NO FULL TEXT AVAILABLE. Access is restricted indefinitely. ----- The increasing pace of globalisation and resultant global interdependence has
renewed debate about the role that various stakeholders should have in global
governance, and about how relationships between states and global issues should
be regulated, if at all. There are calls for reform of the United Nations, as well as
proposals for localisation, regionalism, world federalism, and global citizenism. It is
appropriate at this time to ask whether the current system of global governance and
the present means by which international law is created are sufficient for the future.
This thesis is, therefore, about international law and world order. It looks at the
conceptual bases upon which international law operates; the historical circumstances
that led to the modem understanding of international law's ambit; and the
consequential development of a positivist system of international law operating on a
non-hierarchical, consensual basis. It takes into account significant developments in
the twentieth century that have dramatically shifted the demands placed on
international law, and asks the question of whether the prevailing system can hold
the weight of these developments. It assesses proposed models of global
governance, and analyses each school of thought according to their likelihood to
achieve the proper objectives of a coherent and workable world order. It uses this
analysis to make proposals as to the institutional modifications that should occur in
the future, and accompanying paradigmatic shifts that are necessary.
The thesis is that our current system of international law and global governance is
inadequate in the twenty-first century, change is inevitable, and that change will entail
a shift from internationalism to supranationalism. The reason the prevailing horizontal
interstate system of global governance, whereby international law is created
predominantly through consent, is insufficient for the future of global governance is
that states act to serve their individual foreign policy objectives. Global objectives,
which are in everyone's interest, can better be achieved through the creation of world
law, as distinct from international law, and through a strong global governance
structure to support its creation, implementation and enforcement.
The thesis examines contemporary pressures on the current international system as
based on the traditional paradigm of sovereignty and concludes that change is
inevitable. Governance is traditionally an organic concept and there is room for the
evolution of a new approach to global governance that better adapts to the changes
that have occurred over the past century. It is anticipated that states will support a
shift to a new order of global governance when the contemporary pressures upon
their sovereignty reach the point where their de facto sovereignty has been eroded to
such an extent that virtually all that remains is the shell of de jure sovereignty. States
are more likely to realise, as the states of the European Union already have, that the
way to safeguard sovereignty is through pooling it and exercising it collectively.
States will no longer see collective action as a threat to their sovereignty, as a 'loss'
or an 'expenditure', but will instead see it as a worthwhile investment.
It is proposed that the European Union, and particularly the principles of subsidiarity
and comitology, can serve as an appropriate model for world government, adapted
along federal lines with limited, enumerated heads of power in areas of global
significance being ceded to the global level and residual powers remaining with the
states. Change can be implemented in stages, beginning with UN reform in the
immediate term, incorporation of European Union principles in the medium term, and
incorporation of a federal structure in the long term. Paradigmatic shifts are
necessary to support these movements. It is necessary to temper the positivist
obsession in international law with an overarching framework of global norms. These
global norms can provide the basis for determination of the validity and enforceability
of positivist international law, and can provide the necessary legal vehicle for
achieving the proper objectives of a workable world order, rather than merely
achieving the foreign policy objectives of the most powerful states.