Governing Globalization: The answer of Regionalism

Governing Globalization: The answer of Regionalism

Communication given at the “Global J. Monnet Conference” (ECSA-World
Conference) «Europe’s challenges in a globalised world»

Prof. Dr. Carlos J. Moreiro Ganzález.

J. Monnet Chair in European Union Law (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid)




Summary:

1.- Introduction

2.- Uncertainty (or “Threat”) of Globalisation

3.- Multilateralism and Regionalism as tools for governing Globalisation.

4.- Conclusion

Introduction

Globalisation is a present time phenomenon, which acts as a catalyst of the existing

interdependence between the actors of international society

Globalisation “transnationalizes” problems of economic, financial and

environmental nature as well as those which are related to security and migration flows,

which put the capacity of the State to react in question

Nowadays, it seems that only regionalism, which already deals to these threats both,

through an institutionalised or a decentralised way, is the only means of cooperation,

capable of acting efficiently for the «governing» of Globalisation

TOMUSCHAT, C.: “International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New

Century”, RCADI, 281, 1999, pp. 9, ss., en p. 42.

FATOUROS, A. A.: “International Law in the Era of Global Integration”, en VVAA: Droit et justice.

Mélanges Valticos, París, 1999, pp. 131, ss.

ORREGO VICUÑA, F.: “Derecho Internacional y Sociedad Global”, VVAA: «Pacis Artes», Homenaje

al Prof. J. D. González Campos, I, Madrid, 2005, pp. 441, ss., en pp. 445-446.

I will in the following identify possible threats generated by Globalisation, and

distinguish them from those which aren’t threats generated by Globalisation.

Afterwards I will revise a few elements which are more relevant to the existing

multilateral frame which is in force, in order to respond to the mentioned threats,

including the politics which has been advocated by the European Union.

II. Uncertainty or threats of Globalisation

The dichotomy of the causes and effects which are generated by the phenomenon we are

dealing with become more and more evident. On one hand it therefore does not seem

reasonable to qualify as a “relevant threat” to the impact in the service sector and, in

certain industrial sectors of “dislocalisation”

Certainly at the present time more jobs are created and destroyed within only several

months, than by “dislocalization” within one year. Indeed dislocalization may vary

depending on the economic sector; thus, set against services that require an open

interaction (i. e. the retail sailing and the sanitary attention), the works of data

processing programming and information technology can be carried out from a long

distance. Nevertheless, the latter represent a minimum percentage of the total

employment of the developed countries

On the other hand, the notion of security becomes more complex through globalization

so that we are supporting a growing weakness of the State in assuring its main mission

of protecting its population and territorial environment

Recently, three international authorities of a different area have coincided in identifying

the most serious threats to the security of the States.

In its sixtieth period of sessions, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved,

by means of Resolution, the Final Document of the World Summit 2005

. The third

Part of this resolution (Paragraphs 69-118) omitted certain threats that "do not

Fuente, Farell, D. (dir.): Report on the evolution of employment from McKinsey Global Institute, New

York, Dic. 2005.

KOLODZIEJ, E. A.: Security and International Relations, Cambridge, 2005, espec. Cap. 3 (Parte I),

Cap. 4 (Parte II) y Cap. 8 (Parte III).

A/RES/60/1; New York, distribut. 24.10.2005.

distinguish national borders (and) are interrelated". Set against them "isolated actions

are never the best way for a State to protect itself, (but rather) by means of an efficient

collective security system" (Paragraph 72).

Those threats had already been indicated previously in the regional framework of the

OSCE in 2003. Thus, the eleventh meeting of the Cabinet of the OSCE (Maastricht, 1-

2/12/2003), acknowledged the polysemic and evolutionary character of these threats by

referring to migratory flows, transnational crime, or environmental degradation

At the same time, the International Forum of the G-8, identify the instability of the oil

market and calls for the creation of an energetic security system that keeps the interests

of the entire International Community in mind

III. Multilateralism and Regionalism as tools for governing Globalisation.

The States should respond to the imperative dictations of globalization by means

of multilateral coordination, whose nature may vary according to the type of threat

which is to be prevented or eradicated

The signing of the Final Act of the Conference on the Security and the Cooperation in

Europe (Helsinki, 1.8.1975) constituted a first step in this direction. Document I

number 2 of this Act refers to the measures destined to promote confidence and to

reinforce certain aspects of security and disarmament. The central idea is "the

interrelation among the security of each participating State, the security in Europe in its

totality, and the relation that exists with other areas of world security". Hence the

Charter of Paris for a New Europe 21.11.1990 and the Statement of the Summit of

Budapest 6.12.1994, confirm the postulate that the security of each participating State is

linked to that of all the others.

The European Union shares from the precautions that configure answers to the

challenges of the globalization.

Doc. OSCE-MC. DOC/1/03 de 2.12.2003, Párrafos 18, 36-37 y 42.

Objetivos de la Presidencia rusa para la Cumbre de San Petersburgo de Julio de 2006.

