Ulrich Brand

Order and regulation: Global Governance as a hegemonic discourse of international politics?

Abstract Under the heading of ‘Global Governance’ a discussion is taking place on changes in political regulation at the international level. In this contribution Global Governance is understood as a discourse which is a part of the search process of emerging post-Fordist politics and its substantiation. This is based on the Foucault concept of discourse. It is analyzed in terms of five dimensions: ‘globalisation’; ‘world problems’ and ‘global challenges’; Realpolitik; ‘Utopia’ and democracy; and finally the ‘general interest’ of world society. This shows how Global Governance is articulated with the dominant transformations of the political which are understood from the perspective of regulation theory. It is demonstrated that this discourse, which legitimizes societal developments and provides a guide for action, is not at all in contradiction to the post-Fordist neoliberal transformation of society, but rather serves to make the handling of globalization-induced crises more effective. The article does not aim to provide a precise analysis of the discourse or its ontological and epistemological basis; instead it seeks to open up a perspective which should serve to stimulate discussion and research about the changing nature of international politics and hegemony.

Global Environmental Politics and the Imperial Mode of Living: Articulations of State–Capital Relations in the Multiple Crisis

The article introduces the concept of the ‘imperial mode of living’, which is sustained by capital and the capitalist state, in order to understand the persistence of resource- and energy-intensive everyday practices and their socio-ecological consequences. The imperial mode of living is principally based on an unlimited appropriation of resources and labour power and on a disproportionate claim to global sinks. In the constellation of the ‘multiple crises’, it contributes to safeguarding social stability in the global North and provides a hegemonic orientation in many societies of the global South. At the same time it has plunged global environmental politics into a severe crisis, fostering (neo-)imperialist strategies with respect to natural resources and sinks. In this sense, the imperial mode of living makes the crisis both more acute and able to be processed in a socially and spatially limited dimension. The concept thus helps to understand the simultaneous persistence and crisis of the neoliberal–imperial constellation and to identify starting points for counter-hegemonic struggles. Este artículo introduce el concepto del ‘modo de vida imperial’, el cual se sustenta por el capital y el estado capitalista, para entender la persistencia de las intensas prácticas diarias y sus consecuencias socioecológicas del recurso- y energía-. El modo de vida imperial se basa principalmente en una apropiación ilimitada de recursos y poder laboral y en una demanda desproporcionada de sumideros globales. En la constelación de las ‘múltiples crisis’, contribuye a salvaguardar la estabilidad social en el norte global y provee una orientación hegemónica en muchas sociedades del sur global. Al mismo tiempo, ha precipitado a las políticas globales del medioambiente a una crisis severa, fomentando estrategias (neo-)imperialistas con respecto a recursos naturales y sumideros. En este sentido, el modo de vida imperial hace que la crisis sea más aguda y capaz de ser procesada en una dimensión social y espacialmente limitada. El concepto por lo tanto, nos ayuda a comprender la simultánea persistencia y crisis de la constelación neoliberal-imperial y a identificar puntos de partida para las luchas antihegemónicas. 本文引入了“帝国生活方式”概念，它是由资本和资本主义国家维系的，以便理解资源和能源密集的日常实践的持续及其社会-生态后果。帝国生活方式主要建基于资源和劳动力的无限分配以及不成比例地宣称全球吸附。在“多重危机”情意丛中，它为维护全球北方的社会稳定作了贡献，而在全球南方的许多社会中提供了一种霸权倾向。与此同时，它已陷全球环境政治于一场严重危机，促进了有关自然资源和吸附的（新）帝国主义战略。在这一意义上，帝国生活方式使这场危机既更为尖锐，也能在社会和空间有限的维度上得到处理。这一概念因而帮助人们理解同时存在的新自由主义-帝国情意丛的持续和危机，确定反对霸权斗争的出发点。 이 글은 자원과 에너지 집약적인 일상생활의 지속과 그것의 사회적-생태적 결과를 이해하기 위해 ‘제국주의적 생활양식’ 개념을 소개한다. 제국주의적 생활양식은 자본과 자본주의 국가에 의해서 유지된다. 제국주의적 생활양식은 원칙적으로 무제한적인 자원과 노동력의 전유와 지구적 산업폐기물 처리 대한 불균형적인 요구에 기초하고 있다. ‘다중 위기’ 속에서 제국주의적 생활양식은 북반구의 사회적 안정을 유지시키는데 기여하고 지구적 남반구의 여러 사회에서 헤게모니적 지향을 제공한다. 동시에 그것은 자연 자원과 산업 폐기물과 관련하여 (신)제국주의 전략을 촉진시켜, 지구적 환경정치를 위기로 몰아 넣었다. 이러한 점에서 제국주의적 생활양식은 위기를 더욱 첨예하게 만들고 사회적으로 또한 공간적으로 제한된 차원에서 만 다뤄질 수 있게 만든다. 그러므로 그 개념은 신자유주의적-제국주의적 질서의 유지와 위기를 이해하고 반헤게모니적 투쟁의 출발 지점을 찾아내게 도와준다.

