Theoretical Analysis of Global Governance:

Realist Perspectives on the Foundations of the United Nations

Peter Manifold

2012

Introduction

It is my contention that global politics can most easily be defined through the theoretical

tradition of realism. At its core realism sees individuals as power maximisers that act in a

rational fashion in order to protect their own interests. In the absence of an authoritative

hierarchy the international system must be viewed as being anarchical in nature and very much

State-Centric. Against this background the development of United Nations must be seen as part

of an ongoing historical process whereby efforts to regulate this anarchical environment often

fail and at best ‘keep aspirations for power within socially tolerable bounds’1. I would argue that

International institutions such as the U.N are created and controlled by the most powerful

states in order to maintain and increase their power. Whilst the U.N cannot be seen as a

complete failure it is within this system that it has to function and in essence it is states that

hold power and not the United Nations. If one is to view the U.N as an effective tool for

promoting world peace and security then one cannot forget that as an organisation it is only

the sum of all its parts and in reality some of these parts hold a much greater influence than

others. The United Nations primary role is to facilitate the cooperation of states in maintaining

international security, upholding international law, fostering economic development and as has

increasingly been the case protecting human rights. Realism as a discipline is concerned with

what can be termed as high politics as opposed to low politics. High politics on the global stage

encompasses issues relating to international security and would for instance not include issues

pertaining to trade, human rights or the environment. In this regard I think it is of utmost

importance to only view the U.N in relation to an ongoing historical process which seeks to

maintain international security. The U.N provides a semblance of order and organisation within

the anarchical international system and is borne out of human sociability that requires inter-

group governance. The United Nations can thus be simultaneously seen as a structural and a

historical phenomenon. It is structural in the sense that the social nature of humans beings

requires that interactions of different groups be ordered for practical and moral purposes. It is

part of a historical process in that over time various actors have created such rule systems to

control and maintain international order for their own benefit

“order is part of the historical record of international relations; and in

particular modern states have formed, and will continue to form not

only a system of states but also an international society.2”

1 Morgenthau, H. Politics Amongst Nations, New York, Knopf, 1967, p.219

2 Bull, H. The Anarchical Society, London, McMillan Press Ltd, 1977, p22

Rather than focusing on the continued efforts of the United Nations to promote international

security I will begin by instead focusing on the historical and structural basis upon which the

organisation was founded. The United Nations must be understood in the context of these

processes if we are to fully comprehend the theoretical foundations of the very idea of global

governance.

Social Structures

The question of why human beings are sociable creatures does not necessarily have to involve

assumptions that we can create an international order based on mutual cooperation and lasting

peace. On the contrary our predisposition to forming collectives and the need to identify with

one another is part of an adaptive mechanism of natural selection. Humans survived longer

when they stayed together and as result of an evolutionary process the human species are

predisposed towards sociability. In this manner we are ‘hardwired to be social, to seek

identification with other human beings and to form collectives with other human beings’3. To be

social however does not entail being nice, it is precisely due to our sociabilities that we can

organise ourselves into groups and kill each other effectively en masse. We form collective

groups that differentiate themselves from other collective groups based on the use of different

social practices. The development of these social practices become part of our identities and

form the basis of an in/out group dichotomy that is a fundamental part of human interaction.

“peoples need for identity in social relations is so strong that they will

invent in-group and out-group identities and differences even when there is

no rational basis for doing so”4

As humans interact across different groups they unintentionally develop patterns of behaviour

which generate structural boundaries. Thus the very act of forming groups and being social

develops patterns of social behaviour such as discrimination and favoritism, cooperation and

competition, the notion of relative power gains and the institutionalisation of imitated

practices.

The creation of these invisible structural boundaries to human interaction is a result of the

need to form distinct social groups. In this regard structure can be seen as a natural

3 Hoffman, M. & Ba, A. Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence,Contestation and World Order, New York,

Routledge, 2005, p.20

4 Mercer, J.(1995) Anarchy and Identity, International Organisation, vol. 49, pp 229-252

phenomenon that arises from a need to promote our own interests. However whilst we may

have a biological need to be social in order to survive we aren’t necessarily equipped with a

biological road-map that can guarantee our survival.

