SU: International Governing Agencies

Who should be the 'bystander' (who will benefit by stepping aside)?

If in the previous item the 'bystander' is the developing nations of the world, whose populations are essentially "backward," technologically and economically, who benefit from the re-distribution of wealth from the advanced nations to the developing nations (such as India and China and the majority of nations in Africa), the bystander here is the community of nations on the planet, promised enormous social uplift simply if each nation would become less concerned with national self-interest and more concerned with reaching consensus amid other (member) nations on rules and policies that promote the planetary weal.  It is assumed that the nations of the world to benefit should abide by the rules and policies upon which they have agreed altogether.

Put simply, rather than technically, each nation must submit to some particular international governing agency, charged with overseeing an international activity, such as the use of the seas for trade and commerce, and thereby yield a modicum of its sovereignty that could enforce its own power; and must yield essential control to some appropriate international governing agency.

Who are such governing agencies?

There's an ever increasing number.  Why?  Because they are so successful in enforcing the rules and regulations among the member nations, i.e., those who have joined the governing institution.

Alternatives to the governing agencies' format at the international level are 1) a powerful nation's simply by its own fiat laying down a set of its rules having the effect of
international law in some area of its interest that every other nation must adhere to lest there be armed conflict; or 2) a bilateral (sometimes multilateral) agreement with one or another nation whose interests are to be honored and protected under threat of hostile action as stated in some contractual document declaring the rules all countries must comply with.

1. The Notion of Governing Agencies      

International governing agencies represent a moral advance of mankind toward universal peace through the exercise of democratic principles.  Typically, an agency is composed of a governing board and member states who sustain it. The international governing agency is charged with maintaining the body of rules and laws voted upon and adopted by its organization's member states.  In some cases, the agency demands consensus of its members for adoption of a rule or regulation having the status of international law.  Importantly, by being a member, a nation commits itself, i.e., promises, to abide by the institution's rules; and should dispute arise involving its compliance, will submit to the procedures for legal redress and settlement available to the member states.  Worldwide aompliance is achieved through the governing agency's membership list.

2.  Agency Gradations of Governance at the international level

I think the idea of agency governance took hold in the Western World just after WWII with the founding of the United Nations, which to this day encourages its widespread use.

The lowest level of world governance to my mind are the international banks and bank-like institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.   These function primarily to influence political entities, i.e., governments, to conform to well-worn accounting principles that, when stringently applied in situ, should keep them solvent and capable of conducting commerce and trade with the 'advanced' nations of the world.

Next, a grade or two above, are the international conclaves of economically influential nations--the G8 (formerly, the G7) and the G20--where policies and political structures are created and shared among the member states.  The purpose of such conclaves is to stablize international economic conditions as to facilitate commercial transactions anywhere in the world.  Regionally, there are conclaves such as in Southeast Asia, the Association of  Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), that take up matters pertaining to trade in a geographical region.  In North America, the North American NAFTA heralded the establishment of rules and regulations to govern trade among its members--Canada, the US, and Mexico.  And, the International Whaling Commission has sought to control fishing extinction by setting forth numerical limits per species, enforced by local governments.

But the shining examples of the international agency concept are the WTO, and what has taken from it to fashion according to particular concerns in the energy field, the International Energy Agency.  The World Trade Organization (WTO) seeks to liberalize trade through its rules and regulations agreed to by its member states.  Fundamentally, the WTO insists upon trade without discrimination whether a country's trading partner is one country or another (MFN concept--most favored nation) or whether the product or service is native or foreign.  It basically aims at lowering trade barriers worldwide.  In trade matters contested, the WTO offers a dispute settlement system whereby, instead of fostering armed confrontation, disputants in legal setting plead their case before appelate bodies who decide the matter, including issuing penalties. WTO's enforcement mechanism, accomplished through its dispute settlement procedure (the Dispute Settlement Understanding--DSU)  is based on the principle of reciprocity--that no country lose its contractual benefit of trade entry into some other country by failing to live up to the responsibilities it has contractually assumed.

The International Energy Agency controls the many aspects of energy production, research, investment, shipping, and price stablization worldwide.  It sets standards and rules for the energy market exchange, similar to what the WTO does for market exchange in general.  To enforce its edicts, it has incentives and sanctions available.  Member states enter into contractual arrangements with one another--the supplier and the consumer; and the IEA monitors how well the member states contractually perform.  Then too, the less powerful nations always can hold over the prominent nations the threat of not enforcing intellectual property rights and copyrights, so highly regarded in the Western World.

It is assumed that each member state does better by abiding by the rules and regulations of the governing agency than it could achieve acting independently.  Particularly, this is the case when a developing nation enters into contract with an advanced nation.  Indeed, some analysts contend that the WTO, for one, defends the rights of the poorer countries in the trade arena dominated by the powerful nations, who are skilled at constructing and dealing with contracts involving both benefits and obligations of the contractual parties.

3.  Backing Off from International Agency Governance 

Despite the advantages of participating in a governance institution, sometimes nations feel they are not bound by its rules.  For example, should a nation's line of goods be produced by child labor, an importing nation would probably think itself not bound to keep MFN enforcement at its point of entry for this line of goods.

Another cause of non-adherence is some pre-existing deals with trading partners, such as in the banana trade, where Latin American countries had alliances with the United States that granted them special policy treatment long before WTO.

