Search results

Examines the work of the status quo advocates, incremental process reformists and adaptive reformists of the rationalist school, and contrasts them with the more radical position of dissolutionists and successionists who, while also rationalist in approach, refuse to accept the permanence of the UN system. (Original abstract - amended)

There is a crisis of global governance at this moment in our history -- a moment being labeled as 'the interregnum -- a moment of transition from one world order to another. The turbulence and disequilibrium of this moment in our history have triggered intense and growing interest in the concept and practice of governance at all levels. This is not a reflexive moment; it is a time for serious reflection and contemplation; a time for reconceptualizing 'global governance'; an auspicious moment for constructing a new global governance paradigm. To assist in this introspective exercise, it may be important to shift from 'problem-solving' theorizing to a 'critical theory' approach that stands outside prevailing understandings of what global governance has come to mean and discard the oversimplified state-centric vision of world order; replacing it with the more nuanced 'summative' global governance - a concept that is more sophisticated and flexible than previous ones and may provide the needed space and time for us to transform the practice of global governance.

AbstractWhy does the genocidal mentality persist? Is there hope that humankind can curb or end the shocking mass atrocities that have plagued our globe over the last century and during the beginning of this century? These questions are addressed in this essay through an examination of the evolution of the normative narrative that resulted in the eventual emergence of the concept of 'responsibility to protect' (R2P or RtoP). The evolution of this narrative includes the genocide convention, the promulgation and promotion of universal human rights, the recognition that war crimes and other crimes against humanity are the gravest of all crimes and ought to be punished, the utilisation of humanitarian intervention as a means of curbing egregious mass atrocities, the imposition of punitive and smart sanctions to stem genocidal practices, the codification of international criminal law, enforcement measures through Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the introduction of ad hoc criminal tribunals and the establishment of a permanent international criminal court through the Rome Statute to punish individuals who commitment core crimes, the advocacy of norm entrepreneurs, and the conceptual work of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that eventually led to the embrace of the R2P norm by the international community. rough that evolving narrative the level of consciousness of people and their state leaders has been raised in regards to the need to see and treat all people on our planet – regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or social standing – with human dignity, and to focus on 'putting people first' when it comes to security. It is argued in this essay that R2P builds upon the foundation of this narrative a new normative architecture designed to address the most egregious of crimes (core crimes) committed against innocent people. Despite efforts to derail its implementation, the R2P norm may eventually turn words into deeds, and promise into practice if it is allowed to become more robust.