Originally published on the CGS blog on June 26, 2012.
The Rio+20 summit, intended to develop a global sustainable development agenda, concluded last week. In the words of author Gwynne Dyer, “rarely has such a large elephant laboured so long to give birth to such a small mouse.” 150 world leaders were unwilling and incapable of creating substantive reforms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of a lack of political will and competing economic interests. The United Nations, the G-8, G-20, and other major multinational conferences suffer from many of the same ills. This begs the question, what is the alternative?
Nonetheless, the past few months were busy for the world’s major international institutions. The International Criminal Court, which is about to celebrate its tenth anniversary, convicted Thomas Lubanga in March marking a major milestone for the international justice community. However, others have not been so successful. The United Nations is struggling to resolve the fifteen-month long crisis in Syria that has killed more than 10,000 people. The most recent G-20 summit also recently concluded in Mexico producing piecemeal economic recovery efforts and meaningless statements about violence in Syria.
Clearly these institutions, in their current form, are largely incapable or unwilling to solve some of the world’s most pressing global issues. Climate change hurts marginalized populations and ecosystems, nuclear proliferation threatens to shatter fragile international peace agreements, small arms flow through violent transnational networks, and massive debt forces central governments to adopt crippling austerity measures. There are a multitude of successes that go largely unnoticed, however, such as the UN World Food Program’s extensive distribution network and the gradual eradication of some infectious diseases.
However, at a time when technology facilitates instant communication across borders and information is more readily available than ever before, the international community finds itself at a crossroads. It could maintain traditional power structures in our international institutions or it could adjust to accommodate more modern theories of cooperation. Sovereign states could continue to act on the basis of short-term national interests or adopt more progressive thinking that prioritizes global well-being. Heads of state could refrain from joining treaties such as the Rome Statute and respecting norms such as the Responsibility to Protect or they could aid in developing cooperative policy. The challenge is pushing our policy makers, public intellectuals, and fellow citizens to choose the latter (or as close as possible).
A primary concern of those advocating for institutional reform is inclusiveness. The UN Security Council only prioritizes the five world powers who dominated international relations at the conclusion of World War II. The G-8 and G-20 forums exclude dozens of countries whose economies disqualify their voices. Even at summits such as Rio+20, where a majority of the world’s states participate, the interests of the largest economies are prioritized and determine the policy of smaller countries through a trickle-down or paternal relationship. However, meaningful reform is unlikely without serious engagement with world powers who dominate existing institutions. The United States and others who controlled the international system during the Cold War need to adapt to include emerging states and a multipolar power structure.
What type of forum will facilitate meaningful dialogue and solutions to pressing global issues? How should we judge the effectiveness of sweeping international agreements and norms? What role should regional bodies play? Should we focus on reforming existing institutions or creating new ones? How does the international community best incorporate marginalized voices? Overall, how do we create a new global system that works for the benefit of all rather than those within strict national borders?
These questions do not have singular or easy answers. However, the human rights community should always be thinking of new ways to facilitate international cooperation and promote peace. An honest conversation about our successes and failures is a step in the right direction. Making changes to the UN Security Council, expanding the G-20 to be the G-30 or G-40, and promoting ambiguous “localized solutions,” are go-to reforms often cited as most feasible. However, thinking about why the institutions even exist and who they are supposed to serve might spark some unconventional ideas that radically transform the status quo.
We welcome thoughts in the comments section below about these questions and any other issues you feel should be considered.
