This article examines the role of political leadership within the realm of global governance. Drawing upon relevant theories of political agency, particular attention is given to addressing the relationship between leadership and collective action. A two-level analysis of institution building in relation to maritime security and economic trade and investment reveals both strengths and weaknesses in practice. A review of the Law of the Sea Convention and the Multilateral Investment Agreement provides a salutary reminder that material power does not translate easily into dominating the rules of international conduct. The cases of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum and the Trans-Pacific Partnership further highlight the importance of mixed sources of political leadership in responding to economic challenges at the regional level. The policy implication for both the United States and China is that taking the lead in Global Governance, either jointly or multilaterally, will require a renewed focus upon custodial stewardship that aims to realign interests with long-term goals.
Introduction
It is commonly understood amongst scholars of International Relations that leadership matters most at times of crisis, strategic vulnerability, or when international conditions are fluid. Yet, the particular form of political leadership that is required to consolidate collective action during periods of transition is less well understood. In the current era, growing power competition, especially between the United States and China, fuels anxieties that international cooperation will gradually decline. It is also tempting to conclude that a leadership vacuum is likely to emerge in response to mounting global challenges. The imperative to re-balance interests and responsibilities between dominant and emerging powers will be difficult to achieve in the immediate term. Furthermore, it can no longer be taken for granted that a liberal consensus exists over support for collective action at the international level. US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership under the new Trump Administration, together with the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, suggest a growing tension between domestic and international obligations on the part of Western liberal states. The question that arises is whether a more positive trend towards collaboration could gather momentum to offset rising.
Answers & Comments
Answer:
This article examines the role of political leadership within the realm of global governance. Drawing upon relevant theories of political agency, particular attention is given to addressing the relationship between leadership and collective action. A two-level analysis of institution building in relation to maritime security and economic trade and investment reveals both strengths and weaknesses in practice. A review of the Law of the Sea Convention and the Multilateral Investment Agreement provides a salutary reminder that material power does not translate easily into dominating the rules of international conduct. The cases of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum and the Trans-Pacific Partnership further highlight the importance of mixed sources of political leadership in responding to economic challenges at the regional level. The policy implication for both the United States and China is that taking the lead in Global Governance, either jointly or multilaterally, will require a renewed focus upon custodial stewardship that aims to realign interests with long-term goals.
Introduction
It is commonly understood amongst scholars of International Relations that leadership matters most at times of crisis, strategic vulnerability, or when international conditions are fluid. Yet, the particular form of political leadership that is required to consolidate collective action during periods of transition is less well understood. In the current era, growing power competition, especially between the United States and China, fuels anxieties that international cooperation will gradually decline. It is also tempting to conclude that a leadership vacuum is likely to emerge in response to mounting global challenges. The imperative to re-balance interests and responsibilities between dominant and emerging powers will be difficult to achieve in the immediate term. Furthermore, it can no longer be taken for granted that a liberal consensus exists over support for collective action at the international level. US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership under the new Trump Administration, together with the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, suggest a growing tension between domestic and international obligations on the part of Western liberal states. The question that arises is whether a more positive trend towards collaboration could gather momentum to offset rising.