Term papers writing service


The effects of globalization on world governments

From Globalization to Global Peace? Brian Orchard Humankind desperately wants peace. One of the most tantalizing and promising ways to achieve this age-old objective is to establish global governance.

There are spoilers, of course, including Russia with its belligerent attitude toward the West, Iran and North Korea each involved in a nuclear impasse, Sudan and its resistance to resolving the international crisis of Darfur, and the international impact of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These impediments aside, many societies are—through technology—employing flat, integrated models of management that seem ideally suited to the purpose of such global governance.

The European Union provides a pertinent example. Many efforts at securing the effects of globalization on world governments through broad international cooperation have failed, including those of the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations. More recently, both the United States and certain Islamic factions have tried to force their own solutions.

Under the Bush Doctrine, the U. In 1713, Frenchman Charles Castel advocated an international organization responsible for maintaining world peace. Eighteenth-century philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant contributed various ideas of their own to the concept of supranational government.

And in 1940, novelist H. Many approaches to world government have come and gone, but to date none have led to universal peace. Perhaps a key to such failure lies in the inherent conflict between existing political systems. For example, democratic approaches are at odds with Islamic law or communist thinking. Effecting peace through any of these systems means forcing the others into compliance.

This government must be based on a clearcut constitution which is approved by the governments and the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons. Globalization is creating a new set of political, economic and social circumstances.

  • Even the United States appears to be favoring the process model;
  • Could this be the type of revolution H.

Could this be the type of revolution H. Wells had in mind? The effects of globalization are real. National borders are increasingly permeable and irrelevant. The development of the Internet in the late 1960s allowed computer networks to be created.

Connectedness across borderless cyberspace became possible as the World Wide Web broke down centralized structures. The continual development of supporting technology has subsequently changed the way the world does business. Communication and information transfer is now global, transcending most nation-state boundaries. As a result we are living in a very new and different world.

The old world order consisted primarily of centralized systems of governance. These were hierarchical in nature, with a vertical structure that concentrated control inward and upward.

  • Wells had in mind?
  • Economist and bestselling author Jeremy Rifkin suggests that this 20th-century governing model was a derivative of the industrial model developed by Frederick W.

Economist and bestselling author Jeremy Rifkin suggests that this 20th-century governing model was a derivative of the industrial model developed by Frederick W. Later, notes Rifkin, governments adopted a political version. This system worked well in a world where most nations operated in a similar centralized fashion, whether capitalist or communist.

The technology revolution has changed all that, however. As information flows across national boundaries and allows people in diverse locations and cultures to offer input on all kinds of issues, a feedback loop is created.

Globalization’s government

The governing style is quite fluid. Constant adjustments are made as so-called environmental feedback is received. They argued that effective governance is less a matter of imposing, from on high, predetermined decisions on passive recipients at the bottom than of engaging all the actors—government, business, and civil society players—in an ongoing process of deliberation, negotiation, compromise, and consensus with the radical suggestion that the best decisions are the ones reached democratically by everyone affected.

A strong current is pulling other nations in this direction as well. Even the United States appears to be favoring the process model. This is a small but significant change.

  1. And this list is by no means comprehensive. Globalization is creating a new set of political, economic and social circumstances.
  2. This is a small but significant change.
  3. Could this be the type of revolution H.
  4. The technology revolution has changed all that, however.

Business consultants Don Tapscott and Anthony D. How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. This new participation has reached a tipping point where new forms of mass collaboration are changing how goods and services are invented, produced, marketed, and distributed on a global basis.

But the advent of the Internet has unleashed this force, knocking down traditional businesses, altering entire industries, affecting how we relate to each other, and influencing world politics.

From Globalization to Global Peace?

Thus it appears that new structures are being created in both political and economic realms worldwide. Will this development eventually bring about a new form of universal governance? Globalization and the Internet demand new approaches to old problems, world peace included. But the model has some very troublesome risks, including degenerating moral boundaries and reversion to tyranny. It was a message about world government of a different kind.

  • Coordination between governments will be crucial for dealing with the global financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009;
  • Yet globalization has also created major problems that need to be addressed.

It is an amazing story. When it is to be realized no one knows precisely, but it will come at a time of man-made crisis such as the world has never before experienced. Don Tapscott and Anthony D.