Yet another reason to "go it alone" is more timely.  US legislators have sought waivers of tariffs entirely for certain products from other countries to replace the earmark method of granting favors for their home-grown industries.  For example, Senator Nelson, D-Neb, has sponsored recent bills to reduce tariffs, to the tune of some $30 billion, on import products that help to protect agricultural crops grown in his state (according to the Omaha World-Herald).   
And, nations always can resort to subsidizing native industry to make their products more competitive to those abroad.  France has been accused over the years of granting favorable price supports to certain agricultural crops, for instance.

China, a newer member of the WTO, has been charged not infrequently by the US of keeping from its shores US competitive possible entries so as to favor native industry.  Furthermore, US companies have presented exhibits that seemingly demonstrate that Chinese manufacturing have copied US products so precisely as to leave imprints of having been initially owned by them, i.e., the US manufacturers.  It seems difficult to eye the difference between a Nike sneaker and one bearing the label of some Chinese manufacturer, has been the contention.  Accordingly, China has been frequently accused of patent rights infringement.

4.  Present-day US Congressional Debate over US signing of the Law of the Sea Treaty       

Though the signing began some thirty years ago, the US has not become party to this Treaty's signature.  The Treaty establishes a governing board and a dispute settlement procedure pertaining to governance of international waterways.

Instead, the US and Russia have bound themselves in a series of bilateral agreements having the effect of contracts so as to declare themselves sole owners of certain Artic regions possessing mineral and oil and gas reserves.  Members of Congress opposing US treaty signature contend that the bilateral arrangements assure that any other countries, who have not borne the burden of reserves' exploratory costs, ought not to have any way to claim benefit from mining the sea region, which both the US and Russia have declared theirs.  The Treaty, they say, could grant non-participatory members a share of what is taken from the sea bottom.  Apparently, these Congressmen do not contest what the present-day governing board has set forth in its rules and regulations pertaining to sea channels and international waterways, but they focus on what benefits ought not to accrue to member states, simply by being members.

Be it noted, that probably, at one time the US military would have been the dominant force in mapping out and structuring international waterways; and enforcing such edicts.

5.  The South China Sea Dispute Addressed at the ASEAN's meeting in July, 2012 in Cambodia
 The Obama administration raised with Beijing, both government's being in attendance at the 10-member ASEAN recent meeting, the dispute between China and its neighbors to the south, particularly, the Philippines, over certain territories in the South China Sea.  Defending the rights of native fishermen, disputants over China's claim to the region apparently would have this agency take a stand on the matter.  But, China protested that any determination against it would be void because China was not a member of the ASEAN governing group.  The matter is not of little concern since it is said that the waterway in dispute transports nearly one-third of international shipping, has manifold wealth in fish, and may contain rich reserves in minerals, oil and natural gas.           

Enforcement of the Rules and Regulations issued by Governing Agencies 

The present-day drive toward making international governing agencies I trace to the founding of the UN.  It has encouraged seeking alternative means to handle dispute among nations instead of the military battlefield.  But if not armed conflict, how can hostilities over land and people be handled?

With the founding of the WTO (and GATT before it) the mechanism of enforcement by appealing to a country's self-interest as a controlling force in seeking dispute reconciliation through "legal" means of enforcing contracts.  That is to say, by appealing to the principle of reciprocity nations are called upon to adhere to a governing body's rules.  By so doing, those who enter into trade and commerce will do so as equals--obtaining the same rights of entry into foreign markets as they provide to their trading partners.

Since the economic stakes are so high, nations have by and large submitted to a governing board's edicts.  But their are glaring exceptions that should ultimately have less impact as these agencies become more and more accepted and commonplace.  The impending results of their increased compliance should be stupendous for all nations of the world!

On C-Span July 24th, Congressman Ron Paul (Republican Primary Presidential Candidate) observed that for the New World Order to take effect, a program he denounces, there would be need for an international currency to replace the US dollar as worldwide reserve or normative denomination.  He guessed the IMF would probably become the international currency agency, which would issue and maintain a new international reserve.  China has argued for an international currency, independent of the US dollar.  I believe Paul is correct in his surmising an international currency would be needed for the New World Order Program to fully be implemented.  But I argue for the World Bank as an effective banking agency to issue  international currency independent of the international banks behind the US Federal Reserve and the US dollar.   

The Meta-Elements of International Governing Agencies 

1.  The Promise. As bystanders to agency governance, nations would yet pursue their own self-interests in an arena of nations worldwide who wish to enter into trade and commerce agreements so as to enhance the prospects of achieving their own goals in the pursuit of their own self-interests.

2.  The Acceptance.  Each international governing agency intends that its members are more likely to be successful in their pursuits as members than if they were to otherwise go on their own.  This necessitates that nations join the governing group and abide by its rules and regulations even as other nations as members do so.

3.  Areas of societal advancement.  Following the WTO lead, other international governing agencies should elicit consensus among its member nations as to what rules and regulations are to govern its area of concern and should establish a mechanism for handling disputes among its members.  This is a marked improvement over the usual policy a nation takes to overwhelm others who disagree with its foreign edicts by threatening to go to war or to engage in armed conflict with its disputants.

4.  Provisions for breakdown of the uplift system.  A nation on its own can always enter into bilateral agreements with another nation and can instigate policies which favor those nations that are favorable to it.

5.  Utopian vision pursued.  The vision here is a peaceful world in which disputes among nations are handled rationally and calmly, not calling for belligerence.