This chapter examines the making of a new sphere for clean energy governance, and takes an intertemporal perspective to identify three distinct stages in its politics. The first stage occurred through transnational network-based initiatives in the 1990s and early 2000s. The second period marked a shift in interest and consensus among powerful actors, resulting in the creation of a new international hierarchy dedicated to renewable energy by the end of 2010. The third stage marked the articulation of norms through the Clean Energy for All framework and the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goal 7 on Affordable and Clean Energy. These policy moves demarcated and institutionalized a new, layered, and evolving sphere of governance of networks, hierarchies, and hybrid arrangements. The analysis illuminates how networks linking different governance modalities capture the growing interdependence across issue areas and actors. It also provides evidence of tendencies of hybridization and layering of modes of governances, as networks often engage markets, rely on state agencies for resources, and create pathways to new intergovernmental or hybrid structures. The analysis shows that the pluralization of agency has shaped the networks and market-based mechanisms that gave rise to the sphere of clean energy governance.

This chapter looks at the thinking and practice of international relations and world order in the Islamic world. It opens by setting Islam's complex geopolitical context. In terms of thinking it covers the umma, the realms of al-Harb, al-Islam, and al-Ahd, jihad, the work of Ibn Khaldun, and Ijtihad. In terms of practice it covers the relationship between the umma and the Islamic state, the division of Islam into rival empires, and the rivalry between Sunnis and Shias within Islam. A key theme is the contradictions between thinking and practice.

In this chapter I will highlight and explain how, by their nature and practice, cultural transformation and political mobilization are already the means for sustainable social and political change for all societies relative to their own context. This does not mean that the nature and outcome of social and political change is the same in all societies. Rather, the point for this book is that the manner and process of transformation and mobilization for each society happens on its own terms in relation to its own history and context. Societies can neither be “tricked” nor “coerced” into accepting ethical or cultural change or submitting to whatever political mobilization seems to produce at the time. The outcome of these processes may not be to our liking or satisfaction, but we all have the tools and opportunity to join and attempt to influence the outcome of these processes. The emphasis on the human agency of people in their communities and through socially appropriate strategies reflects the interaction of ends and means in the protection of human rights by human beings in their communal context. The only way for sustainable defense of human rights is through cultural transformation of underlying values and political mobilization for the political will to defend these rights. This is also the only means to experience the responsibility of defending these rights by themselves in their own experience.

This chapter addresses five difficulties in our approach: how to handle the close link between the discipline of IR that we now have and the period of Western world dominance; does culture matter in international relations or is it all materialism?; how ‘Western’ is modern IR?; Can ancient and modern concepts and practices be equated?; Empires versus states, and how to differentiate inside and outside.

Increasing the scale of renewable integration is a key component of China’s decarbonization strategy. While the immediate challenge is to reduce renewable curtailment and increase its penetration, mitigating climate change in the long term will require a transition from an electricity system dominated by coal to one that consists primarily of renewables. This chapter summarizes the current governance structure and policies for renewable energy development and integration in China. It identifies two key considerations for China to transition towards large-scale penetration of renewables: geographic mismatch between renewable resources and demand centers, and concerns associated with integrating high penetration of intermittent renewable energy resources. Responding to these considerations, this chapter discusses four foundational elements that China needs to put in place in the near term to plan for the longer-term transition: flexible conventional generators, an appropriately large and more integrated transmission network, storage technology development, and demand-side flexibility/responsiveness.

Is humanitarianism a network, hierarchy, or market? This chapter argues that it combines principles of hierarchy and networks in the form of a club. It develops a sociologically inspired version of club governance to understand the rise and resilience of the Humanitarian Club. This sociological explanation illuminates how clubs, like many groups, are: distinguished by collective interests, identities, and values that create a common mentality and a sense of we-ness; and often generate a distinction from and feeling of superiority to outsiders. The chapter examines the structures of inequality and patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and traces the rise of the humanitarian elite and the creation of a Humanitarian Club that is produced and sustained by four kinds of capital and that create sharp distinctions between (Western) insiders who can deliver the goods and (Southern) outsiders who are viewed as inferior. Although the humanitarian field has attempted on countless occasions to create more inclusion and diversity, the chapter argues that these forms of capital guard the doors of the Club and maintain a humanitarian field in which Western aid organizations dominate Southern aid agencies.

