Diss.--Copenhagen Business School, 2006.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Münster, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Zugl.: Halle (Saale), Univ., Diss., 2009

Master-Arbeit Univ. St. Gallen, 2006.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2002--Freiburg (Breisgau).

Global Governance im Diskurs (XVI) ● Sammelband der ‘dgksp-diskussionspapiere’ (2021–2023) mit Vorbemerkungen & Kommentaren zum Thema (I–XV):Global Governance im Diskurs (XVI) Sammelband der ‘dgksp-diskussionspapiere’ (2021–2023) Vorbemerkungen & Kommentare zum Thema (I-XV): ● I Global Governance im Diskurs – China und Russland positionieren sich, April 2021; ● II Zum Vertrag Russland – China (2021), August 2021; ● III „Harmonisierung der Interessen im Dialog“ versus „Regelbasierte Weltordnung“ und Bidens „Gipfel für Demokratie“ (2021), Dezember 2021; ● IV Russland und „der Westen“ im Ringen um das strategische Kräftegleichgewicht in der Ukraine und in Kasachstan (2022), Januar 2022; ● V Zum Gipfeltreffen Russland – China (Febr. 2022), Februar 2022; ● VI Russland im Ukraine-Konflikt (2022) um eine neue Weltordnung und die „Militärstrategie der Ukraine“ (März 2021), März 2022; ● VII Die militärische Lage im Ukraine-Konflikt vs. geostrategischer Informationskrieg (I), April 2022; ● VIII Strategische Konzepte für Donbass – Krim, Mai 2022; ● IX Die militärische Lage im Ukraine-Konflikt vs. geostrategischer Informationskrieg (II), Juni 2022; ● X Zur X. Moskauer Konferenz über Internationale Sicherheit, September2022; ● XI Eskalation im geostrategischen Ringen um Ukraine und Kasachstan (2022), November 2022; ● XII ‘Waldaj-Diskussionsklub’ Forum 2022, Dezember 2022; ● XIII Strategische Illusionen und Realität im Ukraine-Konflikt aus russischer Sicht (2022/23), Februar 2023; ● XIV Gipfeltreffen Russland–China (März 2023) – Schritt zur strategischen Partnerschaft, März 2023; ● XV Zur Konzeption der Außenpolitik der Russischen Föderation (März 2023), April 2023.

In the light of rising criticism and debate over the legitimacy and accountability of the central international economic institutions, the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, some developments can be seen in how these organizations are reacting to such criticism to improve their legitimacy. The study is comparative in character and aims to explain how these organizations are changing and why this change is occurring now as well as why there are differences in how the three organizations are developing. In taking a constructivist approach to the study of international organizations as actors, it is argued that an understanding of international organizations as bureaucracies with varying degrees of autonomy will contribute to a deeper understanding of their behaviour. The role, mission, and organization of the three organizations is discussed, followed by critique relating to representation and influence for share- and stakeholders, as well as problems of transparency and accountability. Relevant changes in the organizations include increased transparency and use of evaluations, and an increased contact with NGOs. It is argued that NGOs have been an important influencing factor on this development, but also important is the fact that central states have begun to argue for similar changes. These issues have now become important questions in the organizations. The differing roles and character of the organizations has meant that they have responded differently to criticism and have been more or less open to NGOs. Their bureaucratic culture is seen to influence how these issues are interpreted in the organizations. The World Bank has developed the most while the IMF and the WTO have been slower to respond to criticism and engage with NGOs. Significantly these changes arguably amount to a change in what legitimacy means for these organizations.

The interdependence and cooperation in the international arena have brought different benefits and made the world more interconnected. As the global system became more complex new types of state and non-state actors have emerged. Institutions have also been introduced with the specific objective to support in upholding mutual agreements and to make sure that the compliance between the several actors is followed. These institutions aim not only to uphold the stability of the system but also to provide support for power asymmetries in a competitive international system. Yet, the difficulty of holding powerful actors accountable is present in the global governance debates.  On one hand, Robert Keohane (2003) argues that democratic accountability is not possible due to the lack of a global public but suggests accountability mechanisms to understand who should hold actors to their accountability. On the other hand, Michael Goodhart (2011) offers an alternative view by arguing that the focus should be on norms, rather than agents, and these norms should carry a democratic standard.  This paper aims to investigate Repsol and more specifically, focus on the oil spill at the La Pampilla Refinery in Peru. The objective is to understand the accountability (or lack thereof) of the oil and gas companies for the harmful, environmental impact that was caused by the oil spill. The dynamics between the actors involved in this case will be studied and analyzed with the aim to expose any shortcomings of accountability in global governance. As a result, this case suggests that without firmer rules from the host country, the business industries are unlikely to make big amendments to their operations to prevent future oil spills. The result of this research adds to the IR discussion concerning the need to strengthen international norms and enable the agency of institutions.