“because we have minds, consciousness, feelings and above all

language our individual and species survival is as tied to the social

practices we create as those practices are in turn a result of our need to

survive”5

Thus whilst the reasons we form these distinct collective groups can be understood, how we

form them is a different matter that owes much to the unintended course of human history. In

this way structure and history are interlinked in that certain aspects of social interactions can

be seen as permanent and fixed in relation to time whilst other patterns of social interaction

are entirely contingent on historical processes. In order to understand these fixed patterns of

behaviour we can examine and analyse the broad sweep of human interaction throughout

history. In order to understand how history affects these patterns of social behaviour we can

look to particular moments in history and focus on particular agents of change and the

formation of particular institutions. By examining the United Nations as both a historical and a

structural phenomenon we then begin to more clearly understand that humans due to their

sociabilities create such organisations as a means of ensuring order and stability within their

interactions. However what also becomes clear is that due to the dynamics of human

interaction it is the relatively powerful groups that create and shape these organisations

according to their own choices and will.

5 Hoffman, M. & Ba, A. Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence,Contestation and World Order, New York,

Routledge, 2005, p. 21

Anarchical Society

The treaty of Westphalia in 1648 can be seen as the watershed between the disintegration of

western Christendom and the birth of the modern European state. Prior to this international

society had been very much centred around the universal authority of the Pope and the Holy

Roman Emperor. Within western Christendom there had been a belief in a universal natural law

that held together the Christian world, however it is interesting to note that this did not extend

beyond the boundaries of Christendom. The disintegration of the respublica Christiana created

a moral and social vacuum of sorts within Europe and a whole host of political thinkers debated

the nature of this newly emerging international society. The idea of an international society

within which states exist has historically been founded on three competing traditions of

thought, the Hobbesian, the Kantian and the Grotian. Realist perspectives of the international

system can be traced back to the writings of political philosopher Thomas Hobbes who

essentially saw the international system as an anarchical environment perpetually in a state of

war, peace can thus be seen as an interlude between one war and another. Whilst the Kantian

and Grotian perspective see international society as having the potential to be a cooperative

environment the Hobbesian tradition sees it in terms of a zero sum game where the interests of

one state are exclusive to that state. According to Hobbes the state is free to pursue its own

goals despite moral or legal obligations to the contrary, in this sense a moral or legal vacuum is

opened up within the international system. Whilst societies themselves have internal rules and

norms this differs within the international sphere where in the absence of a higher authority it

is up to each given society or state to assert its own morals in conducting its foreign policy.

According to the Hobbesian tradition the principles of expediency and prudence as opposed to

morality and the law can be seen as the only limitations on one’s foreign policy behaviour. Such

an environment would be akin to an anarchical society as there are no rules and no higher

authority under which states can be seen to subordinate themselves under. Hobbes uses the

analogy of a domestic society to show that If individual men existed without a government then

essentially they exist in a state of nature or a constant state of war. War in this instance doesn’t

mean ’actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no

assurance to the contrary, such a warre, as is of every man, against every man”6 Whilst one

could argue that Hobbe’s theories were simply based on an analogy and do not reflect the

modern day international system there is no denying that sovereign states still do go to war

with each other. But in drawing an analogy between individuals and sovereign states existing in

a state of perpetual war you are denying the existence of any form of social norms within the

6 Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan, ch. 13, p. 65

state of nature which quite simply isn’t true. John Locke’s conception of the state of nature is

perhaps more suited to a modern day analogy of the international system in that as no effective

central authority exists each member becomes their own judge of the law and in this instance

the law does not always prevail. Rooted in Locke’s concept of man in the state of nature is the

idea that some social norms do indeed exist but due to the relative power differences between

individuals justice is not even handed. Thus in the same manner that these powerful individuals

in a state of nature can enforce social norms and establish order on their own terms powerful

tribes, city states, empires, principalities and nation states can also establish a codified set of

laws and norms that promote a collective inter-group order based on their own interests.

