In this paper, the history of origins and the main characteristics of an ideal global governance are shown. Then, the points of criticism of the opponents of global governance are presented and the main actors of Global Health Governance (GHG) are shown. Afterwards, the two positions come into play, first the performance of GHG is evaluated on the basis of the points of criticism and also attempts to clarify where the difficulties of global governance derive from. In addition, the positive results and supporters of the GHG will be shown. Finally, it is evaluated whether the global governance stands up to this crisis or fails.
Table of Contents
History and origin of Global Governance
Defining Global Governance
Opponents of Global Governance
Re-emerging of nation-states
How does Global Health Governance look like in the Corona Crisis?
Criticism and support of Global Governance
Conclusion
References
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this work is to evaluate the efficacy of Global Health Governance (GHG) in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, analyzing whether existing international structures can withstand a global health crisis of this magnitude. The paper examines the tension between the necessity for unified international responses and the observed resurgence of nationalism and state-centric approaches during the pandemic.
- Historical development and core definitions of Global Governance.
- The resurgence of the nation-state and its impact on international solidarity.
- The operational role of key institutions like the UN, WHO, and financial organizations during the crisis.
- Political power dynamics, particularly the tensions between the US and China within international bodies.
- The role of private sector actors and philanthropists in bridging health funding gaps.
Excerpt from the Book
Re-emerging of nation-states
With increasing populism, increasing criticism of globalisation and numbers of opponents of GG, the role of the nation state has regained importance (Ritzer & Dean, 2015). After a decade of crisis, the rise of populism has led to a focus on the national as the framework for defending sovereign interests, transactional bilateralism as the basis of foreign policy, and relentless criticism of international institutions (Youde, 2018).
This movement back from the globalised to the national level is challenging for both sides. The global level loses legitimacy through the political movements of the right-wing electorate. But the degree of globalisation and the nature of the problems that transcend national borders means that we simultaneously need stronger GG.
The virus has made this movement back to national borders even more real, the European Union (EU) being hereby no exception. The EU has failed to adopt a coherent strategy to fight the virus unified, borders were shut without consultation and also the solidarity between the countries of emergency has declined. President of the European Commission von der Leyen critically described the situation as followed, “when Europe really needed an all-for-one spirit, too many initially gave an only-for-me response” (Wintour & Rankin, 2020). Since the virus has spread differently in different countries and medical capacities are also different, the return to the national is initially necessary to contain the Covid-19 infection curve, as member states have the main responsibility for social, health and border control policies.
Summary of Chapters
History and origin of Global Governance: Explores the post-Cold War evolution of Global Governance, emphasizing the rise of non-state actors and the institutional complexity resulting from increasing global interdependency.
Defining Global Governance: Outlines the theoretical features of ideal Global Governance, including collective problem-solving mechanisms and the inclusion of diverse networked organizations beyond traditional state cooperation.
Opponents of Global Governance: Discusses criticisms regarding the democratic deficit of international institutions and the persistent dominance of sovereign nation-states over collective global agendas.
Re-emerging of nation-states: Analyzes how populism and the pandemic have triggered a retreat from globalism back to national borders, complicating international crisis management.
How does Global Health Governance look like in the Corona Crisis?: Identifies the primary actors involved in health governance, ranging from the UN and WHO to public-private partnerships, and their specific roles during the pandemic.
Criticism and support of Global Governance: Investigates the politicization of international health bodies, specifically addressing US-China power struggles and the financial vulnerabilities caused by reliance on voluntary funding.
Conclusion: Summarizes that current governance structures have struggled to manage the pandemic effectively due to nationalism and leadership gaps, suggesting that a stronger, more unified model is required for future crises.
References: A comprehensive list of academic sources and journalistic reports utilized for this analysis.
Keywords
Global Governance, Global Health Governance, COVID-19, Pandemic, Nation-states, World Health Organization, Globalisation, International Relations, Sovereignty, Multilateralism, Public-Private Partnerships, Crisis Management, Populism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this work?
This work examines the effectiveness of Global Governance (GG) and specifically Global Health Governance (GHG) when confronted with the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The central themes include the historical origins of global institutions, the shift in political power between nation-states and international organizations, and the impact of the pandemic on international cooperation.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if current global governance structures possess the capacity to manage a major health crisis or if they are inherently hindered by national interests and political fragmentation.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative literature review and thematic analysis, synthesizing scholarly work on political science and international relations with current reporting on the COVID-19 crisis.
What topics are explored in the main body?
The main body covers the roles of major actors like the WHO and UN, the financial dependence of international health programs, and the specific political tensions between world powers like the US and China.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Global Governance, sovereignty, multilateralism, pandemic, and institutional legitimacy.
How did the pandemic influence the role of the nation-state?
The pandemic catalyzed a return to the nation-state as the primary framework for crisis response, as countries prioritized border control and internal health policies over coordinated international strategies.
Why is the funding model of the WHO a point of contention?
The WHO is heavily dependent on voluntary contributions from states and private entities, which critics argue allows donors to influence the organization's agenda and creates inequities in how health programs are prioritized.
- Citar trabajo
- Anonym (Autor), 2020, Global Challenges need Global Governance. Does our Global Health Governance withstand the Corona Crisis?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/910407
