Global Perspectives is a transdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal that aims to advance social science research and debate in a globalized world, particularly in terms of concepts, theories, methods and evidence bases. The journal is devoted to the study of global patterns and developments in a variety of topics and areas, including trade and markets, security and sustainability, communications and media, justice and law, governance and regulation, culture and value systems, identities, environmental interfaces, interfaces between technology and society, changing geographies and migration. A growing number of emerging actors in global governance aim to help solve interrelated problems that complement and sometimes conflict with already established regimes that are supposed to address some international problems separately from other issues. Hale et al. (2013) Defining the situation in which current international institutions do not provide a coordinated response to current Agenda challenges as “stagnation”. Using the examples of sovereignty and discussing issues of power and equality, we will show how new developments in international relations influence and reshape collaborative responses to the most pressing questions. 115 Berman, PS, Global Legal Pluralism. A Jurisprudence of Law beyond Borders (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 141ff; CrossRefGoogle Scholar N MacCormick, `Beyond the Sovereign State` (1993) 56 The Modern Law Review 1; N. Walker, « The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism » (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 317; S. Besson, « Institutionnaliser la démocratie mondiale » (n° 113) 58; Peters, A, `Dual Democracy` dans Klabbers, J et al.
(éd.), The Constitutionalization of International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) 263; Google Scholar A par Bogdandy, « The European Lesson for International Democracy: The Significance of Articles 9-12 EU Treaty for International Organizations » (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 315, 321ff. Les inégalités économiques et politiques ont des effets à long terme sur la gouvernance tant au sein des États qu’entre eux. Inequality in both forms contributes to the rise of extremism and social unrest, and also raises the question of what the international community`s responsibility for human development should be beyond the mere satisfaction of basic needs, i.e. security, food and shelter. While the 2015 SDG agenda prioritizes the goal of “fighting poverty in all its forms everywhere” (United Nations, 2015), questions remain about who exactly will finance this poverty eradication and what measures are best suited to this fight. Global governance actors, for example, focus more on interventions in poor countries, as they are guided primarily by a “narrow” understanding of security, rather than by long-term development issues or the “everyday” uncertainties experienced by individuals in different parts of the world. A wide diversification of aid funding sources makes it difficult to apply a common framework based on the development needs and interests of individuals. In addition, the provision of development resources, including official development assistance, is also moving away from the Old North to the BRIC countries and other new official donors such as South Korea and Turkey, as well as private foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, religious organizations, remittances from diasporas, heterogeneous sovereign wealth funds and a plethora of exchange-traded funds, as well as new sources of funding such as carbon taxes. Emissions, financial transactions, etc.
(Shaw, 2015). Second, as the trend towards “individual empowerment” continues, global society, through a global governance architecture that protects individuals from mortal threats to physical security and human dignity, whether man-made or natural, must pay special attention to human security. Human security is an innovative concept of security in response to horizontal (military, economic and political) and vertical (such as individual, state and global threats) threats that traditional security concepts cannot effectively control (Grayson, 2008). The goal of state security is too narrow to capture the myriad of threats that challenge today`s societies. The danger of sovereign states engaging in full-scale war is less likely today than at any other time in modern history. War has not been eliminated, but its form has shifted from sovereign versus sovereign wars to sub-state wars between different identity groups or uprisings against the state. Beyond war, the concept of human security refers to different types of security: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security (UNDP 1994). Human security provides an excellent conceptual paradigm compatible for the global governance regimes of the future that must respond to transnational and multidimensional threats that no one country can manage alone. For example, a number of national security analysts have already begun to recognize environmental degradation and natural disasters such as epidemics, floods, earthquakes, poverty, and droughts as national security threats similar to military disasters (King and Murray, 2001-2002). On the second point, because of their structure, some legal entities may be more inclined than others to engage in ethical discourse.
One could therefore assume that they form a community. This is based on the following consideration: the idea of the identity of a community has a factual and normative dimension. On the one hand, members of a community can actually share a more or less strong form of community identity; On the other hand, belonging to the community might require its members to share a more or less strong form of community identity. A strong community identity is like a living environment. Footnote 138 The stronger the community identity, the better ethical thinking will be. The more a community demands that its members share a common identity, the less inclusive it will be and the more externalities it will produce. As such, the “ideal” community can rely on a strong common identity of its members (i.e., a common living environment) that facilitates communicative action, but it cannot require its members to share much of this identity and thus keep it inclusive. Global governance as a response to the global nature of markets and communication networks requires not only intergovernmental responses such as those led by the United Nations system (see section “The United Nations system” below), but also responses from NGOs and voluntary agencies operating at the regional and international levels.