Society of States

An International society or a society of states can be seen as existing when a group of states

recognising common interests and shared set of values bind themselves to certain rules in their

interactions with one another. An early example of this would be the Greek City States who

although engaged in many wars amongst each other shared a common language and culture.

On numerous occasions the City States would combine their strength to fight foreign powers

such as the Persians and Carthaginians, whom they regarded as barbarians. We can also see

this type of dynamic existing in Europe between the 16th and 19th century as many of the

European powers would engage with non-European states in a different manner than they

would with their European counterparts. For instance when the Spanish negotiated with the

Inca’s and the Aztecs, a different set of protocols and duties were adhered to than if they had

been engaged with the French or English monarchs. This is mainly due to the fact that neither

shared a common conception of an international society and thus what becomes clear is that

these ‘societies of states’ are always founded upon common cultural values and social norms.

When we speak about creating order in the anarchic international system it doesn’t always

necessarily entail a shared set of values or common interest however, for instance a balance of

power can occur naturally and create stability in an unintentional manner. Therefore an

international society is not merely contingent on the presence of order but rather a set of

common interests amongst states, reciprocal laws and obligations and finally the presence of

institutions as a means of enforcing collective action and enforcing laws. Institutions in their

earliest sense didn’t necessarily mean an organisation or administration ‘but rather a set of

habits and practices shaped towards the realisation of common goals’7. It is my contention that

these institutions have evolved over time towards the formation of the modern day U.N and

that their evolution owes much to the shared interests of various 'great powers' rather than

any desire to create a lasting peace.

Evolution of Multilateralism

The United Nations must be viewed in terms of previous attempts at creating harmony and

stability in the international system. Throughout history there have been numerous accounts of

what could be described as international societies operating within an international system.

The modern secular state system can be seen to have emerged after the treaty of Westphalia

as it introduced some key principles including the territorial integrity of the state, the right of

the ruler of a principality or state to choose its religion and the non-intervention of supra-

national authorities such as the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire in the affairs of the

state.

Thus came about the idea of sovereignty being conferred upon all nations and the right to self

preservation, an idea which it would seem contradicts the whole notion of an international

society of states.

“the distinguishing mark of the sovereign that he cannot in any way be

subject to the commands of others, for it is he who makes the law for

the subject, abrogates law already made, and amends obsolete law8

Over time questions of where sovereignty resided would change as it was initially thought to

reside within the rights of dynastic rulers, however eventually in the 19th century this would

change with the rise of the nation state and the idea that sovereignty resided in the people and

not within the divine right of a ruler. This notion of sovereignty remains the most important

aspect of international law and forms the core principle of a state system based on legal and

equal rights among nations.

The European State system as emerged after the treaty of Westphalia forms the basis for the

modern day international system and all the laws and international norms we now take for

granted emerged out of this initial ‘society of states’. By the time the nation state had fully

developed during the 18th and 19th century the idea of an international order had been clearly

elaborated. A clearly defined set of principles of international law arose out of the

enlightenment period and there was an acknowledgment that states were entities with basic

rights and reciprocal obligations. The ‘Law of Nations’ was seen to replace ‘the law of nature

and what had been a set of laws common to all nations now became a positivist international

law shared between nations. According to Luis Vattel’s ‘Droite de Gens’ it is the science of the

rights which exist between Nations or States and of the Obligations corresponding to these

7 Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society, London, McMillan Press Ltd., p.71

8 Bodin, J. (1967) Six Books on the Commonwealth, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, p. 25

rights”.9

Another interesting aspect of this period was the emergence of a balance of power within the

European state system. The idea initially emerged after the Peace of Westphalia in order to

check the power of the Hapsburg empire and continued as a tradition of the European State

system right up until 1914. In a sense the balance of power worked as an informal institution

ensuring security and peace whilst retaining the full sovereignty of the European States. In

‘Droit de Gens’ Vattel described the balance of power as such:

“a state of affairs such that no one power is in a position where it is

preponderant and can lay down the law to others”10

Following the Congress of Vienna in 1815 the Metternich system was put in place by the great

