and process of mutual recognition, infiltration, coexistence, and even integration in the interaction. Paying attention to the interaction between them is the key. (3) Global values in the form of expression and practical pathways will inevitably reflect the local characteristics, that is, the so-called localization of globalization. We should pay attention to studying the global values and ethics of localization. Only by clarifying and dealing with the above three issues can we disregard the meaningless controversy and confusion over global values and universal values in contemporary human society and bravely support global values and ethics. Globalization highlights global citizenship and individual rights The fifth epochal significance of globalization is that globalization highlights individual global citizenship and rights. As we all know, citizens and their citizenship relate to the theory about the relationship between individuals and political communities, and more specifically, in a national state, how citizens’ rights, obligations, responsibilities and participation are embodied and guaranteed. Therefore, it has always been one of the central concerns of political science. Nowadays, citizenship not only remains the focus of attention but also has taken on a new meaning and extension. The key point of citizenship is to expand from nation-states to the world, and thus put forward a new concept of global citizenship.8

20  Tuo Cai Who is a “global citizen”? Hakan Altinay, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution and a Turkish scholar, points out in his new book that given how interdependent our lives have become on this planet, we cannot avoid some sort of concerted effort to address both our responsibilities to each other on this Earth and our rights as members of the world community. Such responsibilities and rights would constitute the core issues of a global civics.9 Held, who advocates cosmopolitan democracy, repeatedly stresses the idea of “multilevel citizenship”. He theorizes that “there is only an historically contingent connection between the principles underpinning citizenship and the national community; as this connection weakens in a world of overlapping communities of fate, the principles of citizenship must be rearticulated and re-entrenched”.10 These principles include human rights, democracy, equality, responsibility, social justice, freedom, and autonomy, with their vision and focus being no longer countries, but the whole world. Thus, global citizenship refers to the responsibilities, obligations, rights and participation established in the world community beyond the state. In other words, contemporary human beings are not only facing the rights and responsibilities of individuals at the national level, but also responding to the issues of individual rights and responsibilities at the global level raised in the era of globalization. Global issues such as global poverty and inequality, environmental pollution, ecological imbalance, human rights, drugs, AIDS, and terrorism require all people to put aside their unrelated indifference, overcome the difficulties of cross-border management, and actively take action to establish an effective global system and global order. This is the sense of duty and moral obligation consciousness that global citizens should have. Their specific actions become the practice of global citizenship. Nowadays, the global social activities carried out by global civil society are powerful evidence that global citizenship is increasingly understood, accepted and translated into practice. A growing number of citizens are serving in international organizations such as the United Nations, which is serving the global public interests and thus becoming truly global citizens. In fact, the constant change of individual identity is reflected not only in the field of public politics mentioned above but also in the daily private life of the living. Individual life is no longer restricted by region, not a specific and residential life, but a life shaped on the basis of mass media in cars, airplanes, trains, networks or next to telephones. That’s a transnational life. As German scholar Beck said, the multiple locations or transnationality of individual biographies, the globalization of personal life, is a performance of globality that challenges the nation-state.11 In addition, the phenomenon of the globalization of personal life also occurs in a wide range of consumer fields. Obviously, the identity issues brought about by globalization are

Introduction  21 plaguing contemporary human beings, and whether in the public or private domain, people need to reposition themselves within a global scale. Of course, the relationship between global citizenship and national citizenship (or discuss global identity and individual identity in the sense of breaking through the boundaries between public and private domains) is not mutually exclusive and alternative. They are complementary. The multilevel and complexity of contemporary human social life requires people to participate in and manage various political communities in multiple identities. However, the existing democracy and citizenship, which are rooted in the national state system, are obviously limited. Therefore, it is necessary to build new democratic mechanisms and citizenship at the local, regional, and global levels, and form a chain with the traditional national democracy to jointly govern human public life. Habermas pointed out in the 1990s: “Only a democratic citizenship that does not close itself off in a particularistic fashion can pave the way for a world citizenship,… State citizenship and world citizenship form a continuum whose contours, at least, are already becoming visible”.12 EU citizenship is a new example. Citizens of EU member countries possess both their own country’s and EU citizenship, which is a new form of “super-state” citizenship practice. It is noteworthy that it is not based on the attribution of territory and cultural affinity, but on the rights and values of civil society, that is, the identification and maintenance of human rights. Individual rights are not new concepts. Since modern times, under the advocacy and promotion of liberalism, the supremacy of individual rights and the protection of individual rights by the state have been the dominant tendencies in the western political process. The three major rights of citizens, namely, civil rights, political rights, and social rights, have been substantially improved and guaranteed. So, what is the significance of individual rights in the context of globalization? First, individual rights breaking through the framework of citizenship go to the framework of human rights. The three rights emphasized by traditional individual rights frameworks are the rights of national citizens, which are the rights enjoyed by individuals with citizenship in the national state system. Individual rights in the era of globalization are human rights guaranteed and enjoyed worldwide – breaking through national boundaries. Human rights not only cover the above three civil rights but also include new contents such as environmental rights, gender rights, racial rights, cultural rights, and the right to peace. More importantly, it removes the distinction of civil rights being embedded in a particular nation-state and advocates human rights as universal rights, so that individual rights can be better maintained in the new era. Secondly, individual rights are the cells that construct new global politics, global order, and global community. An interesting phenomenon in the political process of mankind since modern times is that with the prevalence of liberalism and the protection of individual rights, the role and status of the state has undergone two different dimensions of change. In the early days of the bourgeois

22  Tuo Cai revolution and the founding of capitalist countries, the state was criticized and prevented because of the need to oppose the feudal states and develop capitalism. The leading point of politics is to restrict state power and protect individual’s right of freedom. Obviously, this is consistent with the liberal tone. However, since the 20th century, with the consolidation of the capitalist system, as well as various new problems encountered in the development, within the constitutional framework, the state’s management function and power are expanding, or even inflating. Keynesianism and the implementation of welfare doctrine are the concentrated reflection of that. Thus, in the 20th century, we can see a paradox that the individual rights advocated by liberalism coexist with the unprecedented strengthening of the role and function of the nation-state. Globalization has amplified this paradox, highlighting many problems and challenges. Therefore, since the 1970s, the voice of liberalism has become increasingly strong, and the pursuit and protection of individual rights have become more prominent with the help of the new trend of safeguarding human rights. More importantly, globalization has highlighted the limitations of territorial states, and the familiar politics among nations, the Westphalian international system and the international order are no longer adequate to adapt to the reality of human social life. In order to realize the management of human public affairs, which breaks through the domestic and international boundaries and unfolds at the global level, it is necessary to build a new political community and a new political order based on individuals rather than countries. The state is not obsolete, but it can no longer cope with and manage the increasingly complex public affairs alone. It requires the participation of local communities, regional and global communities, and various INGOs. However, no matter what kind of community, whether it is local governance, national governance, or global governance, its political legitimacy stems from the choice and participation of individuals with individual rights, and binding laws and systems are formed through contracts. Only because of the continuous institutionalization and strengthening of the state system in modern times, people are accustomed to consider society on the basis of the state, thus obscuring the basic status of individuals as the cells of human social life. In this sense, globalization’s emphasis on individual rights is merely restoring its true nature.

Anti-globalization phenomenon and its reflection Who are against anti-globalization? Anti-globalization is accompanied by the development of globalization. Because of its small scale, weak voice, and scattered power, it has not attracted the attention of the world. However, with the increasing contradictions and drawbacks in the process of globalization, anti-globalization forces have finally come together and will continue to have an impact that cannot be ignored.

Introduction  23 Who is against globalization? The components and forces of antiglobalization are not as simple as most people imagine. Different countries and strata, as well as different ideological tendencies and value pursuits may join the ranks of anti-globalization based on their own special interests and perspectives. From the present point of view, the components and forces of anti-globalization are as follows: There are a number of developing countries, especially those marginalized or negatively impacted by globalization. These countries either have never benefited from globalization or their national interests have been greatly damaged. There are those strata and people whose interests have been damaged in developed countries, mainly workers in traditional industrial sectors. Because globalization leads to the global flow of factors of production, part of the capital in developed countries will turn to developing countries with low labor prices, thus threatening the employment and welfare of workers in traditional industrial sectors in developed countries. There are some politicians in developed countries and “mid-left-wing” leaders. The reason why they oppose globalization is also that the employment and welfare of developed countries are threatened by globalization, which leads to economic development blocked and social instability aggravated. Contrary to the view of the developing countries, they believe that globalization benefits only the developing countries, while the developed countries suffer. There are global environmental protection movements and organizations. In the view of environmentalists, globalization makes capital flow everywhere, giving privileges to TNCs. The globalization of capital and TNCs will only lead to the one-sided pursuit of economic benefits, while the global environmental situation is deteriorating. There are the traditional Marxists and activists who take a critical attitude towards capitalism. To these people, the current globalization is the globalization of capitalism, or even the globalization of the US. Therefore, they must expose and criticize the essence of globalization and boycott the practice of globalization. There are extreme nationalists. After the end of the Cold War, the thought and movement of global nationalism is expanding, among which the extreme nationalists are more outspoken in expressing their criticism and abandonment of globalization. For example, French far-right party “National Front” leader Le Pen in the 2002 presidential election made it clear that he would lead the country to leave the EU 100 days after being elected president, and he would strengthen the national character of France and go against social and cultural diversity. This trend of thought is increasing in popularity in Europe. A survey showed that in Europe as a whole, self-proclaimed “thorough racists” accounted for 9% of the total population, and another 24% thought they “could be called racists”. There are reasonable social elites and intellectuals, including social activists, leaders of civil society organizations, and academic celebrities. In fact,

24  Tuo Cai these people can be somewhat mixed with the “mid-left-wing” leaders of the developed countries mentioned earlier, traditional Marxists and activists, and they are even hard to be distinguished from skeptics. But after all, they have their own specific perspective when they question and oppose globalization. These rational social elites and intellectuals emphasize the need to go beyond demonstrations and mass protests, reveal the drawbacks of the reality of globalization through intellectual and rational analysis, and seek concrete and feasible alternatives. In this regard, the World Social Forum, which came out in 2001, is a well-deserved representative. The slogan of the world conference, which was attended by civil society and social movements, was “Another World is Possible”. Its charter clearly indicates the forum is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and linking up for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neoliberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a global society of fruitful relationships among human beings and between humans and the Earth.13 It is not difficult to find that anti-globalization has a wide range of components and forces. Even in countries benefiting from globalization, there will be social classes and groups that are dissatisfied with globalization. So, it is not appropriate to simply say that the dominant force against globalization is the vast number of developing countries, and things are much more complicated than that. This clarification is beneficial for us to fully understand globalization and anti-globalization. The root of anti-globalization phenomenon Why is there such a widespread phenomenon of anti-globalization? When conducting a multi-angle and multi-level analysis, in a comprehensive way, the following three reasons are most representative. Globalization has led to an increase in global injustice and inequality. First of all, globalization has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. For example, the poorest population accounted for about 2.3% of world gross income in 1960, compared with 1.1% today. The gap between per capita GDP in developed and developing countries has increased from 43 times in 1983 to more than 60 times at present. While the gap between the North and the South is widening, the gap between the rich and the poor is even more disparate. In the US, for example, in the Kennedy era, a senior American manager earned 44 times as much as an average worker, and today an overseas manager earned 326 times as much as an average worker. One reason for the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 is that the richest 5% of Americans own 72% of the nation’s wealth. Secondly, globalization gives more power to capital and entrepreneurs,

Introduction  25 and people’s employment and welfare are damaged to varying degrees. Facing the cruel competition of market and capital, workers are not only forced to lower their wages, but also threatened by unemployment. The unemployment rate in the core countries of the economic cooperation organization is often maintained at 10% or even higher. Many developed countries are forced to pursue more favorable policies for entrepreneurs under competitive pressures, such as reducing the annual average tax rate on corporate profits and reducing social welfare. For example, the German social welfare system cut 130 times between 1982 and 1997, and the annual tax rate on corporate profits fell from 33.69% in 1980 to 15% in 1996. Obviously, this policy change has led to the loss of the interests of ordinary people and exacerbated social instability. It is precisely to protest the aggravation of global injustice and inequality, to achieve global justice and to safeguard the legitimate interests of the people that the global anti-globalization movement has emerged, aiming to oppose the globalization of capital and corporations. Globalization has led to the deterioration of the global environment. Global environmentalists believe that since the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, the global environmental situation has deteriorated rather than fundamentally improved. The reason for this is that, in addition to reflecting the environmental awareness and environmental policies of governments, the culprit is the operation of global TNCs. Because TNCs believe in the principle of omnipotence of competition and efficiency first, in their eyes, there are only economic efficiency and profits, which will inevitably lead to quick success and instant benefit, ignoring environmental protection. In a sense, the process of globalization is the process of global flow of global capital and corporations, and the process of further deterioration of the global environment. In view of this, global environmentalists clearly oppose the economic globalization led by Neo-liberalism. Globalization has led to global capitalization and Americanization. Because the current globalization is dominated by the Western developed countries and guided by Neo-liberalism, traditional Marxists and socialists define it as the globalization of capitalism, or the global expansion of capitalism in the new era, realizing global capitalism for the first time, which has been given sharp disclosure, criticism, and opposition. Global nationalists, especially extremist nationalists, resist globalization from the point of view of opposing American domination and Americanization. In their view, the current globalization is essentially dominated and controlled by the US, and it takes the interests, values, and patterns of the US as the criteria, and the result is the Americanization of the world, which is absolutely unacceptable to them. Reflection on anti-globalization phenomenon The anti-globalization phenomenon has aroused much reflection on globalization. Regardless of whether it is rational criticism or irrational emotional

26  Tuo Cai catharsis, the anti-globalization movement reveals various problems in the process of globalization with its unique perspective and distinct point of view, which has enlightening significance for overcoming the shortcomings of globalization. This revelation is embodied in three aspects. First is how to overcome injustice and inequality in the process of globalization and make it more “humanized”. Globalization, of course, has its objectivity and historical rationality, but in an era when human rights are increasingly valued by the international community, if globalization fails to safeguard human dignity and the fundamental rights of survival, and on the contrary, even creates new gaps, privileges, and inequalities, then such globalization will inevitably fail. Second is how to effectively regulate TNCs, so that their business activities pay more attention to human environmental protection in order to prevent environmental degradation. As a special actor, TNCs not only pursue their own special interests but also have their own special modes of behavior. In the era of capital globalization, TNCs become the carrier of globalization. Only by limiting the special interests of TNCs and effectively supervising the behavior of TNCs, can the deterioration of human environment be contained. Third is how to strengthen global governance and promote participation in globalization. Up to now, the globalization is more reflected in the globalization of the elite. The economic, political, and social elite of the world are traveling around the world, which determines the content of globalization and promotes the implementation of globalization. The anti-globalization movement shows that broad masses of people and social forces are concerned about globalization and can disrupt it in various ways. The complexity of globalization calls for the mobilization of global participation in global governance, which in itself helps to overcome the global democratic deficit and promote the democratization of international relations. It is obvious that the international community’s reflection on globalization caused by anti-globalization phenomenon has positive significance. In other words, it is precisely because of the warning and promotion of the anti-globalization movement that the international community pays more attention to the injustice and irrationality in the process of globalization and the resulting international disharmony, thus contributing to the construction of a more harmonious world. But anti-globalization rhetoric and behavior also shows that this movement is far from mature, even accompanied by irrational thinking and behavior. For example, the role of existing international organizations and regimes, such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO, is totally denied, and they are denounced as tools of capitalism. There are extreme nationalist sentiments. There is unquestionable and absolute sovereignty. There are opinions and policies limited by special interests and special angles, and so on. In addition, as non-governmental forces and organizations, the question arises as to how to improve their own construction in order to play positive rather than destructive role. Most importantly, the anti-globalization movement should make it clear that it opposes the disadvantages of globalization,

Introduction  27 not globalization itself. There are still vague ideas on this issue. The emergence of anti-globalization does not mean a total negation of globalization. Similarly, the objectivity and rationality of globalization is by no means equal to rejecting the enlightenment and positive role of anti-globalization. Correcting the drawbacks and shortcomings in the process of globalization through the anti-globalization movement and making it develop healthily for the benefit of mankind as a whole, is the correct understanding and choice, as well as the rational evaluation of globalization and anti-globalization.

Notes



1

Global process Yunfang Wang

Under the background of globalization, the core contents of the global process research are how to deal with the relationship between globality, integrity, and commonality and stateness, nationality, locality, particularity, and diversity in contemporary human social life; how to reveal the contradictions, conflicts, and imbalances that will inevitably arise and be experienced in the all-round transformation of human society in the process of globalization; how to realize the running-in, co-existence, and balance of the subjects, phenomenon, systems, and values that represent the tradition and the new quality in the process of globalization.

The proposal of the global process For “globalization”, which is the most commonly used term, there are also various other equivalent expressions used such as “globality”, “globalism”, “global era”, and “global”. These terms are newly used to label global perspectives, global styles, global strategies, global forces, global interests, and global values.1 Among these terms, the only phrase that is missing is “Globalization Process”. However, it is undeniable that the “-ization” suffix indicates that globalization is a process, a process of change. Therefore, in the framework of the discipline of the global studies, we must solemnly put forward the conceptual framework of the global process, explore the characteristics of the global process, analyze contradictions and conflicts in the global process, and reflect the perplexity and deficiency in the global process, in order to highlight the true panorama of globalization. Globalization and global process The “global process” highlights the “globalization” process and its track of historical development, and first we need to clarify exactly when the global process originates. In this regard, scholars have different views. Table 1.1 categorizes the views of several scholars in chronological order so that we can clearly see the historical process of globalization.

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-2

Global process  29 Table 1.1 Globalization timetable Author

Start (year)

Theme

Karl Marx Wallerstein Robertson Giddens Tomlinson

1500 1500 1500, 1870–1920 1800 1960

Modern capitalism Modern world system Multi-dimension Modernity Cultural globalization

Source: Quoted from Wang Jun and other editors: Nationalism and International Relations, Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 212.

At the same time as the above arguments are being debated, David Held, a British scholar, has created a comprehensive description of globalization through what he terms a globalization typology. He thinks that there is an unmatched qualitative difference between contemporary globalization after 1945 and globalization in different periods, such as pre-modern, early modern, and modern times. Contemporary globalization, which began in 1945, is the result of a qualitative change after the accumulation of a quantity of historical globalization.2 Thus, it can be seen that although the process of globalization is diachronic and historically continuous, only after entering the era of globalization, “the clarity, persistence, perception of globalization has reached unprecedented heights”.3 Therefore, when this chapter considers the “global process”, it is mainly referring to the contemporary globalization process after the 1960s and 1970s. It needs to be noted that in this process of contemporary globalization, not only is there a basic nation-state system, but also a multilateral, regional, or global system controlled and governed on the basis of Western hegemony.4 Therefore, contemporary globalization is bound to be an unbalanced historical process, and we therefore must focus on the contradictions, conflicts, and imbalances in this process. These contradictions and conflicts are the core of global change and regulation. The connotation of the global process When we explore the global process itself as a research object, most of the theoretical schools of globalization neither deny the process of globalization nor ignore the process dimension of globalization. Albrow thinks that the word “globalization” is used in various ways, and sometimes it is used to refer to a complex set of social changes that span the historical era.5 In the latter sense, globalization means a process of comprehensive historical change. Held points out that “globalization is best understood as a process or a group of processes, not a single state”.6 Giddens thinks that globalization is similar to a “structured” process because it is not only the result of individual action but also the result of the cumulative interaction between countless agents and systems around the world.7 Prakash and Hart also

30  Yunfang Wang believe that globalization is a series of integration processes that lead to intermediates, factors, and product markets across geographical boundaries.8 Thus, it can be seen that when the above scholars expound globalization, they all pay close attention to the course of globalization. And the global process is an objective experience of the course of globalization. To some extent, the two have consistency, which means that globalization is regarded as a procedure or a process. In the premise of affirming the rationality of the global process, what is the essence of the global process? It is still a controversial issue. The root of this issue is that the different globalization theory factions take totally different approaches in understanding the final development trend (forward or backward?) and the result (positive or negative?) of the global process. In fact, from the literal meaning of the term “global process”, the “process” in modern Chinese means “the course of changing or proceeding”. Compared with “course”, the term “process” is focused more on the speed of the situation and emphasizes specific operational things that develop in a more positive way, but at the same time, the contradictions in the process should not be ignored. For this reason, the implication of the term “global process” is that, in the long run, the trend of globalization is positive and progressive. However, the fact of the process of globalization shows that in reality, it is far more complex and changeable than first thought. The trend of progress does not mean that there is no anti-globalization in the near future, and positive influence does not guarantee the existence of negative factors. For the global process, there is no inherent logic to show that certain consequences are bound to prevail. The global process itself is uncertain and vague. Therefore, in the debate on different issues related to the global process, we cannot avoid the inherent uncertainty and diversity. We can only describe the progress or retrogression of the global process in an objective way. In brief, because the connotation of the global process is uncertain and vague, we can only simply define the global process as follows: in the context of globalization, on the basis of the game of the relations between globalism and nationalism, (the global process is) an objective process in which different fields of the world show different states at different times. The global process is positive and progressive in the long run; however, we cannot deny that the phenomenon of anti-globalization and the conflicts that arise in the short term.

Characteristics of the global process Just as we cannot escape the shadow of globalization, we cannot avoid the objective global process. This not only means that we are all in the “global process” and we are all being “globalized”, but also means that we are all in the same process of globalization. Therefore, there is no question of being “for or against” globalization, but only whether the social and economic state before we are “globalized” and initiatives taken to participate in or

Global process  31 change the globalization adapt to the global process itself. Whether human society accepts globalization or reforms it, and whether scholars researching globalization are in favor of globalization or against it, the global process is constantly presenting its dynamics and complexity with an objective development trend beyond the will of human beings. The dynamics of the global process From the literal meaning, the word “process” has a strong dynamic character. From the macro, middle, and micro perspectives, the present global process is presented as a dynamic running state. From a macro perspective, the basic, general, and universal trend of globalization is a normal forward development. Theoretically, this development process may include both coordinated and rapid development and uncoordinated and slow development, and there may also be the phenomenon of extremely slow development, stagnation, or even temporary retrogression and reversal. Especially at present, the global process presents a trend of accelerating development. At the same time, various inequities, injustices, and anti-globalization phenomenon in the global process may have temporarily blocked the global process, making it stagnant in a short period of time. But there is no possibility of termination of the global process, and the global process is irreversible. From the middle-level perspective, the global process is dynamic because the rules are constantly being promulgated and strengthened, so the concept of nation tends to be consistent. In this dynamic process, although production and consumption have become increasingly global, the legal rules and enforcement mechanisms still affect the global process to a large extent. The unification of rules, laws, and concepts, which are shaped by the global process, makes the dynamic process of the global process work smoothly. The formation of international counter-terrorism efforts is a good example. From the micro perspective, the global process is dynamic because it presents significant mobility at the individual level. Workers, tourists, students, businessmen, and so on are moving as individuals to maintain the micro flow of the global process. However, what cannot be ignored is that such mobility also leads to the emergence of various problems. From the individual level, on the surface, the global world that allows people to cross borders freely to buy goods and services is not what people want. Various visa barriers and tariff barriers create a high wall to limit the free movement of people. From the national level, in the 1990s, the rising tide of global immigrants, refugees, political asylum seekers, and tourists and the growing tide of global information, film, and television products have also led to the growth of a variety of “post-nation” or “mobile” citizenship and rights issues. In summary, the global process itself is dynamic. Regardless of the motivation and consequences of this dynamic process, it is undeniable that this process is inevitable and beyond the will of the individual or the state.

32  Yunfang Wang The complexity of the global process Contemporary globalization is the uncertain stage of the global process.9 In the uncertain stage, society is increasingly facing cross-cultural and multi-ethnic situations, and individual concepts become more complex due to gender, ethnicity, and race factors. The global process is beginning to present itself as a complex process and system. First, the global process itself is a complex and multidimensional world system. According to Jan Nederveen Pieterse, globalization is not a single process but a combination of many processes, so we should look at globalization as a plural.10 Most of these processes are at different latitudes of globalization. According to the classification of Malcolm Waters, globalization is reflected in three fields of human life, namely, economic, political, and cultural fields.11 In the book Global Transformations, the scope of globalization is more extensive, including political globalization, military globalization, trade globalization, financial globalization, production globalization (transnational corporations), migration globalization, cultural globalization, and environmental globalization.12 Ulrich Beck, another expert in the study of globalization, also believes that g lobalization has largely opened up a three-dimensional social picture of politics, economy, and society.13 In opposition to the above, views on “the end of globalization” simply regard globalization as an economic phenomenon, which presumes that the “recession” of globalization is clear from the stagnation of the world economic cycle. However, this view ignores a problem, which is the political, cultural, technological, environmental, and military dimensions of globalization. It is precisely these dimensions that add to its complexity.14 Thus, as it can be seen, the multiple dimensions of globalization make the global process itself a complex world system. Although economic globalization is the main content of the overall process of globalization, it is undeniable that the political, cultural, environmental, and other aspects also affect the operation of the global process in different forms, different degrees, and different results. Secondly, the global process is a complex process of synchronicity, concurrency, and independence. This can be seen at two points. First, the global process is not only independent but also concurrent. In other words, processes in several different fields can be included in the same global process, and processes in different fields are run concurrently. Different processes are formed in different fields, and the process in each field is a basic unit that can operate independently and it is also an independent unit for the distribution of resources and interactive cooperation of the global system. Under the coexistence of independence and concurrency, the global process itself involves complex dynamic connections among different fields of the global system. This makes the dynamic development process of the global process not only show the change curve of independent dynamic development, but there also exist several different dynamic development patterns in different fields for quite a long period of time. Therefore, different global bodies, the changes in the state of the global

Global process  33 processes in different fields and the mutual constraints between them, also affect the global process to some extent. In fact, it is precisely because of the imbalance of global processes in different fields that the contradictions, conflicts, and games in the global process are becoming more frequent. Secondly, the global process is a process of synchronicity. That is to say, different fields can be represented in different states at the same time, such as global stagnation, global development, and global operation. Because of the mutual constraints between different fields, the global process in different fields is discontinuous, that is, the process moves forward at its own independent and unpredictable speed. In addition, the global process is still a “process of implementation”. It is a dynamic concept that expresses not only the state of the global process in the past but also the state of the global process at present (the status quo), and it furthermore expresses the state of the global process in the future. In different states, as a heterozygous process, the most prominent aspect of globalization is the different degree of heterozygosity of social organizations in different fields and times. In some parts of the global economy, the functions of the nation-state have weakened, and the global organization mode has been greatly increased, while the global production mode has penetrated on a large scale. But in the other part of the global economy, global localization and ethnic identity have been enhanced, and tariff barriers have been strengthened. In summary, the complexity of the global process is regarded as an “interconnected complex system”. In this system, the causality is rarely linear, and the side effects and feedback effects of some actions are likely to offset or even override the original assumption, presenting a pluralist and multilayered system effect.15

Contradictions and conflicts in the global process In the book The World Is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman called the world market “the place of survival of the fittest”.16 In the state of “survival of the fittest”, the global process is actually a process full of Hobbes’s status. In this process, the deviation between globalization and nationalization, the hierarchical solidification of global flow, the game of global cultural homogenization and diversity, the question of the global new liberalism market model, and the gap between the rich and the poor formed by unfair global distribution are all unavoidable in the process of human society transformation. If we do not attach enough importance to the contradictions and imbalances of the global process, we will idealize it too much and, to a certain degree, distort it. Therefore, in the process of objectively displaying the global process, we focus on the various contradictions and conflicts in the global process. The game of globalism and nationalism in the global process The global process has its own purpose or development direction, with global justice and global values as the ultimate pursuit. However, as the relative

34  Yunfang Wang independence of the Chinese family and nation consistently resists the erosion of the forces of globalization, in the global process, the contradictions, conflicts, and games between nationalism and globalism are persistently highlighted. The deviation of the nation-state in the global process The process of globalization has greatly changed the main body, structure, and form of global governance, and has put forward a serious challenge to the traditional nation-state and national sovereignty, especially the sovereign state system of Westphalia, which was formed after the middle of the 17th century.17 Is the global process an opportunity or a disaster for the modern destiny of the nation and state? Different theories of globalization have different views on this issue. The view of the extreme globalists is that in this new era, the traditional nation-state has become inopportune, and it is even impossible for it to become a trade unit in the global economy. Globalization will eventually break through the framework of the nation-state and move towards the non-nationalization of the economy.18 Skeptics believe that the central position of the national government in controlling and actively promoting cross-border economic activities is increasingly important. In their view, the force of internationalization itself also depends on the conventional forces of the national government to ensure sustained economic liberalization. Therefore, it is a matter of priority to strengthen national governance capacity and the country’s competitiveness.19 The views of the theorists of change are dual, and although they believe that the political authority of the nation has fluctuated “upward” and “downward”, they do not doubt that the state is still legally entitled to the supreme power of all the things that have occurred in its territory. In fact, the restructuring of the powers, functions, and authority of the state government and the increasing judicial power of the international governance system, as well as the obligations of international law, exist simultaneously.20 From the above scholars’ different theories on the roles of the state in the global process, we can see that the views of the theorists of change are more objective. In fact, the force of globalization is partly outside the effective national regulatory control. In order to enhance the role and function of nations, they can only integrate the domestic economy into the world market more comprehensively to cope with the global process.21 In the context of the shift from a country-centered structure to a multipolar and politically decentralized world system, the global process is both a medium and a consequence.22 On the one hand, the global process is a medium for triggering the conflict between globalization and nations – it makes nations’ functions imperceptibly weakened under the pressure of globalization. On the other hand, the global process is the consequence of the conflict between globalization and nations. The consequence of the conflict has led to the continued reform and participation of nations, which further deepens the global

Global process  35 process. Certainly, as governments have put domestic issues above global growth, and the national interests are increasingly globalized, in the next few years, if the global process can bring complementary benefits to the East and the West, it may be widely accepted by various national actors. The boycott and affinity of nationalism in the global process As the word ‘global’ goes through a series of magnification with ‘-ism’, ‘-ity’, and ‘-ization’ as suffixes, the word ‘nation’ also extends a series of changes such as national, nationalism, nationality, and nationalization.23 The traditional view is that the global process has eroded the territorial space or emotional space of countries and nations. As David Held said, globalization involves socio-economic and deterritorialization of political space and reterritorialization, as it crosses political boundaries.24 In fact, in the global process, there is not only a nationalist boycott of the global process but also the possibility of a nationalist affinity for the global process. In this process of territorial and re-territorial solutions, there are not only the extreme nationalists (the fundamentalists of nationalism) constantly seeking new opportunities to achieve national separation, but also the resistance of local and domestic social forces to the global process. As far as the former is concerned, the national, ethnic, religious, and local political identification is the most important content. The best way for the minority nationalities to claim their rights or to get out of the control of the state is to use the opportunity of globalization, and to some extent, there exists an unexpected affinity between nationalism and the global process. As far as the latter is concerned, the global process does not necessarily mean the increase of the degree of globality and the corresponding decrease of the degree of locality. On the contrary, in the global process, globality may be localized in a variety of ways, for example, China’s McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken launching Chinese-style catering. Of course, on most occasions, this irrational impulse from exclusive national ethnocentrism and national emotion may drive people to boycott globality at any cost, and the media is constantly shaping the concept of nationalism in daily life. Therefore, with the development of the global process, people will become more “localized”25 instead. In this case, nationalism will directly or indirectly obstruct, destroy, or distort the global process. The unequal center-periphery relationship in the global process The unequal relation between center and periphery in the global process is often the focus of attention for people who oppose or resist globalization. Many wonder whether the global process is the expansion of a Western-centered world system. The general view is that in the course of the history of world civilization, the early stage of globalization was accompanied by the development of capitalist colonies. The result of this process is the emergence of

36  Yunfang Wang a large number of Third World Countries and the global division into two worlds: one is the dominant colonial power, and the other is the appendage of colonialism in the exploited status. It is under the premise that the dominant center of colonial power and the dependent peripheral regions have formed an unequal relationship, which is increasingly creating a more inequitable and unjust world of rich and poor with North-South confrontation.26 However, in the contemporary global network, the unequal centerperiphery relationship exists in the global process. But the old boundary of “center” and “periphery” is not clear and definite. In fact, this kind of boundary is increasingly blurred and constantly moving. Andre Frank and Samir Amin’s description of “center-periphery” and Immanuel Wallerstein’s description of the world system seem to be more suitable for the old Neo-colonial trading system, rather than today’s current global system. If we look at the global process in a more objective way, we can interrogate the truth of the globally unequal center-periphery relationship. Will the global process make the rich countries richer and poor ones poorer? Is the phenomenon of peripherization and dependence increasing with the progress of the global process? Does the fact that rich people and rich countries have seized more resources with faster development speed than other countries lead to the continued increase in the gap between the rich and the poor? In the long run, who can benefit from globalization? Data from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) show that the ratio of average income in the most affluent countries to the average income of the poorest countries is increasing, and the absolute gap between the living standards of high-income countries and most developing countries is also increasing.27 Therefore, most of the scholars researching globalization hold the attitude that the global process has exacerbated the imbalance in the economic development of countries and created new rich and poor international classes. However, many scholars believe that the global process has improved the economic situation of most people in the world. For example, the Swedish scholar Johan Norberg believes that the concept of global inequality is largely based on the data of the UNDP, which are not adjusted according to the actual purchasing power of each country. In fact, inequality between countries has been reduced since the end of the 1970s. During the period from 1993 to 1998, the speed of inequality reduction was particularly faster, and the process of globalization was also accelerating.28 On the contrary, inequality within the poorest countries far exceeds the gap between wealthy and poor countries (see Figure 1.1). The next question is if the unequal center-periphery relationship is not as serious as many scholars think, what should we attribute this kind of obscure unequal center-periphery relationship to? Around this issue, the vast majority of the scholars researching globalization have paid attention to the relationship between globalization and the Neo-liberalism economic system, which has generated a lot of debate. Scholars in favor of globalization believe that this kind of free trade promotes global economic development and human welfare. Therefore, not

Global process  37

Average index 35

32.49

30 25

20.07

20 15.67

15

14.37 12.41

10 5 0 5 (least free)

4

3

2

1 (most free)

Figure 1.1 The inequality between the rich and the poor in the poorest countries is serious.29 Source: Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, Translated by Yao Zhongqiu and Chen Haiwei, Social Sciences Literature Press, 2008, p. 63.

Percentage of poor and UN poverty indicators 40

36.62

35

31.82

30 25

21.79

20

17.17

15

14.60

10 5 0 5 (least free)

4

3

2

1 (most free)

Figure 1.2 Neo-liberal economic policies reduce poverty.30 Source: Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, Translated by Yao Zhongqiu and Chen Haiwei, Social Sciences Literature Press, 2008, p. 70.

only does the current center-periphery relationship have nothing to do with Neo-liberal economic policy but the smaller the interference from states to this economic mode, the better31 (see Figure 1.2). Researchers such as British scholar Martin Wolf and Swedish scholar Norberg all attribute the

38  Yunfang Wang

GDP growth rate 6

5

5 4 3

1.9

2 1 0 -1 -2

Industrialized country

-1.1 Countries that reject globalization

Countries that practice globalization after the 1980s

Figure 1.3 Countries that reject globalization have low economic growth rates.32 20世纪 80 年代后实行全球化的国家: Countries that practice globalization

after the 1980s. Source: Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, Translated by Yao Zhongqiu and Chen Haiwei, Social Sciences Literature Press, 2008, p. 105.

emergence of the unequal center-periphery relationship to these countries’ low participation in globalization, and their ideas and behavior have brewed the bitter fruit of today (see Figure 1.3). The scholars arguing against globalization believe that the rules of globalization are formulated by developed countries, but those developed countries have formulated these rules according to their own interests, and the economic globalization has surpassed the political globalization.33 The obvious disharmony between the development of human society and the natural resources and environment should therefore be attributed to the Western developed countries and Neo-liberal economic policy. Researchers like French scholar Romo and American scholar Stiglitz believe that under the guidance of Neo-liberal economic policy, the global society has been integrated and divided.34 These two opposite views depict the complexity and imbalances of the global process itself, but there is no clear answer as to whether Neo-liberal economic policies necessarily cause an unequal center-periphery relationship.35 When it comes to the unequal center-periphery relationship issue in the global process, because of its complexity, although the Neo-liberal market model of capitalism to some extent has led to the formation of the global unequal center-periphery relationship, the global process is also reforming the market model of capitalism. The contemporary global process is being reconstructed through continuous gaming. In fact, when analyzing the historical development of capitalism, even Wallerstein, the founder

Global process  39 of the world system theory also expresses that capitalism, as a world system that assimilates the whole world, has finally lost its coherence when switching among three states of center, periphery, and para-periphery.36 This shows that to a certain extent, we can think of it this way: the global process is not a single process influenced only by capitalism or the capitalist economic mode, but a cycle process of interaction between globalization and capitalism. The capitalist economic model has influenced or shaped the global process, and the global process has also caused the capitalist free economic structure to inevitably split up on a large scale, thus forming an unbalanced relationship within capitalist countries. The pluralist state of value orientation in the global process The impact of the contemporary global process on the field of cultural values is huge. In the past, cultural exchanges between different social groups were very limited, and lasting cultural interaction had two main motive forces: one is war, and the other is religious conversion. Now, with the flow and configuration of international networks, capital, technology, talent, knowledge, information, and other production factors move across national boundaries, and the value orientation of cultural concepts is therefore diversifying. How should this pluralist state of cultural values be objectively and clearly described? Can it become a deep obstacle to the global process? This is a matter of concern. The greatest perplexity of the global process is whether the global process of advocating global justice and global values will eventually move towards homogenization or Westernization. The inherent tendency of the global process is also recognized by most scholars. They worry that globalization does not bring about a mixed culture that we expect, but an increasingly convergent world. Thomas Hylland Eriksen, in his book Globalization: The Key Concepts, defines the important theme of cultural dynamics as “Does globalization lead to homogenization or to heterogenization?”37 He believes that with the deepening of the global process, we are beginning to converge. In fact, in the contemporary global process, the ultimate value pursuit of global justice, considered by scholars, tends to have some degree of idealization, showing the distance between reality and ideal. Therefore, we believe that globalization is not a universal concept of homogeneity and uniformity. Globalization does not necessarily threaten national culture.38 Secondly, if the global process is not tending towards absolute homogenization or Westernization, in which direction will it develop? Clearly, the current global process is developing toward a pluralist state of cultural values. First of all, the pluralist state of the global process includes homogenization, heterogeneity, and hybridization. The ideal state of homogenization exists to some extent. Albrow and Held even expressed cosmopolitan values as a set of clear principles, including equal value and dignity.39 In fact, these homogeneous values can only exist relatively. As Sandholtz said,

40  Yunfang Wang globalization is not quite an appropriate term because there are no truly globalized things,40 and there are differences in the value of all homogenization. The reality of heterogeneity is also present in the current global process. At present, various trends are intertwined. Modernism, conservatism, postmodernism, nationalism, and cosmopolitanism intertwine, conflict, or split, indicating the diversity of ideological orientations in the global process. This results in a heterogeneous integration of religious beliefs, racial identity, language differences, and other cultural expressions. Hybridization shows that there is not a dichotomy between global culture and national culture. In the dynamic global process, the hybrid nature of the global and national cultures will be produced. The debate surrounding homogenization and diversification or hybridization involves several questions: is culture and all forms of social activities standardized? Or, are the interactions and contacts involved in multiculturalism leading to a growing number of new forms of culture? Albrow believes that this situation must happen simultaneously, but at different levels.41 Roland Robertson also stresses that globalization contains a kind of localization, and because of its own scope, something global can be settled everywhere. At the same time, it also means that “localized globalization” can be implemented, which means we can localize something global.42 Secondly, the pluralist state of the global process must be investigated in a dynamic way. As a dynamic and complex process, the development of pluralist value orientation in the global process is also dynamic and complex. The greatest value of the global process lies in its constantly opened dynamic boundaries that enable a plethora of values to survive and grow. This pluralist state is not static, but constantly changing. The global age means that modernity has been replaced by globality, resulting in a phenomenon of non-centralization in the fields of nation, government, culture, and community. For individuals or groups, it means a comprehensive change on the basis of behavior and social organization.43 Thirdly, does the pluralist value orientation in the global process bring about a series of value challenges and perplexity with regard to fairness, justice, and equality for human beings? In this regard, the views of different scholars vary significantly. Some scholars are relatively optimistic that cultural differences can be an important factor with the spiritual power needed to achieve major changes. Undoubtedly, globalization should be one of this kind of major changes. Some scholars, however, are relatively pessimistic. They believe that the differences between cultures may lead to a worldwide clash of civilizations. Huntington’s theory of “The Clash of Civilizations” is a clear example of this. We believe that the clash of cultures is inevitable, but the conflict is also adjustable. Globalization will be the integration of nationalization. In the face of conflicts between religions, concepts, and cultures, it is more important to take the rights and dignity of the human beings as the basis, and to give each individual the freedom to choose his or

Global process  41 her way of life and the right to retain his or her own cultural characteristics to the greatest extent. To sum up, “globalization”, as a popular term, often has such a fate: when people begin to find it, understand it, and try to make it transparent, conceptualized, and academic, globalization itself will become more obscure, which has aroused a lot of reflection. This phenomenon is increasingly prominent in revealing the contradictions and conflicts of globalization. At least nearly a hundred scholars claim that they have mastered the password of globalization, grasped its lifeblood, and offered prescriptions for globalization. However, the global process continues to deepen conflicts, following its inherent historical evolution rules, which perhaps represents the running-in process of the subject, phenomenon, system, and value of the traditional and new character in the global process. The global process has contributed to the deepening of global separatism and conflicts. At present, macro factors like the social changes, the reform of the political system, the integration of the world economy, and the crisis of the international monetary system are all expanding the conflict groups in the global process. The most typical example is the recent financial crisis that endangers the Neo-liberal economic system and jeopardizes the global economic system. This is the most prominent contradiction and conflict in the current global process. And where is the fault line44 of the financial crisis? Raghuram G. Rajan thinks the gap between the rich and the poor is the root of everything. The initiator of the financial crisis is “global income imbalance”.45 In fact, if the contradictions and conflicts in the global process are not solved, the fault line will still exist and lead to new global conflicts and crises in the uncertain time of the future.