Post-Fordist governance of nature: The internationalization of the state and the case of genetic resources – a Neo-Poulantzian perspective

ABSTRACT Compared with the stated aims and the claims for urgent action, multilateral environmental agreements show unsatisfying results. Among other reasons – e.g. a deficit in national implementation – lack of coherence among a variety of overlapping and sometimes contradictory international institutions is considered as one major cause which needs to be overcome. In this article, however, it is argued that this lack of coherence is not a result of a lack of cooperation but a form of governance failure strongly connected with the political and economic structures of global capitalism and its ongoing neoliberal-imperial transformation. Moreover, it is demonstrated that this governance failure is a by-product of the articulation of sometimes antagonistic interests and related power relations inscribed in different national and international institutions. Building on the concept of societal relationships with nature, on historical-materialist state theory and its perspective of the internationalization of the state as well as on the regulation approach, the paper analyzes the tension between different international institutions in order to understand the actual transformations towards a post-Fordist governance of nature. The empirical issues dealt with are different international regulations concerning the appropriation of genetic resources, especially the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The state and the regulation of biodiversity: International biopolitics and the case of Mexico

In this article, the evolving forms of biodiversity politics are examined in the light of regulation theory and in the tradition of materialistic state theory (Gramsci, Poulantzas, etc.). Biodiversity politics is not so much oriented toward the conservation of biodiversity as towards the creation of a stable political–institutional framework for its commercialization. In this contested and contradictory process, the nation state plays a crucial role. After a few remarks on the theoretical assumptions, some basic elements of the international regulation system of genetic resources are presented. The main topics of international biodiversity politics beside conservation are: access to biodiversity and its genetic resources, benefit sharing from its use and intellectual property rights. A major problem of this system is the relationship between varying negotiation processes in different fora. Another closely connected problem is the contradictory relationship between different regulatory levels at different spatial scales (international, regional, local). These contradictions are analyzed for the case of Mexico. Central issues of Mexican biodiversity politics, and the different actors, forces and interests are outlined and discussed against our initial theoretical reflections. Bioprospecting projects in the south of Mexico have raised questions of legal and legitimate forms of access, which have generated growing concern and significant disputes within Mexico. Finally, some conclusions are drawn, binding together the theoretical with the empirical results of our study. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Sustainable development and ecological modernization – the limits to a hegemonic policy knowledge

The implementation problems of effective global environmental politics have essentially to do with the fact that approaches to and the knowledge about sustainability remain sectoralized. There is a gap between the dominant or even hegemonic forms of environmental policy knowledge which are embodied in the concept of sustainable development, on the one hand, and the socially dominant forms of environmental knowledge concerning the appropriation of nature on the other. Until now, the policy knowledge of sustainable development has not been able to question the main assumptions and to shape existing practices of dominant forms of the appropriation of nature. This is shown along five crucial dimensions; of particular importance is the existence of the so-called valorization paradigm. Theoretically, the article is informed by the theory of societal relationships with nature and it focuses on the role of knowledge in social reproduction, innovation, and transformation.

