Quote from Justice James C. Nelson, Montana State Supreme Court
“Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government…While corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
Article on Slate.
Which G Is Right for Me? Global Governance in the 21st Century
Global governance is a complex issue. States primarily view the world through the issue of sovereignty – challenges to their sovereignty, as well as ways to enhance their sovereignty. Historically, geography dominated the issue. However, as the world has become significantly more connected through the new world order brought on by end of World War II and the institutions developed as a result (the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, etc.), globalization as a result of the end of the Cold War, and the leap in technological development, new issues are influencing the way in which states behave, interact, and view sovereignty. It is now equally (if not more) important to defend industries, currencies, and economies, in addition to geographic borders.
It is often opined that there is one way to achieve sovereignty: through broad, multi-lateral and supranational agreements – grand bargains – which level the global playing field. However, as discussed before, influence plays a key role in these agreements. The United States, for example, has been able to influence global trade much more successfully than smaller, less developed countries, such as Chile. Its economic and military power gives it a significant direct and implied advantage at the bargaining table. Therefore, it needs to be asked if these agreements actually level the playing field or if they are designed (more often than not) to benefit the states with the most influence at the detriment of the states with less influence?
Additionally, in regards to feasibility, how likely is an agreement to happen at a supranational level that involves one or two actors, as compared to ten or twenty? Is not accomplishing something until it is accepted by many countries (influential and non-influential alike) more beneficial to global governance than if an agreement is forged between two or three powerful actors and then used as a model for future, more comprehensive global arrangements? Further, is there any difference between the two agreements, except for the rate at which something happens if both are driven by the most powerful?
Lastly, in regards to global governance, how many institutions are truly necessary and at what point does saturation occur, where the existence of one institution influences the decision of another institution made up of similar actors (NATO and the United Nations, for example)?
In terms of which is better for global governance (a G20, G8, G7, G2, or other such arrangement), my belief is that while it is essential for the largest, most influential states to talk and work as a group (such as with the G20), it is going to be the agreements between smaller numbers of actors which will ultimately shape future global politics. For example, I believe that a bilateral agreement between the United States and China, United States and India, European Union and China, etc. over carbon emissions is not only more likely to be accomplished before an agreement between twenty separate states, but will also be much more successful tackling the issue of carbon emissions and climate change, while also better serving the states signing those agreements.
This structure has the potential to both resolve the issues most impacting the world and also allow for agreement to better suit an actor’s particular needs at the time of the agreement. However, these bilateral and multilateral agreements flowing out of conversations between leading global economies are only one part of the solution.
To be continued…
The Arctic Region and Competition Between Countries and Companies
Competition is crucial to global politics for both countries and companies. On a state level, competition is a key facet of the realism and liberalism theories of international relations. For realists, competition between states focuses on security and the ability to defend (and expand) one’s borders. For liberalists, competition occurs not just at a security level in regards to borders, but also on an economic and cultural level in regards to shaping global institutions and their politics. For companies, competition is the primary driver for growth and wealth, spurring innovation and policy to achieve both, as they compete for limited income from consumers, governments, and other firms.
The arctic region offers a current example of the role competition plays in global politics.
As climate change impacts our natural environment, the arctic is to opening up to new energy exploration and potential trade routes as its summers get longer, its winters shorter, and its ice thinner. The arctic states, including Canada, Russia, Denmark (by way of Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States are competing for access to those potential resources, as well as the transportation routes that will facilitate that access and the shipping of those resources, providing quicker and cheaper alternatives to current routes.
On a state level, competition has been relatively benign, such as the placement of additional troops within the arctic region (mostly for display) and bi-lateral land treaties; it is likely to increase over the coming decades as these resources become more accessible.
On a company level, the competition is noticeably higher. One example is an agreement earlier this year between US-based ExxonMobil and the Russian state oil champion Rosneft, which gave Exxon the ability to explore some of Russia’s arctic region for oil reserves. In the process, United Kingdom-based BP was pushed out.
However, through the competition between firms, competition between states is also taking place. As part of the ExxonMobil-Rosneft agreement, Rosneft will receive equity in Gulf of Mexico oil production. While for the United States, having its second largest company – by both market capitalization and revenue – potentially secure future wealth in the Russian arctic is a good thing for the state, Russia (particularly with the close relationship between the government and Rosneft) gains considerably through the Exxon deal, by obtaining a stake in an already proven and producing oil region.