Reflection and regulation of the global process In the face of all the obstacles and difficulties in the global process, the way to solve the above problems requires the control of the international community, the government supervision departments, financial institutions, and other forces. But it is also important to mention that wellmotivated government intervention may not necessarily bring expected changes, but will lead to unpredictable economic consequences. It is difficult to save capitalism by the capitalists alone. The problem is that if we do not repair those serious flaws in the global process, a potentially more devastating crisis is waiting for us. Therefore, this chapter tries to simply reflect on it. The global process is an objective historical process. Faced with all kinds of contradictions and problems, many scholars have tried to write out prescriptions for them, which has created much debate. Debate one: Should the global process be regulated? Some scholars believe that those international institutions, especially those in the financial field, which are aimed at managing the global economic operation, have not

42  Yunfang Wang played their due role,46 and financial institutions must be reformed and supervision on the global process must be enhanced. For example, A merican scholar Joseph Eugene Stiglitz believes that the problem does not lie in globalization but how to manage globalization.47 But some scholars do not approve of strengthening the control of the global process. Instead, they think that more liberal and loose Neo-liberal economic policies should be used to deal with the problems in the global process. For example, Johan Norberg, a Swedish scholar, proposes in his book In Defense of Global Capitalism that borders should be opened and control measures should be abolished. In his view, the EU’s problem is that it resists globalization and liberalization in many ways. The global process is actually driven by decentralized decisions of millions of people, rather than dominated by a centralized control room. Therefore, trying to control this process and managing it will concentrate power on some people, thereby threatening the operation of the free market.48 British scholar Martin Wolf also believes that today’s problem is not too many globalized things, but too few. He is more rational than Norberg and believes that if there are more free markets and more global intergovernmental cooperation, this would undoubtedly be the best mode of social management. The free and democratic regime is the only social system that can maintain a developed economy and social functioning.49 Debate two: should we expand the global political participation of the poorest countries? Some scholars believe that the emergence of the center-periphery relationship in the global process is due to the fact that poor countries are less involved in globalization.50 Inequality and poverty are not the result of globalization, but the result of the joint force of globalization and anti-globalization. Therefore, wider global participation should be encouraged. Other scholars are against this kind of view. They believe that it is impractical to extend the modern market economy within the country to the global field because the global society lacks the corresponding legal and ethical support. Totally negating the significance of the existence of the state and moving toward free-market anarchism is blind optimism.51 To sum up, the arguments among scholars can also lead to a series of questions. What is the subject of regulation of contradictions and conflicts in the global process? How is the regulation mechanism of contradictions and conflicts in the global process feasible? Certainly, the process of globalization is not a completely new one, as is considered by the global reformers, but it is  not an unjust or undemocratic process in nature. In other words, nothing is fixed. Globalization can achieve better and more equitable governance, reorganization, and design through recasting.52 There are no better means than rules, interests, and choices to regulate the global process. The development of integration in the global system is neither balanced nor comprehensive, and no one can control or guide the global process artificially. Globalization is a process introduced by

Global process  43 the market rather than policy guidance. Too many policies cannot carry out appropriate regulations. Instead, it may cause new crises. Therefore, rules can only be drawn from successful models. The most successful ones at present are regional organizations such as the EU and ASEAN. The original intention of the establishment of these organizations was that the global process had increased the cross-border transactions and exchanges among social actors, which made it necessary to formulate rules and resolve disputes at the regional level.53 In fact, these organizations have played their role well to a certain extent. Therefore, it is essential to take the causal relationship between globalization and the polarization of the rich and the poor as the starting point, and to design positive and integrated regional organizational policies, in order to make various countries benefit from the global process.

Notes

44  Yunfang Wang 20 David Held and A. McGrew, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, p. 12. 22 Ibid., pp. 136–158. 24 David Held and A. McGrew, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, p. 37. 26 Shi Tailin, “‘World History’ Process and Globalization”, Marxism & Reality, Vol. 3, 2003, pp. 81–88. 28 Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, Translated by Yao Zhongqiu and Chen Haiwei, Social Sciences Literature Press, 2008 edition, pp. 33–37, p. 63.

30 J. E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents, Translated by Li Yang, Zhang Tianxiang, China Machine Press, 2010, p. 240. 34 Globalization and economic growth rate in the 1990s. 40 Sandholtz, “Globalization and the Evolution of Rules”, p. 186. 44 Raghuram Rajan borrowed a geological concept called “fault line” to refer to financial crises, and earthquakes often erupt along fault lines. Therefore, tracing back along the fault line can provide a new perspective for the financial crisis and its evolution.

Global process  45 46 Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works, p. 10. 48 Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, pp. 3–10. 50 Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, p.105.

2

Global system Zhenye Liu

To a large extent, the global system is the result of the global expansion of globalization and interdependence. Globalization, in the second half of the 20th century, connects people from all over the world with unprecedented breadth and depth, thus making the international system that dominates the distribution of values in the world’s politics, and further expands into a global system that covers both state and non-state actors, and geographically extends to every corner of the world. The global system consists of sovereign state actors, super-state or cross-state actors, and sub-state actors, presenting a system feature of multi-layer composite structure. The formation of the ideal global order in the global system requires us to promote the democratization process of the global system.

From the international system to the global system In the world political development in the globalization era, the expansion from the international system to the global system is not a simply geographical expansion of the sovereign state system, but an increase in the type of actors and the transformation of the system structure in the political system, which represents a unique and new qualitative change. How can the formation of the global system be possible? If we review and summarize the basic trend of human social development since the 20th century, we can say that its most striking feature is globalization. David Held, a famous British globalization researcher, said that globalization in the simplest sense means the further expansion, deepening, and acceleration of global interconnection.1 Globalization has been described by many researchers as the expansion of the network from two dimensions of space and time, the strengthening of global interconnections, the acceleration of global flow and the global interaction. Researchers like Allan Cochrance believe that the most typical feature of globalization is the expansion of global space, and globalization has broken the bondage of national boundaries, making great changes in the significance of the existence

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-3

Global system  47 of the nation-state as well as reshaping political themes and frameworks in world politics. The traditional national political community may be too small in scale to solve global problems. However, facing local-level problems within a country, it appears too big to meet the requirements of flexibility and adaptability.2 Today, the development of globalization is further deepening and expanding. International intergovernmental organizations, various transnational actors, and domestic groups and organizations with different interests have all been presented on the world stage with the aid of various channels of globalization. However, correspondingly, the roles and functions of sovereign states have declined to varying degrees. With the increasing number of global actors in globalization and the intensification of various global crises, various non-state actors have brought new elements, new governance paths and modes for the governance of global public affairs, which strongly promotes the development of the international system to the global system. Thus, due to the development of globalization, the significance of the political community organization is changing, and has brought a series of other political effects: first, political responsibility is asked for accountability across the border; secondly, the challenge of environmental problems has brought pressure to the national centralism and the national departmentalism; thirdly, limited within the border of the nation-state, the national economy is deeply embedded in the global economy and its regulatory system; fourthly, a large number of non-political transnational organizations have emerged in congruence with the transnational trend of domestic affairs; and finally, political community organizations are incorporated into a multi-level global composite structure.3 In all of the above political effects, we should emphasize that the development of globalization not only reduces the status and function of the traditional political community – the sovereign state, but also, more importantly, promotes the emergence of new international actors. Researchers such as David Held point out that “The breadth and depth of global super-state interconnections constitute a network of complex relations between communities, countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations, and transnational corporations that constitute the global order”. This is difficult for any of the actors to avoid the strong constraints of this network architecture. This network has especially promoted the non-territorial development of social, political, and economic space, and made it possible to reconstruct power relations in the system.4 This reconstruction of power relations has become more necessary because of the emergence of global problems. Global problems such as the environmental and energy crises have made any country alone unable to solve all of them, therefore in order to cope with these problems and crises, it has become an inevitable trend in the development of globalization that various non-state and super-state actors have emerged and become the main body of governance. This trend inevitably leads to the emergence of global politics in world politics, and

48  Zhenye Liu the structural feature of global politics is the existence of pluralist actors. This global political structure means that in today’s world, there are a variety of subjects, other than countries, that no longer need direct interaction through the medium of the state and these interactions have begun to develop independent political structures.5 It is difficult for us to make an appropriate analysis and reflection on the current global politics if we continue to follow the traditional state-centric line of thinking about international relations. In other words, in this global political system, there have been a large number of various non-state and super-state actors that are confronting the state or complementing its shortcomings while coexisting with it. The connotations of the global system To analyze the connotations of the global system, it is necessary to start with the concept of “system” and “international system” in order to fully understand the concept of the term “global system”. System and international system In English, the word “system” means “a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network”.6 In Chinese context, according to different contexts, the word “system” can be translated into “Xitong” or “Tixi”. “Xitong” means “the whole of similar things in a certain relationship.” “Tixi” means “the whole of some related things or some consciousness that are connected with each other.”7 Regardless of the nuances between the meanings of both Chinese and English, we can essentially regard the system as an organism constituted by a set of things working together. That is to say, the system refers to a set connected by its constituent units or parts through some form of regular interaction.8 As one of the many terms and concepts that social scientists learn from physics and biology, whether from the micro-level (cell, molecule, animal, and plant) or from the macro-level (ecosystem and global climate), the term “system” contains interactive units or parts, the change of one of which will likely cause changes of all other units. As to the connotations of the system that contains “unit” and “interaction”, system theorist Anatol Rapoport clearly defines the system as a whole that performs its overall function through interdependence of its components.9 James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. explain more clearly that a system is the mode of interaction between actors in the structure, and what it describes is how actors interact with each other.10 From the above interpretation of the connotations of the system, we can see that the system theory and method is a holistic observation method, emphasizing the role and effect of the whole unit. But it focuses not only on the whole system but on the systematic effect that is presented through the interaction between units and puts on it as a whole. In this regard, Ludwig

Global system  49 von Bertalanffy, the most important representative of system theory, has given a deep explanation: the system perspective in social sciences research is to study not only the units and the process, but also, most importantly, the organic relations arising from the dynamic interaction, and those relations make the units’ behavior different from their behavior in isolation and from their behavior as a whole.11 After the 1950s, the behaviorist revolution in social sciences swept the whole field of political science, and the term “system” was introduced into the subject of international relations. International relations theorists began to gradually define international politics as a system. In fact, the definition of the international system is varied with several different meanings. As Robert Gilpin said, the term “international system” is vague in itself. It can include a series of phenomena ranging from sporadic contacts between countries to the crisscrossing close relations between European countries in the 19th century.12 David Easton believes that, as an independent system, the international community includes the international political system, the international ecosystem, and the international social system. The international political system mainly refers to a single political system, regional international organizations, and global international organizations. The sum of these is then the international relations system.13 Morton Kaplan thinks that action system is a set of variables that are interrelated but different from their environment. The close relationship between them makes the descriptive behavior law not only endow the intrinsic relationship between these variables with characteristics, but also endow the external relationship between the set of these intrinsic variables and the combination of external variables with characteristics.14 Hedley Bull, the representative of the English school, defined the international system as when countries interact regularly, and the interaction between them is enough to affect their behavior.15 Professor Li Shaojun, a Chinese scholar, holds that “the international system is a whole formed through interaction among units. The standard of system composition is that the interaction of units should reach the level of influencing each other’s policies.”16 In a comprehensive view, although various statements are different from each other, the term “international system” is basically used to describe the overall situation of international relations, emphasizing the connection and integrity between actors in international relations, mainly referring to the sovereign states. Global system If the international system is a concept used to describe the relationship structure between sovereign states, the connotations of the concept of “global system” should point to the structure that transcends the relationship between countries. Based on the views of Akiyoshi Hoshino, the Japanese scholar, the global system should be a concept that mainly describes the substantial changes in the political structure of the world in the

50  Zhenye Liu era of globalization. The biggest change in the world politics in the era of globalization is the decline of the status and function of the sovereign state, and the emergence of the non-sovereign actors in addition to transnational actors. If it is too early to conclude that sovereign states are out of date, then the role of non-state or super-state actors in the world politics is becoming more and more indispensable. Therefore, the global system should include the inter-state system and the super-state system.17 Hedley Bull also believes that today’s world politics can be understood as a worldwide interactive network, including not only states but also political actors that are “above” or “under” the state. The actors that are “above” the state, include not only various super-state organizations and actors but also various transnational organizations and international non-governmental organizations. The actors that are “under” the state refer to various groups within a country. Hedley Bull believes that the internal groups within a country, influence world politics not only through influencing its domestic policies, but also through the following three ways to participate in world politics: first, they may have relations with other political party groups in other countries, and enterprises, labor unions, political parties, professional groups, and churches are to a certain extent in a network of transnational relations that transcends relations between countries; secondly, they may have relations with foreign governments, such as the signing of agreements between transnational corporations and foreign governments, and political groups’ demonstrations in front of foreign embassies; thirdly, they may have a direct relationship with international organizations. Therefore, the international system and the domestic political system are all part of the global political system.18 In fact, in addition to global political researchers, when it comes to the global system, many international relations researchers tend to view the global system as an expansion of the inter-state system on the global scale.19 If this concept is used to describe the features of today’s world politics, obviously it is neither presenting any substantial new meaning nor seizing the essential characteristics of the development and change of today’s world politics. Chen Yugang, a Chinese scholar, believes that in contrast to particularly emphasizing the importance of the inter-state relationship when we refer to the international system, “the global system is especially pointing to those transnational and not entirely inter-state relations, and it considers more about the content that connects the world to a whole, highlighting the global nature of the world.”20 So, we can say, the international system can be seen as a concept of describing the network of relations between countries and the structure of actors, while the global system is a concept about the network of global relations and the structure of actors. Chen Yugang thinks that “international relations are mainly relations between countries, and each of them enjoys priority here. However, the global relationship is the composition relationship of all parts of the world, in which countries are still the primary but not the only actors, and the global world enjoys priority as a whole.”21

Global system  51 To sum up, we can describe the concept of the global system in this way: the global system mainly refers to the whole or collection formed by the interconnection of actors (including state actors, super-state or crossstate actors, and sub-state actors) interacting with each other in the era of globalization. Obviously, this concept contains at least two new qualities: first, the global system describes a “global relationship”, that is, the interaction of various actors in the global system, including state actors, super-state or cross-state actors, and sub-state actors; secondly, the global system aims to analyze the composite structure of different actors in the global system and the structural function of various actors in the global system. Differing from the traditional concept of international system and the relationship between countries it describes, the concept of the global system and the global relationship it describes, have the following unique features. First, differing from the political authority completely monopolized by state actors in the traditional international system, the political authority of state actors has declined significantly in the global system, and the new pluralist political authority center is becoming the powerful competitor of the state authority – including the super-state, cross-state, and even substate actors. Secondly, the composite structure of the global system has made state actors greatly constrained on policy-making and autonomy of actions. Countries have been in complex global relations with a new normative network formed by the relations, and they have to accept increased international constraints. Thirdly, as to coping with many global issues that the global system is facing, the role of state actors is declining rather than increasing. Fourthly, in the composite structure of the global system, state actors’ role of influencing the value distribution of the international community through military means is declining.22 The non-confrontational mode of cooperative governance and sharing of authority and power among different types of actors in the global system has become normality in the global system and global relations. Finally, the game rules in the global system have also undergone important changes. Non-zero-sum games have become the more common rules of the game.23 The global system, the world system, and the world society It is important to note that, in international studies, the concept of “Global System” intersects with many other concepts such as “World System” and “World Society”, and these different terms are similar to the concept of global system. But the concept of global system is fundamentally different from the concept of “World System” in the world system theory and the concept of “World Society” proposed by Barry Buzan who is the representative figure of the English school. They cannot be confused with each other.

52  Zhenye Liu In essence, Wallerstein’s concept of “World System” refers to the capitalist world economic system. He believes that since 1500, the world’s regions have increasingly been incorporated into a capitalist dominated world economic system. Due to the unequal international division of labor in the capitalist world, the world has increasingly been divided into core, peripheral, and semi-peripheral areas, with the relationship of oppression and exploitation. Geographically speaking, the global system is consistent with the world system, but from the perspectives of the structure of the system and the composition of actors, the two are essentially different. The world system emphasizes the different positions and interactions of all social strata, countries, and regions in the global capitalist economy, and the global system focuses on the interaction of state, super-state, and sub-state actors in the system. The concept of “World Society” proposed by Barry Buzan, the representative figure of the English school, has a greater spatial dimension than the concept of international society as mentioned by the English school. It takes individuals and non-state actors such as various humanitarian and professional organizations, transnational corporations, and financial institutions as the focus of identifying the world society and playing major roles, emphasizing the importance of the consciousness and identity of citizens of the world and taking the great harmony of human civilization as the basis for the formation of the world society.24 The concept of world society emphasizes that the old international political structure is incompatible with the development of the world today, which includes human rights and state rights, world interests and national interests, world governance and national governance, world politics, and world ecology. Therefore, its issues of concern are far beyond national interests, taking the globally balanced sustainable development, ecology, disaster, and regional conflicts as the core issues to cope with.25 Due to this, world politics is no longer a relationship between countries, but a variety of social relations, or we say, a world social relationship. Compared with the concept of the global system, the concept of world society highlights the importance of non-state actors, while neglecting the existence of state actors and emphasizing the corrective role of nonstate actors on the departmentalism of national interests, which is of great moral value for us to reflect on the various global problems and challenges that the world politics are facing today. However, in the reality of the world politics, state actors are not completely out of date, and they still play a leading role in many world affairs, bearing an important responsibility for governance. The concept of the global system not only emphasizes the rise and role of non-state actors in the system but also recognizes the objective existence of the inter-state system and its leading role in many fields, so it is a more realistic concept for us to think about the governance of today’s world affairs.

Global system  53

The composite structure of the global system The global system is a direct consequence of globalization in today’s world politics. The development of globalization strongly weakens the political authority that has been monopolized by the state actors, making the two major components of the global system – the inter-state system and super-state system – form a complex composite structure. The composite structure of the global system The composite structure of the global system means that the status and functions of the sovereign states in the global political system are increasingly weakened during the development of world politics in the era of globalization, and various super-state or cross-state systems composed by non-state actors are increasingly sharing the authority originally monopolized by sovereign state system. The global expansion of the political space brought about by the globalization has made new authority centers continuously emerging, and these new authority centers do not completely belong to sovereign states and are increasingly challenging the traditional authority of sovereign states. As a result, there are two types of authority systems co-existing in world politics. One is the authority system composed by sovereign states, and the other is the authority system composed by various super-state or cross-state actors. The two types of authority systems do not replace each other, but coexist to form a global system together. In fact, in the global system composed by the two types of authority systems, state actors, super-state or cross-state actors, and sub-state actors not only play the independent and authoritative role separately but also interact with each other to play a certain type of composite authoritative role together. The global political space is composed of such multiple relationships, which is also a composite structural feature of the global system. The inter-state system in the composite structure of the global system The inter-state system in the composite structure of the global system mainly refers to the whole or collectively connected through the interaction between sovereign states. Since the international system is mainly composed of the interaction between sovereign states, the “system” (nature and structure), “unit” (actor), and “interaction” (process) constitute the three elements of the international system.26 The nature of the international system, according to Kenneth Waltz’s statement, refers to anarchy, which means there is no central government with political authority in the international system. However, this does not mean that there is no order at all, but the establishment and maintenance of order have a fundamentally different nature and significance from the

54  Zhenye Liu domestic political system. The structure of the international system is composed of similar units, which repeat each other’s behavior, and different types of structures are decided by the allocation of unit capacity (power distribution). As the allocation of unit capacity determines the hierarchical status of units in the system structure, the question of how to arrange units becomes a basic issue for the international system structure. In a more general sense, we usually interpret the structure of the international system as an allocation structure of unit power in the sense that Waltz describes. As one of the content elements of the international system, “unit” (actor) refers to the quantity, function, and types of the units that compose the system. Based on the assumption of the basic attributes of the above system and the exposition of the rules of the arrangement of system units, we can see that the functional attributes of a unit are determined by the anarchical nature and arrangement rules of the system. Under the decentralized authority system, because of the lack of a central authority, units in the international system structure can only rely on “self-help” when facing security and survival pressure. Relying on self-help to remove the security and survival pressure is the most important or even the sole functional attribute for units in the system structure. The quantity of system units refers to the number of units participating and sharing the system authority, which is mainly determined by the distribution of power among units in the system. Generally speaking, it predominantly refers to the number of powerful countries participating and sharing the decision-making power of the international system. According to Waltz’s analysis, units in the system structure are essentially the same in terms of function, and there are no different so-called types of units. The reason for this is that Waltz believes that the only source of authority in the international system is the power distribution among units. However, with the strengthening of global interdependence and the increase of various non-state actors, the authority of the international system has emerged as a trend of decentralization. International intergovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and so on are also increasingly sharing the authority that formerly belonged to the state in the international system. In the fields of global economy, human rights, environment, ecology, and politics, the increased number of various non-state actors is increasingly breaking the monopoly of authority over the system that state actors used to enjoy, which has led the international system to an increasingly complex development. “Interaction” (process), as one of the elements of the international system, mainly refers to the interaction mode and behavior pattern of units in the system structure. The interaction mode among units that comprises the system itself constitutes the fundamental connotation of the international system. That is to say, the interaction mode among units constitutes the international system. In today’s international system, the development of globalization is driving a profound change in the structure of the international system. The

Global system  55 anarchy of the international system, though unchanged, is beginning to drive the emergence of a new characteristic element. The actors that form and participate in the international system increase not only in quantity but also in diversity, which has a particular impact on the traditional state authority. As main actors of the international system, states themselves are undergoing new changes. The power elements of state actors, developing strategies, and rising modes of emerging powers are changing the mode of the international system. International institutional factors and various social norms are increasingly having a significant influence on state actions, making the international system develop more institutionalized features. All those new changes have brought new features to today’s international system. First, the profound changes of the international system are reflected in the typical structure of the international system as “one superpower and several major powers”. This new structural form, from a conservative point of view, is called a finite unipolar system27 by some scholars, and from an optimistic point of view, it is called a modified multipolar system.28 It may be more appropriate to use the title of “Unipolar-Multipolar System”. Describing today’s “one superpower and several major powers” status as a “typical structure” means that the strength of unipolar in the system has been greatly weakened, while the counterbalance strength of the multipolar has been strengthened and they have gained the equivalent authority to the unipolar. Secondly, the anarchic characteristics of the international system continue to exist but have weakened to some extent. From the logical nature of the international system, the characteristics of power politics in today’s international system have not fundamentally changed, and the logic of power politics still exists, widely determined by the state of anarchy, which has become the main source of disputes and conflicts among countries. But at the same time, we should also notice that some new features of the international system are beginning to emerge. The deepening of global interdependence and the participation of pluralist actors are strongly changing the anarchic characteristics of the international system, causing its development from pure power politics towards the direction of cooperation, mutual benefit, multiple interests, and multiple rights. Thirdly, the participation of various actors leads to the emergence of new authority centers in the international system. In today’s international system, the actors forming and participating have increased not only in quantity but also in diversity, which has impacted on the traditional state authority and is increasingly expanding the boundaries of the international system, thus adding new international political fields and space. Since the middle of the last century, global issues have been increasing, global interdependence has been growing, and international economic integration has been deeply developing. International organizations such as the United Nations, WTO, IMF, and the World Bank; transnational corporations; non-governmental organizations; and terrorist groups are participating in the international

56  Zhenye Liu system and playing important roles, resulting in an increasing number of actors in the international system. These non-state actors persistently put forward new issues such as environmental protection, climate change, human rights, and humanitarianism; formulate new norms; develop new political fields such as environmental politics and humanitarian politics; and participate and share the authority monopolized by nation-states. As a result, “the international system has widened”, the “pole” in the international system has been “amended”, and in terms of authority, “poles” beyond the power of nation-states such as the United Nations, WTO, and the EU have emerged, which are increasingly becoming the authority centers of the international system. Fourthly, the role of state actors as factors of change in the transformation of the international system is quite significant. In today’s international system, as the main actors in the international system, states themselves are undergoing new changes. The function and power elements of state actors as system units, the developing strategies and rising modes of emerging powers are changing the mode of the international system. First, the sensitivity and vulnerability of state actors, as a result of global interdependence and increasing global issues, are increasing, and the sovereign function characteristics of state actors and the autonomy and insular nature of sovereignty have changed. Both in the field of global issues and in the field of the governance of the global financial crisis, states can improve their own situation only by realizing cooperation rather than conflicts over sovereignty. The fields in which anarchy plays a role in the international system are becoming narrower and narrower. Secondly, the power elements of state actors themselves have undergone fundamental changes in the nuclear era. Due to the inordinate destructiveness of nuclear weapons, the military power of countries that possess them has been fundamentally changed and strengthened, and state actors’ possession of nuclear technology and their enhancement of nuclear power has fundamentally changed the interactions between major powers in today’s international system. Thirdly, in today’s world, with the continuous rise of global interdependence and international economic integration, emerging powers have not only triggered a profound change in the structure of the international system but also deeply influenced interactions in the international system in the fields of energy, trade, and environment. The rise of emerging market countries in the world’s energy demand structure, the rise of the “BRICS countries” in the field of world economy and trade, and the emergence of “BASIC” in the global climate change field all have profoundly changed the forms of interaction and the direction of development of the international system. Finally, the institutionalized characteristics of the international system are beginning to appear. International institutional factors and various social norms are increasingly having an important influence on national behavior, making the international system more institutionalized. International institutions and norms are important elements in the process of

Global system  57 the international system. In today’s international system, the network of international institutions and norms is becoming denser and more widely recognized and followed by state actors. For example, in international trade disputes, state actors are increasingly inclined to make decisions based on WTO agreements. In the field of international security, even the powerful unipolar US is more likely to be supported and recognized by the United Nations and regional organizations in the military operations of Afghanistan and Iraq. In the fields of environmental protection, humanitarianism, arms control, and counter-terrorism, the number of various international institutions and norms, and the breadth of their recognition and compliance are more prominent. It is hard to imagine in today’s international system, how the world would be without international institutions and norms in the fields mentioned above. Therefore, in the current international system, the enhancement of international institutions and norms and the weakening of the state of anarchy make the international system more and more standardized and institutionalized. The super-state system in the composite structure of the global system The super-state system in the composite structure of the global system is mainly composed of various transnational actors, including various international multilateral institutions that play core and significant roles on the world stage, such as United Nations agencies and international intergovernmental organizations. With the deepening of globalization and the increasing severity of global challenges and crises, there are more and more international public affairs that exceed the governing capacity of sovereign states in the world politics. Under this situation, international multilateral institutions have gained great development in both quantity and function, and their status and role in international affairs are becoming increasingly prominent. In particular, the prominent status and enlarged role of international multilateral institutions in international affairs are mainly manifested in the following aspects. First of all, the development of economic globalization and the increasing enhancement of the interdependence of the world have increased the demand of states for international multilateral institutions to handle common affairs. With the development of economic globalization, the frequency and scale of inter-state economic activities are becoming increasingly ultra-high-speed and super-scale. States need better coordination and institutional rules in place with regard to policies and actions. International organizations are natural candidates for meeting the needs of coordination, negotiation, and institutionalization of international interdependence.29 For example, in the field of economy and trade, states need international multilateral institutions to formulate unified rules to maintain the economic order between states. It is unimaginable that the development and normal

58  Zhenye Liu operation of inter-state economic trade, investment, and the credit exchange rate system could continue working without the existence of global multilateral organizations such as the WTO, World Bank, and IMF. Secondly, as global issues are becoming more and more serious, demand has increased for international multilateral institutions to deal with common affairs among states. Global issues refer to a series of serious problems facing today’s international community, which are beyond the boundaries of countries and regions and are related to the survival and development of the entire human race. Those include issues of peace and security, environmental protection, South-North relations, the control of international crime, the fight against AIDS, the control of population growth, the protection of basic human rights, financial turmoil, energy crisis, food crisis, shortage of resources, the use of oceans and the exploitation of the natural world, drug control, and refugees, which are beyond the scope and governance capacity of a single state without exception, and require international multilateral institutions to formulate unified rules and policies and coordinate actions among states. As American scholar Bennett said: “many of the world’s problems cannot be effectively addressed if there is no authority or means other than sovereign states to make or implement decisions that affect most countries.”30 Thirdly, in order to adapt to the demand of states for dealing with more and increasingly complex public affairs in the era of globalization, international multilateral institutions have expanded deeply in the fields of issues and function. On the one hand, the process of globalization has promoted the emergence of an increasing number of international institutions and organizations in international public affairs, thus greatly strengthening the legal function of international multilateral institutions. Taking the international judicial institutions established in the 1990s as an example: in the field of the law of the sea, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has been established, and in the field of the trial of international crime, following the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the UN’s Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted in July 1998 and the International Criminal Court was formally established in 2002. The establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development has strengthened supervision over the implementation of the Agenda 21. The creation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and today’s Human Rights Council has strengthened the supervision and examination of the implementation of international human rights law by various countries. Although the binding force of various international law and legal supervision institutions still cannot compare with domestic law, the legal system and its restraint and supervision over the states’ enforcement of international law have been greatly strengthened in recent times, particularly in comparison with previous international multilateral organizations from history. On the other hand, globalization has enabled

Global system  59 international multilateral institutions to expand their function and power. For example, economic globalization has created the demand to overcome barriers to trade, investment, and capital flows among countries, caused by sovereign state boundaries, and to maximize states’ benefits from economic exchanges by coordinating domestic policies. This, in turn, leads to the development of international organizations that are more powerful, more power-centralized, widely functional, and rule-based. International multilateral institutions are increasingly exercising some kind of governmental management function in many ways, with the replacement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by the WTO as a prominent example. The GATT, established at the end of World War II, was essentially an informal international organization. After the 1980s, it was unable to adapt to the rapid development of economic globalization. The signing of the Uruguay Round Final Act and Marrakesh Agreement for the establishment of the WTO has greatly expanded the authority of the GATT, which not only strengthened its core trading institutions but also increased the rules concerning service trade, intellectual property rights, and technical standards related to trade. These rules have always been regarded as the jurisdiction of domestic law, rather than being covered by the GATT regulation. Fourthly, with the expansion of their functionality, international multilateral institutions have an increasing influence on the internal affairs of sovereign states and have exerted increasing numbers of direct interventions on the governance of sovereign states. For example, following the financial crisis in the 1990s, the IMF and the World Bank were given the following function: to ensure that all member countries’ economies carry out “profound and effective structural reforms” to rectify the weakness of their domestic financial system, ensure economic growth, and reduce poverty. Devesh Kapur described in detail the expansion of international financial institutions and calculated the increase in the number of “Executive Standards” as loan conditions. He gives the example of 25 countries where the number of loan condition standards increased from 6 to 10 in the 1980s to roughly 26 in the 1990s. Kapur also pointed out that the number of “targets” included in loans and related projects has also increased, and the countries concerned are now being asked to adopt a series of governmental reform measures, such as mobilizing, reforming, strengthening or upgrading the function of governments in a wider range.31 Finally, on the current international political stage, international multilateral institutions, especially global organizations, have an irreplaceable status and role as a global public authority. Although the essential features of the international political anarchy negate the possibility of an effective world government, it does not halt the demand for international public authority, due to the increase in international public affairs. In reality, although hegemonic countries, leading countries and private participants show their own role and strength in international economic and political affairs, this cannot eliminate doubts over their public authority and their

60  Zhenye Liu legitimacy of form. The international rules and norms gradually formed in international political life can only survive under the protection of public authority. Although international multilateral institutions have various shortcomings, they have, after all, supported, explained, and strengthened public discourse norms concerning international legitimacy. In this respect, any state and other actors that represent their selfish national interests struggle to meet this requirement. The fundamental reason is that “they are not authorized”.32 The structural role of the global civil society The structural role of the global civil society in the global system lies in its participation in global governance. But in general studies, the structural role of the global civil society is often only seen as focused on issue advocacy, expert technology, and the supervision of the implementation of conventions, as if only to make up for the government. Current research on the governance of global affairs is mainly focused on cross-state mechanisms and super-state governance. These kinds of mechanisms, organizations, and rules cannot avoid the perception that the existence of government is hidden inside. The cross-state governance is always shown as a kind of interstate process or a process led by states. Super-state structures are always established and authorized by governments. For the governance of current global affairs, no matter how many forms it presents, the dominant force still appears to be state governments, and the other actors are only stage props of states. In fact, the structural role of global civil society in the global system is quite different: first, it is not only to make up for the government but to “boycott states” and “govern states”. The governance movement of global anti-nuclear issues, the governance movement of global anti-excruciation and the Rome statute movement of the International Criminal Court on global humanitarian governance all reflect a global governance model of “boycotting states” and “governing states”. Secondly, the governance function of the global civil society in the global system does not belong to state governance, but a kind of social governance. Global governance is often seen as cross-state or super-state policy coordination and cooperation and is finally implemented as a state policy or behavior. The governance of global civil society goes deeper into society and is implemented as a kind of social governance and transformation. Global civil society governance activities in the fields of humanitarian assistance, post-disaster reconstruction, civil society training, poverty reduction, and development are the embodiment of social self-governance. Thirdly, the governance function of global civil society in the global system has specific governance advantages over state governance, cross-state, and super-state governance. For example, regarding the global human rights movement and humanitarian issues, the state government itself may be the source of the problem that needs to be governed. On the one hand, the governance of the state is often reflected as a negative

Global system  61 will or even a problem maker. On the other hand, the process of inter-state or super-state governance is often obstructed within the dispute over the interference of sovereignty. However, the non-sovereign governance of global civil society has greatly reduced this problem. This is because, in the state and society relations at the global level, the correspondence of sovereign jurisdiction between the state government and the global civil society is broken, and the state has no sovereign jurisdiction over the global civil society movement and its power, and non-governmental organizations and civil society movements at the global level do not obey any sovereign authority. In turn, they are constantly promoting the emergence of new international norms and values in the international political field, and state sovereignty is constantly constrained by an increasing amount of dense rules, which more effectively promotes the progress of the governance process. Therefore, governance changes in the global system depend on the growth and maturity of a more powerful global civil society, which plays an increasingly powerful structural role in it. The complex structure and multicenter structure modes of the global system The global system in today’s world politics is mainly composed of the system of inter-state relations and the system of super-state or cross-state relations composed of various non-state actors. The composite structure of the global system shows that the pluralist actors of the system do not try to deny or resist the existence of state authority or replace the inter-state system, but instead strive for the coexistence through competition with state actors. In this regard, Hedley Bull once pointed out that pluralist actors and their authority in today’s world constitute a system of overlapping multiple authorities, and today’s sovereign states are similar to medieval states who must share the world’s political stage, meaning that a “New Medievalism” system with overlapping and dispersing power has appeared.33 When state actors and non-state actors share political authority, the problem arises that the relations between states have not changed in parallel systems, but they have changed in the vertical relations between state actors and super-state actors, in addition to in the relations between sovereign actors and non-sovereign actors in the overall relations of world politics.34 It is obvious that, at the present stage of globalization, state actors and inter-state systems are still in a relatively strong position in the composite structure of the global system, but in future development, the status and authority of other actors will be gradually strengthened.

The global system: trends and outlook From the international system to the global system, both can be seen as the restructured new framework and stage for human beings living on the earth

62  Zhenye Liu to break through the fence of nation-states and to solve common global problems across national boundaries. On this stage, state actors, super-state or cross-state actors, and sub-state actors compete for authority and influence, and the composite structure of the global system is also in constant change. In the long-term trend of change, is it possible that the composite structure of the global system tends to continue to decline, and non-state actors continue to merge across national boundaries, presenting a global social landscape? Or, on the contrary, is it possible that several kinds of super-state and non-state actors are faced with the hard constraints of further breakthroughs in sovereignty and their political and governance functions in the global system are difficult to bring into play, leading to the return of state authority, and the global system becoming a system dominated by national sovereignty again? Or is it possible that the composite structure of the global system improves its own democratic defects, and various state and non-state actors have further gained new vitality in the process of democratization of the global system, and the development of the non-sovereign authority has gained a certain balance with the sovereignty authority, making the global system develop further to sustainable stability and refinement? The answer to this question needs further observation and judgment based on the development of reality. Is a brand-new global society coming? The composite structure of the global system and the prominent roles of a variety of non-state actors make people feel the retreat of the state influence and the coming of a certain global social form. Is it possible for mankind to continuously dismantle the boundaries of sovereign states in the framework of the composite structure of the global system and move towards a global social form? It is necessary for us to explore the possibility from the concept of an idealized global society. The concept of a global society has been mentioned by some scholars in some research literature, but there are few deep and detailed explanations. Akiyoshi Hoshino, a Japanese scholar, believes that in the world politics, the global system made up of multiple networks can be properly called the global society.35 In their groundbreaking work, Global Sociology, Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy simply outlined the conditions and development direction needed for the establishment of the global society: operation of the International Criminal Tribunal, the spread of United Nations agencies and regional organizations, the responsibility of transnational corporations, the development of transnational society brought by travel and transportation, the development of global cities, the revival of global emigrants and religions, and the development of global social movements.36 Wang Yong, a Chinese scholar, may be the only scholar in Chinese academia who indirectly talks about the global society. He believes that the “global society” is the highest

Global system  63 stage of the “international community”. At this stage, authority and violence are more concentrated, and the common interests are globalized. The state gradually acts similar to a local management institution in domestic society, and its sovereignty disappears. In the global social stage, a worldwide political structure similar to the domestic society will eventually come into being, and sovereignty will be centralized. From Wang Yong’s point of view, the global society he mentions almost refers to the world government or communism and the ideal of great world harmony.37 However, in the actual development of global integration, globalization brings not only the positives associated with integration but also huge systemic risks. First, environmental destruction, climate change, population explosion, industrial pollution, energy resources, and food shortage are also dramatically presented to mankind, bringing great challenges to human governance. Secondly, although transnational integration can promote the development of regional integration, it cannot promote the development of social integration in the global scope.38 Thirdly, although the emergence of super-state or cross-state actors has begun to have a serious eroding effect on the authority of the state system, in many cases, the solution of international issues can only be guaranteed through the agreement between national governments, which shows that the people’s participation of governance in the global system is mainly a political process, and the relationship between actors is more like a political relationship than a social relationship. Fourthly, the development of global transportation and communications technology has greatly increased the exchange opportunities among different parts of the human community, but it is difficult for people to achieve an “overall” level of communication in the global system.39 This shows that the sociality in the global system is also very uneven. Thus, while the development of globalization makes the global system have certain characteristics of “global society”, it has brought a number of major challenges to the global system, and a kind of global society, similar to the domestic society, is far from materializing. At the same time that the development of the global system shows that certain social norms constrain actors’ behavior, the political interaction among various actors, especially the constant existence of the state’s sovereign authority in addition to its leading role over a long period of time, is still the main feature of the operation of the global system. New challenges facing the global system The global risks facing today’s development of human society is increasing rapidly, and the governance capacity and governance authority of the state and non-state actors in the global system are facing increasing challenges. These challenges include at least the following aspects.