No / Are we creating an ungovernable world? Can we be confident that our existing modes of global governance are sufficient, or adaptable enough, to meet the challenges of globalization? This new study powerfully tackles these key questions, delivering a provocative examination of the cognitive, practical and political limits on our ability to exercise systems of regulation and control on the same scale as the globalizing forces already shaping the human condition. Key issues addressed include: * an examination of the many meanings of 'global governance' * a contextualised view of global governance within the complex interaction of human and natural systems * an analysis of global governance at a fundamental and conceptual level * a case study of disseminative systems and global governance This book is essential reading for those with research interests in global politics, international relations and globalization.

Diplomatic summits serve as critical opportunities for national leaders to interact and mobilize the political will needed to address the world’s greatest challenges. Yet, summits have a checkered past with both successes and failures. Consequently, summit diplomacy has been equated with highly publicized photo opportunities for heads of government and grandiose communiqués with vague commitments that are never fully realized. Due to concerns about their effectiveness, legitimacy, and representation, summits are in a period of transition. These trends and challenges are especially evident in the G8, and scholars have recognized that the G8 summit has evolved to include more actors than the past. Although acknowledged as a potential site of networked governance, empirical evidence of such activity is limited. Research has yet to identify the actors involved, the structures of the relationships, and the impact of networked approaches on the preparatory process. This research specifically explores the question of how a global level network affects the priorities adopted by the G8. Using the 2010 G8 Summit as a case to examine the increased prevalence of networked activity, this study focuses on the Summit’s signature initiative: maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH). MNCH is a longstanding global problem and despite efforts such as the Millennium Development Goals, poor health outcomes persist in regions throughout the world. But to understand the selection and shaping of MNCH as the signature initiative of the 2010 G8 Summit, a mixed method approach is used. Social network analysis provides a detailed description of the actors involved in networked governance in summit diplomacy for the G8, and the structure of their relationships with one another. Qualitative data analysis of 63 in depth interviews of network members illuminates the rich and varied perspectives of the participants, which yields insight about why and how actors engage each other in order to achieve individual and collective goals. The study demonstrated that networked governance contributed to the political prioritization and substantive policy content of summit agenda items, determined during the 2010 G8 Summit preparatory process. In the case of MNCH, while the network was found to include of a diverse range of state and non-state actors, a core group of bureaucratic, political, and NGO actors played a prominent role in the selection and shaping of the MNCH initiative. Yet, the role, values and contributions of actors within the network were contested by network members during the preparatory process, demonstrating that shared goals and norms were not a dominant feature of the network. Moreover, the networked governance process has not entirely escaped the confines of geographical boundaries, given the most central actors in the network met face-to-face on a regular basis and were located in close geographical proximity. Actors from regions where MNCH problems persist most severely remained marginalized in the networked approach. While financial capital is an essential ingredient for the MNCH programs and interventions proposed for the G8 initiative, social capital was a neglected factor that is critical for building the capacity to generate new ideas and solutions. Actors within the 2010 G8 preparatory network for MNCH adopted various strategies to build and mobilize social capital. Specifically, a group of Canadian-based NGOs and an international organization formed a coalition in order to strategically advance the MNCH issue on the summit agenda. Conversely, government actors did not invest in developing and mobilizing social capital. Ultimately, informal strategies proved more valuable for breaking down hierarchical barriers and exerting influence than formal processes designed by government. Networked governance was a key factor that contributed to the political prioritization and shaping of the MNCH signature initiative for the 2010 G8 Summit and increased the inclusiveness of the summit’s preparatory process. However, while important, networked governance was not sufficient to fully explain the final outcomes – other factors such as domestic and global political contexts and the characteristics of the MNCH issue influenced the process and outcomes. Moreover, G8 summit diplomacy moved beyond being solely a state-based process in the case of MNCH, but the presence of a network of interconnected actors did not equate to better problem-solving. Although scholars and practitioners agree that integrated horizontal and vertical approaches are required for addressing the complexity of MNCH challenges, the networked approach failed to enable a move beyond conventional solutions to address the systemic nature of MNCH challenges. The findings of the study have important implications for policy and governance processes, where widespread cooperation among a network of state and non-state actors will be required for resolving intractable global problems.