As individual relations between companies and governments continue to blur (not just in Russia, but also in countries like the United States – for example, Bill Daley, the current Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama, is former Vice Chair, Chairman of the Midwest Region for JP Morgan Chase), the competition between states and companies will only become more complicated, playing an even more important role in the global political economy. It is essential when analyzing such competition to not only look at the direct players (ExxonMobil and Rosneft, for example), but also the indirect players, such as the Russian and United States governments, or individuals like Igor Sechin, who is both the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Rosneft, as well as Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation.
The Role of Influence in Global Politics
Influence is the ability for an actor to affect global politics in a manner that favors its short, medium, and/or long-term goals. These actors include individuals, states, supranational institutions, companies, and non-governmental organizations on bi-lateral, multi-lateral, regional, and/or worldwide bases.
The effects of influence range from something as (relatively) small as the inclusion of a fisheries clause in an agricultural trade agreement between two states, to something as large as the organization of a global carbon emissions cap and trade agreement.
Influence is measured on three levels:
- Structural Influence – The power that comes from institutional attributes, such as a large military (e.g. United States), rising economy (e.g. Turkey), dispute resolution authority (e.g. World Bank), or even substantial wealth (e.g. Bill Gates).
- Political Influence – The power that comes from an actor’s position within the structure of an institution, such as the President of the United States, Secretary General of the United Nations, or Managing Director of the IMF.
- Reputation Influence – The power associated with an actor’s reputation, such as Lucas Papademos’ reputation as an economics expert, the European Union as a champion of Human Rights, or Method as a socially responsible company.
In recent months, the European sovereign debt crisis stands out as an example of how each of these levels can impact global politics.
Structurally, one of the most important actors in the sovereign debt crisis is Germany. As Europe’s largest economy, it wields considerable influence and is able to affect the operations of the European Central Bank. This influence becomes apparent in the statements of ECB leaders throughout the crisis, asserting that its primary mission is to maintain price stability. This is also the primary goal of German monetary policy for the last eighty-five years, as a result of the inflation crisis of the early to mid nineteen-twenties.
Politically, the International Monetary Fund’s Managing Director, Christine Lagarde is able to influence the crisis negotiations. As the chief staff officer, she is responsible for the IMF’s day-to-day operations, including the decision to make loans to countries within the EMU (such as Greece), as well as the negotiations concerning the terms of those loans, both of which have a profound effect on the future of the union.
On a reputation basis, United States Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has attempted to influence the outcome of the crisis, by offering his advice. As the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the United States’ financial meltdown in 2007 and 2008, he gained direct experience managing a crisis of the magnitude currently impacting the Euro.
The issue that remains, however, is how strong an actor’s influence actually is. For example, when comparing Germany’s structural influence as the strongest economy in Europe to Timothy Geithner’s influence as the United States Secretary of State, it is clear that Germany’s influence is considerably greater than Geithner’s. It is not only the type of influence an actor yields, but also the weight of that influence, which affects the outcome of global politics.
John Gapper: A better way to occupy Wall Street (Financial Times)
A better way to occupy Wall Street – FT.com
The Financial Times is the best newspaper in the English language. This is no exception. Although at times a little too pithy, the author makes the case that in order to create the change they want, OWS needs to move beyond physically occupying space, and begin to occupy ideas. 99% is catchy and relevant, but what are the actual solutions? Interestingly, he notes: “The intellectual action has already been moving out of the park and into working groups that discuss everything from alternative banking to green economics.” Ultimately, the success of the movement will be seen through the implementation of change, be it by impacting regulation, the development of new services and business types (see: B Corporation), etc.
Report: Vermont’s Single Payer System Could Save $1.8 billion
So, what they’re saying is that with an investment of $50 million to $150 million, Vermont could save between $553 million and $1.8 billion. So, we’re looking at returns that could be as much as 36x the investment (or 3.7%).
Either way…
WHY DON’T WE WANT THIS, AGAIN?
New Economic Perspectives: Europe’s Non-Solution
New Economic Perspectives: Europe’s Non-Solution.
Very, very good reading.
European Union Wiz Me: A Show Tune About The Euro
Nerd alert. This is awesome.