64  Zhenye Liu The imbalance in global development, the development gap between developing and developed countries, the disparity of status among countries in the making and order of international rules and the imbalance of global trade are more likely to induce the occurrence and intensification of other global risks, and have severely restrained the ability of the international community to cope with it. The governance negotiations to mitigate global warming have been trapped in an undesirable situation of mutual shirking of responsibilities and confrontations over the establishment of compulsory emission reduction targets, and providing developing countries with financial and technical assistance, which, at the same time, is challenging the authority and governance capacity of sovereign states and non-state actors. Poverty and social inequality in the global system are still high, and the development difficulties of developing countries and regions are difficult to break through for a sustained period, with the governance capacity of various actors in many cases proving insufficient. Transnational flows such as the rapid flow of capital, technology, information, and the convenience of the global population flow have brought more and more hidden dangers to the economy, finance, information, science and technology, and political security of all countries, and also easily lead to higher world risks.40 Weapons of mass destruction show a tendency to spread. The pressure on the world’s food and energy shortage is increasing. The continuous degradation of the ecological environment and the acceleration of environmental pollution brought by industrialization are of great concern. The governance task of drug control and AIDS prevention is increasing day by day. All these traditional and non-traditional security governance crises are accumulating, resulting in systemic risks and crises in the global system. In the face of these challenges, the governance capacity and governance authority of traditional sovereign states have been significantly weakened, and this also tests the governance capacity of various non-state actors in the global system. Can the various non-state actors in the global system overcome their own limitations and expand their own governance capability in the field of issues that they are apt to deal with? This would make the governance authority in the composite structure of the global system incline towards non-state actors, and would thus lead the sovereign and non-sovereign authority in the composite structure of the global system further towards a balance. Obviously, we must wait for further developments in practice to provide clues to the answer. The democratic outlook of the global system From the above discussion, we can see that today’s global system is carrying, or to some extent, “overloading” heavy governance tasks and responsibilities, but the existing composite structure of the global system still has

Global system  65 huge democratic defects, which seriously inhibits the governance capacity of sovereign states and non-state actors. If the composite structure of the global system is to take on the task of governance in the present era, the democratization in the following aspects needs to be achieved. The democratization of relations among sovereign states: first, the democracy among the sovereign states in the global system is mainly a formal democracy with equal sovereignty, which means that all countries, no matter big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, enjoy the right to sovereign equality. At the same time, according to democratic principles, sovereign states should be able to enjoy the same rights as their own ability to fulfill international responsibilities and obligations. Secondly, in an era of deeper globalization and interdependence, democracy in international relations must include the participation of non-sovereign actors, which means that it must include some styles and connotations of cosmopolitan democracy to make up for the insufficient sovereign state capacity and overcome the resulting democratic deficit at the global level. The democratization of the super-state institutions: first, super-state institutions must represent the basic requirements of the democratization of international relations, which cannot only reflect the will of powerful and developed countries, but also reflect the wishes and demands of the small and medium-sized countries and the underdeveloped countries. Secondly, super-state institutions must enhance the system’s transparency and openness in terms of transparency and accountability. Thirdly, super-state institutions should also provide more effective ways for other actors’ participation and supervision. The form of democratic participation of cross-state actors: for example, in the context of the building of the United Nations’ civil participation mechanism, in 2004, the “Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations– Civil Society Relations” submitted to the General Assembly a report named We the Peoples – Civil Society, the United Nations and Global Governance, which put forward 30 specific reform policies and suggestions on the participation of civil society in the United Nations. The report recommends that the United Nations must adapt to diverse and inclusive multilateralism, and abandon “The old notion of multilateralism that was in fact ‘omnigovernmentalism’, in which all Governments first agreed on a policy and then moved to implement it”; and encompass many parties from different perspectives; and “the United Nations must become a more outward-looking, or networking, organization”, which should “explicitly convene and foster multi-stakeholder partnerships and global policy networks”, and such broad partnerships and global policy networks can make the actions of the United Nations at the local level and its global values more closely linked to each other. In practice, as early as in 1997, the United Nations began to adjust and strengthen its relations with the non-governmental sectors, and following several important documents such as United Nations Millennium Declaration, the Monterrey Consensus, and the Johannesburg Plan

66  Zhenye Liu of Implementation all emphasized the importance for the United Nations to build a comprehensive development partnership. In 2005, the comprehensive document on United Nations reform: The 2005 World Summit Outcome document, further called for enhanced cooperation between the United Nations and civil society to expand the contribution of “NGOs, civil society, communities, private sector representatives and other stakeholders” in promoting the global partnership for development. The democratization of the governance mechanism of the global system: first, promote the reform of the United Nations governance mechanism. The Security Council must reform and embody the representation and voice of developing countries better. The Economic and Social Council must be more powerful in order to establish effective governance and funding mechanisms in the fields of poverty eradication, food shortage solutions, promotion of education and public health, development assistance, and the implementation of sustainable development. Promote the establishment of the Environmental and Resource Protection Council to enable the United Nations to establish an effective fund-raising mechanism and truly effective regulatory and governance mechanism in the fields of environmental ecological protection and climate change governance, the utilization and protection of marine and water resources, arable land, forest, and biological resources. Secondly, promote the reform of the international multilateral economic institutions. Voting rights and equity reforms at the IMF and the World Bank must reflect the development achievements of developing countries and changes in the power structure of the world economy. Both of these institutions must conduct deep reforms in their accountability and supervision mechanisms, as well as their information disclosure system. The World Bank must reform its investment lending system in a holistic way. More importantly, the IMF should revolutionize its notorious conditional lending system and start its flexible credit line mechanism more quickly and loosely. The WTO must also carry out political reform in the aspects of anti-dumping rules, agricultural trade systems, dispute settlement mechanisms, informal decision-making mechanisms and so on, in order to play its due governance function in pursuing trade liberalization and promoting the development of world trade. Thirdly, promote the reform of the governance mechanism of G8 and G20. In view of the major defects in the global economic governance mechanism, we must focus on promoting the establishment of dialogue and cooperation mechanism between the G8 and the emerging powers, and at the same time, we should strengthen the construction of the mechanism of G20. Today, as the global economy is highly interdependent, the informal global economic governance mechanism has been unable to fully play its role, and the participation and attraction of the emerging powers, as well as the institutional construction of various mechanisms, should be at the core of the G8 and G20 reform. Fourthly, promote the supply of global public goods. In the report of the Road Map towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium

Global system  67 Declaration, A/56/326, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan outlined ten types of public products that need centralized supply in the global public domain: basic human rights, respect for state sovereignty, global public health, global security and peace, communications and transport systems across national boundaries, coordination of cross-border systems, infrastructure, centralized management of knowledge, centralized management of global public lands, and international forums for multilateral negotiations. Fifthly, promote the construction of the global development mechanism. At present, the global development mechanism is mainly based on the United Nations system, and the world bank, the UNCTAD, and the UNDP are its main bodies. They have made important contributions to world development for a long time. However, the cooperation and development mechanism among countries, especially the cooperation and assistance mechanism between developed and developing countries, needs to be further explored and improved. Finally, promote the construction of the global environmental management mechanism. The task of global environmental governance requires the establishment of an authoritative, efficient, and powerful global environmental management mechanism, and the current United Nations environmental institutions must be thoroughly strengthened. The raising of the global environmental protection and governance fund should be explored from the global level, such as the global carbon tax collection. The design and advancement of the super-state democracy: a super-state democracy is designed to advance the process of cosmopolitan democracy, mainly through further strengthening the administrative capacity and responsibility of the democratic system itself at the regional and global levels in the United Nations.41 This is not to weaken the capacity of the nation-state, but to consolidate and develop a global level of democracy on a global scale as a necessary complement to the democratic system at the nation-state level. The basis of its democratic idea is: on the one hand, it recognizes the political significance of the nation state, and on the other hand, it advocates global management as a constraint on the sovereignty of the nation state. According to David Held, an important representative of the cosmopolitan democracy theory, the establishment of such a cosmopolitan democracy involves at least two steps: first, matters beyond the control of the nation-state in fields such as monetary management, environmental issues, security issues, and health issues, can be better placed under the democratic control of the global or regional levels. Correspondingly, the role and status of the global or regional institutions in those fields should be more consistent with their function of providing public products. Secondly, adopt new institutional measures to make the United Nations more consistent with the value of cosmopolitan democracy, including the strengthening of the Security Council, the United Nations lower house representing public opinion rather than “state will”, the International Court of Human Rights, international military forces, and so on.42

68  Zhenye Liu Another design of super-state democracy is the democratic model of the world republic. The idea of a world republic has continued throughout history. Dante, a famous thinker in the ancient West, put forward the idea of a world empire. In modern times, the World Federation of “public meaning” envisaged by the French thinker Rousseau, the free Federation under the consciousness of world citizenship envisaged by Kant, the world administration envisaged by Habermas and so on are all the typical representatives of the model of the world republic. Otfried Höffe, a contemporary German thinker, has carefully planned a subsidiary and federalist world republic model in the book Democracy in an Age of Globalization. This global model of democracy would start from the democracy within a sovereign state, then go through a regional democratic pattern of the intercontinental level to reach the global level of the democratic system of the world republic. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the world republic does not override the nation-state, but only undertakes the “remaining task” of the nation-state and regional alliance. That is, what a single democratic country and its coalition cannot undertake alone in the process of establishing a large regional unity.43 According to the view of Höffe, in the reality of international politics, the United Nations, as the only universal organization in the world, is almost fully competent to take on the mission of the democratic governance of the world republic. In the current international organization network, the United Nations plays a very important role in the ethics of law. His rules even reached the idea of a global order, which was approaching a world republic of subsidiarity and federalism. From the aspect of the institutional framework, the United Nations is close to the world republic because its organizational structure is similar to that of a country: to some extent, the United Nations General Assembly corresponds to the legislative body; the Secretary-General of the United Nations has certain (though limited) executive power; the UN Security Council is the only United Nations unit with the characteristics of full public power, and it also makes temporary decisions to take measures against threats and acts of peace-breaking or aggression, and at this time, the Security Council not only holds the power of the government, but also has some legislative power. In the United Nations framework, there is also a third power in the state law – the world’s judicial power, which are exercised by the International Court of justice, the International Maritime Court, the International Criminal Court, and the separate tribunals set up for certain specific matters.44 However, the operation principles of those units of the United Nations are not in conformity with the ideal values set by the Charter of the United Nations, which also makes the United Nations far away from the democratic ideals of the republic of the world in the reality of its operation. Höffe believes that this is precisely the establishment of the democratic values of the world republic and the direction of UN reform in the era of globalization. The third design of super-state democracy is to promote global constitutional democracy. Constitutional United Nations structure is considered by

Global system  69 most democratic theoretical researchers to be the truest embodiment of the global constitutional democracy. But in reality, the United Nations is still an intergovernmental body. Although the Charter uses the phrase of “We the people of the United Nations”, in fact, people of all countries are still excluded from the decision-making process of the United Nations. Therefore, the most serious challenge to the legitimacy of the United Nations from a constitutional perspective is how the United Nations opens its doors to the global public. On this issue, even the former Se cretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros-Ghali (in this respect, his most famous book is An Agenda for Democratization), the peace movement in the world, and the world federalism movement (such as the representative of the more democratic movement of the United Nations) have all put forward a different United Nations constitutional democratic agenda. The Peace Federalism Movement has long been committed to creating a Second United Nations General Assembly that represents citizens rather than governments. The European Parliament and the Canadian Parliament also formally agreed to this proposal. Constitutional Democrats believe that in order to achieve real global democracy in the United Nations, it is necessary for the inhabitants of all parts of the world to directly enter the process of global political activities of the United Nations so that all citizens of the world are given the dignity and respect they deserve. Therefore, there is a proposal saying that a people’s Congress should be established as an advisory body of the United Nations General Assembly and other United Nations agencies, and some other proposal suggests that representatives of parliamentarians be elected as the transitional stage of the establishment of the UN People’s Congress.45 All in all, promoting the democratization of relations among sovereign states in the composite structure of the global system, promoting the democratization of super-state institutions and the democratic participation of cross-state actors, and promoting the transformation of the global governance mechanism and the process of super-state democracy are all important guarantees for the full development of the governance capability of sovereign states and non-state actors in today’s composite structure of the global system, and at the same time, it is also a fundamental way to balance sovereign and non-sovereign authority. Only if the composite structure of the global system is moving towards further democratization, can a new global system beyond the limits of the system of sovereign states continue to develop steadily and move further to perfection.

Notes 1 David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton, Global Transformation: Politics, Economics and Culture, Polity Press, 1999, pp. 14–21. 2 Allan Cochrance and Kathy Rain, “A Globalizing Society?” in David Held, ed., A Globalizing World?: Culture, Economics, Politics, Routledge, 2000, p. 7.

70  Zhenye Liu 3 David Held, “The Changing Contours of Political Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization,” in Barry Holden, ed., Global Democracy: Key Debates, Routledge, 2000, pp. 20–26. 4 David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton, Global Transformation: Politics, Economics and Culture, pp. 27–28. 5 Hoshino Shoji, World Politics in Global Age, Chinese Version (Translated from Japanese Version in 2001), Social Sciences Academic Press, 2004, pp. 7–8. 6 Oxford Dictionary Online: http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/. 7 The Dictionary Editing Room of the Institute of Linguistics, ed., Modern Chinese Dictionary, Chinese Version, The Commercial Press, 1980, pp. 593, 540. 8 Karen A. Mingst, Essentials of International Relations, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2007, p. 84. 9 James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., Contending Theory of International Relation: A Comprehensive Survey. The 5th Version, Translated by Yan Xuetong, Chen Hanxi, et al., World Affairs Press, 2003, p. 115. 20 Chen Yugang, “Global Relations and Global Studies”, International Review, Vol. 1, 2012, pp. 31–37. 22 Hoshino Shoji, World Politics in Global Age, p. 50. 24 Barry Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School”, International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1993, Summer Issue, p. 337. 26 Li Shaojun, “How to Understand the International System”, World Economics and Politics, Vol. 6, 2009, pp. 13–20. 28 John T. Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage, Translated by Song Wei, et al., Peking University Press, 2005, p. 47.

Global system  71 30 A. Le Roy Bennett, International Organization: Principles and Issues, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 4. 34 Hoshino Shoji, World Politics in Global Age, p. 310. 40 See Wu Zhicheng, Wang Tianyun, “New Challenges for Global Governance in the Context of Globalization,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on “Global Governance and Global Studies”, Institute of Globalization and Global Issues, China University of Political Science and Law, 2011 August 20–21, pp. 100–111. 44 Ibid., pp. 293–296.

3

Global governance Xiaoli Lyu

With the deepening of globalization and the adjustment of the international political and economic structure, the issue of global governance is attracting increasing attention. Global governance is no longer purely an international political theory, but an urgent practical issue in current international politics. What is global governance? Is global governance effective? How does global governance move forward? We need to think deeply about this series of problems in the era of globalization.

The rise of global governance Since the 1990s, the idea of global governance has attracted wide attention from the international community, both in terms of theoretical research and its practical impact. There is no doubt that the rise of each theory or social trend of thought has a profound historical background, and global governance is no exception. Its rise and development are closely related to the rapid development of globalization and the intensifying urgency of solving global problems. From the perspective of performance, the strengthening of the role of multiple governance actors is a prominent feature in the rise of global governance. Specifically, in the traditional view of international relations, sovereign states have always been the only actor concerned. However, in reality, with the development of globalization, our analysis is not limited to states, and the activities of a variety of super-state entities are deeply involved in the internal affairs of various countries. A growing number of documents indicate that major issues in the formulation and implementation of global public policies often occur in an ever-increasing political network: this network includes a variety of cross-governmental organizations such as The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), and also includes three party cooperative organizations, as well as transnational organizations including those in the public sector, enterprise sector, and non-governmental organizations such as Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). In terms of the work of experts and public servants that are coordinating among governments,

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-4

Global governance  73 international organizations, companies, and non-governmental organizations, these networks, which are either specifically created or permanently existing, have become increasingly important. Related examples include the Global Water Resources Cooperation Organization, the Global Data Value Storage Committee, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. The functions of these networks include the formulation of the policy agenda, the publication of information, the formulation of standards, and the establishment and implementation of policy procedures, including anti-money laundering measures taken by the FATF, the global action against AIDS, and so on.1 We are rapidly discovering that because “with global capitalistic market economy system expanding, rapid diffusion of environmental and cultural agenda and that various actors, including international organizations, NGO, transnational enterprises and multinational corporations are becoming more active, the traditional recognition of international relationship, even of roles, such as states and sub-national governments, has apparently changed.”2 The relative decline of national autonomy and the potential flexibility and energy of non-state actors in global public issues, creates good conditions through which to solve public problems faced by human beings through the multi cooperation and sharing of global responsibilities between state actors and non-state actors and the way of global governance.

The core concepts and essentials of global governance The core concepts of global governance So far, the definition of global governance, which has been cited most by academics, is decided by the global governance committee. In 1995, the committee published a research report entitled Our Global Neighborhood, which points out that Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest. Subsequently, the report explained governance at both domestic and international levels: At the global level, governance has been viewed primarily as intergovernmental relationships, but it must now be understood as also involving non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens’ movements,

74  Xiaoli Lyu multinational corporations, and the global capital market. Interacting with these are global mass media of dramatically enlarged influence.3 Many scholars have also put forward their own understanding of the concept of global governance. In the light of the opinions of many scholars, we have made the following induction: global governance refers to a new kind of rules, regimes, methods, and activities for the management of human public affairs, which takes the theory of human integrity and the theory of common interests as the value orientation, and has the prime feature of multiple actors communicate through dialogues on an equal footing and cooperating through negotiations in order to jointly deal with the challenges of global transformation and global issues.4 The core concepts include the following ones. Governance and good governance As to global governance, “global” refers to its scope, and governance is its essence. From etymology, the word “governance” in English comes from Latin and ancient Greek, and its basic meaning is to control, guide, and manipulate. Usually, this word is used in conjunction with the word “government” to refer to the management and political activities of the state. However, since the 1990s, with the further development of globalization, Western political scientists and economists have given “governance” a new meaning. Moreover, this concept also transcends the field of politics and is widely used in the field of social economy. With regard to the basic connotation of the concept of governance, many scholars and institutions have put forward brilliant ideas, but they will not be expanded upon here. As a new theory, the main contents of governance theory include the following. First, Governance is a public action system composed of several actors, including government departments, various non-governmental organizations, social groups, and the private sector; pluralist actors are an obvious feature of governance theory. Governance theory suggests that public management has not only one actor of the government, but also various actors such as the private sector, third sector, and various social movements. The process of public administration from the government’s unilateral administration to social joint action is also the process of the socialization of government management functions. Many quasi-autonomous, semiautonomous, and autonomous social organizations have become the carrier of the socialization of public management, which has made society take a solid step towards self-governance. Secondly, Governance is the network management in which public actors establish partnerships to cooperate, and the network cooperative relationship is the operational feature of governance. Pluralist public governance actors develop interdependent relationships, and promote the development of public

Global governance  75 management in the direction of networking. D Kettle points out that “governance is the network formed by the collaboration of public-private sectors”.5 This shows that governance is network management, and different actors can adjust their goals to each other through an institutionalized system of cooperation, to jointly solve conflicts and enhance mutual interests. Thirdly, Governance theory also repositions the role, status, and functions of the government in network governance. The research on the role and status of the government is one of the important contents of governance theory, which suggests that network management does not weaken the state’s responsibilities in “fundamental work”, and the government is still the most important actor in the field of public administration. The role of “meta governance” is a generalization of this status of the government. This means that when the governance of the social subsystem fails, the government has the responsibility to take the final remedial measures necessary to ensure the cohesion of the network and the integrity of the social system. On the other hand, in an increasingly complex and unstable society, the role of the government in the process of governance is undergoing major changes. As Osborne pointed out, “government should steer more than they row and empower communities rather than simply deliver services”.6 A government that does certain things and refrains from doing others is an effective government. Fourthly, Governance theory also elaborates on organizational problems, cultural problems, and managers’ problems in network management. It suggests that a decentralized governance regime can better adapt to a pluralist and complex society, better grasping the changing opportunities for cooperation. In the information society and the era of knowledge economy, a decentralized governance regime requires public actors to become learning organizations with the ability to use accumulated experience to effectively improve governance performance and the adaptability to reconfigure organizational goals and adjust organizational behavior to new environments. In principle, every public actor is a manager of the network, but the government is the strategic activist among managers. The network also needs to foster a “cooperative culture” based on shared values and obligations. These two cooperative cultures will help to establish a new partnership between public and private sectors, and between electoral officials and civil servants, which will help to eliminate the plight which plagues public management and makes it unable to effectively provide public services.7 However, the key aspect to which attention must be paid, is that effective governance must be based on the state and the market. It is a supplement to the means of the state and the market. In the allocation of social resources, there is not only the possibility of failure of the state and the failure of the market, but also the possibility of the failure of governance. In the words of Jessop, For the point of governance is that goals are modified in and through negotiation and reflection. In this sense governance failure would

76  Xiaoli Lyu presumably consist in the failure to redefine objectives in the face of continuing disagreement about whether they are still valid for the various partners involved.8 In order to cope with the possible failure of governance, the theory of “good governance” has gradually matured. In summary, good governance is a social management process that maximizes public interests. The essential feature of good governance is that it is the cooperative management of public life by the government and citizens and constitutes a new relationship between the political state and civil society, which is the best state of their relations. The basic elements of good governance include legitimacy, transparency, accountability, rule of law, responsiveness, effectiveness, participation, stability, and justice.9 Good governance is, in essence, the return of state power to society and the process of good governance is a process of returning the state power to the people. Public power Governance is the treatment of public affairs, with the purpose of dominating, influencing, and regulating the society and fully realizing public interests. To achieve the purpose of governance, we must rely on public power. Therefore, in the logical structure of governance theory, public power is the core concept. Public power refers to the authoritative power that is mastered and implemented by public management in order to manage public affairs and enhance public interests, based on the consent of the social community or some form of approval. To sum up, public power has the following six features. First, the actors are diverse. In the process of transformation from traditional society to modern society, the diversification of public affairs management actors represents one of the most significant changes. With the adjustment of the relationship between the government and society, and the government and the market, the government is no longer independent and monopolizing the responsibility of providing public goods and public services, instead sharing management responsibilities and management obligations with other public managers through the market-oriented mode of privatization and contract outsourcing. Secondly, the nature of power is public. Publicness is the main feature of public power which differentiates it from other forms of power. The operation of public power in practice is manifested by the management of public affairs. Therefore, the practical performance of public power’s publicness is inseparable from the process of the management of public affairs. First, the actors of the operation of public power are public. The state (in a narrow sense) and social public organizations constitute the main actors in the management of public affairs. These organizations have public features which

Global governance  77 are different from private organizations. Secondly, the operational values of public power are public. The values of public power can mainly be summarized as equality, justice, fairness, democracy, ethics, and a sense of shared responsibility, which differs from general management values revolving around the achievement of management goals efficiently and economically. Thirdly, the objects and targets of public power management are public. The objects of public affair management are public affairs, and there is no doubt that they all have a distinct publicness. At the same time, the ultimate goal or aim of public affairs management is to realize the public interests of the public. Thirdly, its basic function is the management of public affairs. Generally speaking, public affairs are the relative concept of private affairs, referring to the activities that provide public goods and public services related to the public interests of all members of the society. They emphasize the social affairs that arise in the process of the development of human society and states. They “cannot be managed” or “cannot be managed well” or “should not be managed” by individuals. As long as there are public affairs, the publicness exists objectively. Fourthly, its value orientation is the public interests. On the one hand, public interests are the basic motive force for the formation of public power. On the other hand, public interests are also important points for distinguishing public power from other forms of power, such as state power. We can simply sum up the distinction with the following criteria. First of all, public interests are not only manifested as a single national interest or in a single field. Secondly, the number of demanders is not the sole criteria for determining public interests. The basic feature of deciding whether public interests are actually in the public interest is “whether it has the nature of social sharing.” In other words, the nature of social sharing is the basic criterion for determining public interests. Thirdly, we should combine the three perspectives of motivation, process, and result to judge public interests comprehensively, and the key is the result.10 Fifthly, its products provided are public goods. The public power takes public goods as its final outcome. Public goods are the goods that are inseparable in consumption (commonality) and non-competitive and non-exclusive (sharing) so that they cannot be fully provided through the market and private supply, but more through collective action public organizations, which creates co-ownership in the property relationship. Generally speaking, public goods are a multi-level and diversified concept. At the same time, this also represents the multi-level and diversified features of public interests themselves. Sixthly, its obligation to bear is public responsibilities. Both the source of public power and the principle of the rule of law show that public power in essence requires public affairs management actors to bear the corresponding public responsibilities. Social contract theory, starting from natural rights and through the social contract as an intermediary, finally concludes

78  Xiaoli Lyu that the public power of the state and the government comes from the granting and entrustment of this power from the people. From the point of view of the rule of law, any right should have its corresponding obligation, and exercising any kind of power should take its corresponding responsibility. Power cannot be separated from responsibility. Otherwise, this kind of power is illegal and unreasonable. If the actor exercising the power is granted a certain kind of power that does not belong to them, they will have a certain kind of special “right”. So, the actor exercising this power must bear a special “obligation” to serve the actor of power, which means to bear public responsibilities. Based on the above analysis, we can roughly summarize the basic points of public power. The actors of public power are pluralist power actors, including government agencies. The nature of power has a significant publicness. The basic function of public power is to manage public affairs, and its value orientation is public interests. The final product of public power is public goods. Public responsibilities are an obligation that public power cannot shirk. Clarifying the concept and connotation of public power is very important for understanding governance. This is because there is a close relationship between public power and governance. First of all, public power and governance are inseparable. Governance is the allocation and operation of public power and is the embodiment and application of public power in political practice. The reason for the formation of public power lies in the need for governance. Any social community must have corresponding governance to maintain its existence and development, and governance objectively needs a kind of power from the public, namely public power. Public power is only a possible or potential power. Like any other form of power, it has to be put into practice to achieve a certain purpose, that is, the operation of power, which is named governance. As the governance of public power is the process in practice, its different forms reflect the different nature and ownership of public power, such as centralized governance, which is characterized by the concentration of public power in the hands of certain persons. The essence of decentralized governance is that public power is controlled by different people in terms of its nature and function. On the level of global governance, there are many forms, such as hegemonic state governance, state cooperation governance, non-state governance, and so on, because of the different exercise subject of public power. Secondly, from the perspective of the interaction between governance and public power in political practice, in general, there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between them. On the one hand, the size of public power determines the performance of governance. The public power includes two aspects of factors of authority (legitimacy foundation) and the possession and domination of social resources. Therefore, they jointly determine the performance of governance. As the authority of public power is not always consistent with its possession and domination of social resources, the influence

Global governance  79 of public power on governance performance is also different. On the other hand, governance performance will also affect the public power. In general, effective governance may strengthen the authority of public power and provide more social resources that can be possessed and dominated to the public power itself. Failed governance will inevitably damage the authority of public power and consume its existing social resources, prompting the adjustment and even transmutation of the original public power. In the history of political development, every big or small change of public power almost has more or less of a relationship with the performance of governance. Therefore, in history and in practice, in order to stabilize or strengthen its authority and control social resources, any governor of any social community (the representative of the public power) will seek a kind of “good governance” in order to eventually maintain the effective operation of public power. It is seen from the above that governance and public power are almost a consortium. Governance is the governance of public power, and public power is the public power contained in governance. Therefore, in the history of human social and political development, the evolution of governance is almost the same process as the evolution of public power. Global regime Whether global governance is effective depends on whether the continuous process is based on reasonable institutional arrangements. The essence of global governance is to operate under the normative system reached by choice by multiple actors. It is necessary to establish a rule system to realize the universal value of mankind. It includes the civil movement and the rules of the various actors that produce transnational impact through the joint pursuit of goals, and further includes a large number of rules systems involved in a more interdependent and rapidly increasing world network. Rosenau points out that Systems of governance operate at the global level, that they can be founded on deeply entrenched beliefs, habits, and institutions even as they are also ever susceptible to change, and that they can provide the bases for cooperation and collectives in world politics.11 Global governance is a kind of rule system including intergovernmental regimes and informal and non-governmental regimes. Yu Keping, a Chinese scholar, thinks that Global governance is the democratic consultation and cooperation, providing that governments, international organizations and citizens make joint effort to increase mutual benefit to a maximum extent. The core content of global governance should be constructing and developing a

80  Xiaoli Lyu whole set of new international political and economic order, including global regulations and regimes to handle international political and economic problems for the human security, peace, development, welfare, equality and human rights.12 In a sense, global regime is located at the heart of global governance. Without a set of common norm which can be observed by all global citizens, namely, the binding power for humankind, global governance is a nonsense.13 In international politics, the international regime refers to a series of restrictive institutional arrangements or norms established by the international community or dominant countries for the purpose of stabilizing the international order, promoting common development, or improving efficiency. These institutional arrangements can be written rules and regulations in the form of international laws, or unwritten informal tacit cooperation. They can be resolutions and products of meetings of international organizations and great powers or results of activities of private actors and anonymous organizers. There can be various regimes such as security regimes, trade regimes, petroleum regimes, ocean regimes, and regional regimes. The core of all these regimes lies in avoiding anarchy, reducing the potential for conflicts, and achieving controllable development.14 Stephen Krasner defines the international regime as “principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area”.15 States in international relations are faced with the issue of socialization. The socialization of states in international relations mainly refers to the process of states’ learning, accepting, and integrating into the international regime. If any state wants to be recognized and accepted in the international system, it must abide by the basic international norms and rules. On the one hand, international regimes provide guidance for international actors to reach a workable consensus mode; on the other hand, they restrict the conduct of states by prohibiting certain actions. Global governance is a system change in the era of globalization, which fully embodies the feature of the change of international politics. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the essential features of global governance more accurately from the perspective of system change. Compared with other methods of establishing an international order, the primary feature of the global governance regime is a kind of “anarchic governance”. It can be said that anarchic governance is the main difference between the global governance theory and other ideas aimed at achieving international order. Global governance is a general phrase that neither assumes a supreme authority nor expects things to eventually develop. Instead, it points out that an irreversible process is going on, and authority is increasingly decomposed, creating a global governance system that is composed of an increasing number of authority centers in every corner of the world and in each level of the community. This form of governance which can also establish the authority and

Global governance  81 conduct global affairs in all fields of the world without the formal authorization of the government is a kind of anarchic governance. What needs particular emphasis is that global governance includes not only the anarchic governance but also the governance of the government. The state is still the main force and center of global governance. The support and participation of sovereign states, as well as multilateral cooperation among countries, especially among major powers, remain an important form of global governance. The significance of the anarchic feature of global governance mainly lies in its transcendence of the idea that the traditional state is the sole center of global public affairs, and it emphasizes that in the era of globalization, the role of the global civil society, non-state actors, and individual elites must be fully played, and the global pluralist cooperation regime must be formed to promote the normal global development and maintenance the new order of the world. However, we should also see that the deepening process of globalization has made people’s way of thinking and acting quite different from the past. The best way to solve international contradictions and conflicts is through promoting international cooperation and dialogue, giving full space to the role of non-state actors such as international organizations and integrating complex international relations with international regimes. As a result, the global governance regime, with its practical flexibility and maneuverability, has become a regular pattern of regulating contemporary international relations and is increasingly favored by the international community. In a sense, the governance regime has changed the development direction and process of the international community, making the international community achieve a relatively ordered state of institutionalization. The essential meaning of global governance The essential meaning refers to the core connotation and essential content. It is the essential rule of a thing that differentiates it from others. In understanding and grasping the essential meaning of global governance, we should pay attention to the following features and contents.16 First, the government actor shifts to the non-government actors. Traditionally, the management of public affairs is presided over and undertaken by the government. This is its power and responsibility. The government’s management of domestic public affairs is customarily regarded as domination. It distributes social resources and maintains social order through compulsory power. In the traditional public affairs management system, the government not only monopolizes power but is also almost the only owner and embodiment of political authority. Global governance has broken the government’s monopoly on the management of public affairs. Many non-governmental actors, such as international non-governmental organizations, transnational social movements, global civil networks, and transnational corporations, participate in the management of public affairs in

82  Xiaoli Lyu a variety of ways and share public power and political authority with the government. Secondly, the power of the state shifts to the power of the society. If the shift from the government actor to non-government actors is an intuitive change in global governance, the shift from the power of the state to the power of the society is the more essential content behind this intuitive phenomenon, because it involves a more fundamental question: the relationship between the state and society. The state was born out of society, and it is a product of social development to a certain extent. Although in the evolution of history, the relationship between the two shows diversity because of the influence of regions, development stages, and historical traditions, in general, since the birth of the state, it has represented and exercised public power, and has always been in the dominant position relative to society. However, the emergence of global governance in the 1990s poses a real challenge to the absolute dominance of the state in human social life. When the management of public affairs is shifted from government to non-government, it actually means a partial transfer of public power from the state to the society. From the theory of democracy and the theory of the extinction of the state, this kind of power transfer has historical inevitability and rationality, constituting a historic step towards the return of government power to the people and the return of power to society. Thirdly, territorial politics shifts to non-territorial politics. Global governance has broken through territorial politics and begun to highlight non-territorial politics, which is manifested by the emergence of a large number of non-state actors and the dramatic increase in transnational activities. As for territorial politics shifting to non-territorial politics, the international academic community has tried to explain this phenomenon with new frameworks and concepts. For example, Held puts forward the view of “functional political space”,17 and Rosenau explains non-territorial politics by elaborating the reconstruction of authority. He argues that the state is only one of the many sources of authority, and a new “Space of Authorities” (SOAs)18 has emerged in contemporary human society that is different from state authority. These tentative explanations are not indisputable, but their analysis of the shift from territorial politics to non-territorial politics should undoubtedly arouse our concern and reflection. Fourthly, mandatory and hierarchical management shifts to equality, negotiation, voluntariness and network management. The essential meaning of global governance is not only manifested in the management subject, the scope of management, the ownership and direction of management power, but also from the nature of power and its operation, distinct from traditional government management. Global governance embodies a unique new power relationship with new management rules, including first the equality of the power subjects, secondly the negotiability of management, thirdly the voluntariness of management, and at last the network of management.

Global governance  83 Fifthly, global governance is a special political authority. The management of human public affairs needs authority. Therefore, global governance is inseparable from authority. In fact, it is itself a kind of authority, but a special authority, because the establishment and legitimacy of this authority cannot be explained by the democratic theory applicable to the nation-state. It is the result of the coordination, dialogue, and cooperation of many varied actors.

Crises and challenges facing global governance After World War II, with the development of globalization and interdependence, global governance has greatly expanded both the actors of governance and the scope of the field. Although human global governance practices have conducted comprehensive development, it seems that this remains insufficient to effectively curb the global crisis and increasing risk brought about by the development of globalization. The global ecological and environmental issues (global warming, biodiversity crisis, and ecosystem loss), the sustainable development of human beings and global competition rules (nuclear non-proliferation, intellectual property rights protection, trade rules) have become increasingly urgent and severe issues.19 The voice of the international community calling for further strengthening and improving global governance is getting louder with each passing day. Since 2008, the global financial crisis has rapidly increased the global risk of the international community, and the existing mode and regime of global governance is also facing more severe crises and challenges. To sum up, these crises and challenges mainly involve the following aspects. The global risks and governance difficulties facing the international community are unprecedented Globalization is the objective process and development trend of the present world that is independent of the will of mankind, and its deep development is profoundly affecting the real world with great penetration and extensive scope. In a sense, while globalization is greatly promoting the development of the world economy, it is also creating negative effects in the form of various global problems and the rapid spread of global crises. The voice and demand of the international community to strengthen global governance is increasing. Since the beginning of the new century, global risk has been showing an increasing trend, and global governance is facing increasing new challenges. Under the pressure of these various crises, it is ever more necessary to strengthen cooperation and conduct comprehensive coordination among countries, but the difficulty of conducting global governance is also increasing rapidly at the same time. In terms of performance, at present, the trend of globalization is deepening day by day, and global crises endlessly emerge, directly endangering

84  Xiaoli Lyu national security, international security, and human security. The scope and depth of these challenges have gone beyond traditional national boundaries and the capacity of individual countries to respond, which means that we are already in a “risk society”.20 Not only has globalization emerged from the tide after the global financial crisis but those originally existing social contradictions such as unbalanced and unequal economic development, which were previously covered by the fast-growing reality and expectation, have become increasingly prominent. The consequences of the international financial crisis have begun to spill over to the economic and financial fields, and spread to social and political fields. Some regions and countries are in chaotic situations. “Turmoil” has become a keyword in international politics. At its roots, global governance reflects the trend of some aspects of international politics in changing and providing a new tool for the analysis of international order, but its concept and the practice of global governance have not significantly altered essential components of international politics. The enhancement of economic globalization and interdependence only indicates the necessity and urgency of cooperation among countries and global governance, but neither is it a sufficient condition for ensuring the emergence of global governance, nor can it change the essence of politics and end its essential ideology. Global governance cannot change the essence of international politics that is characterized by great-power politics and power politics. Global governance has led to the weakening of state sovereignty, and the global civil society has also eroded the independence of state sovereignty. However, state sovereignty is the prerequisite for the survival and development of nation-states. Sovereign states have resisted global governance in varying degrees due to the fear of loss of sovereignty, and the anti-globalization movement is becoming increasingly intense together with the rising of the wave of globalization. At the same time, the lack of international authority over states and international organizations in global governance has greatly reduced its efficiency.21 In the next five to ten years, the demand for global governance reform will be unprecedentedly strong. In an abstract sense, almost all countries have the will or the demand to promote global governance and achieve a safe, free, just, and prosperous world. However, regarding specific objectives, there are differences and even conflicts among the wishes of different countries. Differences over the priority and even understanding of goals exist among and within countries. For example, for extremely underdeveloped countries, obtaining external assistance and increasing national capacity is the most urgent requirement. For the vast number of developing countries, achieving sustained economic growth and national prosperity is the priority. But for countries with existing power and status, such as the US, it is a more important goal to ensure comparative advantage and to maintain “Pax Americana”. This means that in the next five to ten years, the competition over different governance modes will enter its most intense stage.

