Search results

International institutions such as treaties and organizations shape, and are shaped by, the large web-like architecture of global governance. Yet we know little about what this architecture looks like, why certain structures are observed, and how they are linked to the functioning of international institutions as well as the overall effectiveness of global governance. Over the past decade, network science has emerged as a promising and indispensable approach to unraveling structural nuances and complexities of the system of international institutions. This article presents a state-of-the-art review of this emerging field of research and seeks to stimulate its further development. In this article, I draw connections between various network analyses of global governance that are found in different bodies of literature. In so doing, I integrate three separate but overlapping strands of work on institutional fragmentation, polycentricity, and complexity and bring much-needed conceptual clarity to the debate. Building on previous studies, I propose a framework for operationalizing fragmentation, polycentricity, and complexity in network terms in order to enable systematic and comparative analysis of global governance systems. This article argues that there is much potential in the network approach and makes a case for advancing the "network science of global governance."

International institutions such as treaties and organizations shape, and are shaped by, the large web-like architecture of global governance. Yet we know little about what this architecture looks like, why certain structures are observed, and how they are linked to the functioning of international institutions as well as the overall effectiveness of global governance. Over the past decade, network science has emerged as a promising and indispensable approach to unraveling structural nuances and complexities of the system of international institutions. This article presents a state-of-the-art review of this emerging field of research and seeks to stimulate its further development. In this article, I draw connections between various network analyses of global governance that are found in different bodies of literature. In so doing, I integrate three separate but overlapping strands of work on institutional fragmentation, polycentricity, and complexity and bring much-needed conceptual clarity to the debate. Building on previous studies, I propose a framework for operationalizing fragmentation, polycentricity, and complexity in network terms in order to enable systematic and comparative analysis of global governance systems. This article argues that there is much potential in the network approach and makes a case for advancing the "network science of global governance."

AbstractInternational institutions such as treaties and organizations shape, and are shaped by, the large web-like architecture of global governance. Yet we know little about what this architecture looks like, why certain structures are observed, and how they are linked to the functioning of international institutions as well as the overall effectiveness of global governance. Over the past decade, network science has emerged as a promising and indispensable approach to unraveling structural nuances and complexities of the system of international institutions. This article presents a state-of-the-art review of this emerging field of research and seeks to stimulate its further development. In this article, I draw connections between various network analyses of global governance that are found in different bodies of literature. In so doing, I integrate three separate but overlapping strands of work on institutional fragmentation, polycentricity, and complexity and bring much-needed conceptual clarity to the debate. Building on previous studies, I propose a framework for operationalizing fragmentation, polycentricity, and complexity in network terms in order to enable systematic and comparative analysis of global governance systems. This article argues that there is much potential in the network approach and makes a case for advancing the "network science of global governance."

International institutions are prevalent in world politics. More than a thousand multilateral treaties are in place just to protect the environment alone, and there are many more. And yet, it is also clear that these institutions do not operate in a void but are enmeshed in larger, highly complex webs of governance arrangements. This compelling book conceptualises these broader structures as the 'architectures' of global governance. Here, over 40 international relations scholars offer an authoritative synthesis of a decade of research on global governance architectures with an empirical focus on protecting the environment and vital earth systems. They investigate the structural intricacies of earth system governance and explain how global architectures enable or hinder individual institutions and their overall effectiveness.

The Anthropocene is giving rise to novel challenges for global environmental governance. The barriers and opportunities shaping the ways in which some of these complex environmental challenges become governable on the global level are of increasing academic and practical relevance. In this article, we bring neo-institutionalist and post-structuralist perspectives together in an innovative framework to analyse how both institutional and discursive structures together bound and shape the global governance opportunities which become thinkable and practicable in the face of new global environmental challenges. We apply this framework to explore how governance of climate engineering – large scale, deliberate invention into the global climate system – is being shaped by discursive and institutional structures in three international forums: The London Convention and its Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Environment Assembly. We illustrate that the 'degree of fit' between discursive and institutional structures made climate engineering (un)governable in each of these forums. Furthermore, we find that the 'type of fit' set the discursive and institutional conditions of possibility for what type of governance emerged in each of these cases. Based on our findings, we critically discuss the implications for the future governance of climate engineering at the global level.

The member states of the United Nations collectively agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as equally important global objectives. Yet the same states seem to prioritize certain SDGs in national implementation. Such cherry-picking defies the ?integrated and indivisible? nature of the SDGs, and could negatively impact overall progress on sustainable development globally. Which SDGs receive more attention than the others in national policies, and what implications can we draw for global governance? We address these questions in two parts. Through a content analysis of the Voluntary National Reviews of 19 countries of varying income levels, we find that SDGs 1 and 8 on poverty eradication and economic growth are by far most widely prioritized. We then look specifically into Bhutan and Vietnam to explore possible explanations for goal prioritization as well as the potential steering effects of international organizations on their national policies. The findings have important policy implications for global governance. We argue that the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, in particular, has an important role to play to better coordinate international organizations to help mitigate unhealthy goal prioritization.