Contested Regimes in the International Political Economy: Global Regulation of Genetic Resources and the Internationalization of the State

This article analyses the complex interconnections between global environmental politics and trade politics against the background of biodiversity politics. Genetic resources are one of the most important inputs in post-Fordist economies: they are the raw materials of the new biotechnology companies. The system of global environmental governance that has emerged in recent years was established by a number of international institutions and organizations to serve as a political-institutional framework for emerging global markets. To date, this system has not proved to be an effective regulative framework. On the contrary, it is highly contradictory and contested. We develop theoretical and empirical arguments why and in which form the transforming national state remains crucial in global environmental politics. We call this transformation the internationalization of the state. It is argued that the emerging post-Fordist relationships with nature, as a highly contested process, are stabilized by a new kind of global political regulation and domination. This article is theoretically informed by the concept of societal relationships with nature, regulation and critical state theory as well as Gramscis concept of hegemony.

The Regulation of the Market and the Transformation of the Societal Relationships with Nature

The era of neo-liberal globalization appears to be drawing to a close. This is true not only at the national level, where social democratic governments are appearing on the scene with the claim to formulate alternative policies to the neo-liberals. At the international level, too, awareness is growing that “the market” on its own is increasingly fraught with crisis. As early as 1997, the World Bank came to the conclusion that an “effective state” was necessary, and the latest United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report regards comprehensive international coordination mechanisms to be essential.1 Even economic liberals such as George Soros, struck by the 1997 economic crises in the East and Southeast Asian countries, are demanding effective international political instruments to prevent such

Contradictions and crises of neoliberal–imperial globalization and the political opportunity structures for the Global Justice Movements

The Global Justice Movements emerged in the context of the contradictions and crisis of neoliberal–imperial globalization and the critique of it. They therefore express and provide a basis for the politicization of the negative consequences of post-Fordism and its crisis. This article examines the structural changes of the last 30 years from a Gramscian perspective of neoliberal globalization as a “passive revolution” and as the deepening of a “imperial mode of living” at a global scale. It is argued that examining structural changes helps us to understand why protest and social movements re-emerged around the year 2000. The article discusses some central features of the Global Justice Movements by focusing on the international Attac movement and the recent Occupy movement.

Contested Global Governance: Konkurrierende Formen und Inhalte globaler Regulierung

Unter dem Begriff Global Governance wird seit einigen Jahren das Phanomen diskutiert, dass grenzuberschreitende Aktivitaten zunehmend Mischformen der Steuerung unterliegen. Traditionell wurde internationale Politik als Regierungshandeln aufgefasst: durch zwischenstaatliche Vertrage, durch internationale Organisationen bzw. — in die Zukunft projiziert — durch eine Weltregierung. Heute wird fur einzelne Politikfelder festgestellt, dass an der Vorbereitung, der Vereinbarung und sogar der Umsetzung von transnationalen Regeln nicht nur Vertreter von Regierungen beteiligt sind, sondern auch private Akteure, seien sie Vertreter von Wirtschaftsunternehmen, von traditionellen Verbanden, von Nichtregierungsorganisationen, Medien und von so genannten Expertengemeinden. Zugleich wird beobachtet, dass neben expliziten vertraglichen bzw. satzungsmasigen Regelungen noch implizite Normen in die Steuerung einfliesen (vgl. CGG 1995, 2).

Internationalisierung des Staates

Dieser Artikel mochte einen Beitrag dazu leisten, die Transformation des Nationalstaates im Kontext der kapitalistischen Globalisierung und ihrer Krise besser zu verstehen. Es wird vorgeschlagen, mit dem Begriff des sich internationalisierenden Staates eine bislang prekare, aber sich entwickelnde politische Materialitat zu erfassen. Die konkreten Formen und Funktionen dieser Materialitat entwickeln sich auf unterschiedlichen Masstabsebenen (scales), die miteinander artikuliert sind. Ihre je spezifische Bedeutung variiert raumlich und zeitlich. Gesellschaftliche Trans- und staatliche Internationalisierung finden demnach nicht auserhalb der nationalstaatlich organisierten Gesellschaften statt, sondern sind mit diesen vermittelt.