Global governance  85 The global governance regime is in a deep crisis The emergence of crisis in the existing global governance regime can be traced back to the end of the Cold War and the East Asian financial crisis in 1997–1998. At the end of the Cold War, the US was the only hegemon in the world. It could use its strong economic, political, and military strength to safeguard its own and its allies’ security, create a world order according to its will, and carry out the American democratic system and a free-market economy. But contrary to expectations, the more the US attempted to sell its system through force, the more it rebounded or was resisted. The “9/11” terrorist attacks provoked American exceptionalism in an extreme form. After the outbreak of the Asian financial crisis, the IMF governance or the myth of the “Washington Consensus” behind it was questioned, contributing to the awakening of developing countries in Asia and other regions. By 2007–2008, after the outbreak of the US financial crisis, the global governance regime had a serious “fault line” and “legitimacy crisis”. Taking trade and climate change governance as examples, international trade fluctuations will affect domestic economic development, affect income distribution, social stability, and government capabilities, and lead to security risks. This has become an important security issue in the world and encompasses other fields.22 Under the existing trading system, the “gap” between the developed and the developing countries is growing. The unjust trade system, on the one hand, makes the weak and poor people lose their ability to take advantage of trade for future development and, on the other hand, does not bring peace from trade, but on the contrary, sows the seeds of conflicts between countries and ethnic groups.23 At the same time, the issue of climate change has become the most urgent concern for the security agenda in the world. Climate change has already posed a clear threat to the international community, the countries concerned and the affected masses.24Such risks and threats may be unfairly applied to the most vulnerable countries and groups with limited capacity.25 As a sub-system threat to the safety, climate change is closely related to economic, social, political, and other security fields. The “linkage politics” among these issues will inevitably lead to a “Security Complex” caused by climate threats. However, these two issues have repeatedly failed in the process of building a global governance system. As the most mature international system, the WTO began to start the development agenda of the Doha Round, in favor of developing countries since 2001. But even today, questions remain. Since the Kyoto Protocol, as an international regime under construction, the progress of the climate change response system has been far from satisfactory. Comparing with Copenhagen, although the Cancun Conference has reached a consensus on emission reduction measurement and reduction fund, and many countries have expressed their “satisfaction” attitude,26 the implementation of disputes and consensus in the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period generates significant concerns for its future. Therefore,

86  Xiaoli Lyu only through conducting effective institutional reform and innovation to today’s global governance regime, we can adapt to the increasing transnational and global challenges. Some fundamental dilemmas and defects in global governance itself As the restriction, supplement, and substitution of the traditional mode of state intervention and the spontaneous order pattern of market expansion, the governance theory expounds a political picture of “governing the society”: governments around the world do not completely monopolize all legitimate powers. To maintain order, adjust the economy, and coordinate the social development, there are both governmental organizations and other actors such as non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations, private enterprises, interest groups, and social movements. Together, they form a kind of national and international form of political, economic, and social adjustment. These actors are interdependent, guided by common values. They consult and negotiate in order to reach a common position and solve conflicts across various levels through cooperation. However, this good “governance society” prospect is not unconditional. As the traditional state intervention and free-market mode can lead to failure, taking governance to replace the market, and hierarchical rule may also constitute a risk of failure, namely “governance failure”. Given the growing structural complexity and opacity of the social world, indeed, failure becomes the most likely outcome of attempts to govern it with reference to multiple objectives over extended spatial and temporal horizons - whether through markets, states, partnerships, or some other mechanism.27 Today’s global governance is essentially a regime of collective action to provide global public goods through the cooperation of multiple actors in response to a global public crisis. From the perspective of collective action, on the one hand, the primary condition for the realization of collective action is that the relational parties are willing to solve the related problems through coordination rather than conflict, and channels for the relational parties to participate in cooperation should be provided. That is to say, stakeholders must have a willingness to cooperate and have the channels to participate, and then, the collective action could be possible. On the other hand, in order to guarantee collective action, public goods must be fully supplied. If the parties cannot or do not want to supply sufficient public goods, and conduct “hitchhiking” behavior, the collective action will fail due to the lack of supply of public goods.28 If we use the above two standards to measure the problems of today’s global governance, the fundamental dilemma is “the deficit in participation” and “the deficit of responsibility”.

Global governance  87 As far as the deficit is concerned, the existing governance structure has failed to fully express the views and aspirations of many states and nonstate actors, and many actors do not participate in the channels of global governance. Taking the main economic governance regime as an example, the IMF and the World Bank have serious representative problems. Although the IMF has 187 members, the developed countries firmly control the leadership and decision-making power of this organization. In terms of liability deficit, many actors often take a free-ride instead of seeking a lasting collective solution.29 The reason is that the world’s global governance actors still hold the “national centralism” mode of thinking. The concept of “national centralism” allows the state to limit its vision within national boundaries, and regard global governance only as a new way of punching or competing among different actors. Under the guidance of this way of thinking, “isolated coping behavior” and “behavior of going after gain and avoiding harm” have become the main form of dealing with global governance responsibility by global governance actors. It is this idea that makes the global community lack consciousness of sovereign states, which leads today’s global governance to a dilemma.30 In addition, Anthony McGrew believes that the practical purposes, priorities, and actions of global governance are dynamically constrained to varying degrees by three aspects of the order of countries, the order of economy, and the order of knowledge. In terms of limiting people’s awareness of higher levels of global social justice and human security, they lead to distorted global governance. Also, there are serious structural flaws in the existing system, which enhances its distortions: lack of management, lack of rationality, insufficient coordination, insufficient obedience, and deficiency of democracy. These structural defects are clearly explained in the gap of a series of key aspects of the system’s governance capabilities, especially in the gap of the functions concerning welfare, human security, and poverty reduction. These governance gaps or defects have led to a crisis of legalization described by political science – the ability to achieve effective, active, and responsible governance at the same time greatly reduced.31 The above five shortcomings lead to a crisis in this sense. From the perspective of a micro organization, it is easier to see the dilemma of the effectiveness of governance theory. Governance is entirely based on dialogue and willingness to do things well, but this cannot occur in a vacuum. Governance attempts to unify the organizations in the interdependent network so as to take collective action for the benefit of the public, but it cannot solve the problem of coordination among organizations. Collective action has always been a theoretical problem in academic circles. The way to avoid free-riding, provide effective incentives, and realize timely supervision has not yet been discovered through governance theory. Governance only emphasizes continuous dialogue and interactive negotiations in order to exchange information and reduce barriers, which are little help to solve collective action problems. The theory of governance also emphasizes

88  Xiaoli Lyu the exchange and sharing of resources among organizations. If their interests are not clearly divided and realized, the exchange and sharing of resources cannot be sustained, because the life of the organization depends on the realization and preservation of its own interests. The construction and maintenance of the inter-organizational partnership have not been well solved in governance theory. In the interlaced and complex information society, this kind of partnership is likely to be a “loose alliance” and requires strong and powerful social capital as ethical ties.

New issues and new perspectives of global governance With the deepening of globalization and the increasing sense of crisis on solving global problems, global governance has uncovered new issues and perspectives in the global practice, and the theoretical discussion of global governance has deepened. New issues of global governance The emerging powers on the stage of global governance The redistribution of world wealth has led to a shift of power structure from the West to the East and from the North to the South. From the Group of Seven (G7) to the Group of Twenty (G20), the allocation of international power resources has begun to shift towards the lower end of the political chain. Many international political forces that were once ignored or despised have taken on increasingly important roles in international politics. More countries are taking on central positions, and the trend of multi-polarization and pluralism is further enhanced. The world power pattern is flattening and decentralizing. As the American scholar Joseph Nye pointed out in his book The Future of Power published in 2011, international politics in the 21st century is experiencing two major power transitions. The first is the power transition between countries, that is, the transition from the West to the East and to the emerging countries in Asia. In the information age, another transformation is the power diffusion, that is, under the impetus of the information revolution, power is diffused from state to non-state actors. With the decentralization of power, the world is entering an era where “no country or alliance of countries has the strength and willingness to do whatever he wants on the international stage”. The “stability under hegemony” from the past has faded, and people need to fully understand how power operates in world politics.32 It is necessary to point out that the emerging powers have risen in the current international order, benefiting from the world’s production, consumption, investment, and trade markets which were dominated by the Western countries since World War II, and benefiting from the optimal allocation of goods and investments in the world market. It is under these conditions

Global governance  89 that emerging powers participate in the international division of labor, and take advantage of the late-developing advantages brought to them by the dividends of globalization to achieve accelerated catching-up. Emerging powers are rising in the current international pattern, and their further development depends on a stable external environment, providing a continuous source of energy, market, and capital demand for its own economic development. Subjectively speaking, emerging powers should not be willing to challenge the existing order, because after decades of development, they have become the sub-dominant group in the existing international division of labor. The disorder of the current system will disrupt their economic development, contain their rising momentum, and do not meet their own expectations. Objectively speaking, the rise of the emerging powers has just started. They are facing many challenges such as economic restructuring, the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, a shortage of resources, and the deterioration of the environment, and furthermore they are unable to challenge the world order established by the West. The combination of subjective and objective factors determines that the emerging powers will continue to seek to rise within the system, and at the same time strive for greater discourse power and influence in the current system to serve their own development interests. It can be said that in the current international political and economic structure, the emerging powers’ seeking of “embedded development”33 has become their only realistic choice of path. At the same time, cooperative co-governance between emerging powers and traditional powers is the objective requirement of global governance put forward by the further development of globalization in this century. The effectiveness of cooperative governance will depend on the following three factors: First, whether the traditional and emerging powers can reach a tacit understanding of each other’s international roles and responsibilities; secondly, whether emerging powers can effectively integrate interests, control differences, and develop from loose forums into regimes for joint action; thirdly, whether emerging powers can consistently overcome their internal vulnerabilities, improve their domestic governance while participating in international governance, realize the benign interaction between internal and external governance, and ensure that the rising momentum will not be blocked. Emerging powers have undoubtedly stepped onto the stage of global economic governance, but in the transition from the periphery to the center, emerging powers will be challenged by traditional forces, other developing countries, and domestic constraints. The impact of the rise of emerging powers on the international governance system may not be immediate, but it will certainly be far-reaching. In the short run, emerging powers are more willing to participate in global governance, but their overall strength is not yet able to compete with the Western countries. Their motives and objectives for participating in global governance are reform rather than revolution, which will be conducive to fine-tuning and improving the delays and

90  Xiaoli Lyu unreasonable parts of the governance regime while maintaining the basic stability of the existing international order. In the medium and long terms, the participation of emerging powers in global governance on an equal footing will further promote the flattening and networking of international governance. Multipolar power structures will bring opportunities to multilateralism and challenges to effective global governance. Global governance will face a dilemma of representation and effectiveness. Discussion on the legitimacy standard of global governance regimes and the construction of global governance standards Although global governance emerges as a solution to problems, the various elements of global governance, including governance subject, governance object, governance principles, and governance framework, embody obvious features of human design and selection. In this sense, global governance is also a process of human initiative construction. Since active construction involves the understanding of “reality” and the yearning for “ought to be”, what theorists and practitioners need to do is to build a bridge from “reality” to “ought to be”. The discussion on the legitimacy of global governance regimes is an important part of turning this ideal into reality. Global governance regimes include various multilateral regimes, such as the WTO and the IMF, which are similar to national governments because they also promulgate rules and clearly define the consequences of compliance with or violation of these rules while declaring their own authority. However, global governance regimes have never expected to have complete government functions. These regimes do not legally exercise a monopoly over violence in a permanently exclusive territory as national governments do, and the design and main conduct of these regimes require unanimous consent of various states. From the point of view of the functions of global governance regimes, they can promote international cooperation and help to establish a coordinated framework to limit the abuse of their rules by autonomous transnational non-state actors. Of course, global governance regimes also limit the choice of society, and sometimes even restrict the sovereignty of democratic countries. While bringing benefits to the global community, they also increase certain burdens and have a negative impact on individuals. Discussions about the legitimacy of global governance regimes are often plagued with confusion, as academics have never established appropriate classification criteria. However, the concept of legitimacy is very important for the study of global governance regimes, and the evaluation of legitimacy cannot be simplified as a discussion of self-interest. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the legalization of the global governance regimes, the so-called “composite standards”, are the main points to be explored, which require ensuring that democratic countries agree on the channels of accountability. A more common view is that the elements of legitimacy standards

Global governance  91 include three key features. First, global governance regimes should reflect the sustained recognition of democratic countries, that is, democratic accountability channels should play an important role. Secondly, regimes should meet the independent criteria of minimum moral acceptance, relative benefit, and regime integrity. Thirdly, these regimes should have certain cognitive advantages to make a reliable judgment on whether the above independent standards can be achieved. Through the interaction between these regimes and effective external cognitive agents, finally, a critical revision of its objectives can be achieved, alongside accountability rules and its division of functions.34 Global public standards on legitimacy can guide citizens to follow democratic principles and distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate governance regimes, thus reaching a reasonable agreement on the evaluation of legitimacy. Establishing widely accepted standards, whether we meet the standards or strive to achieve them, will increase public support for valuable global governance regimes. In addition, the construction of global governance norms is a gradual process, which is not only a spontaneous behavior of society but also a conscious behavior of actors. Whether norms can be widely disseminated and popularized depends not only on the advocates of these norms but also on the norms themselves. In other words, whether the concepts advocated by the new norms agree with the preferences expressed by the interacting context of the international community’s rights and interests structure, will have a very important impact on the dissemination and internalization of norms. In short, in order to avoid the risk of failure, the new norms must have a strong “suitability” for the international community. But norm advocates may need to break the rules and take “inappropriate” acts when advocating a new norm.35 These “inappropriate” acts are necessary to a certain extent. They can be called new norms because they must negate or exceed existing norms to a certain extent. In other words, the process of normative construction must embody the necessary “orientation”. This orientation is not an imaginary idea, but a strategic social construction that takes into account both the preferences of the original norms and the demands of the world’s development trends and requirements.36 In short, advocates of new norms must look for analogies between existing norms and emerging ones, and establish a convincing link between them. At the same time, advocates of new norms need to keep in mind that their goal is to construct norms of global governance and explore the future world political framework. Therefore, new norms must also reflect a certain degree of orientation. The “sociality” of today’s world is still weak, and the normative factors of the international community are relatively absent. People hold different opinions on the future scenarios and path choices of the world. These factors lead to difficulties in constructing global governance norms. However, “as the goals of collective action become extremely specific and as the groups interested in them become very large, the collective action problem tends to approach the polar case, that is, the collective action may probably

92  Xiaoli Lyu be chosen”.37 The rapid development of economic globalization will inevitably lead to a more urgent demand for global systems and norms. There is a huge contrast between the lack of norms and the urgency of demand, which shows the necessity for norm construction. The following principles deserve further attention and discussion: the construction of global governance norms must be a process of integrating universalism and particularism; this must take into account “suitability” and “orientation”, and this requires the integration of the two paths of “region” and “functional area”.38 However, the transformation of ideas is a slow process with its own development law. The construction of new norms is undoubtedly a long process. In reality, the features of the “Westphalia” order determines that the game of power and interests is still difficult to transcend. Even if the emerging norms have strong suitability and orientation, and can be consistent with the interactions between the international power structure and conceptual structure, they will still face a question of who should initiate and what to advocate for. Therefore, the construction of global governance norms must be a tortuous and long process, or even, it is simply a process without an end. New perspective of global governance Global digital revolution and global governance The global digital revolution, particularly since the emergence of new technologies, such as computer and internet technologies, has caused the world to truly enter the information age. The Arab Spring of 2011, as well as the current situation in Syria, highlights the enormous power of the digital revolution. Because of the unprecedented convenience of information transmission, any domestic political event will be instantly watched or even participated in by the world, which is profoundly affecting world politics and in some cases becoming a driving force for world change. This will also have a far-reaching impact on the decision-making environment and practical links of global governance. The internet has given many individuals new political power, and it has also expanded new fields of global governance. This need for governance comes first from two points: first, the internet has little absolute control, so it can be defined as anarchy. Secondly, the structure and features of the internet have surpassed the scope of national sovereignty governance.39 In addition, the impact of technology is uncertain and it is the result of choice. Technology cannot determine its own path of development, nor can it be used rationally. Information technology is technology after all, with the nature of a tool, which can be used for good or evil.40 The features of internet anarchy, sovereignty transcendence, the uncertainty of technological impact, and the existence of various practical problems such as cybercrime, cybersecurity, and international cyber disputes have brought tremendous demands and challenges to the global governance of the virtual world, and

Global governance  93 call for the birth of institutional behaviors and organizational behaviors in the increasingly standardized cyberspace. However, internet governance in international relations is confronted with the limitation of the interaction between information technology and institutions, which is manifested by the limitations of institutional actors, organizational structure, and institutional culture.41 In addition, it should be noted that the internet, as a means of communication, represents a variety of interests and values. Therefore, as one of the institutional actors, the government is often well placed to use the internet to maintain its mainstream social value. In the US, the most common use of information technology is to enhance economic competitiveness and efficiency and to promote democratic values such as equality and freedom. In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on “Internet Freedom”, saying that “Internet freedom becomes the top priority for foreign policy”.42 The internet has been opened up as a new battleground to promote American values. Instead, the Saudi government uses some of the world’s most sophisticated filtering technologies to enforce stringent control over online information. Therefore, the same information technology may be adopted for very different purposes in different cultures. For example, in the research and development process of the next generation internet, developing countries want government agencies from various countries to participate, while the US adheres to the principle of commercial profits and market orientation. Different value orientations make the global governance of virtual world fall into dispute. Global public goods supply and global governance The theory of Global Public Goods (GPGs) emerged in the early 1990s with the attention on global environmental issues. American scholar Kindleberger first introduced the theory of public goods into international relations, pointing out that the stable operation of the international economic system requires a country to bear the “public cost”. “Global Public Goods” refers to the goods that are shared by all countries in the world. They can be funds, reserves, equity, debt, or options controlled and used by international organizations and institutions. They can also be international assistance in the form of food, oil, and other material forms or international rules, global agreements, and organizational forms themselves. The most important features of global public goods are their commonality, reliability, and durability; their recognition, acceptance, adoption, and promotion by the majority of member countries; their contribution to the mitigation of international crises, the promotion of international peace, the development of international trade, and the expansion of international undertakings. In short, they contribute to the basic well-being and needs of the progress of the majority of the members of the international community and even humanity as a whole. The United Nations gives a complete

94  Xiaoli Lyu definition of global public goods: “The benefits of global public goods cut across states, social and generational borders.” In addition, according to the report of the International Implementation Group on Global Public Goods, the following three conditions should be met for global public goods: first, they are equally important for developed and developing countries; secondly, they cannot be adequately supplied by the individual actions of a single country or group; and thirdly, they can be optimally supplied on the basis of multilateral cooperation. In short, global public goods are products that affect all countries, groups, and generations, and their optimal supply can only be achieved through joint cooperation among countries. Global public goods are usually short supply. This is shown in the following four aspects: first, some global public goods have not been provided or are only partially provided. Secondly, global public goods are supplied in a distorted way, and their benefits are unfairly enjoyed or the costs incurred are unfairly borne. For example, the multilateral trading system has made industrial developed countries much more profitable than developing countries. Thirdly, they have been over-exploited. For example, human activities emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, meaning the atmosphere as a pollutant discharge channel has been and continues to be overused for this purpose. Fourthly, they have not been fully utilized. For example, as to the global communication networks and the internet, although the capacity of the current global communication networks is increasing, the networks and the internet have not been fully utilized. The supply of global public goods is the core of global governance. Restricted by the anarchy of the international system, state actors tend to prefer a “free-rider” strategy, resulting in a serious shortage of international public goods. In the reality of international relations, major countries taking the initiative to assume international responsibilities and increase supply to alleviate the plight of insufficient supply have become an important way to promote international cooperation and global governance.43 The problems that global governance are to solve is to address the externalities of problems created by the process of globalization: to protect the sustained and rational distribution of positive externalities and to eliminate the variety of damages from negative externalities on the human community. This is also the reason for the rise of public goods theory in international relations and global research in recent years. According to the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations entitled Road Map towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, ten categories of public goods need to be centrally supplied in the global public sphere: basic human rights; respect for national sovereignty; global public health; global security; global peace; cross-border communication and transport systems; coordination of institutional infrastructure across borders; centralized management of knowledge; centralized management of global commons; and effectiveness of international forums for multilateral negotiations.44 Therefore, to explore the supply of

Global governance  95 global public goods from the perspective of a wider range of participants and a better supply mechanism are also an important part of the global governance path.

Notes 1 David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds., Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance, p. 17. 2 Liu Kun-I, Nation-State’s Role-Playing and City Development in Global Governance: The Decomposition and Reorganization of Governance Networks, Thesis of the Symposium on Urban Diplomacy and Global Governance, sponsored by the Department of Public Policy and Management, Yishou University, Taiwan, 2002.12.14. 3 Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, eds., Our Global Neighbourhood, Translated by Zhao Zhongqiang, China Translation Corporation, 1995, p. 2. 4 Cai Tuo, “Global Governance: A Chinese Perspective and Practice”, Social Sciences in China, Vol. 1, 2004, pp. 95–96. 5 D. Kettle, Sharing Power, Public Governance and Private Markets, Brookings Institution, 1993, p.22. 6 David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1998, p.16. 7 Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons, Translated by Yu Xunda, SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2000, p. 51. 8 Bob Jessop, “The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development”, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 2, 1999, p. 31. 9 Yu Keping, “An Introduction to Global Governance”, Marxism & Reality, Vol. 1, 2002, p. 20. 20 Ulrich Beck, Riskogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in Eine Andere Moderne, Translated by He Bowen, YILIN Press, 2004, p. 4.

96  Xiaoli Lyu 22 Barry Buzan, et al., Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Translated by Zhu Ning, Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 2003, pp. 129–158.

26 Chen Ying, “Forge Ahead in Balance”, People’s Daily, 2010.12.15, p. 3. 28 Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Translated by Su Changhe, Xin Qiang, He Yao, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2006, pp. 51–55; Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2008, pp. 8–14. 30 Cai Tuo and Cao Yabin, “On the New Concept of Political Development and Going beyond Global Governance Dilemma”, Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, 2012, p. 47. 34 Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions”, Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences), Vol. 2, 2011, p. 29. 40 Jane E. Fountain, Building the Virtual State, Translated by Shao Guosong, China Renmin University Press, 2010, p. 11.

Global governance  97 44 United Nations, Road Map towards the Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, Report of the SecretaryGeneral, 6 September, 2001. A/56/326. http://www.un.org/doctmlents/ga/docs/56/a56326.pdf.

4

Global civil society Zhenye Liu

After World War II, especially since the 1960s and 1970s, with the rapid development of a large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and various new social movements, a so-called “global associational revolution” has flourished and swept the world. The participation of global civil society in international politics has increased rapidly, and they increasingly play a noticeable role. As for the global civil society that is represented and mainly propelled by NGOs, its role in the international arena is deeply rooted in the deep development of globalization, the formation of the world risk society and the transformation of the world political order in recent decades, and has a profound impact on the development of global politics today. From the perspective of Western academia, although the concept of global civil society is still under a relatively vague and heated debate, the study of global civil society has entered a harvest season, and the research agenda has been expanded to many disciplines such as political science, sociology, international relations, law, and public administration. The research findings of those subjects have been already available. Especially in the recent years, the series of Global Civil Society Yearbook, which have been the authoritative publications of the London School of Economics for more than a decade, and the voluminous works published by prominent scholars including John Keane and Mary Kaldor have greatly expanded the research field and scope of the subject. At the same time, they have also raised the need for further critical thinking on this concept.

Global civil society: reality or imagination? The discourse of global civil society originated in the 1990s. From the perspective of social existence, in reality, the concept of global civil society refers to a kind of “bottom-up” self-organization, and the actions of people in the era of globalization when the world risk society comes into being. From the perspective of academic discourse, it is a political discourse aimed at the reflection on the history of the Cold War, the demand for democratization, and the legitimacy of the process of globalization. The emergence of the concept of global civil society, whether as a political discourse or as a

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-5

Global civil society  99 social reality, immediately provoked a fierce response from academia. Western scholars have put forward different theoretical views and propositions around the concept of global civil society, the emergence and development of global civil society, and the impact of global civil society on real politics. One view is that the concept of global civil society is a real social existence. In the current era of globalization, with the development of global issues and various crises facing mankind, a “global associational revolution” has arisen globally, and various NGOs and civic groups have crossed the border to express their aspirations and conduct activities. Even some supranational institutions have joined this cause. Another view holds that the concept of global civil society is almost a fantasy or at best an ideological imagination, and international non-governmental actors are mixed up with both constructive and destructive ones, and consequently it is difficult to assign them a typical “citizenship”. In addition, since the geographical distribution of these non-government actors is extremely uneven, it is difficult to present their “globality”. They can at most be regarded as a discourse imagination of the democratization and an appeal for legitimacy of international decision-making. Is global civil society an objective social reality or pure fantasy? In this regard, it is necessary for us to explore the concept’s connotation and the development of thought of the global civil society. The introduction of the concept of “global civil society” in academia John Keane, a prominent British left-wing scholar, and Budd L. Hall, a researcher at the University of Toronto, Canada, have systematically reviewed and summarized the development of the term “global civil society” and its citation in international politics.1 They all agree that Elise Boulding from the US was the first scholar and peace activist to describe the field of global civil society. Although Boulding’s 1988 article Building a Global Civic Culture did not use the term global civil society, she accurately summarized the main content of the field with the word “Global Civic Culture”. According to the content of INGOs, Boulding summarized the role of global civil society in the international arena in six aspects: lobbying the government, fostering world citizenship, new ideas about the state, new ways for the North to understand the South, creating and maintaining information channels and acting as an antidote for the disappointment to the state. She pointed out that INGOs provide a competitive arena in which some public discourse can be embraced and understood by individuals from different cultures. In 1990 and 1991, M. Ougaard and R. Tandon also used the terms “the internationalization of civil society” and “international civil society”, respectively. Then Stephen Gill used the term “global civil society” for the first time in a 1991 article in the influential magazine Alternatives. In 1992, Ronnie D. Lipschutz expressed his understanding of global civil society by synthesizing the various names and research findings proposed by his predecessors for the first time. Global civil society focuses on the knowledge and action

100  Zhenye Liu network constructed consciously by local actors in the center across the boundary space, even though they are not present (referring to the space across the boundary). Moreover, he applied this concept to the analysis of international relations.2 Since then, the concept of global civil society has been widely used in the theoretical analysis of international politics. Although the concept of global civil society has been widely used, its development is far from mature. There are heated debates not only on the connotation of the concept but also on the names of the concept – such as Global Civil Society, Transnational Civil Society, Cosmopolitan Civil Society, Transnational Social Movement Organization Network, and Transnational Promotion Network. These different names reflect the different points of view among scholars. Optimists argue that a global civil society has been formed, though this global network has different degrees of “denseness” in different regions. They oppose the words “transnational” and “world” with the feature of state centralism and believe that only the use of the word “global” can best describe the features of the era of globalization and the connotations of global values. Anheier, who is currently the director of the Center for Civil Society Studies at the London School of Economics and Politics, argues that the term “Transnational Civil Society” is less accurate than the term “Global Civil Society” in three respects. First, the term “Transnational Civil Society” refers to the “cross-border” character of civil society, which began 200 years ago. The term “Global Civil Society” accurately captures its “global” characteristics and trends, and vividly describes the global trend of the increasing involvement of closed civil societies in the last decade. Secondly, only global civil society can be accurately and vividly described as the symbiotic and confrontational forces of globalization, because both intend to describe the same process, trends, and interactions. Globalization facilitates the rise of global civil society, which in turn resists and negates the “evil” side of globalization. In this sense, global civil society is a way to make globalization more “taming”, “humanizing”, and “civilizing”. Last but not least, the term “global civil society” implies a “thirst for the normative values of humanity”, whereas the term “transnational civil society” does not, which means that it expresses the “global identity” of the world in the face of the challenges of global issues (i.e., “to think and act as global citizens” and “global consciousness”).3 Some scholars believe that the so-called cross-border civil society phenomenon is still relatively uncommon, and what people see and feel is the activities of some individual organizations, which are far from the “social” status in the domestic civil society. In the words of Goran Hyden, a prominent American scholar and professor of political science at the University of Florida, they are merely the phenomenon in which cross-border NGOs build alliances across borders and they are building social capital through long-distance relationships to help promote a global civil society.4 Clark, after studying the development of global civil society, also cautiously suggests

Global civil society  101 that at three levels of “global” (geographically diverse and balanced distribution of the world), “citizenship” (participation of NGOs) and “society” (mutual understanding among NGOs themselves and between NGOs and other participants), although the global civil society has made some progress, there are still many problems, and it is too early to declare the advent of the era of global civil society.5 In addition to the above two attitudes, some fundamentally deny the globality of global civil society and the possibility of its existence. They believe that there are some increasingly transnational phenomena in modern society, but it is difficult to derive universal “face-to-face” communication and social trust at the global level, and it is difficult to generate the social capital of global civil society.6 David Held, a famous British scholar of political science, thinks that the global people, as a whole, have no global common memory, no global common way of thinking, no common or universal history, so that people all over the world can unite through these common possessions.7 Some realists even sidestep this concept when dealing with problems in this field.8 Therefore, the globality of global civil society and the possibility of its existence are doubtful. But despite whatever the controversy or disagreement, from the growing prominence of these names and the concerns they express, we can see something in common as the global civil society is describing a highly active social network that transcends national boundaries and corresponds to the state, and this network is becoming increasingly “thicker”. Western scholars’ exploration of the basic connotations of global civil society Generally speaking, there are several theoretical paths for Western academia to explore the connotations of global civil society. The first is the research path of civil society theory. A typical example of this is Ronnie D. Lipschutz, a famous American international environmental political scientist, who interprets the connotations of global civil society from the perspective of a social movement. He was the first authoritative scholar to systematically analyze the concept of global civil society and apply it to international politics. In his 1997 book Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance, Lipschutz explained the theoretical misunderstanding of the term that should be avoided from three aspects. First, global civil society goes beyond the meaning of merely a transnational phenomenon or a series of actors who have relations with the national system. It includes organizations that transcend national boundaries or operate at the global level and systems in which local and transnational organizations interact and function. Secondly, although most of the groups in global civil society are NGOs, in many cases it is not easy to say that being non-governmental is the distinctive feature of global civil society. This is because many NGOs are linked with the government in terms

102  Zhenye Liu of funding and policy support, and NGOs are an extension of government departments in some specific projects. Finally, although such social movements as environmental movements can be regarded as a part of the global civil society and are often substituted for each other, they are fairly different if we define “social movement” in the academic sense. Scholars of social movements tend to regard them as both an expression of disappointment with institutionalized politics and an open statement of identity politics in the post-industrial era, beyond which the global civil society goes.9 But such definition seems to tell us neither the difference between the theory of global civil society and traditional civil society theory within the nation-state, nor the difference in the international political realm, but rather, the difference in the sociological realm. As a result, he added later that the global civil society interacts with the state but strives to maintain a degree of autonomy relative to the state. It has never been completely isolated from the state because it tends to occupy the “space” that those countries cannot directly control. The laws of global civil society categorically deny that the supreme power or sovereign rights of the state can override the sovereign rights of individuals and the public. Civil society is global not only because those links cross borders and operate in global and non-territorial regions but also due to the growing global awareness of the actions of members of global civil society.10 Through this supplement, the global civil society in Lipschutz’s argument has a real character of civil society which transcends the nation-state and has the connotations of international political discourse: the concept of global civil society expresses a demand of interacting with the state and striving for power and rights equal to national sovereignty. At  the same time, it is also a carrier of global consciousness, representing the orientation of the global normative values. The second one is the research path of the third sector. One of the scholar representatives of this approach is Lester M. Salamon, the director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Public Policy in the US, who sees the emerging global civil society as the Global Associational Revolution. He points out that a truly global associational revolution is taking place, and organized private voluntary activities are springing up in large numbers in all corners of the world. The rapid development of these civil society organizations(CSOs) is partly due to people’s growing doubts about the government’s ability to solve social welfare, development, and environmental problems it faces, and partly to the catalysis of today’s technological changes in communications.11 In his systematic research, Salamon directly focuses on the study of global civil society on the “third-sector” research. He points out that the result of the global associational revolution is the emergence of the global third sector, such as the large number of self-governing private organizations that are not committed to distributing profits to shareholders or directors, but to pursuing public goals outside the formal state organs. The surge of these groups may permanently change the relationship between the state and the citizens. These organizations are ideally

Global civil society  103 suited to fill the vacuum brought about by the shortcomings of the state, as they arise from the “crisis of trust” of people in state capacity.12 From these arguments, it can be seen that those non-profit organizations that interact with and complement the state and self-manage themselves, are clearly the most central elements in the concept of global civil society. The third one is the research path of international actors. The most typical research in this area is the “Global Civil Society Research”, a long-term project undertaken by the Center for Global Governance Studies and the Center for Civil Society Studies at the London School of Economics and Politics. The major figures include Mary Kaldor, Helmut Anheier, and Marlies Glasius. They have conducted the most authoritative and detailed research on the overall situation and the basic data of global civil society development for more than ten consecutive years in the form of yearbooks (Global Civil society 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012). In view of the lack of a precise definition of global civil society in academic circles over the past decade, the Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001 for the first time gave a clear definition of global civil society: global civil society refers to the field of ideas, values, systems, organizations, networks and individuals that exist between families, states and markets and operate beyond the social, political, and economic constraints of a country.13 The greatest feature of this definition is that it elaborates clearly on global civil society that exists among families, countries, and markets, and pays full attention to the ideological value implications of global civil society. Of course, the authors know that this definition does not cover all aspects of the main directions and actors of the global civil society in its real operation, and therefore we call it a “purely descriptive” and “completely normative” definition. In other parts of the yearbook, the authors further explain that global civil society is a kind of social and political participation that we could observe in the 1990s in the supranational sphere, in which civic groups, social movements, and individuals were actively committed to dialogue, debate, and negotiation with each other, as well as with various government actors – international, national, and local – and with the business sector. INGOs are only one component of the global civil society. Individuals, grassroots groups, loose associations, and networks are all parts of the global public discussion.14 From these explanations, we can see the general outline of global civil society in its real operation and its representation in the international political arena: going above and beyond the state, it strives for equality with the state, achieves its own political and social participation, and expresses its global value aspirations through equal dialogues and negotiations. In the Global Civil Society Yearbook 2003, the authors further improve the definition of global civil society. They regard it as a field of thoughts, values, organizations, networks, and individuals that is first and foremost the institutionalized complex out of family, market, and state, and it transcends the boundaries of nation, society, politics, and economy. Global civil society is about people

104  Zhenye Liu and organizations, as well as the values and ideas they represent, but the primary difference is that they are at least partially located in areas beyond states, rather than being limited or restricted by nation-states or local societies.15 The authors emphasize that global civil society have undergone tremendous development in the past 50 years and that global social movements have been promoting the growth of global civil society since the 1960s. Moreover, after experiencing the climaxes of civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, environmental and feminist movements, human rights and peace movements, in the 1990s, various forms of social movements were developed. At the beginning of the 21st century, with the emergence of new forms of global and transnational social forums, global civil society had further expanded new areas and space.16 The fourth one is the research path of dichotomy between the state and society. The scholar representative of this approach is John Keane, a famous leftist thinker from the UK. His research on the theory of civil society is considered to have initiated the revival of the theory of civil society in the 1980s. In the Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001, his important article “Global Civil Society?” was included. In 2003, the University of Cambridge Press published his influential book Global Civil Society?, in which he expounds his thoughts on global civil society from the perspectives of world polity, cosmopolitan democracy, and Turbo-capitalism. Keane criticizes Anheier and Kaldor for emphasizing the normative value of global civil society, arguing that Anheier exaggerated the value of ideas. It is obviously unrealistic that global civil society is possible only when people act as good ones.17 Global civil society is not what Anheier and others have imagined as a “good stuff” without any impurity. Transnational crime, international terrorism, fundamentalism, and extreme nationalism, as active parts of the non-governmental field, should also be an integral part of global civil society, and they can hardly be measured by the idealized values of Anheier and others. Secondly, Keane points out that removing families and markets from global civil society would also lead to a one-sided understanding of global civil society. The definition of Anheier et al. romanticizes global civil society as a free country of real or potential significance, while the “third sector” of market impersonal power is against the government and for greedy self-interest (families are typically missing from this analysis). This pure imagination can only reduce the real global civil society to a movement strategy that can promote the standardized ideal of global civil autonomy. Kean believes that if the global civil society excludes the family and the market, as a result, the term global civil society will be transformed into a Utopia of ethical norms, leaving only Gramsci-style “pure” ideological connotation.18 Hence, Keane defines global civil society as “networks of socio-economic institutions across borders”: global civil society refers to the contemporary network of social-economic organizations and institutions that cross borders and reach all corners of the earth. In this network, non-governmental networks

Global civil society  105 with peaceful or “civil” effects can be felt everywhere in the world, here and there, far and wide, from and up to the local level, across a larger region to the global level. In Keane’s view, global civil society is a huge, interconnected, multi-layered social space in which there is a bewildering diversity of actors: organizations, entrepreneurs of public utilities and businesses, consortia, social movements, linguistic communities, and cultural identities that can overcome huge space barriers and organize outside the government to carry out their social, political, and commercial activities. Obviously, Keane’s definition of global civil society is very broad. It can be said that it includes all actors, space fields, and activities except national governments. Its relationship with the state can be characterized as critical-cooperative relations, or, hostile or dependent relations.19 But among its various characteristics, the non-governmental networks and non-governmental nature are the most fundamental ones. In the book Global Civil Society? published in 2003, John Keane starts from an “ideal model” and summarizes five features of “global civil society”. First, global civil society refers to the “non-governmental” structure and actions, individuals, households, enterprises, non-profit organizations, and social movements or cultural communities as units that are not the products of the will of any government. Secondly, global civil society should be seen as a closely interrelated “social process” consisting not only of a variety of institutions, organizations, networks but also of certain norms in the form of “society”. Thirdly, one of the basic norms of global civil society is the emphasis on “civility” against violence, which incorporates very heterogeneous beliefs, values, and cultures and encourages all members to respect each other’s differences, to compromise each other, and to avoid the use of violence to resolve disputes. Fourthly, it is also because of the “pluralism” of global civil society that the concept itself implies the potential for conflict, which makes it necessary for people to be more conscious of the interdependence among global human beings and thus be fully aware of the complex links between global issues. Finally, global civil society should, of course, highlight the “globality”, which involves political, economic, and social issues that go far beyond specific regional and national boundaries and take the world as an interactive field. Therefore, global civil society is also the most complex society in human history. The connotations of global civil society From the previous analysis of the views of scholars, we can see that there are still many controversies and ambiguities in the study of global civil society. With regard to the connotations of global civil society, there is a debate between dichotomy or trichotomy. John Keane insists on keeping the economy in global civil society, and Wapner particularly criticizes the idea of stripping the commercial functions of civil society. Others refuse to include the economic field in the scope of civil society. Habermas emphasizes the

106  Zhenye Liu nature of the public domain of global civil society. His “world civil society” refers to a global sphere of public communication and action. Scholter also emphasizes the importance of the trichotomy. He opposes the inclusion of economically functioning organizations and actions in the global civil society. He believes that global civil society is a voluntary combination of nongovernmental and non-profit organizations, except political parties, which seeks to influence the existing political order while not attempting to seize political power. Scholter even suggests that the commercial NGOs such as chambers of commerce and trade associations should be excluded from the discussions of civil society.20 As for actors in global civil society, different people emphasize the importance of different actors such as NGOs, social movements, global protest and advocacy organizations, or local grassroots organizations. Functionally, some emphasize the governance function of global civil society and the political function of protest, and others emphasize its function of promoting global democracy. In conclusion, there are still many problems to be further clarified in the study of global civil society. However, there are still many ambiguous issues in the study of global civil society. At the same time, we can also find many common understandings from the viewpoints of scholars. The various actors in the global civil society, taking the globality of the various issues of human life as the background, establish global public awareness and transnational solidarity by means of transnational associations, exchanges, and networking, and they are carrying out their activities at the local, national, regional, and global levels with the aim of influencing public decision-making and implementing the governance of problematic fields. Moreover, they are increasingly exerting their influence on the fields of international and domestic politics, economy and society, and creating new governance modes as well as expanding a new political space. These common understandings have obviously been the important achievements of the research on global civil society in recent years. Undoubtedly, these important agreements are of great help in understanding and grasping the theoretical connotations of global civil society. Therefore, based on the results of existing studies, we can try to integrate different perspectives and draw some basic conclusions on global civil society. First of all, the global civil society is not only a kind of “reality of social construction” or even a product of theoretical construction as John Keane, Chandler, and Falk have said but also an objective reality that we must recognize. At least, the interconnection of transnational networks established by local, national, regional, and even global NGOs is an objective reality which we cannot deny. Secondly, regardless of the social spheres in which we believe global civil society exists and the way it exists,21 voluntary organizations (commonly referred to as non-governmental organizations), social movements, and various forms of transnational networks are the main actors whose activities bear the main functions of the global civil society. Thirdly, from the point of view of the theoretical function of global civil society, the research path of the trichotomy is obviously more explanatory