European powers in order to ensure that their interests were preserved and the status quo

remained. The continent had just endured over two decades of warfare following the

Napoleonic Wars and the maintenance of a balance of power within Europe now became a

primary objective of the international community. The five great powers of Russia, Great

Britain, France, Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were all engaged in what became

known as the Concert of Europe, a sort of informal inter-governmentalism. The nineteenth

century saw the emergence of ‘the great power’ whom it was widely believed had the special

right and duty to maintain the balance of power including the lawful right to intervene in

conflict and to go to war in order to preserve this balance of power. Throughout the 19th

century a series of multilateral as opposed to bilateral meetings occurred between these

European powers. The Concert of Europe was in essence a club of sorts where European

powers settled disputes, legitimised the sovereignty of new members and divided up the

known world amongst its members. The concert can be seen as a blueprint for future forms of

global governance such as the league of Nations and the U.N in that it included ‘multilateral

consultation, collective diplomacy, and special status for great powers’.11 However the

informal arrangements and complex alliances involved in the concert of Europe proved wholly

insufficient in preventing the outbreak of the First World War and as such paved the way for

the league of Nations and a focus on collective security as opposed to maintaining a balance of

power.

The League of Nations was the brainchild of American President Woodrow Wilson who is

famously misattributed with describing the First World War as the ‘war to end all wars’. The

9 Vattel, L. (1758) Droit de Gens, III, iii, 34.

10 ibid III, iii, 47

11 Mingst, K & Karns, M. (2004) International Organisations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, London, Lynne

Rienner Publishers, p. 66

Versailles Treaty out of which it was agreed the League of Nations would be formed is widely

regarded as one of the main causes of the Second World War. The League Covenant was based

on the principle of collective security ‘namely, that aggression by one state should be countered

by all acting together as a ‘league of nations’ “12. This notion of collective security is idealistic

in the sense that it expects the individual state to put themselves out for the sake of the global

community therefore promoting a collective interest over their own interests. It places a

primacy of ethics over politics and places an emphasis on what ought to be rather than what

actually is. Collective security as espoused by the League didn’t necessarily benefit those such

as Germany and Italy who had no reason to maintain the status quo. The League’s association

with the unjust peace of Versailles meant that many of the Great power didn’t feel the need to

uphold its principles. The United State’s refusal to become a part of the international body, on

the grounds that it would have subjugated its congresses right to declare war, can also be seen

as a major failure of the League. Despite all its failure however it can be seen as a genuine

attempt on the part of idealists such as Wilson towards creating a lasting peace. However I

would contend that such an outlook is naive and to be an idealist masks the true nature of

humanity.

“the utopian when he preaches of the harmony of interests {he} is innocently

and unconsciously clothing his own interests in the guise of a universal

interest for the purpose of imposing it on the rest of the world. ‘men come

easily to believe that arrangements beneficial to

themselves are beneficial to others”13

12 League of Covenant, Article 16

13 Carr, E.H (2001) The Twenty Year Crisis, New York, Palgrave McMillan,

Politics of the U.N

Two World Wars of unprecedented death and destruction all preceded the formation of the

U.N. an international organisation who’s primary aim is ‘to maintain international peace and

security, and to that end; take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of

threat to peace”14. Since then it has been an organisation at the forefront of global politics

forming the cornerstone of international law, norms and principles and currently has near

universal membership. From a realist perspective however the U.N’s only important organ is

the Security Council which can essentially legitimise the use of force against threats of

aggression. Under article 24 of the U.N Charter the maintenance of international peace and

Security is the responsibility of the council who has the power to act on behalf of all the

members

“In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,

its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for

the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in

carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts

on their behalf.”15

The Security Council is currently made up of five permanent members United States, Britain,

France, China and Russia all of whom have a veto. So despite claims in Article 2 of the U.N

charter that it recognises the sovereign equality of all states this only refers to the fact that

each member has a vote in the general assembly. The inequality of the organisation lies in the

fact that the five ‘great powers’, essentially the victors of the second world war, have the

ultimate power in that they can legitimize or veto the use of force. The fact that there is an

Anglo-French presence and neither a German nor Japanese presence on the Security Council

reflects the post-war environment in which the U.N was set up. The Security Council, the most

powerful organ of the U.N, is frozen in a time warp and certainly does not reflect the interests

14 UN Charter, Article 1

15 UN Charter, Article 23

of any emerging powers Thus the United Nations is just like preceding international institutions

claiming to maintain international security in that it can be seen as a tool of the more powerful

states and consequently reflects the distribution of power in an anarchic international system

as it existed in the 1950's. In this sense the international system remains the same and the

behaviour of states do not change.

