In this blog, we analyze the (potential) effects of the coronavirus on UN peacekeeping, making use of a number of recent blogs and reports from scholars and think tanks. We argue that peace operations are affected by the coronavirus on three levels: at the level of the operations themselves, at the level of the conflict context and, finally, at the structural level.
DOCUMENT
The COVID-19 global pandemic has raised once more the spectre of world governance, demonstrating in one fell swoop, the intricate entanglement of nation-states and the challenges they face when confronted with a global threat. The pandemic has produced an array of problems, from the deaths of millions, the desecration of health care systems all over the world, to the disruption of the economic and social lives of most of the worlds citizens and the emergence of vaccine politics. While not addressing the pandemic directly, this dossier examines the pandemic moment as both an opportunity and a crisis for the UN and the idea of global governance. The articles in this dossier, drawn from a selection of established academics and younger scholars, highlight the expanding array of issues and challenges the UN faces as its competencies increase in the face of multiplying threats to the global system. The organisation has gained new areas of expertise, consolidated its competencies in some areas while expanding its agency in others. In addressing global challenges, the UN has increased its relevance, normative power and connection to humanity but at the same time its lacklustre performance on a lot of issues has revealed that leadership is lacking, and the organisation has in many cases been found wanting. This dossier examines some of the new challenges facing the UN with a view towards assessing the ability of the organisation to effectively respond to global crises, and whether or not it has the capacity for institutional learning and adaptation in the face of adversity and anarchy. Originally published: https://nvvn.nl/governing-the-world-united-or-divided-nations/
MULTIFILE
The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
DOCUMENT
