Global civics and hammarskjöld

The broad manifestations of our epic global interdependence are increasingly better appreciated. Financial engineering in the United States can determine economic growth in every part of the world; carbon dioxide emissions from China can affect crop yields and livelihoods in the Maldives, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, and beyond; an epidemic in Viet Nam or Mexico can constrain public life in the United States; and a nuclear leak in Japan can have a bearing on public health all around the world. The inherent difficulties of devising and implementing solutions to global problems through nationstates have become increasingly apparent. Traditionally, two broad models have been used to deal with this predicament. The first relies on a wide range of creative ad hoc alliances and solutions, and has admittedly produced much to celebrate.1 The second model is based on a more systematic reliance on rule of international law, and also on what is known as the global public goods paradigm. Proponents of this latter concept point first and foremost to the existence of certain vital global public goods, with climate being the most obvious example. The global public goods paradigm also implies some commensurability in the way that people respond to various global collective action challenges. Some tend to feel suffocated by this expectation of commensurability among various global governance tracks, while others find it reassuring and liberating.