Trans-governmental networks:
less than convincing vision
of new world order
Mohamed Mansour Kadah
Diplomat, Egypt, and PhD researcher at the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences,
New University of Lisbon, Portugal
Academia is fraught with ideas on the reform of the international multilateral system. Nonetheless, a great part
of the literature presents reform demands without clear
perspectives on how to put them to practice. Indeed, the
imperatives of reform are clear, given the developments in
the surrounding global environment, while the real conundrums lie in the specifics of needed reforms and how to go
about implementing them. In this regard, there are some
reform proposals that are worth contemplation. One such
proposal is the trans-governmental networks approach to
a new world order, by Anne-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department. Notably, this vision of new world order was most eloquently
articulated by its author in a book titled New World Order
in 2004. Since then, it has been a subject of a lot of debate
and controversy.
Anne-Marie Slaughter sets out from the point that
global governance is indeed in crisis, in light of the
perceived general erosion of authorities and capabilities
of intergovernmental organizations and regimes across
the world.1 In particular, she argues that multilateral
institutions created in the aftermath of World War
1 A
nne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2004).
supra-state networks and create their own horizontal networks of infra-state agencies. Slaughter argues that horizontal infra-state networks are substituting for the hierarchies of authority inside states and multilateral institutions.
Technocrats in charge of such subjects as foreign policy,
security, justice and health interact with their counterparts
directly, without going through supervisory authorities in
their national governments,
unlike the work methodology in multilateral organizations such as the UN.
These networks of technocrats debate relevant issues, coordinate policies
and form important consensuses about international
problems. Thus, Slaughter
argues, the same agencies that manage domestic
subjects come to manage
these same subjects at the
global level, which reflects
a trend toward disaggregating governments into their
constituent parts. Slaughter
further argues that these
networks supplant rather
than supplement the nation-state system, though
without openly challenging
or violating the sovereignty
formally invested in the system. In parallel to infra-state
networks, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and
transnational corporations
(TNCs) form their own global networks and other networks in collaboration with
governments and multilateral institutions. Thus, the world
becomes a sophisticated network of networks that include
governmental agencies, multilateral organizations, NGOs,
TNCs and other actors.
Governance through transnational networks is yet a nascent mode of governance.2 It is more evident in some
regions than others and does not often include all countries. Its effectiveness is asserted on the ground, though
not clearly demonstrated. Nonetheless, it has gone global and has been spreading in many areas over the last
few years. For instance, the EU is a pioneer in using the
network approach to governance. This is partially the outcome of the EU dilemma of the need for more uniformity
at the time greater centralization of power is politically
2 A
nne-Marie Slaughter, Power and Legitimacy of Government Networks, in
Alfred Herrhausen (ed.), The Partnership Principle: New Forms of Governance in
the 21st Century (London: Archetype Publications, 2004), pp. 1-4.
Conclusion
The vision of trans-governmental networks as a means to
global governance presents an enlightening perspective
on the evolution of modes and nodes of multilateral
cooperation. However, it does not seem to warrant a
true new world order, as it purports, and does not even
promise sufficient change in world politics. In fact, the
very rationale of this kind of ideas and the driving force
behind them is the failures of the current multilateral
system and the lack of reform in the system. Hence,
these proposals have risen as desperate attempts
to move around the deadlock of global governance
reform. In contrast, if the multilateral system could be
adequately reformed in the light of evolutions in the
surrounding environment, so as to enable it to face the
challenges of the day and capitalize on its opportunities,
such desperate alternative scenarios would ultimately
run out of dynamics. In this regard, the time factor is
of essence. Needed changes should take place before
current unavailing trends grow irreversible and further
complicate the situation of the multilateral system.