This chapter argues that the multilateral trade regime that emerged in the post-war period was, and remains, hierarchical. Examining rule creation as the main process of trade governance, it contends that top-down processes have dominated trade rule-making. Yet, challenges have begun to chip away at the hierarchical nature of the regime. First, the chapter argues that regionalism is threatening to create a multilevel hierarchy and that to date, while regional arrangements have largely nested into the global trade regime, there is no guarantee this will continue. If one sees regionalism as a substitute for multilateralism, the multilateral trade regime is in growing danger. Second, while rule-making power remains exclusively with states, non-state actors have elbowed their way into the process due to the expansion of regionalism, the changing nature of global trading relationships, and the growing emphasis on non-trade issues as central to trade agreements. This has allowed networks of actors, including firms and nongovernmental organizations, to influence the rules of the trade regime, even though they have no formal “seat at the table”.

As illustrated by the case briefly discussed in Chapter 2 (see “The Supreme Hypocrisy of US Human Rights Policy”), the United States gets away with minimal ratification of human rights treaties while claiming global leadership of the entire field. The United States of America also imposes extensive reservations and other limitations on the scope of the few treaties it cares to ratify. Yet, the massive propaganda at all diplomatic, civil, cultural, and academic levels, as well as in official and political circles in the United States, makes it difficult for readers to recall that this apparent American compliance with domestic civil rights does not equal conformity with international human rights norms.

Amid the emergence of modern warfare at the end of the nineteenth century, states agreed on a model to regulate armed conflicts centered on a body of internationally agreed norms known as international humanitarian law (IHL). While states have always been the sole law makers and are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the laws of war, the International Committee of the Red Cross placed itself at the very center of the new model, as the champion of IHL, filling the gaps in terms of sponsoring new rules, promoting the law, and monitoring its application in war zones. This unique model of governance was composed of states and independent humanitarian actors and combines features of a hierarchy and a network. While the model saved countless numbers of lives, it has been perpetually challenged, criticized, and violated. The model stood the test of time nonetheless and survived the conflicts of the twentieth century. It is still enduring today. This chapter analyses the reasons for the longevity of the model, looking at its evolution over time in terms of key moments, efficacy and legitimacy, changing composition, and growing complexity.

Scholars in the twenty-first century increasingly describe a transformation in the architecture of global governance: from state-led international organizations to one of partnerships, networks, clubs, and layers populated by nongovernmental organizations, public–private partnerships, private organizations, corporations, and foundations. This introductory chapter tees up the core question for this edited volume: how do we understand these new architectures, and how do they reflect the changing relations between the actors involved in contemporary global governance? In order to better understand whether and how relations among the now myriad key actors have changed, it uses the lens of modes of governance, and focuses the analysis on three ideal-typical modes drawn from economic and sociological institutionalism. Hierarchical modes are characterized by top-down, centralized, organizational forms. Market modes are organized around non-hierarchical principles that regulate relatively independent actors. Network modes are characterized by relatively interdependent actors with a common purpose that voluntarily negotiate their rules through bargaining and persuasion. The chapter argues that the transformations in global governance are better understood not in terms of changes in actors but rather changes in relations among actors. It reviews the various forces behind the change, and emphasizes the necessity of examining both structures and preferences.

Rapid economic growth in China has predominantly relied on coal-fired electricity and coal use in industry, generating an increasing range of economic, environmental, and health costs. While many policies aim to restrict – and reverse – coal’s growth, the transition from coal to low-carbon alternatives is neither automatic nor just around the corner. Entrenched technological systems, political interests, and historical factors serve to maintain coal’s dominance. For China to prepare for deep decarbonization by mid-century, it must proactively convert coal from a barrier to a bridge – productively repurposing and valuing coal assets for flexible operation, addressing the difficult coal-based district heating infrastructure in the north – develop alternative fuels and feedstocks for industry and households, and mitigate the immense socioeconomic consequences of this transition on governments, firms, and workers.

Efforts to govern health globally have broadened considerably since the 1850s in terms of the subjects, goals, participants, and instruments of governance efforts. Originating in a thin, limited set of rules formally agreed by states, the contemporary global health system has evolved into a complex, dense, yet fragmented network involving governance processes both within and outside the health sector, engaging hundreds of state and non-state actors across all countries. Broader global trends shaped health governance, but key features of the current system also owe much to the particularities of specific events: the HIV/AIDS pandemic, West African Ebola crisis, and most recently Covid-19. Can contemporary networked governance processes can add up to a coherent, functional system for protecting global public health, or is more hierarchy needed? The World Health Organization is a central convenor, legitimator, adviser, and political arena in a fragmented system, but has not yet been empowered to assume the role of a directive coordinator. The extent to which major powers will construct a more hierarchical system is an open question in a world that is not yet post-Westphalian nor truly multipolar.