Topic: Two Propositions on Global Governance
Question/Prompt: From the readings and videos this week, at least two strong counter-propositions seem both plausible yet compatible as well.
1) Global governance is an institutional reality firmly rooted in practical and theoretical justifications for its existence. Consistent with liberal and constructivist theories, this proposition assumes global governance is the logical outcome of an increasingly insecure world of states in agreement with the need for greater political order, stability, and cooperation than an otherwise ‘anarchic’ system of sovereign states can provide on its own.
2) Global governance is an institutional reality, yet with little firm basis for its continuing existence beyond the contingent interest of sovereign states in cooperating to improve their own power, prosperity, and security. Consistent with realist theory among other possibilities, this proposition assumes global governance [like the UN for one example] is merely a useful device for states to free ride on the benefits of collective action while reserving state ‘sovereignty’ as an ‘opt-out’ card when the burdens of cooperation become too costly.
Given the readings, video presentations, and your own research, answer the following prompts in any order or manner you wish, separately or integrated:
- Using at least two examples of state behavior for each proposition, explain the plausible basis for why both propositions can be true. In effect, why can both propositions be plausibly defended (justified) on practical and theoretical grounds?
- Using biblical and extra-biblical sources (The Bible, commentaries, teachings, other writings, etc.) to inform your own reasoning, does Christian faith require a specific position on the acceptability of global governance? Or is the answer merely contingent on particular cases, circumstances, or the extent of contractual commitment beyond the state, whether regional or global in nature? Reason carefully and clearly with examples.