“the most powerful states in the international system create and shape

institutions so that they can maintain their share of world power, or

even increase it”16

If this is the case then one could ask the question why has the U.N near universal membership?

Surely the smaller members are themselves rational and would only join if it was in their

interest. The problem is that it actually is in the interests of the weaker states to follow the

more powerful and thus become part of the collective and ensure their own security

He should submit because otherwise the stronger will compel him; and

the results of compulsion are more disagreeable than those of

voluntary submission. Obligation is thus derived from a sort of spurious

ethic based on the reasonableness of recognizing that might is right.17

The U.N is a human institution and therefore it reflects the power distributions within the

international system and as has been the case quite recently with 2003 Iraq war the more

powerful countries can act unilaterally outside of U.N law without any repercussions. Even

from its inception its impotence was clear in that attempts at collective security would not

work due to the bi-polarity of the Cold War international system which had created a deadlock

in the Security Council. In the meantime successful peacekeeping operations in various hot

spots have failed to dispel any fears of future wars.

16 Mearsheimer, J (1994) The False Promise of Institutions, International Security, vol 15 no. 3 pp. 13

17 Carr, E.H (2001) The Twenty Year Crisis, New York, Palgrave McMillan

Conclusions

The formation of any collective group will be based around the kind of social practices adopted

by the most relatively powerful individuals within that group. All groups develop ‘a hegemonic

belief in the moral purpose of its actions’18 and it is the most relatively powerful groups within

a national or international society who’s social practices are adopted. In this manner the United

Nations must be viewed as having developing in relation to the appearance of the United

States as a super-power on the world stage. Thus its norms and social practices became

embedded in the rhetoric and values of the U.N. What is an interesting question is why

powerful states continue to support international institutions that they have so blatantly

undermined over the years. The answer lies simply in the fact that they do provide a certain

amount of order and help reduce uncertainty therefore allowing for a more stable environment

where outcomes can be more easily ascertained. Given its emphasis on states and their pursuit

of power it is no surprise that Realism places little emphasis on the role of international

institutions who seek to act in a cooperative fashion. However that is not to say that State's are

adverse to mutual cooperation, it’s just that when it comes to cooperation they are more

interested in relative gains as opposed to absolute gains.

18 Reus-Smit, C. (1999) the Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International

Relations, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 6

References:

Bibliography

Baehr, R. & Gordenker, L. (2005) The United Nations: Reality and Ideal, New York, Palgrave

McMillan.

Bodin, J. (1967) Six Books on the Commonwealth, Oxford, Basil Blackwell

Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society, London, McMillan Press Ltd.

Carr, E.H (2001) The Twenty Year Crisis, New York, palgrave McMillan

Dunne, T. (2010) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, New York, Oxford

University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan,

Hoffman, M. Ba, A. (2005) Contending Perspectives on Global Governance: Coherence,

Contestation and World Order, New York, Routledge.

Mingst, K & Karns, M. (2004) International Organisations: The Politics and Processes of Global

Governance, London, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Morgenthau, H. (1967) Politics Amongst Nations, New York, Knopf.

Reus-Smit, C. (1999) the Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional

Rationality in International Relations, New Jersey, Princeton University Press

Vattel, L. (1758) Droit de Gens

Journals

Mercer, J.(1995) Anarchy and Identity, International Organisation, vol. 49, pp 229-252

Mearsheimer, J (1994) The False Promise of Institutions, International Security, vol 15 no. 3 pp.

5-49

Other Sources

UN Charter

Covenant of League of Nations