Global civil society  107 than the dichotomy. Of course, we do not deny the fundamental role that the economic sphere and business organizations play for the existence and growth of global civil society, but the role that the economic sphere plays is only potential in comparison with the role and function of global civil society. This is as important and indispensable to the survival of global civil society as the protective role played by the state machinery. But we cannot encompass it in the sphere of global civil society. Finally, the functions and roles of global civil society have both objective and realistic aspects, as well as the function endowed by our theoretical construction. For example, the governance and decision-making functions of global civil society can be examined from the perspective of empirical research, but its function of promoting democracy and global solidarity depends more on the theoretical explanation and construction. Therefore, in practical research, we should adopt different interpretations according to the different functions and roles of global civil society. In the above comparative analysis, although scholars have many ambiguous understandings of the concept of global civil society, some basic consensus is gradually clear. For example, although the global civil society includes many actors, research is increasingly focused on NGOs, which are the most important actors. Whether or not anti-government and pro-government actors are included in the global civil society, the interaction between the actors in the global civil society and states has become the main mode of global civil society activities. What is worth particular attention is that the complementary relations and cooperation between the actors in the global civil society and states have become the main relations and activities between the global civil society and states. Whether it is described in terms of transnational, international, or world level, global civil society is gradually getting rid of the feature of national center, and it has a “global” holistic perspective, “global awareness”, and other global values orientations. In view of this, we can define the global civil society as follows: Global civil society refers to non-governmental networks and domains that exist between states and markets, operate above and beyond the state but interact and complement each other with the state. Within the networks, various non-governmental organizations and social movements pursuing public goals, as well as the global consciousness and global value orientation expressed by them are the core content and the soul of global civil society. The reason why this concept is highly defined is, on the one hand, to avoid to the greatest extent some of the current academic debate that is difficult to clarify, and on the other hand, to clarify the misunderstanding of this concept that has already existed. First, the global civil society is not the sum of civil societies of all nation-states in the world. What it emphasizes is its transnational and

108  Zhenye Liu global features of its operation “above and beyond the state”. If the civil society within a nation-state can be included in the global civil society, it also refers to the domestic civil society that has foreign connections in organizational activities and “global consciousness and global value orientation” in ideology and values, because it is difficult to say that the activities in a completely closed domestic civil society are based on the existence of global consciousness and reflect the pursuit of global values.22 Secondly, the inclusion of families and individuals in global civil society does not mean that they can become an independent part of global civil society as actors. In fact, they have become part of the global civil society by participating in NGO activities and social movements. Their presence in the global civil society is mainly indirect. Families and individuals outside NGO activities and social movements find it difficult to be classified into the global civil society. Thirdly, global civil society is a non-governmental and non-market domain. In this regard, John Keane has criticized the analysis that excludes markets from global civil society, on the basis of the principle that markets also include private domain outside the state. But what is the standard of “public” and “private” at the global level? And who represents the “public”? In a nation-state, the state is the only organ of public power, and only it can represent the public interests of society. As a result, it belongs to the public domain, and everything except the state belongs to the private domain. But then, what is the global public authority at the global level? And who represents the global public interest? State practice since modern times has proved that in the international sphere, a state is a “private actor” pursuing its own national interests, and its essence at the global level is also a “private domain”. Representatives of the global public interest can only be undertaken by a global civil society that includes non-governmental, non-profit voluntary sectors and organizations. From the perspective of “society”, global civil society belongs to the private domain, but from the perspective of “representative of global public interest”, it is also a “public domain”. As a “public domain”, global civil society is not a public authority (there is no such public authority in the world), and it is only a simulation of the role of a spokesperson for global public interest that should be played by the world government, which we can call a simulated “public domain”. Compared with this simulated “public domain”, the market is fundamentally different from the global civil society in terms of values, goals, and motivation. It is obvious that the global civil society and market can be analyzed as different areas. Fourthly, global civil society refers to a “pure” and “good” society in the sense of values. John Keane once criticized Anheier and others for treating global civil society as too pure and good and creating a mere fantasy of an earthly paradise. In Keane’s view, since international terrorist organizations and criminal groups are also included in the global civil society, the global civil society is mixed with good and bad elements. Indeed, according to the trichotomy of state systems, global civil society, and markets, what

Global civil society  109 Keane calls “bad” organizations cannot be excluded from global civil society, but this does not negate the purity of the core values of global civil society. In a sense, we can also regard these “bad” organizations as the alienation from global civil society by national and market forces. They run counter to global civil society in pursuit of values; they behave in ways and means that do not conform to contractual principles; in the pursuit of goals, they are either state-oriented (the pursuit of power, such as extremist nationalism organizations), or market-oriented (the pursuit of money, such as international drug cartels), or a mixture of the two. Their existence and activities are reactionary to global civil society. They are anti-social in nature and destructive in effect.23 To a certain extent, we can say that they are the malignant tumors growing in the global civil society. It is precisely on the basis of such value judgments that we recognize global civil society as a “pure” and “good” society in its proper sense. Finally, although we perceive global civil society as functioning between states and markets, they are highly correlated and their boundaries are blurred. On the one hand, the global civil society can play its governance function only in the interaction with the state and the market. Although independence and autonomy are prominent features of global civil society, since they are neither organs of public power nor profit-making sectors, they lack the independence that the state and economic organizations have when they step out of the role of advocacy and publicity and put their own objective values into governance practice. In the process of global governance, the realization of the value goals of global civil society is accomplished in cooperation, criticism, or confrontation with states and markets. On the other hand, the boundaries between global civil society, state, and market have become increasingly blurry in the process of global governance. Successful governance projects often involve close cooperation among the state, the market and the global civil society. The state authorizes NGOs to govern in areas that are beyond the reach of its power. Thus, the global civil society has a certain degree of the nature of a government. In order to maintain their own operation and the continued operation of development projects, NGOs may in some cases adopt a profit-making operation with a profit-making feature. But this kind of government and profit-making feature is only to make up for the deficiency of global civil society in the independent behavior effect, in order to enhance its role in governance, and facilitate the realization of its global public goals and values, rather than its essential characteristics. However, we cannot deny the autonomy and independence of the global civil society.24

The driving force of global civil society As an independent social force and political social space, the rise of NGOs and global civil society is the result of the interplay of human self-reflection and social movements since the 1980s, which includes the reflection on

110  Zhenye Liu various human crises, the drawbacks of globalization and human history, as well as the direct action of people beyond the state all over the world. Moreover, the interplay also includes historical and cultural conflicts and obstacles of different human civilizations, as well as the strong driving force of the development trend of globalization. John Keane, referring to the emergence of NGOs and civil society at the global level, points out that the global associational revolution and the global civil society movement were born out of seven overlapping historical trends in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The first is the revival of civil society in Central and Eastern Europe after the “Prague Spring” military intervention in 1968. The second is the arrival of what McLuhan calls the “global village” era brought about by the revolutionary impact of satellite communications and computer technology. Thirdly, the popularization of the consciousness that “we all belong to one fragile and destroying world system” advocated and promoted by peace and ecology movements. The fourth one is the arrival of a new global order foreshadowed by the collapse of the communist system in the Soviet Union. Fifthly, the economic neo-liberalism and the market capitalism become popular and prevalent worldwide. The sixth is the disappointment of people to the post-colonial countries’ abandoning and failing to fulfill their promises. The seventh is the concerns about the vacuum created by the collapse of empires and states and the dangers and disasters brought about by barbaric wars.25 In short, developments in all these areas have brought about new changes in world politics. Governance authority in matters within sovereign states is now shared among national governance systems and global, regional, and inter-state cooperative governance. The global associational revolution, with NGOs as the main force and the global civil society movement as the main form, has gained political space and self-organized against such historical background of great changes in the world political order. The driving force of global issues and the development of all kinds of crises facing humankind Since the beginning of the industrial society, the energy issues, ecological issues, and various crises faced by mankind have become increasingly serious with the social development. After World War II, these crises are more global, comprehensive, tangled, and challenging.26 The first crisis is that global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer have led to global environmental degradation that has exceeded the critical tipping point, and there is no sign of slowing down in terms of global warming, the disappearance of the ozone layer, and the decline of biological species. Secondly, the rapid growth of global population and per capita consumption of resources has brought unprecedented pressure on the Earth’s ecosystem. Deforestation, desertification and soil degradation, and the shortage of energy and resources are worsening. There is no fundamental change in the ways of industrialization, consumption, and poverty in the whole world. However,

Global civil society  111 the main factor contributing to the crisis – the world population – is still growing rapidly. Thirdly, the popularization of Western industrialization in newly industrialized countries and its promotion in developing countries lead to transnational and even global diffusion of pollution. The pollution of ocean, river, and air has reached the level of regionalization. Early pollution problems in Europe and North America have spread to Latin America and the Pacific Rim. Trade in dangerous and hazardous materials has spread from the North to the South, and the nuclear threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear technology has spread across continents. At the same time, with the development of globalization, all kinds of social crises in Western society, such as drugs, AIDS, terrorism, and other social problems, are increasingly spreading across the world. The emergence of these global issues and various crises has seriously threatened the survival and security of human beings, thus arousing widespread concerns around the world. However, because of the globality and integrity of these issues, no country can solve them alone. Although the United Nations and other international organizations in the international arena have made great efforts to coordinate national policies to meet the challenges of global issues, it is still difficult for these coordination policies to achieve significant results. Since the second half of the 20th century, in the face of these severe human survival crises, people around the world have begun to organize themselves and take action. They mobilize people to participate extensively and organize activities globally. They publicize various policy proposals on global issues and advocate a new global consciousness, that is, to understand, analyze, and deal with contemporary international relations in the light of the common interests of mankind and in the light of global holistic thinking and concepts.27 By doing so, they have formed an increasingly intensive global civil society action network. As a result, a global level of non-governmental forces and civil society movements is gradually formed by the common efforts of mankind to deal with all kinds of crises. The driving force of the development trend of economic globalization Since the 1980s, with the prevalence of neo-liberalism and the promotion of market capitalist economic models worldwide, the trend of economic globalization has been rapidly strengthened, particularly after the Cold War. The emergence of a global civil society in the context of this rapid development of globalization is not only the result of globalization but also a response to the consequences of globalization. On the one hand, the rise of global civil society is inextricably linked to the promotion of globalization. The development of global civil society cannot be separated from the progress of transportation, communication, and media technologies brought about by economic globalization. Moreover, it cannot be separated from the increase in the frequency and scale of the world-wide personnel exchanges enabled by economic globalization. It can be said that the development of

112  Zhenye Liu the strength of global civil society itself is a phenomenon of globalization. By virtue of the technological progress and the expansion of personnel exchanges brought about by globalization, civil society with NGOs as the core force has established a network organization system from local to regional and global levels, forming a “bottom-up globalization”. On the other hand, as a response to the negative consequences of globalization, global civil society is also a strong resistance to the inequities and various drawbacks of globalization. In the process of deepening globalization, it has brought benefits to a few developed countries, but at the same time, it has also caused serious problems globally, such as the polarization between the rich and the poor, the worsening of the ecological environment, and the extinction of local cultural traditions. The income gap between the world’s richest and poorest countries has widened further in terms of the polarization between the rich and the poor. It was about 3:1 in 1820, 35:1 in 1950, 44:1 in 1973, and 72:1 in 1992.28 After entering the new century, it reached nearly 80:1.29 It can be said that the global inequality currently is worse than in any other historical period. Studies show that the gap between the richest and the poorest is growing. In 1960, the world’s 20% richest people had more than 30 times the income of the poorest 20%. By 1997, the richest 20% people earned 75% more than the poorest 20%.30 By 2004, about half of the world’s population lived on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank’s 2005 World Development Report.31 The Human Development Report issued by the United Nations Development Programme in 2004 provides more depressing figures, with 46 countries around the world becoming poorer in the 1990s. In 2004, 25 countries had more hungry population than ten years ago.32 However, in the process of globalization, the state’s regulatory capacity has declined. Welfare policies in many developed countries are facing crises, and people in poor countries are less likely to expect protection from the state. As a result, victims around the world are increasingly awakening and acting to protest themselves against the inequities maintained by the WTO, IMF, G7, and other institutions at a global level, in an attempt to set minimum social and environmental standards for transnational economic and political activities. At the local level, they have developed mutually supportive network organizations and linked them to the global network, enabling their struggles to be supported on a wider scale. In the face of this extreme inequality and even destructive negative force of globalization, the global resistance force and voice sparked by the negative side of globalization are becoming increasingly stronger, thus greatly promoting the formation and development of global civil society. The driving force of democratization and the legitimacy requirements for international policy-making bodies With the deepening of globalization, international intergovernmental organizations have expanded dramatically both in the scope of issues and in their

Global civil society  113 function in order to meet the needs of the increasingly complex global public affairs. Moreover, their impacts on the internal affairs of sovereign states are also growing. In the 1990s, for example, the IMF and the World Bank increased the depth and breadth of their conditionality on the borrowing countries, including institutional structure requirements for domestic management and economic decision-making. At the same time, the establishment of the WTO in 1995 created a new set of provisions to bind member states, which went deep (and continued to deepen) into many areas of domestic legislation. International economic organizations are now dealing with what domestic governments used to do, and in other words, decisions and policies on an international scale are increasingly affecting organizations and groups within a country. People who had been influenced by the policy used to be able to hold the domestic government solely responsible for their policies. But today, they need to face international institutions that make decisions.33 Faced with the fact that the decisions and actions of international intergovernmental organizations have increasingly exerted influence on domestic governments through the borders of sovereign states, there is a lack of measures for those affected by international policies worldwide to hold intergovernmental organizations accountable. In the past, when people looked at international politics and economics, they concluded that the dominant actors were sovereign states, which were responsible for what happened within their own borders. However, over the past few decades, sovereign states’ responses have often been passive, both internally and externally, because they have lost their exclusive control over security issues as well as ecological, economic, and cultural issues. In this difficult situation, when people are in an urgent need of state aid, the impact of globalization makes nation-states incapable of playing such a protective role at all.34 The international governance arena has indeed witnessed what Edward Tiryakian calls the “Interregnum of Modernity”.35 Faced with the “interregnum” of responsibility for international governance, people around the world affected by international decision-making began to act. There have been social movements to provide some collective reactions.36 Consequently, NGOs began to play their role as the last person to ask for help.37 From protests against the global decision-making to local governments affected by the decision-making, NGOs and local people have joined together to tackle the lack of legitimacy and the democratic deficit of global governance and decision-making mechanisms. In the field of global decision-making, they strive to participate in and even influence the decision-making process while protesting. In local governance, they set out their own governance agenda and launch self-help efforts to eliminate the negative impacts of global policies on the local. Especially in the fields of environment, poverty, and development, the governance agenda launched by non-governmental networks has increasingly become the most important way to improve local governance because the starting point and the endpoint of globalization are at the grassroots level, and it is at the grassroots

114  Zhenye Liu level that NGOs have developed many strategies to help the poor understand their place in the global market.38 At the same time, in view of the strengthening of the “accountability” capacity of non-governmental networks to the global decision-making field, international organizations are increasingly finding that business partnerships and dialogues with the non-governmental sectors can help themselves implement projects more effectively and reduce risks, maintain a good public image, and gain more political support, as well as help them to obtain more decision-making information.39 Therefore, as a core topic, civil society has become the mainstream of international development discourse.40 The driving force of human reflection on the Cold War and the whole 20th-century history Global civil society as a concept was born on the basis of the theoretical revival of civil society in the 1980s. As a global force corresponding to the state, it has attracted worldwide attention in the movement of the civil society forces in Eastern Europe and Latin America against state power since the 1980s, and it has been also shown elsewhere in the world. From the Prague Spring in 1968 to the collapse of the bipolar structure in the early 1990s, people have seen a tremendous impact on the changes in the world system caused by the forces of civil society that traditionally played a role within the state. Even some Western scholars believe that the bipolar world system was destroyed by the resistance of civil society in Eastern Europe. Since civil society can be a force to destroy the old world order, the establishment of a new world order after the Cold War can also be found in the revival of civil society. Therefore, scholars began to look for various international forces similar to domestic civil society that correspond to state power at the international level. Thus, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), transnational social movements, and other global civil societies across the boundaries of national sovereignty have become people’s sustenance for the establishment of a new world order. At the same time, people’s expectations of the various roles of global civil society are also the result of the reflection on human history throughout the 20th century. Looking back on the history of mankind in the 20th century, we have experienced two disastrous World Wars, and several times been on the verge of a nuclear war during the Cold War. As a result of introspection, people find that in international relations, the state is the most important actor in international politics. State sovereignty, representing the sovereignty of its people, is no longer a self-evident fact.41 Their actions do not necessarily truly express the will of the peace-loving people. On the contrary, they often deviate from such will. In order to express the will of the people at the international level, those people need an organization of their own outside the state, and the global civil society movement is providing an appropriate form of self-organization and space for action.

Global civil society  115 The driving force of the development and spread of the threat of various “new wars” after the Cold War After the end of the Cold War, the greatest threats to world security – world wars and nuclear wars – were temporarily lifted. However, the security threats faced by human beings have not been reduced, on the contrary, they are increasing. First, the disintegration of the bipolar system has caused a political power vacuum in the conflict areas where the Cold War confrontation took place, and the ethnic, religious, and territorial disputes once covered under the pressure of the bipolar system have emerged one after another. Conflicts such as ethnic separation, racial and religious disputes in Central Asia and Southern Europe pose a much greater security threat than those in the Cold War era. Secondly, the countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America which gained independence in the 1950s and 1960s and entered the “post-colonial era” after the end of the Cold War, have fallen into a predicament in their economic development mode and weak sovereignty control capacity as well as domestic governance “failures”, and even many countries have fallen into long-term civil wars and conflicts. Taking many countries in Africa where civil conflicts have erupted and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan as an example, their prolonged civil wars and conflicts have created serious refugee problems, humanitarian crises, and spillovers of civil wars into regional conflicts, which pose a long-term threat to regional and world security. Thirdly, the “humanitarian intervention” and “anti-terrorism war”, by some countries led by the US against regional conflicts and international disputes with military force, have created prolonged regional conflicts and a new humanitarian disaster to the world. All these new security threats are described by Professor Mary Kaldor as “new wars”. The threat of these new wars to world security is no less than the traditional threat of war.42 The threat of a “new war” has brought about new humanitarian disasters in conflict zones – deaths, disabilities, and victims who are not military personnel but civilians, as well as the root causes of conflicts that are difficult to heal. Moreover, the conflicts tend to be latent and long-term. Fundamentally speaking, these “new wars” in the modern world are far different from the major conflicts in most of the 20th century. These “wars of post-national states” are mainly internal conflicts.43 In these conflicts, it is difficult to resolve the obvious conflicts of interest. The threats of death and disability strike mostly at civilians rather than soldiers. Population movements occur both at home and across borders. According to statistics, about 14 million people became refugees in 1995 and 23 million people were relocated domestically (forcing them to relocate in their own countries).44 In the face of this new threat, the response of the international community, dominated by the United Nations and major countries, is sluggish and ineffective. The frequent occurrence of regional conflicts after the Cold War, alongside the cruelty and protracted nature of the disasters it has caused, has

116  Zhenye Liu rapidly expanded the role of civil society in conflicts to all aspects of peacekeeping and conflict resolution. For example, in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and peace reconstruction, NGO networks have played an irreplaceable role in implementing relief and development projects, fostering civil society, easing social tensions, stabilizing and consolidating achievements in peacebuilding in the conflict areas. Thus, the threat to human security posed by various “new wars” after the end of the Cold War has greatly promoted the rise of global civil society.

Governance participation of global civil society The rise of global civil society in the international arena is most prominent in its governance participation in global issues. It is no exaggeration to say that almost all areas, where there are transnational activities happening, involve the governance participation of global civil society. Governance participation of global civil society in global issues not only makes up for the deficiencies of nation-states and international governance institutions but also plays an indispensable independent governance role in many areas, thus promoting the changes and transformation of world politics. In view of the wide range of issues on the governance participation of global civil society, we will only examine its governance participation in the three typical areas of issues, namely, security, human rights, and environment. Global civil society and global security governance In the international arena, the field of peace and security, such as arms control, disarmament and conflict resolution, is often referred to as “highlevel politics” or “high politics”, and often considered to be dominated and monopolized by nation-states, whereas global CSOs are considered to be limited to so-called “low-level politics” or marginal issues, such as issues of environment, women, and development. There used to be no room for global CSOs to play a role in the field of peace and security. But today, with the changes in the global political order, the changes in the nature of conflicts and the tremendous changes in the concept of security, in the core field traditionally monopolized by nation-states – the field of peace and security – global CSOs also begin to play an important role in governance on the issues such as arms control, disarmament, conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and the maintenance of post-conflict peace. The global CSOs in the field of peace and security have some distinctive features. First of all, their concerns, such as nuclear threats and conflict resolution, are often realistic and urgent, and their actions require extensive mobilization capabilities, as well as a relatively strong action network to mobilize relevant forces at home and abroad. Secondly, the organizational networks operating in these fields must be highly specialized, because of the complexity of conflict outbreaks and the high technical requirements

Global civil society  117 of arms control. Thirdly, since issues in the field of peace and security are highly sensitive, such as activities in the areas of arms control and conflict resolution, which require organizations with more detached political and ideological values to play their role, global CSOs involved in the field of peace and security have diverse positions, including scientists, politicians, diplomats, and scholars, as well as social elites, mass activists, and authoritative figures of local society. Moreover, such organizations also include human rights organizations, humanitarian organizations, and environmental organizations, as well as organizations in the fields of medical aid and development. First of all, let us analyze the global CSOs in the field of peace and security. There is a network of research institutes and organizations comprising scientist groups and professional researchers. These research groups and networks often rely on independent research to provide society with important information on arms control, arms trade, and the causes of conflict. Many research organizations also carry out tracking study and advanced research on the harm of nuclear weapons, the disasters caused by wars, the consequences of arms trade, and the proliferation of smuggling, in order to provide advice to the governments, spread peace to the people, and play a role in educating the people. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy at Washington DC in the US, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the ISCCR, and the Conflict Management Groups in MIT are all well-known scientific research organizations in this field. There are organizations and networks consisting of government officials, professionals, and celebrities. The most famous organizations in this field are the Pugwash Conference and the Scientist Network, the African Peace Forum, the Eurasian Continental Peace Forum, and the Carter Center. One of the most famous networks of scientists is the Pugwash Conference. Since its first meeting in 1957, there have been annual meetings and special conferences on specific topics. Its participants in the Cold War period included important scientists who had close contact with the high-level decision-makers of the government and participated in decision-making between the two sides of the Cold War. The network of conference organizations of scientists had an immeasurable impact on nuclear strategy and arms control during the Cold War. Up to now, there are more than 30 national branches and 12 young students’ branches in the world. Another well-known institution is the Carter Center, a non-profit organization founded by the former US President Jimmy Carter and his wife at Emory University in the US. The Carter Center, which has about 150 professional staff, is funded mainly by private, foundational, and corporate donations. Over the past two decades, the former first couple has led the Center’s staff to various corners of the world, dedicated to mediating international conflicts and promoting stability and development in post-conflict areas. Another world-renowned achievement of the Carter Center is its International Negotiation Network (INN).

118  Zhenye Liu Founded in 1987, the INN is a loose, informal network of world-renowned leaders, international organizations, universities, foundations, experts, professionals, and other celebrities. The INN seeks to reduce armed conflicts in the world without the use of force and tries to prevent some small-scale armed conflicts. It mainly resolves conflicts by some other effective ways, such as coordinating third-party assistance, providing expert analysis and advice, and relying on the influence of the media. There are professional organizations focusing mainly on certain professions or fields. These organizations are composed of experts from various industries. They have their own views and opinions on arms control and conflict resolution based on their professional knowledge and experience. Among them, those famous ones are Doctors Without Borders (Medicines Sans Frontiers – MSF), Veterans for Peace, the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP), Physicians for Social Responsibilities (PSR), and Council for a Livable World (CLW), etc. These organizations are mainly composed of experts in their fields who usually look at conflict issues from professional perspectives and engage in conflict resolution. For example, MSF is an international volunteer organization established in 1971, which is composed of medical professionals from various countries. It is the largest independent humanitarian medical relief organization in the world. The organization is committed to the rescue operations and to providing assistance to victims affected by natural disasters, man-made disasters and wars, regardless of race and political or religious objectives. There are religious organizations as well. Most religious organizations in the world are actively advocating peace and opposing the war. Religious organizations in war and conflict zones mostly propagate the idea of peace to their followers and promote the possibility of a peaceful settlement. There are also religious leaders who, because of their enormous prestige, are well respected and trusted by all parties to the conflict, and whose peace proposals are easily accepted by all parties as well. For instance, the world’s most famous religious group, the Quaker International Affairs, which advocates pacifism and religious freedom, opposes any form of war and violence and has long been committed to conflict resolution and mediation. It relies on its United Nations offices and often works with numerous global CSOs to mediate conflicts in Africa. There are human rights and humanitarian organizations. It can be said that most human rights and humanitarian organizations are also important components of the fields of conflict resolution and arms control, such as the International Red Cross, the Red Crescent Union, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, the International Crisis Group, and the International Rescue Committee. These human rights and humanitarian organizations actively participate in humanitarian relief and human rights protection in conflicts and assist the government in the reconstruction process in post-conflict peacebuilding.

Global civil society  119 There are local grass-roots organizations in places where wars and conflicts occur. Most of the members of local grass-roots organizations in conflict areas are local people who have a profound understanding of the nature and history of local conflicts. In many difficult cases of conflict mediation, they can often find a relatively good solution. Therefore, these local grassroots organizations often play a key role in conflict resolution, such as the Peace Committees in the Major Region in South Africa, the Ethiopian Peace and Development Committee, the Centre for Conflict Resolution – Ghana, the Africa Initiative Program in Kenya, and the Pan-African Reconciliation Council in Nigeria. There are CSOs involved in various fields of post-conflict peace reconstruction, such as those global CSOs in the fields of education, development, poverty relief, and healthcare. On the one hand, they play a role in consolidating peace achievements and rebuilding social stability. On the other hand, their local knowledge and familiarity can also help to convey a message of peace to the outside world and to prevent the recurrence of conflicts. Secondly, let us look at the main activities of global CSOs in the field of peace and security. In the field of arms control and disarmament, global CSOs advocate arms control ideas through professional research, education, and publicity on arms control knowledge, and influence public attitudes towards arms control through conferences, forums, and various media. They actively carry out disarmament and arms control campaigns. For example, in the Pugwash Movement and the Global Campaign to Ban Landmines, they mobilize resources and social forces to promote the arms control process. At the same time, in the field of arms control, CSOs have also actively participated in the process of international regulation on various treaties such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Biochemical Weapons Convention. In the fields of conflict prevention and conflict resolution and peace reconstruction, global CSOs are involved in the process of conflict prevention and early warning, conflict mediation and negotiation, humanitarian assistance in conflict and post-conflict political construction, development assistance, and social reconciliation. For example, in conflicts in African countries, such as Sierra Leone, Sudan, and others, global CSOs and local organizations are involved in all aspects of the conflict resolution process. In the Kosovo conflict, they also participated in the reconciliation of local social relations and the reconstruction of local CSOs. In the field of anti-war and disarmament campaign, global CSOs have carried out various forms of peace movement. During the Cold War, a number of organizations opposed the arms race and the threat of nuclear war between the two superpowers by convening the World Peace Congress, launching a signature campaign for peace and issuing peace declaration. In the campaign against the nuclear race, the nuclear weapons test and the superpowers’ war of aggression, global CSOs launched large-scale anti-war demonstrations. Today’s peace movement is also based on the demonstration

120  Zhenye Liu of scientific research achievements, lobbying and policy advice to the government, strong media involvement, and the formulation of international norms and even international conventions. By examining the activities of global CSOs in these fields, we can see that even in the high-level political issues such as peace and security, global CSOs can play an important role in governance. They are by no means self-serving or dispensable marginal groups, but an important force driving the change of governance in today’s international affairs. Global civil society and global human rights protection The governance participation of global CSOs in the field of global human rights protection is mainly reflected in the global network of CSOs on human rights, and their transnational human rights campaigns as well as other forms of human rights activities. After World War II, especially after the late 1970s, human rights global CSOs have developed rapidly, and their activities in the international political arena have attracted more and more attention. The activities of global CSOs in the field of human rights are generally aimed at monitoring the human rights protection mechanisms established by countries around the world and the United Nations, reporting and publishing the gaps in human rights between governments and the international protection rules, and promoting compliance of governments with basic human rights norms. To this end, the global CSOs’ action strategies in the field of global human rights protection are as follows. The first one is to supervise the commitment and behavior of national governments in the field of human rights protection. Secondly, they investigate human rights violations. The third one is to implement emergency action plans for human rights crisis. For example, the Human Rights Watch sets up emergency offices in the hotspots for human rights crisis to carry out emergency investigations, information gathering, international appeals, and policy lobbying for mass violations of human rights and humanitarian crises, and to protect the rights and interests of citizens by various means or conduct humanitarian relief operation. The fourth strategy is to carry out human rights publicity and education as well as technical assistance through the networks of human rights organizations, and carry out activities such as legal aid, education of individuals and groups to understand and exercise “their own rights”, and so on. The fifth strategy is to participate in the International Conference on Human Rights and to affect the agenda of the conference. Global CSOs play an important role in the field of global human rights protection by virtue of their own independence, flexible organizational forms, wide-ranging mass base, and high degrees of professionalism. They promote the emergence of international human rights norms and systems, supervise the implementation of human rights conventions, exert influence on the human rights policies of international institutions and the operation

Global civil society  121 of the United Nations human rights institutions, and influence national human rights policies and human rights, in turn, act as an external pressure. Amnesty International’s promotion of the global campaign against torture and the norms against torture are typical examples. Shortly after its establishment, Amnesty International began to show its concern about the frequent cases of torture. It believes that only by establishing a clear and strong set of anti-torture norms in accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights, can the widespread abuse of torture be changed. Thus, in 1966, five years after its founding, Amnesty International began to investigate the problem of torture and publish reports on torture. In its annual reports, Amnesty International publishes details of the use of torture by governments around the world, calling attention to the problem of torture by publicly revealing the abuse of torture worldwide. And on this basis, it promotes the formation of the public consensus on torture. In 1967, Amnesty International began to investigate the abuse of torture in the coup in Greece,45 and in early 1968 published the investigation team’s report named The Situation in Greece.46 Amnesty International was also involved in the investigation of torture in the Chilean coup in 1973, and it promoted the adoption of the first United Nations resolution on torture by the relevant countries at the General Assembly in December 1973. Since then, Amnesty International has played a key role in the campaign against torture and in promoting the adoption of the Convention against Torture by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984. Overall, the global CSOs’ governance participation in the field of global human rights protection has a more prominent impact than in other fields. First, the “multi-level” nature of international human rights issues makes the activities of global CSOs more likely to have transnational effects. The issue of human rights is of both internal and inter-sovereign significance. It also involves the legitimacy of the “super-sovereignty” human rights norms. The participation of global CSOs in the field of human rights protection is likely to have transnational influence. Secondly, after World War II, especially after the 1970s, with the rise of the new social movement and the growing “denseness” of international human rights norms, global CSOs have achieved tremendous development. The convergence of the “non-governmental” nature of human rights and the non-governmental nature of global CSOs makes global CSOs have comparative advantages over states and the United Nations. Compared with other fields, this makes global CSOs have a wider range of activities in the field of human rights and have more influence. Thirdly, the “non-governmental” nature of human rights affairs determines that global CSOs have a stronger social foundation in this field and a stronger appeal for mobilizing resources and social support. Moreover, their efforts to carry out social movements and initiate human rights protection actions will be more powerful than in other areas. On the other hand, human rights norms of value have potential “super-government” significance, which makes the relationship between global CSOs and the United Nations

122  Zhenye Liu agencies closer. Compared with other fields, global CSOs are more involved in the human rights affairs of international organizations such as the United Nations, and have greater influence. Fourthly, the case studies of Amnesty International and the Global Campaign against Torture show that global CSOs have an important influence on structuring human rights issues and promoting the formation of new human rights norms and that their participation in governance in the field of global human rights protection is likely to have a far-reaching impact. Global civil society and global environmental governance Global CSOs are an irreplaceable force in global environmental governance. They play a unique role in the governance of global environmental and ecological problems, relying on their own professional knowledge, cognitive and action networks, as well as independent identity and position. In the field of environmental ecology, the specialization of knowledge is deepening day by day. Global CSOs, relying on their professional prestige in the field of environmental studies, are deeply involved in the governance of environmental and ecological problems. Global CSOs use their expertise to provide the world with reliable data and the estimations of environmental hazards caused by industrial activities, such as oil leakage caused by offshore oil transportation and oil exploitation, dumping toxic wastes into the ocean, and overfishing. The credibility of their knowledge is no less or even higher than the political authority of a state government in many cases. At the same time, the “non-governmental” nature of global CSOs gives them social mobilization advantages compared with state actors. On the one hand, global CSOs have the “bottom-up” attribute from the masses, which enables them not only to influence and participate in elite decision-making on the basis of relevant expertise but also to transform the expertise into social mobilization resources, establishing a “bottom-up” cognitive and action network. On the other hand, global CSOs are more flexible than official institutions, and their flat organizational structures enable them to mobilize different interest groups and bring together different demands, thus enabling them to draw issues of poverty, development, women, indigenous people, and various demands into a relatively all-encompassing demand and policy participation network in the governance of environmental and ecological problems. In addition, most of the global CSOs demonstrate their independent status and position from the official through their actions and identities. Many environmental organizations refuse to receive financial assistance from TNCs and governments.47 They often maintain a prudent and critical stance towards government policies and TNCs. These identities and behavioral characteristics of global CSOs in the field of environmental ecology have brought them credibility, which sometimes goes beyond the political credibility of the state. This credibility provides

Global civil society  123 a huge political space for global CSOs to participate in environmental and ecological governance. Since the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm, environmental organizations around the world have further established a network of global action and mobilization. They have played an important role in advocating environmental awareness, constructing environmental issues, participating in international conventions and monitoring the implementation of conventions, monitoring the environmental behavior of TNCs, and participating in and influencing the agenda of the World Environmental Congress: First, environmental organizations use professional knowledge to raise human environmental awareness. The precondition of environmental and ecological protection is the awakening of people’s environmental awareness while building and increasing environmental awareness need scientific expertise and in-depth social mobilization. In these two aspects, global CSOs have two advantages. Through scientific research, investigation reports, news reports, environmental publicity, publication of professional books, special lectures, and organizational training, global CSOs have constructed knowledge dissemination networks and social mobilization networks for environmental and ecological knowledge and environmental protection awareness, raising human environmental awareness globally. Secondly, environmental organizations launch environmental campaigns to introduce new environmental issues into the international political and legislative processes. For example, since the 1980s, Greenpeace has launched an environmental campaign to ban the use of “organic pollutants” worldwide for more than a decade. Through organizing demonstrations, publishing research data, publishing research reports, and other means, the organization mobilized people to understand the hazards of organic pollutants and resist the use of organic pollutants, and finally in 1996, the United Nations Environment Programme launched an international negotiation on the control of organic pollutants.48 Another typical case is Greenpeace’s campaign to boycott and ban the transboundary movement of toxic wastes. Greenpeace has been investigating and studying the issue of cross-boundary pollution since the mid-1980s. Through the follow-up investigations and the publication of pollution data on specific cross-border toxic waste transfers and trade incidents, the organization has drawn worldwide attention to that issue of environmental pollution, prompting the United Nations Environment Programme to initiate international negotiations on the control of cross-border toxic waste transfers and trade. Eventually, the United Nations Environment Programme adopted the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal at the World Conference on Environmental Protection held in Basel, Switzerland, on 22 March 1989. Thirdly, environmental organizations promote the formulation and supervision of international conventions on environmental issues. For example, the Greenpeace New Zealand website lists the impact and role of environmental

124  Zhenye Liu global CSOs such as Greenpeace in the development of 26 international conventions or protocols. The contents of these international agreements include: export of toxic substances to developing countries is prohibited; commercial whaling is prevented; large-scale trawling is prohibited; a whale sanctuary is established in the South Pacific; mineral mining is prohibited in Antarctica for 50 years; and dumping of radioactive materials, industrial waste, and abandoned oil extraction equipment into the sea is prohibited.49 Bas Arts has also empirically demonstrated the impact of environmental global CSOs on the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). He points out that the use of protest, advocacy, and lobbying by environmental global CSOs had a substantial political impact on the introduction of CBD and some agreements of the FCCC, and had a certain political impact on the implementation and objectives of the FCCC, CBD indigenous peoples, and marine biodiversity provisions.50 Environmental global CSOs also play an important role in the implementation of many international conventions. For example, in 1973, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna asked governments to be responsible for stopping the illegal trade in wildlife, but the problem was difficult to be tackled only with the efforts of governments. Global CSOs follow up international trade in wildlife through surveys, research, and data collection, and make formal reports and speeches at the review conference of the Convention with participation of signatory countries, and publish information on follow-up surveys of wildlife trade to the General Assembly and signatory countries. They have thus played an important supervisory role in the implementation of the Convention. Fourthly, environmental organizations supervise both TNCs’ commitment to environmental protection and their environmental destruction behaviors. One of the actions of global CSOs in the field of the environment is to force TNCs to commit themselves to specific environmental issues and accepting supervision by global CSOs. Once these corporations commit acts that are contrary to the conventions and their commitments, various groups of global CSOs will promptly disclose the inconsistencies between their words and deeds, and calls for international condemnation in order to force them to abide by the conventions and promises. For example, in the late 1980s, groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NROC) organized a protest against the use of ripening agents in apple products, and Royal United Chemicals was forced to stop production of the related chemicals. In 1995, under the pressure of Greenpeace protests, Shell was forced to change its plans to sink an abandoned offshore oil storage platform in the North Sea. In 1993, the Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched a campaign to denounce the mahogany logging, demanding that TNCs end the mahogany trade. During the same period, the FOE also launched protests against the risk of species extinction brought about by over-exploiting minerals on Madagascar Island by the world’s largest transnational mining company, Rio Tinto Zinc, forcing the company to end that operation.51

Global civil society  125 Fifthly, environmental organizations participate in the environmental affairs of the United Nations system and play an important role. Global environmental civil society organizations (GECSOs) have established close ties with the United Nations system and are participating in the activities of the United Nations system through a variety of channels, and they have a growing impact on the work of the United Nations system. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, marked a turning point in the participation of global CSOs in the United Nations system. At that meeting, 134 global CSOs were officially registered, and more global CSOs participated in the conference in an informal manner, carrying out many unofficial activities, such as proposing initiatives, lobbying, advocacy, and education. It is precisely since that meeting that the acceptance of global CSOs has gradually become a practice at many important meetings held by United Nations agencies. GECSOs also participate actively in other important international conferences and in the concluding process of international treaties related to environmental protection held under the auspices of the United Nations. For example, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), FOE, and Greenpeace have long provided the United Nations with a high level of expertise in decision-making on marine pollution control. Global CSOs also played an important role in the formation and implementation of the 1987 Montreal Agreement on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. With the support of the United Nations Environment Programme, global CSOs are directly involved in the process of consultation and preparation of the agreement. In addition, United Nations organizations also cooperate with environmental global CSOs in many ways. Many environmental global CSOs have put pressure on the World Bank to introduce environmental factors into development assistance activities. In the 1980s, the World Bank reformed its aid allocation plan from an environmental perspective. It began to include environmental costs in the total costs of its development projects, and later set up the Ministry of Environment and other relevant environmental agencies. As a result, it gradually began to appoint professionals responsible for environmental issues and take more environmental considerations in project evaluation.

