Brazil and global governance: the case of climate change
| Autor | Eduardo Viola |
| Cargo | Professor do Departamento de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de Brasília/BR |
| Páginas | 2-24 |
BRAZIL AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE:
THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
EDUARDO VIOLA* & HÉCTOR LEIS**
ABSTRACT
This paper hás four parts. In the first one we discuss the concept of global governance and the
differentation of the world society in relation to the problems of global governance at the
beginning of the 21st century: liberals, nationalists, cosmopolitans and neo-feudals. In the
second part we discuss the problematic of climate change, one of the most important
questions of global governance. In the third part we discuss the Brazilian standing in relation
to most of the issues of global governance and show the transition from nationalism to
liberalism. In the fourth part we analyze the Brazilian standing in the formation of the climate
change regime.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Global Governance, Climate Change, Brazilian Internationl Relations,
Cosmopolitans.
Nota sobre os autores
* Professor do Departamento de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de Brasília/BR.
** Professor do Departamento de Sociologia e Ciências Políticas da Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina/BR
3
1- GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND THE DIFFERENTIATION OF SOCIETY
In the last two decades all the nation-states have increasingly become part of a global
world. Obviously, they are not parts of a whole in the same way and/or importance, but all of
them depend (and contribute) more and more on the global transformations and flows of the
world. From a formal point of view we are still living in an international society of states, but
from a real perspective a significant part of the world is going deeper and deeper in a global
society with a interdependent and interconnected network of power, capital, people, goods,
technology, communications, beliefs, environment, etc. Actually the contemporary world is
formed by three world: the OECD world formed for countries with well established market
economies and democratic regimes; the transitional world formed by countries with
heterogeneous status that are in some kind of transition toward the market economy and/or
democracy, from Brazil or Poland that are very close to the first world to Saudi Arabia and
China (where there is some market economy but no democracy) to Russia (where there is
some democracy and some market economy); and, the marginal world, where there is no
transition toward markets or democracy (Africa, Middle East, Central Asia) and which neo-
feudals forces prevail. In this new context is essential to clarify the emergent concepts of
global politics and global governance.
The common sense associate globalization with economy. It seems more difficult to
grasp the transformations of politics in a global world. Today politics has all kind of
ramifications, inside and outside the national frontiers, the global politics has increased its
sites and actors beyond the states, governments and political parties. The political actions
come to society through complex networks of actors and decision-making processes that
include along the "full time" political actors a new group of very effective "partial time"
political actors coming from the civil society and the economy. In other words, politics today
is something more (or less) than politics yesterday. This is not an effect of globalization; this
is globalization in itself. Not only global political, but also global economy implies an
intensification of interactions among actors, processes and functions of economy, politics and
civil society, in all directions.
But globalization, like Janus, has two faces. In one sense, it means the breakdown of
barriers among different sectors and elements of the world. The globalizing processes today
spread readily across national boundaries and are not prevented by any cultural or territorial
frontiers. Also the traditional political hierarchy among actors has been affected. A global
political action can be initiated from above or below with equivalent repercussions. A
transnational corporation, a big state, a local activist group or even an individual alone can
push people, capital, governments and institutions in different parts of the world. Obviously,
any action does not imply the same effects in a worldwide scale. Globalization means that any
action could reach a global effect, but not that always any action has a global effect.
Globalization is simultaneously a real and a potential process.
This real and potential power of any action is justified by the complex characteristics
of globalization. By the same reason, along with the trend towards integration, globalization
presents another opposite trend towards fragmentation and/or inhibition of actors, processes
and functions. Rosenau (1997) proposed the concept “fragmigration” to suggest this (another)
simultaneity between integrating and fragmenting trend and processes of the global world
(many times we find cooperation and conflict among the same actors). In fact, in the global
order, order and disorder come together. In part because the world is not any more exclusively
centered in the states (and their governments). In the past legal authorities were characterized
by the power and regulation all over the social life on a territory, but in the global world there
are authorities, with and without territory, with power on a specific (economical,
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO