Karen J. Alter (Northwestern University – Department of Political Science) has posted Comprehending Global Governance: International Regime Complexity v. Global Constitutionalism (Forthcoming in Global Constitutionalism) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This is a commentary on a special issue titled Beyond Fragmentation that unites political science conversations about regime complexity with legal/normative conversations about global constitutionalism through a focus on the generation and resolution of interface conflicts, defined as moments when overlapping elements or rule incompatibilities generate actual conflicts. The article explains the different objectives of the political science and legal/normative debates, arguing that this special issue is closer to the global constitutionalism perspective, which generally seeks legitimated order. By contrast, the regime complexity literature asks “how does the fact that global governance is spread across multiple institution in itself shape cooperation politics?” Investigating what it means to get “beyond fragmentation,” I suggest that the potential or actuality of rule conflicts is not necessarily a problem because conflicts are a normal and even salutary aspect of politics. If conflict is not the concern, then what should we be worrying about? Both perspectives, I argue, are amoral because they normalize and help justify promoting order while failing to address fundamental problems affecting people and the world. Even if scholars can fashion constitutional rules, institutions and sensibilities, the reality that politicians choose to govern the globe through often incoherent and intentionally incomplete regime complexes, more than the fact of conflict, is something we all should worry and complain more about.