VERHOEVEN, J.: “Souverineté et mondialisation: Libres propos”, VVAA: La mondialisation du droit,

París, 2000, pp. 53, ss.

In one of its most relevant pronouncements on the topic, the European Commission

prepared a “Communication on the European values in a Globalized World”

, directed

at the Informal Meeting of Heads of State and of Government of the EU held in

Hampton Court (United Kingdom, 27.10.2005).

It can be underlined, similarly, the Communication from the Commission to the

Informal Meeting of the European Council in Lahti (Finland)

, which was held recently

(20.10.2006). This Meeting raised immigration and the supply of energy as the primary

concern for security in Europe, even before the threat of terrorism.

Is the Union prepared to respond to the three risks in question?. The most

immediate answer, considering the current normative framework, is that it is not.

Considering the politics of the EU with respect to these three threats, it becomes

evident that these are inefficient because of precariety.

Firstly the actions on migration flows lack at least three essential elements, in

order to produce satisfactory results: a) the token value of the creation and development

of an Agency for External Borders (FRONTEX)

cannot hide its lack of financial and

material means to cope with the objectives that it has been assigned. FRONTEX

designs strategies and posesses the necessary element of human coordination, but once

faced with implementation, it turns out to be unfeasible due to its mentioned lack of

means. Imagine that an army could not only not win a war, but a mere battle, although

it has the best Commander in Chief but without arms and soldiers to create a

Company?; b) also lack of a political will to assign the EU with competences in order to

create an authentic Immigration Policy. The almost insurmountable division, between

the Member States on this subject is the sand that prevents the rotation of the

institutional gear of the EU; c) in the meantime, the Twenty-five should develope

strategies which unite the matters of both illegal- and legal immigration and the social

integration of immigrants. Accordingly agreements of alliance between the Countries

COM (2005) 525 f., Brussels, 20.10.2005, espec. Paragr. 3.2 y 4.

“External energy relations from principles to action”, COM (2006) 590f, Brussels, 12.10.2006.

Council Regulation (EC) nº 2007/2004 from 26.10.2004 (O. J. nº L 349, 25.11.2004).

of origin and traffic should be made, since as is known, the migratory pressure arise

from underdevelopment and will not be able to be eliminated through the construction

of walls and / or frontier fences.

Secondly the lack of an integrated or sole European energy market, intensifies

the risk of dependence on outside supplies that affect all member States of the EU on a

greater or smaller scale. Paradoxically all successful actions with respect to establishing

an organization which is integrated into the energy market are at present only projected

toward the southeast of Europe, and ally States that do not belong to the EU yet

Also in this area a combination of adequate domestic and external policies is

necessary. Those, they will be able to be prompted by the European Council under the

German Presidency in the spring of 2007 based upon the “European Strategy for an

effective, competitive, and sustainable energy", presented by the Commission last

March

In the meantime, is possible to unfold a specific and coherent foreign policy of

the Union in the area of energy, which among other objectives, counteract the tactics of

third party energy suppliers that threaten the collective security of the EU. The

Commission and the GS/HR (Secretary General of the Council and High Representative

of the CFSP) addressed a document to the European Council in Brussels on the 15-

16.6.2006, to that end.

Finally, the fight against terrorist threats, still assuming the uncertainties which

derive from its unforeseeable character and from its diverse nature, seems to have

reached a level of satisfactory efficiency. Success which is in the fact based upon an

existing coordination between the responsible Organs

, advantageous

intergovernmental coordination within the Third Pillar

, and political endorsement of

all the Institutions of the EU in the fight against terrorism.

Council Decision from 29.5.2006 on the celebration by the EC of the Treaty on the Energy

Community. (O. J. nº L 198, 20.7.2006).

COM (2006) 105 final.

I. E. Council Decision 2003/48/JAI from 19.12.2002.

I. E. Framework Decision of the Council 2002/475/JAI from 23.6.2002 (OJ nº L 164, 22.6.2002).

IV. Conclusions

It is evident that the slow coming into effect of the European Constitutional

Treaty its being a handicap for the provision of tools to the EU on governing

globalization.

Perhaps it is not idle to remember that this International instrument does not attribute

new competences to the EU, but redefines a good part of the objectives and politics

which it is now responsible for at present already.

The Political Statements, sporadic impulses of the Institutions, and

improvisation with respect to means of emergency are hardly useful, but require the

adjustments in order to leave the path of migration flows and energy inefficiency. The

Union will be more secure with reasonable, foreseeable, and coherent action borne by

the solidity of Section 2 of Chapter IV of the Third Part of the Constitutional Treaty

(Politics on controls of the borders, asylum and immigration), or Section 10, Chapter

III, Part III of this Treaty (Energy). The same can be confirmed of articles III-271 and

III-329 (Fight against terrorism).

Outside of the framework of the Constitutional Treaty it will be difficult to reach

better results. To speak in simple terms, Europe cannot appease the brave sea of

globalization based on throwing spoons of water in a bucket of greater or smaller size.