Governance effects and political effects of global civil society The activities of global civil society have produced multiple governance effects and political effects. Multiple governance effects arising from the activities of global civil society First of all, the transformation of governance in international affairs has been promoted. The activities of global civil society have changed the situation in which the governance of international affairs is entirely monopolized

126  Zhenye Liu by state actors. The participation of global civil society has been seen in all aspects of international affairs governance, such as the creation of issues, setting of agenda, formulation of conventions, and implementation of supervision. Secondly, it breaks the boundaries between the governance of domestic affairs and international affairs, making the governance of domestic affairs increasingly global. In the era of globalization, because of the cross-border nature of global issues, the governance of domestic affairs is interrelated with that of international affairs. Domestic affairs, such as ecological environment, nuclear proliferation, human rights, race, drugs, and terrorist activities, are becoming more and more international and even global. Transnational participation of global civil society makes these governance issues global. Not only is the governance of affairs at the global level increasingly linked to the governance of domestic affairs, but the governance of domestic affairs in one country is also increasingly linked to that of other countries. The governance of a country’s internal affairs matters not only to its own people but also to the whole of mankind and the people of other countries concerned. The governance of domestic affairs is becoming increasingly transnational and global. Thirdly, global civil society enhances the legitimacy of the governance of international and domestic affairs. The transnational and global natures of international and domestic affairs governance inevitably require the broad participation of people all over the world, and the participation of global civil society in the governance of various international and domestic affairs reflects the participation of the people all over the world. They express the will of the people, reflect the strength of the people, act according to the will of the people, and add a new legitimacy to the governance of international and domestic affairs. In 1994, the then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said: “NGOs are the basic form of representing the people in the world today. The participation of NGOs is a guarantee for the legitimacy of international organizations.”52 By creating governance issues, monitoring government behavior and influencing government decision-making, global civil society has enabled governments and international organizations to take more into account the will and demands of the global public in their decision-making, thus effectively enhancing the legitimacy of international and domestic affairs governance. Fourthly, global civil society promotes the rule of law in global governance. On the one hand, the governance participation of global civil society is promoting global governance to build the rule of law. In the field of international affairs in which many countries are unwilling to enter or are powerless, various organizations of global civil society have played a key role in advocacy initiatives, formulation of issues, coordination of positions, and mobilization of countries since their founding. For example, since its founding in the 1960s, the International Red Cross has been devoting itself to publicizing humanitarian ideas and actively lobbying governments

Global civil society  127 to participate in and sign the Geneva Conventions for the protection and relief of the wounded civilian personnel. At the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights, various human rights organizations prompted 171 participating countries to make a public commitment to respect the universal principles of freedom and rights advocated by the International Bill of Human Rights. In the protracted Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, many compromises between developed and developing countries have also been reached on the basis of the conciliatory propositions put forward by global civil society. It can be said that behind the numerous international conventions on environmental protection, human rights, peace, drug control, and nuclear non-proliferation, there are numerous global CSOs upholding them, which have effectively promoted the process of legalization of global issue governance. On the other hand, the global CSOs’ supervision of state acts has strongly promoted the implementation of international conventions. For example, in order to supervise the implementation of the Basel Convention on the international trade in hazardous wastes, Greenpeace regularly publishes a bulletin named The Latest Developments in the Trade in Toxic Wastes, which helps local groups in Africa to track the trade in toxic wastes transferred from Europe and the US, thus effectively preventing illegal acts by the countries concerned. Against South Korea and Japan’s mass killing of whales in the name of scientific experiments which obviously violates the international conventions and commitments to prohibiting whaling, Greenpeace protested strongly and even directly intervened, forcing South Korea and Japan to drastically reduce whaling. Various human rights organizations have also criticized the human rights situation in South Africa and Argentina and even lobbied the international community for intervention and sanctions. These monitoring activities of global CSOs have greatly enhanced the authority and binding force of international conventions and played a fundamental role in effective supervision and implementation of relevant international treaties.53 The activities of global civil society have promoted the emergence of new political fields and political forms As a transformative force, global civil society has promoted the emergence of new politics in the international political arena. First of all, it is the emergence of “popular politics”. In the disarmament and anti-nuclear movements, the activities of global civil society have shaped the political climate, political opinion and the “international political discourse against nuclear weapons” as well as new issues such as the ban on landmines movement. Among them, whether scientists’ unlocking of the people’s wisdom and shaping of public opinion or ordinary people’s awakening, protesting and demonstrating, reflect the rise of a popular and elite influence in international politics, which is an unprecedented shock and change to the Westphalian system dominated by sovereign states.

128  Zhenye Liu On the other hand, the public signature petition movement in the global anti-torture campaign, the campaign to rescue torture victims, and the mass mobilization in the urgent appeal campaign also show the influence of mass politics in the field of human rights. Secondly, it is “Politics of non-politics”.54 In the field of international conflicts, the participation of global civil society provides important early warning information, promotes conflict resolution, eases social relations, and lays an important social foundation for lasting peace. The activities of global civil society, be they emergency relief in conflict or post-conflict economic, political, and social reconstruction, all reflect the emergence of a new political form – “Politics of non-politics” in the international political arena. In traditional international politics, the endpoint of international politics is the nation-state, and the boundary of the territorial state is the boundary of international political behavior. But in today’s new conflicts, whether it is the intervention of the international community or the participation of global civil society, it shows that the endpoint of international politics has broken through the boundary shell of sovereign states and penetrated the boundary. However, most of the tentacles of the international community end at the government level, but the participation of global civil society goes deep into the nation-states – social fields. The outbreak of a new type of conflict in the world today stems from the tense and hostile social relations, and its complete cure must be the eventual elimination of tension and antagonism in social relations. Therefore, global civil society’s activities, such as the humanitarian relief in conflicts, poverty alleviation, economic recovery, reconstruction of the medical and educational system, and the cultivation of civil society, are no longer non-political participation, but rather, having important political significance. All these “Politics of non-politics” are not only the politics of the social fields but more importantly, the politics of social needs. Without the participation of global civil society, the root causes of the outbreak of conflicts will not be eliminated and the conflicts that are temporarily alleviated will not be cured. Thirdly, the new politics is also the politics of social relations. In the case of the Pugwash Movement, we can see the unique role played by a special force in global civil society – professionals such as scientists – in traditional international politics: contacting and influencing decision-making within the system, shaping the arms control thinking of government decision-makers, promoting dialogue and easing tensions, and promoting the conclusion of international arms control conventions. The unique organizational structure of the Pugwash Movement – scientists participate as individuals – is the key to its functioning. This shows once again that individuals and the relationship between individuals have leaped to the international political level and played an important political role. In the traditional politics of international relations, a kind of politics of social relations is emerging, which is the result of the participation of global civil society in international political activities.

Global civil society  129 Fourthly, there is a mixed multilateral political mode. The case of the global anti-torture movement also shows the emergence of a complex mixed political mode. On the one hand, in the global campaign against torture, Amnesty International has worked closely with relevant governments and the United Nations agencies, both in the forms of seminars and workshops bringing together officials, activists, and legal experts and in the forms of joint research, designing and drafting of response plans, all of which reflect a mixed multilateral mode. As for “mass politics”, “Politics of non-politics”, “politics of social relations”, and “mixed multilateral political mode”, those new types of politics arising from the activities of global civil society reflect the profound changes that international politics has brought about in the world today. On the one hand, it shows that “state-centered” politics can no longer cover all fields of international politics. In both absolute and relative terms, the “statecentered” politics is indeed “shrinking”. On the other hand, it also shows that various new types of political relations and political space have grown out of state politics. There is no doubt that all these new types of politics belong to non-state politics. International politics is indeed in the process of transition from state politics to non-state politics.55 The global civil society promotes the presence and transformation of the “state-society” relationship at the global level The transformation of international politics from state politics to non-state politics does not mean the disappearance and thorough weakening of state politics. But in a relative sense, it has led to the narrowing of the state political landscape. With the rise of non-state politics, the power of global civil society has surpassed national boundaries and sovereignty constraints to the international political arena, which means the emergence of a new global level of state-society relations. This kind of global state-society relationship has completely broken through the connotations of state-society relations within sovereign states and has brought new impetus to contemporary international and national politics. On the one hand, the relationship between state and society at the global level has revived the meaning of the relationship between state and society during the Renaissance and bourgeois revolution, and embodied the meaning of “civil society against the state”. The global civil society’s activities in the international arena, be they the global anti-nuclear movement during the Cold War, the global campaign against torture, the massive campaign against landmines in the 1990s, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,56 or the supervising and monitoring of the implementation of various international conventions, reflect the state-society relationship mode of the global civil society against the state and the state power. On the other hand, the state-society relationship at the global level reflects the asymmetry between state and society. In the traditional state-society

130  Zhenye Liu relationship within a sovereign state, the state and society are interconnected, which means that the state provides protection for civil society, and civil society is subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign authority of the state. Correspondingly, civil society provides the legitimacy foundation for the state, and the state must abide by the contract rule of law of civil society. But in the state-society relationship at the global level, this connection between state and society is missing. States do not have sovereign jurisdiction over emerging global civil society, and global civil society does not submit to any sovereign authority. But on the contrary, they are constantly promoting the emergence of new international norms and values in the field of international politics, and national sovereignty is constantly constrained by more and more rules, and global civil society is constantly questioning the legitimacy of national sovereignty by influencing public opinion and shaping conceptual values. Thirdly, the state-society relationship at the global level has given birth to a new agenda for “creating” politics in global civil society. From the creation and dissemination of new ideas and values on the international political agenda to the establishment of anti-nuclear discourse and anti-torture discourse, and to the framework of issues such as the prohibition of landmines, the process of creating a new type of politics is reflected in all of these issues. Finally, the state-society relationship at the global level is a reversal of the domestic “public-private” relationship. As mentioned in the preceding conceptual section, in a nation-state, the state represents the public domain, while civil society belongs to the private domain. However, in the international arena, the global civil society, as a “representative of the global public interest”, is also a simulation of the “public domain”, therefore, the “public-private” relationship between the state and civil society has been reversed at the global level.

Global civil society: a paradise in the world or a Utopia? To sum up, the activities of global civil society in the field of international politics have involved all aspects of global public affairs. From shaping public opinion and international anti-nuclear or human rights discourse to providing information, structuring issues, setting normative standards, promoting the formation and monitoring of international conventions, and to investigating and discovering facts, lobbying, resisting and influencing national policies and actions, we can say that global civil society can be seen in every aspect of international affairs. These activities of global civil society have also exerted a great influence on the actual international political operations. However, while fully acknowledging the impact and the role of global civil society, we must also point out that the activities and influence of global civil society in the international political field are still plagued by its own limitations in many aspects, and the full play of its role depends

Global civil society  131 on whether the shortcomings could be overcome completely. First of all, from the present point of view, the impact of global civil society on world political development is still a trend. In terms of effectiveness, the vast majority of activities with which global civil society can achieve tangible results are case-based. Even in the fields where global civil society plays a major role, such as environment and human rights, the results of the activities are mostly in legal forms, such as promoting the development of international environmental legislation, international anti-apartheid and anti-torture legislation. Whether these legislations can achieve practical results in reality or not, relies heavily on the behavior of specific countries. Secondly, to give full play to its due functions, global civil society must strengthen its own democratic construction. In many transnational social movements, the activities of global civil society largely depend on the charisma of a special organizer,57 which easily leads the policy propositions of these organizations with personal subjective opinions, and leaves organizational activities planning difficult to be sustainable. Even though many organizational activities can be successfully carried out, these networks do not operate in a formal representative structure and therefore lack the social participation and support they deserve. In order to improve the effectiveness of global civil society, we must vigorously support the construction of their own democratic system. Thirdly, the political function of global civil society depends on the strengthening of its independence and legitimacy. Autonomy, independence, and criticality are prerequisites for the role of global CSOs. But in fact, in the operation of modern politics, welfare states can easily control various social organizations by selecting “politically appropriate” social organizations to share some of the functions of the state. In addition, all kinds of global civil societies often strive to compromise with the state in order to win state funding. Habermas has paid close attention to this new relationship between global civil society and the state, which he believes is likely to lead these private actors to abandon their role as critics of state behavior.58 B. Sanya also points out that the degree to which global civil society acquires national autonomy is the key to its political function. Autonomy is not only the key to determine the legitimacy of organizations but also plays a crucial role in their flexible and mobile practice.59 Finally, the normal functioning of global civil society depends on the balanced development of its internal organizations and the establishment of democratic mechanisms among organizations. At present, the development of various global CSOs is extremely uneven. For example, in sharp contrast to most NGOs, Greenpeace has an annual budget of US$ 100 million and the WWF has an annual budget of US$ 170 million, which are richer than the United Nations Environment Programme and many national governments.60 Because of the different powers of these organizations, they have different degrees of attention and different roles in the world political arena. For example, in the United Nations system, NGOs in developed countries have a great impact on the decision-making of the United Nations system because of

132  Zhenye Liu their large scale and strong financial resources, while NGOs in developing countries find it difficult to participate in the decision-making process of the United Nations system. Therefore, the political function of global civil society requires the fair, equal, and comprehensive participation of the various organizations in global political affairs and global governance. By reviewing the impact of global civil society’s governance participation on the international arena and its own shortcomings, we can clearly say that global civil society has demonstrated its indispensable role and influence in all fields and links of the international and domestic affairs governance. Of course, the fields in which global civil society is playing a more effective role are mainly the areas that states cannot fully take into account, such as the environment, human rights, poverty alleviation, and drug and AIDS control. In the fields where sovereignty can be effectively exercised, it is difficult for global civil society to compete with the influence of the state. For example, in the fields of disarmament and nuclear proliferation, although the network density, scale, and frequency of activities of global CSOs far exceed the development in other fields, their organizational activities in these fields have a much weaker impact on state behavior. All these show that the global civil society is neither the “paradise on earth” questioned by some scholars61 nor the Utopia which can get rid of all kinds of abuses in reality. It is the return of the value of “human” in the governance of international and domestic affairs, and the return of the noumenon of “human”.

Notes 1 John Keane, “Global Civil Society?” in Helmut Anheier, et al., ed., Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 23. Budd L. Hall, “Global Civil Society: Theorizing a Changing World”, Convergence 2000, Vol. 33, No. 1/2, pp. 10–21. 2 See Elise Boulding, Building a Global Civic Culture: Education for an Interdependent World. Syracuse University Press, 1988, pp. 33–45. Stephen Gill, “Reflection on Global Order and Sociohistorical Time”, Alternatives, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1991, pp. 275–314. Ronnie D. Lipschutz, “Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society, Millenium, Vol. 7, No. 6, 1992, p. 390. 3 Helmut Anheier, et al., Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 16–17. 4 Goran Hyden, “Civil Society, Social Capital, and Development: Dissection of a Complex Discourse”, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 32, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 3–30. 5 Ann Marie Clark, The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, Human Rights, and Woman, World Politics, Vol. 51, October 1998, p. 34. 6 Robert Putnam, a well-known American political scientist and sociologist, has often been cited by many scholars who deny global civil society, although he has not specifically discussed global civil society. His frequently quoted views on the possibility of negating the existence of global civil society include two main points. First, he believes that those social organizations that cannot provide specific social contacts and face-to-face contacts cannot be included in civil society, because only face-to-face communication can establish the basic social

Global civil society  133 capital such as social trust. Obviously, it is hard for NGOs at global level to do this. Secondly, he believes that only those non-political associations can contribute to the spirit of moderation and compromise, and can produce a minimum basis for democratic cooperation and governance. Those protest-oriented and opposition-oriented associations can only aggravate social division and confrontation, and cannot be included in civil society. However, a large number of INGOs active on the global level are protest or even antigovernment organizations. Therefore, according to Putnam’s theoretical logic, it is impossible to produce a global civil society. See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1995, pp. 65–78. 7 David Held, Democracy and Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Stanford University Press, 1995, p. 125. 8 When discussing the multi-level overlapping authority of “Neo-medieval Doctrine”, such as Hedley Bull, he constantly circles among the authority of local government, state, and super-state institutions, avoiding discussing the decentralized effect of the rise of non-governmental fields. See Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, Translated by Zhang Xiaoming, World Affairs Press, 2003, pp. 212–224. 9 Ronnie D. Lipschutz and Judith Mayer, Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet, State University of New York Press, 1996, pp. 51–52.



20 Jan Aart Scholter, “Global Civil Society”, in Ngaire Woods, ed., The Political Economy of Globalization, Macmillan, 2000, pp. 174–175.

134  Zhenye Liu

22 Whether domestic civil society can be included in global civil society without reservation has always been controversial in academic circles. John Keane’s view is representative. He believes that global civil society should include all local and national civil society organizations. But one premise of his view is that he concludes that the world today is, as Raymond Aron said, a “universal history” and that civil society organizations everywhere in the world are interdependent. See John Keane, Global Civil Society? Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 27. In fact, this book is not contradictory to Keane’s view. The difference lies in this book’s view that local self-help organizations and neighborhood clan organizations, which lack contact with the outside world and value-sharing in the more closed areas, are not within the “complex chain of interdependence” that Keane calls them. The all-inclusive concept of global civil society is easy to give people the illusions of the total number. Dr. Zhou Jun, who has made outstanding achievements in the study of global civil society in China, believes that if we distinguish the two, it may lead to a “split” between them. See Yu Jianxing and Zhou Jun, “Global Civil Society: A Conceptual Investigation”, Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy,Vol. 5, 2005, pp. 5–14. In fact, as long as the two parties are clearly defined, this “split” may not exist.

24 In fact, no matter how complex the dependence of global civil society on business and government is, we can distinguish civil society actors from government and business in several basic ways. Governments strive to provide public order and public goods and use their authority to raise funds. Businesses strive to provide private goods and services through voluntary trading mechanisms. Civil society actors strive to realize citizens’ values and goals through their own independent voluntary efforts and through the influence of civil society on business and government. If the government mobilizes resources through legitimate coercion and taxation, and the business sector mobilizes resources through resource exchange, civil society organizations mobilize resources by resorting to value system and social purposes. See David Brown, et al., “Globalization, NGOs and Multi-Sector Relations”, in Joseph Nye and John Donnahu, ed., Governance in a Globalized World, Chinese Version, World Affairs Press, 2003, p. 228.

Global civil society  135 26 Cai Tuo, Transformation of Globalization and Politics, Chinese edition, Peking University Press, 2007, p. 82. 28 John Seitz, Global Issues, Translated by Liu Zhenye and Li Yi, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2010, p. 3.

30 Ricardo Hausmann, “Prisoners of Geography,” Foreign Policy, Vol. 122 (January /February 2001), p. 46. 34 Michael Edwards, David Hume, and Tina Wallace, “Non-Governmental Organizations for the Future of the World: Integrating Local Services with World Impacts”, in He Zengke, ed., Civil Society and the Third Sector, Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2000, p. 294. 35 Edward Tiryakian, “The Global Crisis as an Interregnum of Modernity”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 25, No.1-2, 1984, pp. 123–130. 40 Ibid.

44 Overseas Development Institute (ODI), “The State of the International Humanitarian System”, ODI Briefing Paper, Vol. 1, 1998, p. 2.

136  Zhenye Liu 46 AI, Annual Report 1967–1968, p. 6. 48 See Greenpeace: “The History of Greenpeace”, http://www.greenpeace.org/ 50 Bas Arts, The Political Influence of Global NGOs: Case Studies on the Climate and Biodiversity Conventions, International Books, 1998, pp. 109, 303. 54 There are two “politics” in the term “Politics of non-politics”, but their connotation is different. The former “politics” refers to the power sense of politics, or the state power politics. The latter “politics” refers to the public domain in which political life is located. It does not refer to the space of political power, but the space of public affairs outside of power, which is the (pan) political right of citizens in this space. See Mary Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War, Polity, 2003, pp. 55–56. Jeffrey C. Issac, “Civil Society and the Spirit of Revolt”, Dissent, Summer 1993, p. 357. Adam B. Seligman, The Idea of Civil Society, The Free Press, 1992, pp. 201–204.



60 John Keane, “Global Civil Society?”, p. 35.

5

Global interests and global ethic Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao

Nowadays, with the rapid development of globalization, various global issues and crises are increasingly developing in every aspect of human life. The globality of global issues and crises and the increasing demand for human beings to meet these challenges call for a global thinking, namely, global consciousness, and highlight the importance of global human common interests, namely, global interests, in today’s international community. But in the international society in reality, the nation-state still occupies the leading position, and the national interests are still the main driving force of the nation-state’s foreign behavior. Thus, in today’s era of the rapid expansion and spread of globalization and global issues, the concept and reality of global interests have a tremendous impact on the preference of national interests. To understand and grasp the connotations and characteristics of global interests in a comprehensive way, to ponder and analyze dialectically the contradictions and disputes between global interests and national interests, and to rationally steer and adjust the relationship between global interests and national interests, are issues of the times raised by the increasingly challenging global crisis and global governance, and also the core issues of the survival of the international community in the era of globalization. At the same time, taking the bottom-line ethics and universal ethics contained in global ethic as the value guide of global consciousness will also help us overcome the narrow limitations of nationalism and find solutions to the global crisis.

The origins and development of global interests/common interests of mankind The concept of global interests is highlighted in the following aspects. First of all, global interests are the common interests of all mankind. This determines that they are different from various national interests and group interests, but rather, international interests, or the collective interests of all mankind. Admittedly, the national interests still have high status today, but with the increasingly close ties of human social life, global interests are no longer illusory as they are playing an important role and having real value.

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-6

138  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao The common interests of all mankind are different from the deep-rooted national interests in people’s mindsets, but they are not entirely separate. They are the extension of national interests in the international community. Each country and group must take into account the common interests of mankind, including the survival and development of mankind, peace and security, as well as the maintenance of human environment while pursuing their own interests. Secondly, global interests properly reflect global consciousness. Global consciousness means a way of thinking which argues that on the basis of acknowledging the common interests of the international community and the commonality of a human cultural phenomenon, we should transcend the differences between social systems and ideologies, overcome the limitations of national and group interests, examine and understand social life and historical phenomenon from a global perspective.1 This mindset based on the theory of anthropocentrism and the holism of the whole world is global consciousness. The constant sharpening of globalization and global issues leads to global consciousness. Global consciousness takes global interests as value orientation, and the integrity and universality of the global interests also requires people to use a new way – global consciousness – to think. Thirdly, the stakeholders of global interests (including those who undertake obligations to safeguard global interests and those who enjoy global interests) not only abstract “human” as a whole, but also include all human social organizations such as individuals, countries, and ethnic groups. Global interests need to be practiced and undertaken by each individual and group of human actors with a global consciousness that transcends national and group interests. To sum up, the global interests can be summarized as common interests of all mankind that are highlighted by globalization and global issues, and are urgently needed by the task of the global governance era. Moreover, they take anthropocentrism and the holism of the world as the core and require people to think with global consciousness. Starting from the implications of this concept, we can examine the evolution and contemporary forms of global interests from the two dimensions of history and reality. Although global interests as a concept is not always there, it has always been a real existence. Since the emergence of human society, there have been human common interests beyond regions and groups. The concern for this kind of common interests originated from ancient Greece and Rome. Stoicism held that the universe was a whole, arguing that human beings, as part of the universe, were equal to each other, that natural law was the supreme criterion, and that a “state of the world” should be established to eliminate conflicts among nations. Marcus Aurelius even considered himself a “cosmological citizen”. Stoicism’s concept of natural law and equality was concerned about the interests of the whole world and mankind. The Hellenistic age has broken the model of independent development of the East and the West in history and combined them into one. Now, for the first time,

Global interests and global ethic  139 people think of the whole civilized world as one unit.2 The contribution of the Romans to the law also embodies the idea of global interests. Based on the concept of natural law, the Romans founded the universal law with the nature of world law relative to the civil law, which went beyond the laws of all ethnic groups in Rome and had the concept of cosmopolitanism and universal justice. In the medieval Europe, the Renaissance pioneer Dante put forward the idea of “world empire”, advocating the establishment of a unified world empire which would be ruled by a supreme monarch, in order to safeguard the peace that people needed. The discussion of war and peace by modern thinkers also embodies the concern for the common interests of mankind, as reflected in Grotius’ thought of international law and peace. In addition, in 1795, Kant published Perpetual Peace, which put forward a series of conditions and plans to achieve permanent peace. The idealism represented by Woodrow Wilson prevailed after World War I. His advocacy of establishing an effective international coordinating and managing body can help maintain world peace. Since then, based on the tragic experience of the world wars, the maintenance of global interests has produced two major practices: the establishment of the League of Nations and the United Nations. In the 1980s, the theory of democratic peace based on Kant’s idea of “perpetual peace” was proposed. The American scholar Mitchell Doyle and others believed that the liberal democratic system practiced by the Western countries was the premise of democratic peace. Admittedly, the ideal feature of democratic peace theory is quite obvious, but it cannot be denied that the freedom and democracy of all mankind have become a part of the global interests, and the popularization of liberal democracy will be conducive to safeguarding people’s rights and maintaining a stable domestic and international environment. Generally speaking, when globalization and global issues were not fully highlighted, due to the continuous disputes among countries and regions, the focus of global interests was mainly on the issue of war and peace. Preventing war and safeguarding peace are the common interests of all mankind. As the world war goes away, globalization, especially economic globalization, has developed in depth, and global issues have become increasingly serious. Global interests thus have new forms of expression, and new concerns have emerged for global interests. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Rome Club formally proposed and began to study global issues, and in 1972 it put forward the concept of “global equilibrium”3 in its first report The Limits to Growth. This report opens the door by viewing the world as an inseparable system and draws attention to the impact of everyday production and consumption patterns on the global environment and resource supply for everybody around the world, and thus proposes a global mindset. In the book Before It Is Too Late, Daisaku Ikeda, a Japanese scholar, thinks that the earth is a whole, and all mankind belongs to a community of destiny.4 Historian Arnold Toynbee also points out that modern technology has made all parts of the world inhabited by

140  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao human beings a whole; as a result people must also be a whole in spirit and thought. The political passion that used to be devoted only to parts of the human settlements and only to their inhabitants and governments must now be devoted to all mankind and the world.5 On the issue of the relationship between global society and nation-states, the famous philosopher Ervin Laszlo argues that governments should not remain focused on their own nation-states. In order to represent the real interests of their people, governments must broaden their horizons. In fields such as peace and security and environmental protection, they must be prepared to selectively transfer decision-making power to regional or global communities.6 Facing the issue of relations between global and states affairs, as well as the seriousness and challenges of global issues, in addition to the attention of scholars, some important international conferences and relevant committees have also payed great attention. The unofficial report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, Only One Earth, points out that we are stubborn in the idea that the state is an independent unit, and we attach too much importance to the sovereignty of the state, and also we always doubt any measures to expand the power of the state. These impacts are so profound that in maintaining the integrity of the global environment, we are unaware of the need to sacrifice part for the whole and take full responsibility for the whole.7 Therefore, (we need to) go beyond the narrow tradition of loyalty to tribes and nations, and reach the loyalty to the wider humanity.8 The World Commission on Environment and Development has systematically studied the economic, social, and environmental problems facing humankind and has considered the issue of environment and development as a whole in its report Our Common Future. They claim that we are in such an era that, more than ever, there is a need for coordinated political action and a sense of responsibility, and no country can develop in isolation from other countries.9 Therefore, it is necessary to increase international cooperation to safeguard global interests. In the era of globalization with increasingly serious global crises, the highlights of global interests have become an indisputable fact. The urgent need for global governance has also led to the growing popularity of the concept of human beings as a community of shared future. With the development of science and technology, the strengthening of interdependence among countries and the deepening of global governance, human concern for global interests will gradually move to the central stage of international politics.

The history and reality of national interests The concept of national interests has a long history and is one of the basic concepts of international relations. National interests were formed alongside the emergence of modern nation-states. The Italian thinker Niccolò Machiavelli of the Renaissance period expounded on the “reason of state”,

Global interests and global ethic  141 referring to the supremacy of the state, which meant that rulers could take specific measures to ensure the integrity of the state’s existence according to specific circumstances. Machiavelli pointed out in his book The Prince that the survival of the state was the priority, and the fundamental problem of the state was the ruling power. Due to the existence of the reason of state, the monarch could do anything in order to maintain the rule against threats. The reason for the state regarded the state as the highest value of existence and became the embryonic form of the national interests. Similar concepts were put forward by Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, and others, explaining that the state’s political behavior should be subordinate to the national interests. But at that time, the idea of divine empowerment still had a major impact. The monarch represented the state, and national interests still referred to the interests of the monarch himself. After that, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French thinker, systematically expounded on the expression of the will of the political community. In his book The Social Contract, the common political will was expressed by the concept of “the general will”. In his view, society needed common interests as the basis for policy-making, which was also the connecting force that kept the country from collapse and disintegration. At the same time, the state was a community composed of people according to the social contract; consequently, the common interests of the community or the general will were the will of all people. The concept of “the general will” partly constitutes the basis of the concept of modern national interests. But before the French Revolution, the concept of the state was not prevalent. The state was often referred to as a nation, without a political nature. After the French Revolution, the establishment of the right to self-determination enabled people to form independent political groups with certain powers and responsibility, which were similar to the state in terms of form and content, because the state also had sovereignty and independent status. Therefore, the nation constituted the foundation of a state. The word “nation-state” combined two elements into one, and national interests developed into national-state interests. In 1934, American scholar Charles Austin Beard published The Idea of National Interest, which examined the origins of the concept of national interests and its evolution in modern times. Beard traced the origins of national interests to Italy in the 16th century and England in the 17th century. After the 17th century, the concepts of the reason of state and dynasty interests gradually lost the necessity of existence, and were replaced by national interests. This was the first time to examine national interests from the perspective of chronicle. Throughout the 20th century, the importance of national interests has been stressed, the relevant research has been deepened, and the theories have been improved. The early systematic studies on the concept of national interests were mostly done by the Western academics, especially the major schools of international relations theory. Realism upholds the concept of state-centrism and argues that the state is the most important actor in the world political arena, and the national

142  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao interests are the basic factor that determines the state’s behavior. Edward Hallett Carr, a British scholar, laid the foundation of realism theory while criticizing idealism. In his masterpiece The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, he pointed out that the harmony of interests advocated by idealism was severely out of touch with reality and was heading for destruction. Interests’ harmony has been transformed into interests’ conflict, and the conflict of interests among nations is the essence of international politics. Conflict of interests is real and an unavoidable fact. If the reality is covered up, it will distort the true nature of the problem.10 Hans Morgenthau, a renowned scholar of classical realism, made a classical interpretation of national interests. In his six principles of political realism, the relationship between power and interests was analyzed. He pointed out that the concept of interests defined by power is the main landmark to help political realism find its way across the other side of international politics,11 distinguishing political realism from other schools of thought. Morgenthau proceeded from the philosophical foundation of evil human nature, believing that the law of human nature which pursues power would be applied to states, and the conflict of interests between states was thus inevitable. In that case, a power struggle was the way to solve it. Therefore, states with strong power had more national interests, and states with weak power had less national interests. But at the same time, he also pointed out that the key concept of interests defined by power belonged to the universal applicable objective category, though it did not give the concept a permanent and fixed meaning,12 which meant that national interests were uncertain and complex. Since then, national interests have become the essence of understanding international politics and the core concept of international politics, as well as the basis for a state to formulate its foreign policy which determines its survival. Kenneth Neal Waltz’s Neo-realist theory holds that in the anarchic selfhelp system, national interests put the survival of the state first, and the sense of insecurity limits the state’s action and cooperation. Specifically, there are two ways: countries are concerned that the distribution of possible gains may be more beneficial to other countries – the first way in which international political structures restrict cooperation, which means that the state is more concerned about relative interests than absolute interests. One country is also concerned about becoming dependent on other countries because of cooperation and the exchange of goods and services, which is the second way in which international political structures restrict cooperation.13 The state’s concern for relative interests and security considerations force economic interests to submit to the state’s political interests. However, neo-liberalism holds the opposite view. Robert Keohane argues that the state is more concerned with absolute interests than relative interests. International relations are thus not a zero-sum game, and the state can expand its interests through cooperation. Countries will be more inclined to achieve greater win-win outcomes – solving international problems in a way

Global interests and global ethic  143 that brings greater benefits to all – even if they may have lost some of their direct gains. When other countries gain, they will also benefit from it. The benefits of sharing will be further expanded.14 The theory of Constructivism emerged in the mid and late 1980s. The interpretation of national interests by constructivism is quite different from that of the previous scholars of international relations. Its basic concepts are identities and ideas. The fundamental issues concerned are where interests come from and where identities come from. The core logic of constructivism is that ideas determine identities, and identities determine national interests. In his book Social Theory of International Politics, Alexander Wendt argues that states have fundamental commonalities. These commonalities create universal “national interests”,15 and the behavior of a country is driven by interests. Wendt ‘s definition of national interests is the reengineering requirements or safety requirements of the state social complex,16 and it is pointed out in particular that the interests are objective, which is different from other scholars’ viewpoint of taking interests as subjective ones. The state determines its own subjective interests because of the security needs of objective interests, but the relationship between them is not clear. The state may perish if they cannot be properly matched in the long term. Wendt adds a fourth national interest, “collective self-esteem”, to the three national interests proposed by neo-liberal institutionalism: survival, independence, and economic wealth. It refers to the need of a group to feel good about oneself and the need for respect and status,17 and if the state wants to be secure, it must satisfy these four interests. Martha Finnemore analyzes national interests from a sociological perspective. In her theory of social constructivism, “socialization” of the state is the key path for the emergence of national interests. The state is socialized by accepting new norms, values, and interests through international organizations,18 and national interests are not just a reactive result of the external threats and domestic political pressures. They are molded by the norms and values shared by the international community, and norms and values construct international political life and give them meanings.19 The British School is one of the most influential non-mainstream schools of international relations theory. Its prominent figure, Hedley Bull believes that the “national interests” norm itself does not help us to explain the state’s behavior and indicate how the state should behave unless we know the specific goals the state pursues, such as security, prosperity, and ideological purposes. Moreover, the definition of national interests is not objective, because the purpose or goal of a country is the product of the knowledge of a particular decision maker. Nor does it help us to distinguish the moral or ideological objectives of a country’s foreign policy from non-moral or non-ideological objectives. If the basis of a state’s foreign policy is the pursuit of national interests, then the state must take rational actions. States must offer a concept of common interests that pursues the basic goal of social life,20 in order to establish an international society and maintain its

144  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao order. The British School emphasizes the fact that the international community exists, and one of the most important features of the international community is that states need to broaden their traditional outlook on interests, taking into account the interests of other states, which will be conducive to the wider regional stability and a more general global order. The British School holds that the state should have a common concept and code of conduct and system, especially the concept of common interests, and while pursuing the interests of the state, we should also pay attention to the common interests of all mankind. In addition, the British school also refutes the realist view of national interests and believes that it is not advisable to ignore international morality and order to pursue national interests. Generally speaking, the Western scholars have not been too entangled in what the national interests are, but more concerned about how the national interests come into being, how to realize them, and how to understand its importance. The definition of national interests also reflects the differences between subjectivism and objectivism, and between economic perspective and sociological perspective. Subjectivism regards national interests as the result of ideas and subjective preferences, and objectivism regards national interests as the result of rationality. Neo-realism and neo-liberalism analyze national interests more from the perspective of economics, while constructivism and the British school explain national interests more from the perspective of cultural concepts. However, whatever kind of national interests they are, national interests are regarded as the basis for a state to formulate and interpret its foreign policy. Their fundamental foothold is that states will continue to exist in the international arena and the national interests will continue to play a role in the states’ political behavior. In today’s era of global governance, how to coordinate the deep-rooted national interests of nation-states in the world and the urgent need to safeguard the common interests of mankind in response to the global crisis, have become major issues of the times.

Rational cognition of global interests and national interests From the perspective of the history of human thought, the concept and practice of global and national interests have a long history of development and a solid ideological foundation. In the reality of human life, global interests and national interests are also rooted in the practice of the international community. The practice of pursuing national interests by nation-states has a long history and a strong realistic motivation. In contrast, the realistic demands of global interests mainly arose in the 1960s and 1970s. The Club of Rome sounded the alarm of the global crisis in the 1960s. The first environmental conference of mankind in the 1970s began to play the prelude to global consciousness, and then the Rio Earth Summit in the 1990s launched the process of global governance of human response to the crisis at an unprecedented pace in human history. Global consciousness and the common

Global interests and global ethic  145 interests of all mankind are advancing rapidly, permeating and shaking up strongly shaking up the human social life based on national interests. Like national interests, global interests have acquired a certain degree of inevitability of historical development and rationality of practice in human life. On the one hand, the crisis, seriousness, and governance of the development of global issues highlight the importance of the common interests of mankind and global interests in human life. First, the development of global issues and their governance has fully highlighted the commonality and universality of human interests. Global thinking, global consciousness, and global interests reflect the urgent needs of the times. Looking around the world today, the international community is facing common crises and problems: the global development inequality and the persistence and deterioration of poverty, the development of nuclear weapons technology and the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to global security, the global environmental crisis caused by the sharp decline of biodiversity and ecological degradation, all kinds of disasters brought about by abnormal climate and weather caused by climate change, the contradiction between the sustained growth of population and the shortage of resources and energy, social harm caused by international terrorism, AIDS and drug abuse, and so on. All these problems and crises fully reflect the authenticity and universality of the common interests of mankind. It is an inevitable requirement for the development of the times to break away from the traditional state-centered thinking and rethink the global crisis and the way of governance from the perspective of global thinking, with reference to global consciousness and global interests. Secondly, the growth of international organizations and international regimes poses challenges to nation-states and highlights global interests. Since the end of World War II in the last century, various international regimes have made great progress to deal with the growing crises and challenges facing mankind. Nowadays, with the increasing tasks of governance undertaken by international regimes, the authority of international regimes is also increasing. International law, international treaties, international organizations, and other constraints on nation-states are increasing. The way to resolve conflicts of interests among states is gradually changing from confrontation and conflict to dialogue and cooperation. Otherwise, if the common interests of mankind cannot be guaranteed, the national interests will lose its significance of existence highlight is a little bit strange here. Issues such as ecological imbalance, climate change, resource shortage, and the spread of AIDS, which affect the common destiny of mankind as a whole, cannot be effectively resolved within a closed framework of national interests. In practice, global institutions such as the United Nations, the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF and regional organizations such as the EU bear the main authority and governance function of the international regimes. Although the legitimacy and effectiveness of these organizations are often questioned, their governance and authority

146  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao exert great influence on the international community. Their governance function and tasks go beyond the governance capacity and willingness of a single nation-state, thus gaining the recognition of the supra-state community. The growing authority and the governance role of the supra-state community pose a challenge to the nation-state and further highlight the importance of global interests. Thirdly, the development of economy, science and technology provides a material basis for the maintenance of global interests. Nowadays, human society has entered the era of high technology and information. With the development of human transportation and communications technology, the links and activities across national boundaries are becoming increasingly convenient. The development of information network frees human communication activities and information transmission and diffusion from the traditional temporal and spatial limits. All kinds of crises confronted by all parts of the world have promoted the common understanding of mankind and shaped the common sense of destiny through the spread and diffusion of the network. The way and experience of governance of people all over the world are also shared by mankind through the information network. Mankind is constantly improving and expanding its abilities and measures to safeguard the common interests through the progress in economic, scientific, and technological development. The trend of globalization and global issues and the conditions of global governance provided by globalization show that human cognition and protection of global interests are entering a new era. It is inevitable that people all over the world will go beyond the confines of national interests to understand and practice the common interests of mankind. While we consciously recognize the historical inevitability of the existence and development of global interests, we should also see that, because of the deep-rooted loyalty to the nation-state and the dominance of the nation-state, the role played by the nation-state in global governance is far from over. In addition, the existence of national interests has its social foundation and theoretical rationality. First, national interests remain the main driving force for the development of international relations. In international politics, the realization of national interests is based on strength and abilities, while the state is still the most powerful actor in international relations and also the most important form of organization to meet human needs. Among all kinds of interests in international politics, the influence of national interests on human social life still occupies a dominant position, and the state provides the greatest national interest needs for its own citizens with unique capabilities and means. Therefore, the balance between the contents and objectives of national interests has become the pillar and core of the foreign policy of sovereign states in international politics. To some extent, it is through the pursuit of national interests that the development and evolution of international relations have acquired the basic impetus.

