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
Top Related