Abstract
The concluding chapter underlines the convergence amongst the book’s papers regarding relevant elements of the current research on state and multilateral cooperation.
-
The periodization of the post–Cold War era from the decade of liberal peace to the one of liberal war and of economic and financial crisis, conditioning the effectiveness of cooperation
-
The emergence of a multiactor, multinetworks, multilevel, multidimensional, multilateral cooperation within the globalized world
-
The transformed role of states: of states sovereignty and of state’s democracy
-
The coming back of a pressing democratic agenda, both domestically and internationally, because of the negative impact of the globalization and of missing global governance
-
The EU as no longer a model of multilateral cooperation, but as a sophisticated institutionalized reference for a more diffuse, deeper, democratically founded multilateral cooperation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See the article by Hurrell (2005).
- 2.
J. Ikenberry book, Liberal Leviathan, Princeton 2011, looks too much focused on continuity of the US role. With right, it contends the superficial theses of an emergent post–American world (Zacharia 2010 and others); however, he neglects the break of US international credibility after Iraq, Afghanistan and the economic crisis of 2008–2011 (see Pfaff 2010).
- 3.
The September 2010 general assembly, denying to the EU high representative for CFSP the right to take the floor, will remain in the history of the EU as a milestone of the costs of the ambiguity of the EU self-understanding as a power in the making. It took 7 months to the EU diplomacy (until the UN decision of April 2012) to persuade the regional groupings like CARICOM, African Union and ASEAN that they should revise their negative vote and understand that the enhanced role of the EU was not against them but in favour of a growing weight of all regional entities within the UN.
- 4.
The European Securities and Market Authorities (120 staff, based in Paris), the European Banking Authorities (90 staff members, based in London) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (90 staff members, based in Frankfurt).
- 5.
- 6.
We thank our Asian, notably Chinese, and American (notably US) colleagues for bringing enlightening contributions to the Garnet workshops as the various non-European practices and theories of multilateralism. A special thanks to R. O. Keohane, J. Ikenberry, H. Milner, V. Aggarwal, Dai Bingran, Chen Zhimin and Song X.
- 7.
Simmons and De Jonge Oudraat (2001); this book offers a record of NGO’s successes in controlling implementation processes.
- 8.
We would like to mention, for example the papers provided by the research project ‘Mercury’ (7th FP, European commission): www.mercury-fp7.net
- 9.
Under this respect, we would like to mention the large and qualified work of analysis and data collecting provided by Luk Van Langenhove and P. De Lombarde (and generally by the UN-CRIS). Among other book and journal special issues, let us quote the Journal of European Integration, vol. 32, n.6,November 2010 ‘Rethinking EU studies: The Contribution of Comparative Regionalism’ edited by A. Warleigh-Lack and L. van Langenhove, including also articles by A. Sbragia, L. Fawcett, F. Söderbaum and others specialist.
- 10.
While Britain is ideal-typical of LMEs and Germany of CMEs, France is ideal-typical for SMEs, although in Europe, Italy and Spain also fit this last variety.
- 11.
Vivien Schmidt, F. Cerutti and S. Lucarelli have jointly edited a Garnet book on legitimacy issues in EU studies by Routledge 2011: Debating Political identity and Legitimacy in the European Union.
- 12.
‘Nineteenth and twentieth century concepts of democracy were based on the premise of a Westphalian type of sovereignty, for example of the coextension between the twin arenas of political problem causation and political sovereignty of decision making’.
- 13.
In Brussels, at the first session of the ‘Garnet PhD school’ and, again, at the Garnet Annual Conference of Warwick, in 2006; see Keohane (2006).
References
Armstrong, D., Lloyd, L., & Redmond, J. B. (2004). International organisation in world politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Bull, H (1977), The Anarchical Society, London: MacMillan.
Corcaud, J., & Heiskanen, V. (Eds.). (2001). The legitimacy of international organizations. Tokyo: United Nations University.
Habermas, J. (2004) Der gespaltene Westen, Frankfurt A. M Suhrkamp, Verlag.
Held, D. (2002). Law of states, law of peoples: Three models of sovereignty. Legal Theory, 8(1), 1–44.
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). London: Polity Press.
Hettne, B. et al. (2008). (Eds). Global Politics of Regionalism, London, Pluto.
Hurrell, A. (2005). Power, institutions and production of inequalities. In M. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power in global governance (pp. 33–57). Cambridge: CUP.
Jacques, M. (2009). When China Rules the World, London: Allen Lane.
Katzenstein, P. (2005) A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium, Itahaca: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (2006). The contingent legitimacy of multilateralism. Garnet papers, 1.
Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty. Organized hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Krasner, S. (Ed.). (2001). Problematic sovereignty. Constitutional rules and political responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leonard, M. (2005). Why Europe will run the 21st century? London: Fourth Estate.
Majone, G. (2011, April 6). The EU in comparative context: regional economic integration and political transaction costs. Social limits to economic integration. Paper presented at EUI Seminar, Florence.
Nye J. S. Jr. (2003). “Limits of American Power” in Political Science Quarterly, (Winter 2002/3).
Pfaff, R. (2010). The irony of manifest destiny, the tragedy of the American foreign policy. New York: Walker and Company.
Ruggie, J. (Ed.). (2008). Embedding global markets. An enduring challenge. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Schiavone, G. (2001). International organizations: A dictionary and a directory (5th ed.). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave.
Simmons, P. J., & De Jonge Oudraat, Ch (Eds.). (2001). Managing global issues. Lesson learned. Washington: Carnegie.
Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities and their networks. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–38.
Taylor P. (1995). International Organization in the Modern World, London: Pinter.
Van Langenhove, L. (2010). Comparative Regional Integration in Journal of European Integration. Vol. 32(6).
von Hayek, F. A. (1939). The economic conditions of interstate federalism. New Commonwealth Quarterly, 5, 131–149.
Zacharia, F. (2010). The Post-American World, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Telò, M. (2012). Conclusions: State and New Multilateralism Facing an Unprecedented Multipolar World. In: Telò, M. (eds) State, Globalization and Multilateralism. United Nations University Series on Regionalism, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2843-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2843-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2842-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2843-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)