Global interests and global ethic  147 Secondly, the pursuit of national interests is still the most powerful interest demands of all kinds of human interests. Today, the nation-state is still the most basic unit of international politics and the basic unit of human social life. The nation-state plays an irreplaceable role in managing and distributing social resources and providing social security and social order. This is exactly the British scholar Paul Kennedy’s view that even if the autonomy and role of the state are weakened by the supranational trend, there is nothing to replace it and become the key unit to respond to global change.21 Due to the irreplaceable role of nation-state and the unique capabilities and means of state, the concept of nation-state and national interests has almost become the most deeply rooted concept in human society. As a result, the interests demands in the form of the nation-state have become the most powerful ones among all kinds of human interests demands. Thirdly, safeguarding national interests is the basic means to realize regional and people’s interests. In today’s international community, the development between countries is not balanced, and there are still many unfair and unreasonable aspects of the international systems and rules. Therefore, the state and people in a weak position in the international community, in order to safeguard their own interests, must take the state as the shield and the weapon in struggle, and actively defend the national interests. For example, most developing countries often lack a voice in the international political arena, taking a passive role with few bargaining power in the face of unfair international economic and trade rules dominated by developed countries. The vast majority of developing countries are often forced to adopt a national-interest-centered policy to safeguard their own interests in the face of damaged economic interests and political discrimination. This shows that, in many cases, national interests also play a special role for most countries to protect their own interests, and national interests still hold its necessity and rationality of existence in a long historical period.

Rational choice: adjustment of national interests and global interests Globalization and global issues give rise to global consciousness and highlight global interests, which pose a challenge to national interests. However, states are still the most important actors in international relations on the world stage, and the fundamental status of national interests. But the global interests and national interests are not fundamentally incompatible. The relationship between them is a unity of opposites, and neither side should be exaggerated or belittled. First of all, global interests are part of national interests, and states must take global interests into consideration in the pursuit of their own interests. Global interests are the common interests of all mankind. When global interests are safeguarded in the cases such as the governance of global issues, the maintenance of world peace, and the improvement of the natural environment, all mankind will enjoy the benefits,

148  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao and the national interests of all countries will be met to some extent. Therefore, global interests are consistent with national interests. Secondly, there are differences between national interests and global interests. On the one hand, when determining the interests of the whole country, the state must consider its own national conditions apart from the global interests. The national interests of all countries have their particularities, while the global interests are universal. On the other hand, national interests sometimes are opposite to global interests. If national interests and global interests are incompatible, that is to say, national interests are against the common interests of mankind, which suggests that the national interests of the country must be unreasonable. Some states emphasize the pursuit of national interests, ignoring or even sacrificing global interests, which will inevitably bring serious consequences to their own countries. Therefore, in today’s era of global governance, nation-states must take global interests into consideration while protecting their national interests, and take into account the interests of other countries and the needs of the common interests of mankind. Moreover, they must rationally realize national interests, which means to adhere to national interests under the framework of global interests. Specifically, these are the following points. First, we should face up to the severe challenges of the global crisis and the trend of the times when global governance is developing in depth, and recognize the importance of global interests and the urgent need to safeguard the common interests of mankind in global governance. Globalization has made great progress since the 1960s and 1970s, bringing great changes to contemporary international relations and human social life as well as challenges. Globalization has become one of the defining themes of the 21st century since it is the inevitable trend of historical development. The globalization and integration of economic development are deepening rapidly, and the degree of interdependence among countries in the world is increasing. Moreover, the number of international organizations is also increasing, and the tendency of economic and political integration is so obvious that the global issues, global consciousness, global governance, and global interests are becoming increasingly noticeable and important. No country can afford to ignore these problems while pursuing its own interests and developing itself. Protecting global interests is an inevitable choice for countries to formulate their own development policies and actively participate in global governance. Secondly, we must respect the fundamental position of the nation-state and safeguard reasonable national interests. Nowadays, nation-states are still the main components of the world system. Despite the rapid development of globalization and the growing strength of international organizations, the nation-state has not been replaced, and still plays its role in managing social life at home and exercising state sovereignty abroad. National interests have played an important role in guiding national policies and behaviors. It is the fundamental basis for a state to formulate

Global interests and global ethic  149 its foreign policy. In formulating its foreign policy, the state must take into account the interests of both the country and the nation in order to better safeguard its rule and constantly develop itself. National interests are also the basic motivation for implementing external behavior and the basic point of adjusting external behavior. Therefore, safeguarding national interests is the highest goal of the state set for internal and external policies. Even though the importance of global interests is becoming more obvious, the maintenance of national interests still occupies a fundamental position. Pursuing and safeguarding national interests is not pointless but a rational choice. Maintaining reasonable and legitimate national interests is the idea that all countries are supposed to hold. The narrow and selfish national interests that are against the well-being of all mankind are not advocated. Thirdly, through active participation in international organizations and global governance regimes, national interests and global interests can be coordinated. The international environment in the era of globalization and global governance makes it difficult for many issues to be resolved by a single country, and we must rely on international organizations and global governance regimes. It is a trend for all countries to take an active part in global governance through various global governance regimes. Past experience has proved that being away from international organizations and systems is not conducive to the survival and development of the country. Countries should not only participate but also learn to safeguard national interests in international organizations and global governance regimes. At present, the major international organizations and global governance regimes are still dominated by developed countries, and it is still very common that the interests of developing countries cannot be fully protected. In that case, the challenges of international regimes to developing countries are particularly serious. In view of this reality, on the one hand, developing countries should not step back, but rather, actively seek cooperation in the international regimes for the purpose of development to safeguard their national interests. On the other hand, we should gradually improve international organizations and global governance regimes, as well as reforming the unsound international regimes. In addition, under the principle of equity and justice, we should uphold the equality of sovereignty among countries, and strengthen the voice of developing countries in international organizations and global governance regimes, as well as promoting the democratization of international regimes. To achieve international cooperation and to solve the global issues facing mankind, participation in the global governance regimes is the main measure for states to safeguard global interests and the main channel through which the harmony between national interests and global interests is achieved. While safeguarding national interests in the international regimes, the state should also learn how to position and adjust its national interests. In global governance, there are contradictions and conflicts between national interests and global interests, and sometimes the

150  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao possibility of contradictions and conflicts is relatively high. It thus requires the nation-state to make some compromise and adjustment to the national interests in the consideration of the fundamental goal of the common interests of mankind, and to strike the balance between the national interests and the common interests of mankind, in order to ensure the survival and development of its own people and promote the progress and prosperity of the international community.

Adjusting conflicts of interests and solving global issues with global ethic The emergence of global ethic is rooted in the urgency of solving global issues. In other words, the emergence of global issues and the urgency of solving them are the realistic basis for the emergence of global ethic. In this sense, without global issues, there will be no global ethic. The increasing seriousness of global issues and the increasing expansion of the global crisis stem from the one-sided and uncontrolled modernization. Therefore, modernity has been challenged and criticized unprecedentedly. Hans Küng has summed it up in four aspects. There is science without wisdom to prevent scientific research from being misused. There is technology without religious power that can control the unforeseen danger from high-efficiency, large-scale technology companies. There is industry without environmental protection to resist sustained expansion of the economy. There is democracy without morality to balance the huge interests of powerful individuals and groups.22 Those four aspects are not only a sharp criticism of the drawbacks of modern society, but also a truthful summary of the ‘modern diseases’. Since the 1960s, at the call of the Club of Rome, mankind has realized that global issues are the fundamental problems that must be solved by itself. In the 1970s and 1980s, the global issues became more serious, which led to the subsequent global moral crisis. When the global economic crisis and global issues threaten the survival of all mankind, they also highlight the value of global ethic. With the deepening of globalization and the rapid development of industrial civilization, the seriousness and danger of global issues to the human survival and development has reached a critical point. Therefore, building global ethic to solve global issues has become an urgent task. It can be said that the importance and necessity of global ethic are escalating with the seriousness, threat, and danger of global issues. The continuous escalation of global issues in the latter half of the last century has led to the awakening of global ethical consciousness. The proposition and connotations of the concept of global ethic The proposition of global ethic is related to the World Congress of Faiths. From August 28th, September 4th 1993, the Second World Congress of Faiths was successfully convened in Chicago, the US. Representatives

Global interests and global ethic  151 of 120  religions from around the world participated in the meeting and adopted the first Declaration toward a Global Ethic, putting forward the first epoch-making document of global ethic in world history. This is the “Declaration” of the emergence of “global ethic”. Previous academic research has focused more on the ethical care of the ideal state, while Declaration toward a Global Ethic pays more attention to the global issues existing in reality, which is mainly a realistic concern for the crisis of human survival. Declaration toward a Global Ethic affirms that the current global ethical foundation already exists and can provide the possibilities for a better individual and a better global order. The foundation of global ethic is the common core values of all religions. Hans Küng believes that global ethic is a kind of global value, with a certain degree of integrity, rather than being the sum of the decentralization of the major civilizational systems. Therefore, we use the singular form “global ethic” rather than the plural form to express the concept. Global ethic is an attitude rather than a theory. Since it is difficult to unify some basic theoretical issues concerning global ethic, it is only by the shelving of the basic theoretical issues and seeking communication in attitudes can the Declaration be successfully adopted. Finally, the World Congress of Faiths decided that the core values of global ethic were the golden rules that “what you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others “, and rewrote the specific instructions that “do not kill, do not steal, do not lust, do not act unfaithfully” in a modern manner. The basic spirit of Declaration toward a Global Ethic is that global ethic should include two major structures: one basic requirement and four irrevocable rules. The former means that everyone should be treated humanely. The latter is to persist in a culture of non-violence and respect for life, a united culture and a just economic order, a tolerant culture and an honest life, and a culture of equality and partnership between men and women, which can be simply summarized as opposing violence, advocating social justice, emphasizing tolerance, and advocating equality for all. Declaration toward a Global Ethic clearly points out that without a global ethic, there will be no better global order. The impact of the Declaration is significant and epoch-making for the emergence and development of global ethic, mainly on the following aspects. First, the Declaration provides a new way of thinking for the development of human society and plays a guiding role in solving real global issues. Secondly, the proposal of the Declaration provides a platform for dialogue and communication among the religious communities, which is conducive to reducing misunderstandings and achieving peaceful coexistence among the major religions in the world, and greatly improving the negative image of religions. Thirdly, the Declaration expresses the ultimate concern for human society, which is conducive to attracting people’s attention to global issues and inspiring mainstream social forces to pay attention to the reality. The connotations of global ethic are complex. They involve not only the lower limit of global ethic but also the upper limit of global ethic, as well

152  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao as including both global ethical consciousness and global ethical code of conduct. First of all, human beings not only need to build the bottom-line ethic (i.e., the lower limit) to solve the issues on human survival but also to build a higher level of global ethic (i.e., the upper limit). The emergence of global ethic aims to avoid the increasingly serious global issues from endangering human survival and development. Therefore, the starting point of the reality of global ethic is objectively “have to” and subjectively “must”. Judging from the lower limit of global ethic, it is the bottom-line ethic. The lower limit of global ethic does not belong to the “ought to” or “should” category, but rather, a “must” category. The category of “ought to” or “should” is not the bottom-line ethic or the lower-limit ethic, but the broad range between the lower-limit ethic to the upper-limit ethic. From the perspective of the upper limit of global ethic, those ethical connotations with high moral standards, and those ethical acts set to sacrifice everything (including life) for the global cause, are worthy of advocacy, but they cannot be popularized. Therefore, the upper limit of global ethic is not capped. The upper limit is not the “must” category of the code of conduct, but the “ought to” category, that is, the category advocated from a higher standard. Secondly, global ethic is the coexistence of global ethical consciousness and global ethical practice or behavior norms. Global ethical consciousness is the true knowledge of global ethic, and global ethical practice is the test and true practice for global ethical consciousness. Only when true knowledge and true practice are combined together, can they become social forces to save society and solve global issues. The two are indispensable. If global ethical consciousness appears without the norms of action, it is at best a sense of ethics and morality. The real purpose of ethics is to regulate people’s behavior in order not to put them at the “only consciousness but no action” level and only action can change the world. Global ethic, as the highest level of ethics, is not only an ethical consciousness but more importantly, a normative system that regulates people’s behavior. If one could say that global ethic had been an ethical “utopia” before modern times, then with the opening of modernization and the accelerated development of globalization, global ethic has gradually shifted from an ethical consciousness to the ethical practice. Based on the above analysis, we may define global ethic as the high-level ethics with the responsibility of solving global issues and global crises. It is the bottom line or the lower limit of solving the basic problems of human survival and development. It is the upper limit of building a more advanced harmonious society (including domestic and global society) and ensuring better human survival and development. It develops from the lowest ethical concern to the highest ethical concern. It develops from the global ethical consciousness to the sum of global ethical behavior. Compared with national ethics, global ethic is the most advanced ethic of human beings. We need to shift the attention from pursuing national order, national justice, and

Global interests and global ethic  153 national interests to pursuing global order, global justice, and global interests; from short-term interests to long-term interests; from non-sustainable development to sustainable development; from zero-sum game mode to mutually beneficial and win-win mode; and from national citizens to world citizens. The connotations of global ethic constitute an ethical network that corresponds to and solves the global issues. But this ethical network is a development process starting from scratch, from small to large, and from weak to strong. Various global issues, including ecological degradation, global warming, shortage of freshwater and oil and other resources, transnational crime, cyber-crime, drug trafficking and drug abuse, the spread of AIDS, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, polarization of the rich and the poor, population explosion, refugees, migrants, international human rights, financial crisis, terrorism, ethnic religion, smuggling, and pirates, in the process of politicization, have formed global politic issues such as the ecology politics, the climate politics, the drug politics, the nuclear weapon politics, the ethnic politics, the religion politics, the resources politics, the geopolitics, the transnational politics, the population politics, and the humanitarianism politics. The corresponding types of global ethic are global ecological ethic, global climate ethic, global nuclear weapons ethic, global ethnic and religious ethic, global resource ethic, global population ethic, and global humanitarian ethic. Some of the global ethic types are at the embryonic stage, and some are still not put in place. Global ethic helps to manage conflicts of interests and promote the solution of global issues With the deepening of globalization, global issues have become increasingly serious to the extent that if they are not effectively responded to and dealt with, the well-being of human beings will be threatened. In order to effectively solve global issues, the construction, development, and improvement of global ethic should help to manage conflicts of interests and promote the solution of global issues. First, global issues are an important source of accelerating intergenerational and national conflicts of interests, and global ethic is an important means to resolve the intergenerational and national conflicts of interests. First of all, let us look at the significance of global ethic to solve the conflicts of interests between generations. Intergenerational conflicts of interests are one kind of the global issues. The so-called intergenerational conflicts of interests refer to the conflicts of interests caused by modern people who try to maximize their own interests, through over-exploiting resources and depriving of the interests of future generations. Unlike ancient Chinese people who cared about the well-being of their children and future generations, modern human beings have touched on the welfare of only three generations of their relatives, which means that a grandfather generally only cares about

154  Zhenye Liu and Xing Cao the interests of his grandchildren, and a few people care about the interests of their children after three generations. There are still a lot of people with such an unhealthy mentality that despite the serious problem of water pollution, at least from myself to my grandchildren, there is clean water to drink, and water conservation and protection of water resources is still very far away from me, so I do not need not start doing that.... The intergenerational conflicts of interests have greatly damaged the healthy development of global interests. Moreover, we need to analyze the significance of global ethic to solve the conflicts of national interests. Some countries, for the sake of their own national interests to a certain extent, have undermined the interests of other countries and thus caused harm to global interests. For example, the US tries not to exploit its own resources, while exploiting the resources of other countries. People in the US get to enjoy their life but pollution is left to other countries. However, the interests of global ethic are global interests, not simply the interests of our generation and our own national interests. We should pursue global interests for all that benefit future generations without undermining the interests of other countries, in order to effectively resolve the intergenerational conflicts of interests and the conflicts of national interests. Secondly, global ethic helps to promote the mode of economic development changing from unsustainable development to sustainable development. As we all know, more and more unsustainable industries in the world are restricted by various kinds of regulations. Sustainable industries are greatly encouraged and have unlimited prospects. From an ethical point of view, this is the important manifestation of global ethic nowadays. Thirdly, global ethic helps to shift global politics from bad governance to good governance. In the colonial era, the imperialists took Asia, Africa, and Latin America as the targets of colonial conquest and exploitation in order to pursue their own interests. Even in modern times, the dominant ideas of some countries’ rulers are still based solely on their own national interests, and they do not hesitate to undermine the interests of other countries, which is contrary to global ethic. Global ethic calls for the rulers of each country to move from the bad governance of “sacrificing others only for their own country” to the good governance of “mutual benefit and win-win result”, and to elevate national politics to global politics. Global ethic has become the political action criterion for all countries to build rational governments, and “to build rational governments” is to build governments that meet the requirements of global ethic. Finally, global ethic helps promote the legalization of solving global issues. On the one hand, global ethic provides the basic legal bottom line for the legalization of solving global issues. On the other hand, the global ethic’s pursuit of the value of global justice provides an important set of value guidelines for the legalization of solving global issues.

Global interests and global ethic  155

Notes 1 Cai Tuo, ed., International Relations, Higher Education Press, 2011, p. 292. 2 Leften S. Stavrianos, A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century, Chinese version translated from 7th edition published by Pearson Education Publishing as Prentice Hall Inc., Peking University Press, 2005, p. 120. 3 Dennis H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, et al., The Limits of Growth: A Report for the Club of Roman’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, Chinese version, translated from 2nd edition published by Universe Books in 1974, Jilin People’s Publishing House, 1997, p. 132. 4 Daisaku Ikeda, et al., The Alarm of the Twenty-First Century, Chinese version, China International Broadcasting Press, 1988, p. 45. 5 Daisaku Ikeda, A. Toynbee, Forecast 21st Century: Dialogue between Toynbee and Ikeda, Chinese version, China International Culture Press, 1985, p. 220. 6 Ervin Laszlo, Third Millennium: The Challenge and the Vision, Chinese version translated from the version published by Gaia Books Ltd. In 2000, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2000, pp. 73, 80. 7 Barbara Ward and René Dubois, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, Chinese version, translated from the 1st edition published by W. W. Norton in 1972, Jilin People’s Publishing House, 1997, p. 255. 8 Ibid., p. 251. 9 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Chinese version, translated from 1st edition published by Oxford University Press in1987, Jilin People’s Publishing House, 1997, “Foreword”, pp. 6, 49.

, -



20 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, pp. 63–64. 22 Hans Küng, Global Ethics and Zen Dialogue, http://www.chinabuddhism.com. cn/yj/2013-03-13/2428.html.

6

Global order Hao Yang

Mankind has never stopped thinking and exploring the order of social life. From ancient Greece to ancient China, thinkers contemplated how to arrange the social order in which they lived. These reflections often had an ethical flavor of exploring what sort of social order was better or kinder. Theoretical thinking provides a theoretical basis for the practice of decision makers, and the practice of social order arrangement has constantly revised people’s understanding of how to arrange social order. Practical exploration, in addition to its ideological source, will certainly take into account the material basis of social life, such as technological and institutional conditions, and the contrasts of the status, strength and interaction among different actors, to examine how an order can achieve its goal smoothly. The rise of modernity has promoted the emergence of the modern international order ideologically and technically. The idea of international order with the principle of sovereignty as its core and the aim of realizing the rational goal of the nation-state have become the mainstream of people’s thinking about the macro-social order. However, with the rise of globality, the question of how to shape a valuable global order which is normative in goal and feasible in practice, in order to differentiate the international order which expresses modernity from another, has become a hot topic in global research.

Interpretation of global order Features of social order The value of social order The term order is often used to describe a stable state of a particular social system, which is a pattern of behavior and interaction for achieving specific goals. Different from the description of system and pattern which lays particular stress on material aspects, the concept of order has its own purpose and value. The order which people look for in social life is not any pattern or regularity in the relations of human individuals or groups, but a pattern

DOI: 10.4324/9781351263160-7

Global order  157 that leads to a particular result, an arrangement of social life such that it promotes certain goals or values.1 Since the birth of human civilization, people have been thinking about how to improve the order of social life, that is, what kind of goals are worthier of pursuit and what kind of social arrangements are more conducive to the realization of goals. This obvious value orientation runs through the thinkers’ conception of macro-social order. In the sense of Karl Jaspers, the thinkers of East and West in the Axial Age often designed the order of human social life from the perspective of ethics. The value orientation of the social order in this period is to realize goodness, rationality and morality. With the progress of human thoughts and the expansion of the knowledge about the boundaries of social life, a more macroscopic conception of social order with world significance has begun to emerge. Dante Alighieri pointed out in On the World Empire that the universal purpose of human civilization is to achieve the ability to develop human intelligence. The realization of this goal depends on world peace, and the guarantee of world peace lies in the establishment of a unified world regime, worldly monarchy acting like the heavens.2 Immanuel Kant pointed out in his Perpetual Peace that in order to achieve a positive state of universal peace, all countries should contribute to the World Federation on the basis of the illegalization of war and disarmament, and on the basis of the establishment of republic regimes in all countries, in order to ensure that the people of all nationalities can achieve multiple development goals under peaceful conditions.3 After World War I, the US President Woodrow Wilson put forward the Fourteen Points principles, hoping to achieve collective security through such means as establishing universal security institutions, achieving national self-determination and equality, universal disarmament, and establishing international police, thus to replace the traditional balance of power, realize the prevention of war and promote the international cooperation. In the period before international politics became an independent discipline, thinkers’ conceptions of macro-human social order were full of optimism. The development of human intelligence, the promotion of peace and the prevention of war were the main value tendencies in the conceptions of social order in this period. With the establishment and spread of the principle of sovereignty in the world, people begin to consider the macro-social order with the sovereign state as the core, and the value tendency of the order is more reflected as a kind of national rationality. Kissinger, the prominent figure of realism, expresses his view on order, which considers the order of balance of power as being based on the relationship among big powers.4 This idea of maintaining world order with the principle of balance of power has been on the same line within realism. From Morgenthau to Waltz, they all believe that only the special distribution of power among countries can guarantee the stability and operation of order. Realists, though not as enthusiastic as Wilson,

158  Hao Yang do not abandon the value orientation of order. They replace universal moral principles with national morality5 to adapt to the era of sovereignty. Hedley Bull thinks that a pattern of activity sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society of states or international society.6 These objectives include the maintenance of the survival of the national system and the national society itself, the maintenance of national independence or external sovereignty, peace, the commitment to the promise and the restriction of violence. Bull also prospectively discusses a world order that is more fundamental, broader and morally superior comparing to the international order, targeting the overall interests of mankind.7 In 1985, American scholar Lynn Miller put forward the concept of “global order”. According to Miller, the sovereign state system initiated by The Peace of Westphalia has spread from Europe to the whole world. In fact, this system has become a worldwide system.8 Moreover, the global order he mentioned is the globalization of European order.9 After the 1990s, Richard Falk also proposed the study of world order to challenge and replace the traditional studies on realism. In the view of world order theorists, changes in world forms, such as the détente of the Cold War, the rise of civic movements, and the emergence of global natural problems, pose a challenge to the traditional studies on realism and suggest that the study of world order should focus on the overall interests of mankind, the limitation of state actors and the rise of pluralist actors, and focus on the challenges of global issues.10 The judgment of a particular social order depends on the value criteria adopted by the judges. However, for the designers of an order, the purpose of a particular order must be worth pursuing. It should be superior to the previous order or the existing order. The unique purpose of the concept of order determines its value. The feasibility of social order Achieving social order is not just a theorist’s thinking, but also a decision maker’s practice. With the advancement of technology and the development of human society, the scope of human cognition to society is gradually expanding. From city-states, states, regions to the whole world, decision makers are constantly exploring the arrangement of order within the scope of their capacities. In the imperial era, the Roman Empire, the Arab Empire, and the Chinese Empire all built an order around themselves in specific regions. All these arrangements had a power center, and the unequal distribution of power was the foundation of the imperial order. This power structure is labeled as a galactic polity by analogy with a central planet surrounded by differentiated satellites, which are more or less “autonomous” entities held in orbit and within the sphere of influence of the center.11 These power centers provided a set of ideological and institutional public goods to maintain order. For example, the Chinese Empire was the dissemination center

Global order  159 of Chinese culture such as Confucianism and the concept of the world, and took the culture as the legitimate source of the imperial order to maintain the imperial order within the tributary system. The Middle Ages are considered to be an era in which power and authority existed at various overlapping levels, and neo-medievalism is now widely explored as a possible model of a global order. In the Middle Ages, the pluralism of personal loyalty to authority was based on the pluralism of power distribution. Monarchs or states did not have supreme jurisdiction over specific territories or groups of Christians. They had to share power with princes that were inferior to them, Popes that were superior to them, and the Holy Roman emperors.12 The mixing of Christian thought, church system, and feudal system, as well as the distribution of religious and secular power, together shaped the order of this period. The order closely related to our times is the sovereign order since Westphalia. It is based on the principle of sovereignty. The distribution of power among countries is the basis of all international orders. The system construction is mainly manifested by diplomacy and interaction among countries. Its ideological basis is the supremacy of sovereignty over the interior and the equality of the exterior. Although modern international relations are fraught with struggles over sovereignty, whenever the emergence of a certain stable order was perceived, from Westphalia to Vienna, from Versailles and Washington to Yalta, it was based on the great-power diplomacy and the respect for sovereignty (at least great-power sovereignty). Among them, there was friction in concepts between the Yalta system and the proletarian world revolution theory, and Joseph Stalin, as a pragmatist, immediately used the theory of building socialism in a country to ease the tension between the two, which in fact maintained the international order that took the principle of sovereignty as the core. At the practical level, the establishment of any specific order must take into account its feasibility. Different schools of international relations emphasize the basis of achieving specific goals from different aspects such as power, system, and concept. In practice, these aspects complement each other. An analysis on feasibility requires that the basis of power, system, and concept should be taken into account when we discuss a social order. Stability of social order Order is a relative concept. There is no absolute disordered society or absolute ordered society. Even in the Hobbes sense of primitive state, the law of the jungle law can help us observe and predict the operation of the system and the behavioral patterns of the actors, in which self-preservation is the goal of the actors and survival is the ultimate goal. However, it is difficult to regard the state in which everyone is against everyone as an orderly one, and the result of that state is that there is no guarantee of anyone’s goals to be achieved. Emphasizing the stability of order entails avoiding falling into

160  Hao Yang the trap of relativism, limiting the extension of the concept of order and ensuring its explanatory power. Analysis of the concepts of global order, international order, and world order When describing the current macro-social order of human life, the concepts that constantly appear include international order, world order, and global order. From media to politicians, the use of the above three concepts is often confusing. Even among researchers, different researchers often have different definitions of the above concepts. This book argues that the global order, as an important category of global studies, has its unique connotations and clear boundaries to distinguish it from the international order and the world order. International order The distinction among international order, world order, and global order is relatively obvious, and the definition of international order has been widely accepted by researchers at least. Hedley Bull’s definition is often regarded as a classic: the international order is a pattern of behavior that pursues the basic or main goal of the national society or the international community.13 These objectives include the maintenance of the survival of the national system and the national society itself, the maintenance of national independence or external sovereignty, peace, the commitment to the promise, and the restriction of violence. The means of maintaining international order include balance of power, diplomacy, war, international law, and the role of big powers.14 When people discuss the history of the international order, they follow the historical evolution of Westphalia – Vienna – Versailles – Yalta systems. The broad acceptance of the concept of international order reflects that the principle of sovereignty has won victories worldwide and that modernity has been universally recognized. The main body of the international order is the sovereign state, and its core objective is to safeguard the supremacy of sovereignty, and its mode of operation is always closely related to the foreign policy-making of the state. World order Compared with the international order, the concept of world order is much more confusing and less unanimous. There are at least three ways to use the world order. First, as a subtle substitute for the international order, its connotations include some new qualities of the traditional international order and the development of the international community. This approach has been used by traditional scholars of international relations, such as Stanley Hoffman,

Global order  161 who believed that the world order is: an idealized model for the establishment of harmonious relations among states, the important conditions for friendly coexistence among states and the rules and regulations that govern their conduct, and the effective means and orderly state for the rational settlement of disputes and conflicts and for international cooperation for common development.15 Although Hoffman used the term world order here, it still revolved around sovereign states. The main body of this order was the state, and its operation was international cooperation and its goal was the harmonious relations among states. Hoffman also emphasized that this was a transitional state, a profound, gradual, but limited process of change in world politics16 at the stage leading to world government. In this process, the nature of international power was decentralized, and foreign policy objectives and international relations actors were diversified. This transition needed a long-term effort by many actors of international relations. This view of world order is very representative and has influenced many Chinese writings on world order. In this kind of analysis, the subject of order is pluralistic, the goal is the combination of high and low politics, and the means are big powers diplomacy, war, and new transnational activities. The result of such fuzzification is the transformation of world order into an allembracing concept. Secondly, this concept is to generally describe a research paradigm, such as Samuel Huntington’s theory of “The Clash of Civilizations”. In such world order, the main actor is no longer a state, but a civilization, and the world is divided into different camps according to different civilizations. Huntington predicted that the conflicts between civilizations would replace the conflicts between countries, and become the main contradiction of the future world order.17 In this sense, the world order is essentially a variant of the traditional international order. Civilization is a wider inter-state association. Although the theory of clash of civilizations replaces states with civilizations and regards civilizations as the main actors of the order, the objective of the order and the means to achieve it are still the same as those of the international order. Thirdly, the world order is regarded as a special order which is different from the traditional international order. In this way, the goal and value of the world order are more distinct than in the first way. Richard Falk, an advocate of world order, explicitly proposes to break the bondage of statecentrism, to take non-state actors such as the world, individuals, and group movements as the main body of the order, to pay attention to the unity of human destiny, and to emphasize the role of transnational advocacy networks such as the global civil society movement in shaping a new order.18 Bull’s outlook on world order also has similar characteristics: “world order is more fundamental and primordial than international order because the ultimate units of the great society of all mankind are not states (or nations, tribes, empires, classes, or parties) but individual human beings, which are permanent and indestructible in a sense in which groupings of them of this

162  Hao Yang or that sort are not”. Moreover, Bull puts forward that the world political order is morally superior to the order among nations.19 Global order In the existing literature, the use of the concept of global order shows three tendencies. The first one is the tendency to regard the global order as the globalization of the international order and regard the establishment of the principle of sovereignty worldwide as the connotation of the global order.20 Secondly, as the first way to understand the world order suggests, the global order is seen as an all-embracing concept. “It not only contains the scope of the international order and the world order, but also includes the environment and other low-level political aspects into its scope, further making the concept of international governance penetrate into the concept of the global order, and emphasizing the order’s features of integrity, globality and complex interdependence.”21 The third tendency is towards highlighting the new nature of the global era, emphasizing the globality of the global order, replacing modernity with globality, and distinguishing between the international order and the world order by giving a clear definition of the concept of the global order. Similar to the third way of understanding the concept of the world order, it breaks the paradigm of state-centralism. “All the conditions for creating and supporting this global order have undergone historic changes. Its concepts, connotations, structures, objectives, roles, means and environment are to a considerable extent constructing the framework of the new order and a new type of regularized decision-making mechanism framework. The traditional power-centered order has inevitably declined.”22 This understanding of global order is most commonly seen among the theorists of global research. For example, David Held’s idea of “cosmopolitan democracy”23 pays attention to the micro-foundation of the macro-global order and emphasizes the significance of the expansion of civil rights to the realization of the global order. In addition, the “Third Way”24 represented by Anthony Giddens also puts forward a similar view on global order, which argues that the foundation of the global order is the world democracy and global governance guaranteed by institutions. Definition and features of global order The definitions of international order, world order, and global order show a tendency of diversification, sometimes with different meanings and sometimes with cross-references. The global order, as a research category of global studies, needs a clear definition. It advocates globalism rather than national-centralism. It has a set of exclusive goals, means and subjects which make it different from the other complex concepts. In comparison, the third

Global order  163 way of understanding the world order and the global order in the literature reflects this tendency. This book argues that the global order is a stable interactive state and a social arrangement among countries, civil societies, and markets at the global level. It is value-oriented in safeguarding the overall interests of mankind, aiming at solving global problems, and centering on the supply of global public goods. The features of the global order include the following. First, the value orientation of the global order is human-centered. The value of the order is embodied in the goal pursued by the order. The goal of the international order is to realize the national interests and the survival and development of the country is the ultimate goal. The purpose of the global order is to solve global problems. The comprehensiveness of global problems and the externalities associated with the process of globalization lead to the shared destiny of the human community. All human beings, regardless of their group, class or nation, whether they are living in it or will live in it, bear the shared risk. As the global order aims at solving global problems, its value orientation must be human-centered, emphasizing the integrity of human interests and the sustainability of development. Secondly, the global order is feasible. The feasibility of the global order is embodied in the means to achieve the goal, and the supply of global public goods provides a feasible way to achieve the goal of the global order. It focuses on the distribution of power among actors, which is used to observe and define the responsibility of different actors for the global supply of public goods. Global order pays attention to the construction of the functioning system and attaches importance to the meaning of maintaining the supply of public goods and setting standards. It focuses on the power of ideas and uses it to analyze the intention of actors. Thirdly, the global order is a stable state of cooperation. The goal of global governance is to cope with the externalities of various problems caused by the process of globalization, to protect the sustainable and rational distribution of the positive externalities, and to eliminate the damage to the human community caused by the negative externalities. The negative externalities of conflicts, chaos, and wars as public inferior goods, are detrimental to the realization of human’s multiple goals, and are contradictory to the goals and values of the global order. The global order advocates a stable and sustained supply of global public goods on the premise of cooperation between states and societies.

The core elements of the global order The objective, means, and actors are the core elements of a social order.25 The exploration of the global order needs to explain the above three elements. Social order is goal-oriented. Only when the objective of order is established can we discuss the means to achieve the objective and the role of the actor in it.

164  Hao Yang The objective of global order: the governance of global issues When we argue that the Vienna system was an international order, it means that the order could govern the issues that plagued European powers, including coordinating relations among nations and meeting revolutionary challenges. “There can be no governance without order and there can be no order without governance”.26 The objective of an order is to govern issues in a specific time. The objective of the global order is to govern global issues. The birth of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s marked the entry of global issues into people’s vision. The Club of Rome tried to use world models to describe the challenges facing modern human society, such as ecological issues, population issues, resource issues, and energy issues. A series of relevant reports on the organization have attracted the attention of people from all over the world and promoted the cooperation between many sectors, including scholars, research institutes, and governments, launching various global models to predict the development prospects for human society. The global studies at this stage focus on the contradictions between human beings and their living environment that accompany modernization. Researchers begin to attach importance to the integrity of human interests and the significance of changing traditional national policies and development objectives. The idea of global order began to germinate. Limits to Growth points out that for the goal of the balance of the world, “founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national, and world levels”,27 “the achievement of a harmonious state of global economic, social and ecological equilibrium must be a joint venture based on joint conviction, with benefits for all”.28 With the spread and development of global issues, its governance has gradually become an independent objective of the global order. Since the 1990s, with the meltdown of the bipolar structure, globalization has begun to develop in depth, and multidisciplinary exchanges and interdependence among countries have gradually deepened. Some problems traditionally solved at the domestic level have begun to show a transnational trend, such as transnational crime. Some problems have begun to accelerate their spread at the global level due to globalization, such as infectious diseases. The possible solutions to some problems have emerged in the global age, such as poverty reduction and human rights protection. Some other problems, such as terrorism and ethnic issues, which were originally transnational but were concealed by the bipolar structure, have been highlighted now. All these problems are closely related to the in-depth development of globalization, and the results of the governance will directly affect the realization of the objectives of security, development, equity, and justice of the human community. The traditional international order has shown its helplessness and lack of will in the face of these problems, calling for a global order that is more adaptable in value and practice. The global issues to be addressed by the global order involve different dimensions such as security, development, equity, and justice, but eventually, they all point to the realization of human interests as a whole.

Global order  165 The means of global order: supply of global public goods In recent years, the study of international public goods has attracted the attention of theorists and has been used in the analysis of global issues concerning the survival and development of human society. According to the spillover effect of the externality of international public goods, the academia classifies international public goods into two categories of regional public goods and global public goods. The global public goods referred to in this study are the international public goods that “cover more than one group of countries, its benefits must reach not only a broad spectrum of countries but also a broad spectrum of the global population, and meet the needs of present generations without jeopardizing those of future generations”,29 including peace dividends, international regimes, the public domain, the knowledge and values shared by mankind. One notable consequence of globalization is that various global issues, owing to the increasingly close interdependence of human society in various fields, have begun to become a severe threat to the survival and development of human society. On the one hand, the proper governance of some urgent global issues depends on the supply and management of public goods. As to the issues of poverty and food, for example, if there were no public goods such as foreign aid from developed countries and a more equitable global economic order, then the worldwide polarization between the rich and the poor would undoubtedly be aggravated and become a major threat to international stability. On the other hand, many global issues plaguing human society have externalities. Whether the externalities are public goods or public bads, the actors will not fully enjoy the benefits or bear the costs. One typical example of such global issues is climate change. Although there is only one leading emitter of greenhouse gases, the consequences of its production activities on climate change will be borne by all countries around the world. In both cases, the solution to global issues depends on the supply of public goods. For the first case, the greater supply of public goods means a stronger solution. For the latter case, the governance of the externalities of various global issues is inseparable from the means such as international organizations and international cooperation. In addition, those means themselves are intermediate public goods that are short of supply in today’s world. In the era of globalization, the questions of how to realize the supply of global public goods, and how to deal with the distribution of the benefits and costs of global public goods among different actors, have become important tasks for the governance of global issues. It can be said that an effective way to ensure the sustainable development in the era of globalization is to guarantee an effective supply of global public goods, including multilateral negotiations and multilateral organizations on specific issues, as well as financial and technical support. “Whether—and how—global public goods are provided determines whether globalization is an opportunity or a

166  Hao Yang threat”.30 If governing global issues is the objective of the global order, the supply of global public goods is an important means to achieve this goal. Actors of global order: states, global civil societies, and transnational enterprises In the global system, all kinds of actors play their important roles in specific issues, but this does not mean that all actors have important roles in the supply of public goods. In other words, not all actors can be regarded as the actors in the global order. We classify the actors of the global order into three categories: states, civil societies, and transnational enterprises. Besides the above three categories of actors, intergovernmental international organizations can be categorized as state forces in the global order. Nowadays, the many intergovernmental international organizations in the world, ranging from the United Nations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and from APEC to G20, operate on different issues in different regions and levels, playing an important functional role in solving global issues and providing public goods. However, intergovernmental organizations cannot really be regarded as a kind of independent actors. Their own function is an institutional global public good. Their operation depends on the financial support of sovereign states. Their legitimacy depends on the recognition of states. Even their decision-making process is influenced by the will of sovereign states. Individual actors can be categorized as state or social forces according to their roles. No one will comment on the visit of the former US President Bill Clinton to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea without concerning the bilateral relations between those two countries. Jody Williams’ initiatives on the internet and his personal actions have helped drive the development of the international campaign to ban landmines, creating public goods globally. The value orientation and the transnational nature of such actions can be categorized as part of the social forces, and the campaign’s actions depend on the civil society forces such as Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, and Medico International. State actors: capacity and responsibility The features of state actors in the global order are that they are the most capable public goods suppliers, and yet they tend to evade such responsibility. In the global order, there must be a mechanism to urge state actors to take the corresponding responsibilities. First of all, state actors are the most capable public goods suppliers in the global arena. This ability comes from the establishment of the principle of sovereignty. Hedley Bull points out that “indeed, the idea of the sovereignty of the state derived historically from the idea that certain territories and peoples were the property or patrimony of the ruler”.31 In the early systematic exposition

Global order  167 of the concept of sovereignty, there was a strong sense of privatization of property rights over specific objects such as territory, people, and property. Jean Bodin believed that state sovereignty was absolute, permanent, inalienable, indivisible, and inviolable, and was the supreme absolute power of the monarch within his scope of the rule.32 Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke put forward the theory of parliamentary sovereignty and the theory of popular sovereignty, sovereignty is an absolutely exclusive power regardless of its owner. This kind of absolutely exclusive sovereignty had been reinforced in the Westphalian principles which, in practice, became the norms of the relationship between modern nation-states. As the essence of sovereignty is the absolute privatization of property rights over resources such as territory, population, and property within a specific scope, it means that sovereign states monopolize all kinds of resources within a specific scope. With the expansion of the sovereignty principle in the global scope, sovereign states have realized the monopoly of global resources. In this sense, state actors have a greater capacity than all other actors to supply global public goods. It is the existence of the principle of sovereignty that makes no discussion of any order can evade the sovereign state. Secondly, state actors are inclined to shirk their responsibility. As the consumption of public goods is non-competitive and non- exclusive, actors tend to be “free riders” rather than suppliers. Therefore, public goods are often faced with the dilemma of insufficient supply. “Unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests”.33 Actors are rational and selfish, and decide their actions according to rational choice. The formation of the group depends on the interests of the whole, and although the actors have common interests, the actors’ selfish nature will hinder the realization of the interests of the group. The dilemma of collective action is even more prominent in large groups with large numbers of actors. Since each member is eager to be a free rider, the costs afforded by the individuals who choose to pay for public goods far outweigh the benefits. Therefore, “the larger the group is, the number of collective goods that it provides will be lower than the optimum number”.34 The performance of state actors fully conforms to Mancur Olson’s theory of collective action. In the global order, there are many members of a group who are tied up by the interests of the whole. We can safely say that all members of the human community are not outsiders in the face of the externalities of the global issues brought about by globalization. On this account, rational and selfish states tend to take a free-riding strategy to avoid their responsibilities, which leads to the insufficient supply of global public goods. Thirdly, the important role of state actors in the global order is also reflected in their responsibilities. In order to alleviate the problem of the insufficient supply of public goods, theorists try to internalize the externalities of public goods by different

168  Hao Yang methods that eliminate the free-riding space of actors. These methods include the taxation and the privatization of property rights. In the domestic society under the hierarchical order, the government can use public power to collect the information of suppliers and users and use administrative means to implement corresponding policies. But in the international society of anarchy, the lack of public authority makes it difficult to internalize the externality. There is not sufficient exchange of information between state actors to assess the actual supply and demand of public goods globally and distribute the responsibilities and rights of actors. Before the emergence of a public authority like the domestic government, it is difficult to expect that the externalities of public goods can be internalized by administrative means. This requires us to seek ways to alleviate the dilemma of the supply of international public goods from the perspective of the most capable actors – nation-states. We should urge states to take the corresponding responsibilities and promote the rational distribution of the benefits and costs of public goods. “Without policy achievements by the national governments that ‘matter’ in particular issue areas, global public goods…are not likely to emerge. And that, in turn, jeopardizes national policy goals in many countries, creating a global public bad”. 35 Finally, when we observe state actors in the global order, we should especially focus on the responsibilities and performance of the big powers. The bearers of negative externalities of global public goods tend to be concentrated in the vulnerable groups, which have the greatest demand for positive externalities and have the least ability to cope with the negative externalities. For the “best-shot” category of public goods, the adequacy of supply depends on the choice of developed countries; for the “weakest-link” category of public goods, although the solution depends on the governance of the least developed countries and regions, poor countries usually lack the corresponding technical and financial strength and require assistance from developed countries. The least developed regions, on the one hand, urgently need to consume public goods, and on the other hand, are unable to bear the cost of public goods they need most. If each actor is required to bear the costs of internalizing the externalities of public goods in accordance with the benefits, “global public goods can not only play the role of a balancer, but will worsen inequality”.36 State actors are the most capable suppliers of public goods. The stronger the state power, the stronger its supply capacity. In the global order, we must rely on the most powerful states to find ways to alleviate the problem of public goods supply. We need to urge the big powers to take the corresponding responsibilities and promote the rational distribution of the benefits and costs of public goods. Global civil society: action and value Global civil society plays an important role in the global order. They have a strong desire to govern global issues. On the one hand, they provide value,

Global order  169 knowledge and other public goods, and on the other hand, they take advantage of their own activities to promote the supply of global public goods by state actors. On the one hand, the actors of global civil society are non-state. The global civil society has the same nature. Various transnational networks of initiatives are always distinct from the nation-states and exist independently on the basis of common interests or beliefs. The non-state nature of the actors of global civil society promotes the multi-center nature of international politics, adding a layer of “people-centered”37 feature to international politics, and to a certain extent providing checks and balances on the selfish tendency of state actors who choose free-riding on the basis of national interests. The checks and balances provided by the non-state nature on the actions of state actors are actually a kind of balance of interests: although all states have overall interests facing the externalities of global issues, the division of nation-states is based on administrative boundaries and the positive or negative externalities of global issues across each state. On the one hand, attracted by the free-rider strategy, state actors tend to adopt negative policies to cope with the supply of public goods. On the other hand, decision-making of the state is often subject to the game of domestic interest groups. Even for domestic society, sometimes a government could be apparently oblivious, which makes it unable to effectively deal with the external impact of various problems and achieve a reasonable distribution of benefits and costs. Global civil society is often a social force formed on the basis of common interests, whose interests are closely related to the various effects brought about by globalization and involve various fields; therefore, it can exert pressure on targeted state actors to push them to contribute to the realization of global governance by providing corresponding public goods. On the other hand, the value of the objective of global civil society is normative. The normative value orientation guarantees that the global civil society integrates all kinds of cross-border forces into the governance of global issues in various fields, to promote the supply of public goods. From reducing greenhouse gas emissions to promoting progress in human rights and religious tolerance, and from improving racial equality to limiting weapons of mass destruction, NGOs have spared no effort in creating platforms and transnational media have spared no effort in publicizing and advocating those ideas, in order to shape the state actors’ foreign policy-making and then further shape the process of global governance by imposing pressure on them. In addition, the anti-globalization movement, as an important part of the global civil society, also has the function of promoting state actors to provide global public goods. Although these movements often use the slogan of opposing “globalization” in their protest activities, the real objective they pursue is to achieve fairness and justice worldwide, to eliminate poverty and exploitation, and to rebel against the neo-liberalism globalization of global expansion with the help of capital. Its objective is consistent with the goal of achieving adequate supply of international public goods, aiming

170  Hao Yang at eliminating the negative externalities of various problems and ensuring the rational distribution of positive externalities. Transnational corporations: profits and responsibilities Whether or not transnational corporations (TNCs) can be regarded as a kind of meaningful actors in the global order is controversial. When we discuss the global order, TNCs are often regarded by researchers as the important actors along with states and civil society. There is no doubt that TNCs play an important role in promoting globalization and represent the power of the market. However, when we define the global order as governing global issues by providing global public goods, the role of TNCs is questionable. The view that regards TNCs as the beneficial suppliers of global public goods believes that commercial enterprises can influence the supply of global public goods by producing and providing private goods on the market as a major productive activity.38 For example, the transnational operation of enterprises can create economic prosperity everywhere, promoting infrastructure construction and providing employment opportunities. In addition, the concept of “corporate citizenship” has begun to become the corporate value of some TNCs and has been applied to practice, such as Coca-Cola’s donation to Project Hope in China and Microsoft’s efforts to bridge the digital gap. “In this way businesses are, in effect, adopting policies and practices that explicitly commit them to delivering public goods. For multinational corporations in particular this includes global public goods.”39 However, as profit-making organizations, TNCs follow the principle of profit maximization. Businesses sometimes try to block the supply of public goods, such as the case that business groups and heavy industrial enterprises put pressure on governments to resist international efforts to fight climate change. Moreover, they also often become the objects that state policy and civil society are targeting, and are required to provide more public goods or to reduce the discharge of public inferior products, such as air, water, and other environmental pollution. Undoubtedly, TNCs have the ability to play an important role in the global order, but whether this role is a supplier of global public goods or an object to be governed, remains to be further observed and considered. In addition, the nature of their role depends on how TNCs deal with the tension between profit maximization and the interests of the human community.

Operation pattern of global order The word “pattern” often appears in the discussion of order. The interactive relationship among diverse actors and among similar actors constitutes the operation pattern of the order. Providing domestic public goods is an important objective of the domestic order. In order to achieve this objective, different states will adopt different political patterns. In the global order,

Global order  171 different patterns of global order have been discussed around the supply of global public goods. This book divides these discussions into three categories. The design of global order in different disciplines and schools of thought can be broadly classified into three patterns: the world government pattern, the hegemonic stability pattern, and the New Middle Ages pattern. World government pattern In the design of the global order, the world government pattern has a far-reaching ideological origin.40 Moreover, the pattern is the most idealistic one and is regarded as a pattern of perfect order which is different from any era and has never appeared before. The world government pattern aims to establish a central authority on a global scale to manage global affairs. The earliest scholarly book devoted to this idea should be Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia. Dante’s thought on the world empire originated from his recollection of the Roman Empire and his longing for the kingdom of God. His goal was to realize the all-round development of human intelligence. Only by striving wholeheartedly for the realization of human goals can man have freedom. Such freedom can only be realized under the governance of the world political institutions.41 Moreover, he argued that the validity of the world empire depends on the enactment of the “law guided to peace for all peoples”.42 Immanuel Kant, an enlightenment scholar, not only put forward the idea of using the Alliance of Free States43 to guarantee permanent peace, but also envisaged a multi-ethnic country including all nations on the earth, which means that all nations in the world were united into a civitas gentium or a “world republic”. Only when each nation is subordinate to international power, can we overcome the antagonism among nations as well as the conquest and invasion all over the world.44 Despite the emergence of the subject of international politics in the first half of the 20th century, which focused on inter-state interaction and the international system, and despite its concern for war and peace, political scientists seemed not to be interested in the ideas of world government. The tragic lessons of the two world wars have provoked different debates among mainstream international politics scholars and other thinkers. For the former, the foundation of order is built on the basis of checks and balances between major countries. However, to thinkers such as Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, and Arnold J. Toynbee, given the emergence of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons, it is a life-and-death choice for the human community whether or not to establish a world government to avoid the nuclear war. In Russell’s view, the world government can control military power through international agreements or by means of international blocs.45 Military forces of various countries are reduced to the level of maintaining domestic order, and military weapons are controlled by international forces.46 Besides military power, the world government should also

172  Hao Yang have legislative and judicial power. The world government has the power to implement and amend treaties, and the power of national arbitration and enforcement.47 In Einstein’s point of view, a supranational organization is the only means to permanently avoid the disasters that the whole world had witnessed during the 20th century. The main functions of Russell and Einstein’s world government are to maintain peace, prevent war, and avoid human’s tragedy of a destructive war by restricting state sovereignty. Such characteristics were vividly reflected in the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto,48 which had promoted the convening of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs composed of scientists and professionals. If Russell and Einstein’s ideal of a world government was largely influenced by the terrible prospect of possible nuclear annihilation, the historian Toynbee, then took a step further, recognizing the significance of a unified world government in solving the global issues plaguing modern human society. In Toynbee’s view, the global issues that mankind urgently needs to solve include environmental deterioration and the frequent occurrence of natural disasters, the various modern social issues accompanying the process of global urbanization, the inequality in the process of globalization, and the spiritual crisis that modern human society is facing. The answer to these questions lies in the formation of a world government, and the local states, as administrative units, execute the task of local self-government, just like the member states of the federal states.49 Since the negative externalities of global issues cross over national boundaries and relate to the human community, the international order will inevitably give way to a global order, requiring the governance of a world state to replace the existing governance of a nation-state. In the Western international relations academic circles, the World Order Model Project (WOMPs) appeared in the 1950s and 1960s to provide advice for the future development of the world. A number of scholars published a series of works on this subject. Among them, Saul H. Mendlovitz tended to take advantage of a world government to overcome the negative impact of the national-state pattern, and only a supra-state authority that can guarantee the ultimate value of mankind is able to realize the welfare of the human community on a global scale.50 Since the 1990s, the idea of the world government has become more popular to a certain extent. In 1992, the United Nations Development Programme’s Development Report proposed the idea of establishing a world government: the G7, the IMF, the World Bank, regional development banks, GATT, TNCs, NGOs, the United Nations, and many other institutions have provided the foundation for the establishment of a world government. In the pattern of world government, the supply of public goods depends on a central authority on a global scale. This pattern of order does not exclude hierarchical order or public power and even relies more on a central authority to supply global public goods. It only requires that the existing nation-states transfer their sovereignty in part or in whole. This idea is not

Global order  173 so much to destroy the state as to form a new “sovereign state” on a global scale and to transplant the operation pattern of the domestic order to the global level. Of course, the world government pattern does not exclude the role of individuals, groups and business institutions in providing global public goods. Achieving a certain degree of hierarchical order at the global level will not only help promote the supply of global public goods, but also help shape a stable order to meet the challenges of global issues, and help safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole. But the possibility of realization does not mean that it will necessarily be realized. If we take the world government as a global order, there would still be some questions to be answered, such as how to achieve change, how to deal with the relationship between the authority of the world government and national sovereignty, whether the world government is a voluntary and withdrawable coalition or a mandatory central authority, how to ensure its effectiveness if it is the former one, and how to guarantee its legality if it is the latter one. Hegemonic stability pattern If the world government pattern is the theorists’ imagination of the future social order arrangement of mankind, then the hegemonic stability pattern reflects more the totality of human experience. International relations scholars, through examining many hegemonic and stable orders that emerged in history from “Pax Romana” in the pre-modern times to “Pax Britannica” and “Pax Americana” in the modern times, explain the relations between the rise and fall of hegemonic states and the stability of international order with a set of system change theories,51 which point out that in history, every once in a while, the hegemonic powers intentionally or unintentionally paid the costs of public goods in order to establish an order and maintain its operation. These public goods include security, culture, and international rules. However, the hegemonic stability pattern is still the product of statecentrism. An important revision of this theory by international relations scholars is that “from emphasizing that the leading country provides public goods for benevolent purposes to emphasizing that the hegemonic power does so because of its own interests, it shows that the national interests after the cost-benefit analysis determine the external behavior of the state.”52 It is hard to believe that the hegemonic state, which abides by the principle of national rationality, will sacrifice relative benefits for the benefit of the human community. In addition, the transfer of power between states has also shaken the stability of the pattern. Moreover, when we are discussing the global order, the state-centric perspective of the hegemonic stability theory is oversimplified. From the perspective of the supply of public goods, at least some important values, concepts, as well as some transnational norms and standards are supplied by actors outside the state. A new pattern of global order is not supposed to ignore or exclude the role of non-state actors in the global order.

174  Hao Yang With regard to historical experience, it is worth mentioning the East Asian World System. The World System describes the concept and institutional arrangement of the Chinese Empire to maintain regional stability in the pre-modern period, which can be traced back to the Zhou Dynasty system. The unique concepts of this World System distinguish it from the hegemonic stable order patterns that have appeared in other regions and are regarded by many scholars as an alternative to the existing international order. These concepts include the “family-world” principle, the “no outsiders” principle, and the “no forced learning” principle53 which distinguish themselves from the Western political philosophy concepts, such as the “individual-nation state” principle, split consciousness, and the sense of mission to conquer the world. The view that the World System can be regarded as a possible pattern of global order holds that: (1) the world must become a political existence; (2) world governance requires a world system; (3) if a political system consists of multiple levels, then the world system must be the highest political power system in it; (4) the political system at different levels must be essentially the same; (5) the political system must have the ethical legitimacy; and (6) the ethical legitimacy of the political system lies in conformity with the will of all the people. It should be said that the concept of the World System can make up for the limitations of the international order which is based on the national-state separatist struggle, and its “no outsiders” principle is naturally more suitable for multiple actors’ ideas to meet global challenges and provide global public goods. However, whether the World System can become a global order remains to be further examined by historical experience: was the World System a successful regional order arrangement, or was it merely a constructive imagination of the past? How did the “no outsiders” principle coordinate with the rationality of actors in practice? Without the Chinese Empire and the foundation of power differences, would this system work effectively? Was there any essential difference among the World System, Pax Americana, and Pax Britannica at the level of practical operation? Or was it just the East Asian manifestation of hegemonic stability? Only with clear answers to these questions can we confirm whether it is necessary to discuss the World System as a separate pattern of order. Neo-medieval pattern If the first two patterns of global order represent an ideal description of the future and a summary of experience, then the third pattern of order, the neo-medieval pattern, is a description of the budding pattern of global order. In reality, this global order has emerged, including the increasingly important role of pluralist actors and the growth of global public affairs. Neo-medievalism is a typical representative of this pattern. It keenly observes the new features of the times and provides an observation framework

Global order  175 from the perspective of pluralist actors. However, the neo-medieval pattern is not equivalent to neo-medievalism, as it also includes some other designs of order that seek to achieve the public goods supply. These designs have the features of starting from reality and focusing on the functional role of multiple actors. The neo-medievalism describes a social order similar to the Christian world order of the Medieval Ages: a system of overlapping powers and diversified loyalty.54 The neo-medievalism is characterized by the regional integration of states, the disintegration of states, the restoration of private power to use international violence, the rise of transnational organizations, and the technological integration of the world. These features all suggest the trend of fragmentation. According to the German scholar Jorg Friedrichs, many of the features of the neo-medievalism enumerated by Hedley Bull in the 1970s have become reality in the 21st century, and neo-medievalism has developed into a form of post-international order. In Friedrichs’ view, the order represented by the neo-medievalism is the coincidence of pluralist authorities, which are distributed in three different fields: state, society, and market. World politics becomes the virtual place where the competing claims of three realms (politics, markets, society) intersect.55 The three authorities represent different sources of legitimacy. “Nation-state is the sole authority to have collective decision-making power at the international level. The legitimacy of transnational market economy originates from the principle of efficiency, while social actors derive legitimacy from promoting their basic values, such as human rights and sustainable development”.56 Moreover, “…the absence of undisputed supremacy … means that there is a permanent relationship of cooperative antagonism (or antagonistic cooperation) between the three realms. Every realm resists opponents’ invasion of their autonomous areas of action”.57 Friedrichs’ neo-medievalism does not adopt Bull’s view that state sovereignty is about to be replaced, but rather, emphasizes the multiple interactions among sovereign states, markets and society in the new era. The global order recognizes the rise of market and social forces and the role of authority in different fields in the governance of global issues and the supply of global public goods. However, the problem with neo-medievalism as a description of the global order is that although it emphasizes the pluralist interactions between different authorities, it does not set a clear goal, which seems to be a self-preservation for authorities in different fields. “Societal actors have to be prepared both against totally totalitarian claims that may be raised by some states, and against the colonization of their lifeworld by the forces of the market. The economy cannot allow itself to be used for political aims in an instrumental way, nor can it be committed to societal values that ran counter to the logic of the market. Politics have to consolidate and to defend its collective action capacity against the particularistic concerns of societal actors and the organized interests of the economy”.58 From this point of view, the neo-medievalism is more like a description of

176  Hao Yang the objective phenomena, or a concept of the system, rather than being an order with a clear objective and value orientation. The “transformationists” of globalization studies, represented by Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, David Held, and James N. Rosenau,59 emphasize the important role of pluralist actors in the description of the status quo, recognize the urgency of global public goods supply, tend to transcend the national-centric global values in value orientation, and stress the importance and urgency of global governance. Many of the order designs put forward by these scholars, such as Rosenau’s “governance without government”, Held’s “Global Democracy”, and Giddens’ “the third way of global order”, are intended to reveal the new laws of world development in the global era with distinct value orientation and purpose. Although they do not have a clear outline like the world government pattern, the hegemonic stability pattern, or the World System, they are still the starting point for observing the reality of the global order and exploring the future development which will be based on the current reality.

Rethinking of the global order The global order is a concept of unity of norms and feasibility, and a stable state of interaction among pluralist actors such as the state, civil society, and commercial forces. It is different from the international order of state-centrism and the world order in general sense. The global order, guided by the value of the overall interests of the human community, aims to overcome the challenges posed by global issues to human society by providing global public goods. The world government pattern, the hegemonic stability pattern and the neo-medieval pattern express different ideas of global order patterns. The neo-medieval pattern, proposed by the transformationists of globalization studies, describes the possible prospect of the future global order on the basis of taking into account the reality of international relations. However, the discussion about the global order is far from over. If the designers of the global order want to promote the realization of the vision of an ideal world on the premise of carrying forward the new nature of the times, they must find satisfactory answers to the following questions. First, in the process of interaction among pluralist actors, what are their respective capabilities and willingness to provide global public goods? The state is undoubtedly the most capable actor, but whether it has enough willingness and enough motivation to provide public goods for the overall interests of the human community will directly affect the operation of the global order. Civil society has relatively more normative values, but its actionability can still be improved, and its own organizational structure is far from mature. Whether it can maintain its value orientation for a long time and develop its own action ability or not, will directly affect the prospect of the global order achieving its normative goals. Business forces play a vague role in this process, but there is no doubt that TNCs have their own advantages

Global order  177 in action ability and communication networks. The problem they face is how to coordinate the relationship between business rationality and the supply of public goods. The answer to this question will be directly related to whether the global order can get rid of the shackles of state-centrism and transcend the international order. Secondly, how can we define their responsibilities and obligations among the same actors? Observers can generalize about the different natures between different actors, but this does not mean that actors spontaneously provide public goods according to their inherent natures. We must find out a set of measurement standards to determine the responsibilities and obligations of each individual. In the case of state actors, under anarchic conditions, states tend to undertake as little as possible or even evade their obligations by free-riding. The global order must establish a clear set of rules, linking the responsibilities of the actors with specific indicators, and defining their corresponding responsibilities for different actors. At the same time, this method of defining responsibilities and obligations must be fair, in order to prevent itself from becoming a diplomatic tool for the actors to seek relative benefits. Thirdly, how can we evaluate the supply level of global public goods and determine the best supply volume? Since the means to achieve global order is the supply of global public goods, it is important to understand what the optimal level of supply is, or to what extent the global supply of public goods is sufficient to achieve the objectives of the global order. In the field of building models for empirical measurement, scholars have made some explorations.60 This book does not intend to repeat the empirical methods used in these explorations, though these methods are very important. Here, we would like to emphasize that the setting of standards for the supply of public goods depends, on the one hand, on the development of global issues and on the spillover of the negative externalities. On the other hand, more importantly, it depends on how we view the outcome of the global order. Eliminating the negative externalities is a must, but we should also ask whether more positive externalities can be created to achieve global well-being by providing more public goods and leveraging the power of globalization.

Notes 1 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, Macmillan International Higher Education, 2012, pp. 3–4. 2 Dante Alighieri, On World-Government or De Monarchia, The Liberal Art Press, 1957, p. 11. 3 Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay,  George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1917, pp. 108–116. 4 Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon and Schuster, 1994, p. 19. 5 Hans Morgenthau, J. K. W. Thompson, and D. Clinton, Politics among Nations, Peking University Press, 2006, p. 36. 6 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, p. 8. 7 Ibid., p. 19.

178  Hao Yang 8 Lynn Miller, Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics, Westview Press, 1994, p. 20. 9 Ibid., Chapter 2.

e

20 See Lynn Miller, Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics, pp. 19–42. 22 Yu Zhengliang, “Reconstruction of Global Order in the Context of Globalization”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2003, p. 3. 24 See Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Peking University Press, 2000, p. 143. 26 James Rosenau, ed., Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 8. 28 Ibid., p. 194. 30 Inge Kaul et al. ed., Providing Global Public Goods, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 2. 34 Ibid.

Cen-

Global order  179 40 See Luis Cabrera, Political Theory of Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Case for the World State, Routledge, 2004, p. 90. 44 An Ximeng, “From Nationalism to Cosmopolitanism”, Journal of World Peoples Studies, Vol. 5, 2003, p. 20. 46 Ibid., pp. 55–61. 48 See Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, http:// www.pugwash.org/about/manifesto.htm. 50 Saul H. Mendlovitz, “ On the Creation of a Just World Order:An Agenda for a Program of Inquiry and Praxis”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 7, 1981, pp. 355–373. 54 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, p. 1. 60 Todd Sandler, “Assessing the Optimal Provision of Public Goods: In Search of the Holy Grail”, Pedro Conceicao, “Assessing the Provision Status of Global Public Goods”, in Inge Kaul et al., eds., Providing Global Public Goods, pp. 131–180.

Index

academic studies 8, 9 advocacy 21, 60, 106, 124, 125 Akiyoshi Hoshino 49, 62 Albrow, Martin 29, 39 Alighieri, Dante 68, 139, 157, 171 Altinay, Hakan 20 American exceptionalism 85 Americanization 25 Amin, Samir 36 Amnesty International 121, 129 Anheier, Helmut 103, 104, 108 anthropocentrism theory 138 anti-globalization phenomenon 1, 22, 31, 84, 169; Americanization 25; capitalism 23, 25; components 23; environmental awareness and policies 25; injustice and inequality 24; “midleft-wing” leaders 23, 24; national interests 23; reflection 25–27; TNCs 23, 25, 26; unemployment rate 25 Aurelius, Marcus 138 Austin, Charles 141 authority systems 3, 34, 53 Beck, Ulrich 20, 32, 176 behaviorist revolution 49 Bennett, A. Le Roy 58 Boao Forum for Asia 13 Bodin, Jean 141, 167 Boulding, Elise 99 Boutros-Ghali, Boutros 126 boycott states 60 Bull, Hedley 49, 50, 61, 158, 160, 162, 166, 175 Buzan, Barry 51, 52 capitalism 23, 25, 38–39, 41 capitalist economic model 39 Carr, Edward Hallett 142

CBD see Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Chandler, David 106 Chen Yugang 50 citizenship 19–21 civilizations 161; see also human civilization civil rights 21, 104 civil society organizations (CSOs) 1, 4, 20, 102; academia 99–101; civil rights 104; connotations 105–109; decisionmaking process 132; discourse 98; driving force (see driving force, civil society) ; environmental governance 122–125; face-to-face communication 101; global associational revolution 98, 99; human rights protection 120–122; INGOs 103; institutionalized politics 102; limitations 130–131; multiple governance effects 125–127; NGOs 98, 99, 101, 106–108; nongovernmental networks 104–105; order 168–170, 176; political fields and forms 127–129; security governance 116–120; self-governing private organizations 102; selfinterest 104; self-organization 98; social movement 101, 102; social process 105; state-society relationship 129–130; structural role 60–61; theory 102; transnational activities 116; transnational phenomenon 101; Western academia 98 climate change 85, 145, 165 Cochrance, Allan 46 Cohen, Robin 62 Cold War 85, 114–116; security governance 117 collective self-esteem 143

Index  181 colonial power 36 communications 1–2, 8, 146 composite structure, global system: authority systems 53; civil society 60–61; complex structure 61; components 53; inter-state system 53–57; multicenter structure modes 61; political authority 53; super-state system 57–60 concept identity 2 conflict dimension 4 conflicts of interests 142; global ethic (see ethical consciousness) ; industrial civilization 150 consciousness 144, 145; competition 18; cooperation 17–18; elements 16; human social life 17; national to global 15; self-evident 17 conservatism 40 Constitutional United Nations structure 68–69 constructivism theory 143 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 124 cooperation consciousness 17–18 cooperative co-governance 89 cooperative culture 75 cooperative governance 51 corporate citizenship 170 cosmopolitanism intertwine 40 cost-benefit analysis 173 cross-border civil society 100 cultural dimension 2, 8 cultural homogenization 33 cultural values 39–41 decentralized authority system 54 Declaration toward a Global Ethic 151 Democracy in an Age of Globalization 68 democratic citizenship 21 democratic consultation 79 democratization 62; Constitutional United Nations structure 68–69; Democracy in an Age of Globalization 68; driving force, civil society 112–114; The Economic and Social Council 66; environmental management mechanism 67; equity reforms 66; federalism 68; global partnership 66; overloading, governance tasks 64–65; The Security Council 66; sovereign states 65; subsidiarity 68; super-state institutions 65, 67–69; voting rights 66 digital revolution 92–93

diversification 40 domestic governance 89 Dougherty, James E. 48 Doyle, Mitchell 139 driving force, civil society: Cold War 114; democratization 112–114; economic globalization 111–112; human civilization 110; humankind 110–111; human self-reflection 109; international policy-making bodies 112–114; legitimacy 112–114; social movements 109; threat development and spread 115–116 Easton, David 49 The Economic and Social Council 66 economic dimension 2 economic globalization 32 economic interdependence 6 economic interests 147 economic man 9 economic transactions 5 Einstein, Albert 171, 172 Environmental and Resource Protection Council 66 environmental management mechanism 67 environmental protection movements 23 equity reforms 66 Eriksen, T. H. 39 ethical consciousness: Declaration toward a Global Ethic 151; human survival and development 152; intergenerational conflicts 153–154; morality 152; shortterm interests 153; types 153; World Congress of Faiths 150 ethical network 153 ethnocentrism 35 face-to-face communication 101 Falk, Richard 106, 158, 161 federalism 68 finite unipolar system 55 Finnemore, Martha 143 foreign direct investment (FDI) 6 foreign exchange market 6 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 124 Frank, Andre 36 free-market anarchism 42 French Revolution 141 Friedman, Thomas L. 33 Friedrichs, Jorg 175 Friends of the Earth (FOE) 124

182 Index General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 59, 127 Giddens, Anthony 29, 176 Gilpin, Robert 49 Glasius, Marlies 103 global civil society: action and value 168–170 global environmental civil society organizations (GECSOs) 125 Globalization: The Key Concepts (Eriksen) 39 global order 1; civil society 168–170, 176; cosmopolitan democracy 162; decision-making mechanism 162; definitions 162–163; feasibility 163; features 163; hegemonic stability pattern 173–174; intergovernmental international organizations 166; international 156, 160; legitimacy 166; mankind 156; negative externalities 163; neo-medieval pattern 174–176; objective of 164; political patterns 170; public goods 165–166; social 156, 163 (see also social order) ; state actors 166–168; state-centralism 162, 176, 177; TNCs 170; world 160–162; world government pattern 171–173 global public goods (GPGs) supply 93–95 Global Sociology 62 Global Transformations 32 global warming 7 governance 60, 137; American exceptionalism 85; anarchic governance 80–81; climate change 85; Cold War 85; composite standards 90; concept 74; cooperative culture 75; core concepts 73–74; definition 74; democratic consultation 79; digital revolution 92–93; dimension 4, 7; elements 76; emerging powers 88–90; essential meaning 81–83; failure 75–76; fundamental dilemmas 86–88; GPGs supply 93–95; information society 75; international community 72; international politics 80; Kyoto Protocol 85; legitimacy 90–91; management 3; national autonomy 73; negotiations 64; network management 74, 75; public power 76–79; risks 83–84; self-governance 74; self-interest 90; sociality 91; social management process 76; sovereign states 72; super-state entities 72; sustainable

development 83; theory 74, 75; trading 85; transnational organizations 72; Westphalia order 92 govern states 60 GPGs supply see global public goods (GPGs) supply Greenpeace 123, 131 Grotius, Hugo 141 Hall, Budd L. 99 Hans Küng 150, 151 Hart, Jeffrey A. 29 hegemonic stability pattern 173–174 Held, David 20, 29, 35, 39, 46, 47, 101, 162, 176 Höffe, Otfried 68 Hoffman, Stanley 160–161 homogenization 40 human civilization 1, 12, 19, 52, 110, 157 human cognition 158 human integrity 74 human intelligence 157 human rights 21; protection 120–122 Human Rights Council 58 human self-reflection 109 human social development 46 human social life 11, 17, 21 human transportation 146 Huntington, Samuel 161 hybridization 40 Hyden, Goran 100 Ikeda, Daisaku 139 In Defense of Global Capitalism (Norberg) 42 individual rights 21–22 institutional behaviors 93 institutionalized politics 102 interests 1, 6; conflicts of interests (see conflicts of interests) ; mankind 8–12, 137–140; national 23, 137 (see also national interests) ; public 20; rational cognition 144–147 intergenerational conflicts 153–154 intergovernmental international organizations 166 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 13 international community 63; interdependence 5–8 international cooperation consciousness 17, 18 international counter-terrorism 31

Index  183 International Court of Human Rights 67 International Criminal Court 60 International Criminal Tribunal 58, 62 international intergovernmental organizations 47 international monetary system 41 International Negotiation Network (INN) 117 International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) 50, 114 international regimes, historical role 12–15 international system: behaviorist revolution 49; cooperative governance 51; global system formation 46–48; human civilization 52; inter-state system 52; macro-level 48; micro-level 48; national interests 52; non-state actors 50; political authority 51; political development 46; qualities 51; super-state actors 50; transnational organizations 50 Interregnum of Modernity 113 inter-state system 52, 53; decentralized authority system 54; establishment and maintenance 53; finite unipolar system 55; interaction 54; international institutional factors 55, 56; international organizations 55–56; international system structure 54; power elements 55, 56; self-help 54; sensitivity 56; unipolar-multipolar system 55; vulnerability 56; WTO agreements 57 Jaspers, Karl 157 Kaldor, Mary 98, 103, 104 Kant, Immanuel 68, 139, 157, 171 Kaplan, Morton A. 49 Kapur, D. 59 Keane, John 98, 99, 104–106, 108–109, 110 Kennedy, Paul 62, 147 Keohane, Robert 142 Kettle, D. 75 Kissinger, Henry 157 Kyoto Protocol 85 labor export 2 Laszlo, Ervin 140 legitimacy 90–91, 126, 130; driving force, civil society 112–114; order 166

liberalism 21, 22; market model 33 The Limits to Growth 139 Lipschutz, Ronnie D. 99, 101, 102 Li Shaojun 49 Locke, John 167 Machiavelli, Niccolò 140–141 macro-social order 156, 157, 160 mankind interests: anthropocentrism theory 138; consciousness 138; cosmopolitanism 139; decisionmaking power 140; international 137; national 137–138; natural law 139; Our Common Future report 140; Perpetual Peace 139; stakeholders 138; universal justice 139 market capitalist economic models 111 market management 3 market transactions 2 McGrew, A. 87 McLuhan 110 Mendlovitz, Saul H. 172 Miller, Lynn 158 MNCs see multinational corporations (MNCs) modernism 40 modern market economy 42 morality 9, 15 Morgenthau, Hans 142, 157 multicenter structure modes 61 multidimensional concept 1–5 multilevel citizenship 20 multinational corporations (MNCs) 2 multipolar power structures 90 national centralism 87 national culture 8, 40 national identity 2 national interests 9, 23, 52; collective self-esteem 143; conflict of interests 142; consciousness 147; constructivism theory 143; economic development 148; foreign policy 149; governance 148; independent 11; international organizations 149; international political structures 142; nation-states 148, 150; neo-liberal institutionalism 143; objectivism 144; rational cognition 144–147; realism theory 142; Renaissance period 140–141; social life management 148; state-centrism concept 141; subjectivism 144 nationalism 40; boycott and affinity 35 national policies 7

184 Index national political community 47 national sovereignty 9 neo-colonial trading system 36 neo-liberal economic policy 37, 37, 38, 42 neo-liberal institutionalism 143 neo-liberalism economic system 36, 41 neo-medievalism 159; pattern 174–176 “New Medievalism” system 61 non-government actors 81–82 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 73, 98, 99, 106–108 non-sovereign governance 61 non-territorial politics 82 non-traditional security 3 Norberg, Johan 36–38, 42 Nye, Joseph S. 88 objectivism 144 Olson, Mancur 167 On the World Empire (Dante) 157 organizational behaviors 93 organizational frameworks 4 organizational policies 43 organizational structure 1 organizational structures 122 Osborne, David 75 Ougaard, M. 99 Our Common Future report 140 Our Global Neighborhood 73 Peace Federalism Movement 69 The Peace of Westphalia 158 Perpetual Peace 139, 157 Pfaltzgraff, Robert L. Jr. 48 Pieterse, Jan Nederveen 32 political authority 34, 83 political discrimination 147 political legitimacy 22 political philosophy 9 political power 7 post-modernism 40 poverty 64 power dimension 3, 7 Prakash, Aseem 29 process 4–5; characteristics 28, 30–33; complexity 32–33; connotation 29–30; cultural homogenization 33; diversity 33; dynamics 31; flow solidification 33; globalization timetable 28, 29; justice and values 33; liberalism market model 33; nationalism, boycott and affinity 35; nation-state deviation 34–35; reflection and regulation 41–43;

unequal center-periphery relationship 35–39, 37–38; unfair global distribution 33; value orientation 39–41; Western hegemony 29 production factors 2 public authority 168 public goods 165–166 public policies 17–18 public power: affairs 77; authority factors 78–79; definition 76; features 76–77; goods and services 76, 77; market-oriented mode 76; operational values 77; responsibilities 77–78; social community 78; social resources 79; value orientation 77 Pugwash Movement 128 Quaker International Affairs 118 Rajan, Raghuram G. 41 Rapoport, Anatol 48 realism theory 10, 142 regional culture 8 re-territorial solutions 35 Romo 38 Rosenau, James N. 79, 82, 176 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 68, 141, 167 Russell, Bertrand 171, 172 Salamon, Lester M. 102 Sandholtz, Wayne 39–40 Scholter, Jan Aart 106 The Security Council 66 security governance: Cold War 117; conflict resolution process 119; CSOs 116, 117, 119–120; grass-roots organizations 119; high politics 116; human rights 118; INN 117–118; low-level politics 116; Quaker International Affairs 118; religious organizations 118; social stability 119 self-governance 74 self-help 54 self-identity 2 self-interest 90 Shanghai Cooperation Organization 13 social dimension 2–3 social inequality 64 social life management 148 social management process 76 social order: feasibility 158–159; stability 159–160; value 156–158 social self-governance 60 social self-management 3

Index  185 Social Theory of International Politics (Wendt) 143 Space of Authorities (SOAs) 82 spiritual power 40 state centralism 100 state dimension 3 Stiglitz, Joseph Eugene 38, 42 subjectivism 144 subsidiarity 68 super-sovereignty human rights 121 super-state citizenship 21 super-state system 14, 53; democratization 65, 67–69; economic globalization 57; GATT 59; global issues 58; Human Rights Council 58; International Criminal Tribunal 58; legitimacy 60; multilateral institutions 57–59; political stage 59–60 synchronicity process 33 system: brand-new global society 62–63; composite structure 53–61; democratization 62, 64–69; international 61 (see also international system) ; national sovereignty 62; risks 63–64 Tandon, R. 99 territorial politics 9, 35, 82 The World Is Flat (Friedman) 33 time-space dimension 1–2 Tiryakian, Edward 113 Toynbee, Arnold J. 139, 171, 172 transnational activities 116 Transnational Civil Society 100 transnational corporations (TNCs) 5, 23, 25, 26, 122; profits and responsibilities 170 transnational flows 64 unemployment 25 unequal center-periphery relationship, process: capitalism 38–39; colonial

power 36; economic development 36–37; economic growth rates 38, 38; human welfare 36–37; neo-colonial trading system 36; neo-liberal economic policy 37, 37, 38; peripherization 36; UNDP 36; wealthy and poor countries 36, 37; Western-centered world system 35 unipolar-multipolar system 55 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 36, 112 utilitarianism 9 values 15, 18–19; cultural 39–41 von Bertalanffy, Ludwig 49 voting rights 66 Wallerstein, Immanuel 36, 38–39, 52 Waltz, Kenneth Neal 53, 54, 142, 157 Wang Yong 62–63 Waters, Malcolm 32 welfare policies 112 Wendt, Alexander 143 Western academia 98 Western-centered world system 35 Western industrialization 111 Westphalian system 127 Westphalia Treaty 14 Williams, Jody 166 Wilson, Woodrow 139, 157–158 Wolf, Martin 37, 42 World Congress of Faiths 150 world government pattern 171–173 World Order Model Project (WOMPs) 172 World Society 51, 52 World System 51, 52 Yu Keping 79 Zhou Dynasty system 174

e

Taylor & Francis Group an mforma business

Taylor & Francis eBooks www.taylorfrancis.com

A single destination for eBooks from Taylor & Francis with increased functionality and an improved user experience to meet the needs of our customers. 90,000+ eBooks of award-winning academic content in Humanities, Social Science, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medical written by a global network of editors and authors. TAYLOR & FRANCIS EBOOKS OFFERS:

A streamlined experience for our library customers

A single point of discovery for all of our

Improved search and discovery of content at both book and chapter level

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL su [email protected]