Programmes

Global Citizenship and Education

The Concept

The concept of global citizenship lies at the heart of global studies.  The idea of individual humans perceiving reality around them from the vantage-point of a global worldview, and acting in the interests of the planet and humanity as a single group, is fundamental to the strengthening of global law and governance.

As noted in the introductory section, global citizenship secures global governance and global law, which together provide a foundation of legitimacy for insightful solutions to the challenges of global security and sustainability.  In essence, global citizenship secures governance and law, and then acts as a filter for assessing policies in security and sustainability through the aspiration of governments and individuals to be ‘responsible global citizens’.

Global citizenship is not a new concept; indeed, the idea of universalism was one of the central characteristics of ancient and classical civilizations.  Over the past four centuries, however, the Westphalian era of the nation-state has introduced and strengthened the concept of national citizenship to one of political dominance.  Yet the notion of global citizenship is becoming articulated by a new generation of leaders, as evidenced by the speeches of young national leaders of Austria, Canada, France and New Zealand (see the address by the NZ Prime Minister in the link):

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/new-zealand-national-statement-united-nations-general-assembly

Definition

A definition and analysis of the concept of ‘global citizenship’ may be found in a chapter on the subject, authored by the Centre’s Director, in a book entitled For the Sake of Present and Future Generations.  See: Kennedy Graham, ‘Global Citizenship’ (2015) Global Citizenship)

Global Citizenship Education

Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is at the cutting edge of 21st century education.  The concepts that shape global citizenship are global interdependence and cultural diversity – global citizens respect human rights, cultural diversity, peace and the environment. Equipped with the values of rights, respect, and responsibility, students gain knowledge and understanding of global concerns while developing the competence, critical thinking, and cooperation skills to meet the challenges of a complex world. GCED is about equipping young people with the knowledge, skills and values to participate as active citizens.

Authoritative studies on the subject are the following:

  • Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies, E.F. Isin & P. Nyers Eds. (Routledge; London; 2014);
  • Handbook of Global Citizenship and Education, Ian Davies et al, Eds. (Palgrave, London; 2018)
  • The University of Birmingham, Global Citizenship Education: The Needs of Teachers and Learners education_for_global_citizenship_a_guide_for_schools
  • Oxfam, Education for Global Citizenship: A Guide for Schools global_citizenship_report
  1. The Centre’s Work

The Centre has been active from its early days in promoting interest in global citizenship among NZ students at both secondary and tertiary levels.

GCED supports the aspirations of the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) as well as international obligations and trends, in particular, the Sustainable Development Goals (4.7).  GCED makes connections between the concept of global citizenship and the bicultural foundation of New Zealand’s society by partnership sharing the guardianship of the earth.  The Centre promotes GCED through its own global citizenship programme and in collaboration with universities and secondary schools.

Student conferences

2013: 1st student conference

In August 2013, the Centre hosted its first Global Citizenship conference for students, at Auckland Girls’ Grammar school. Around 30 senior secondary students from around New Zealand met to explore questions and concepts around sovereignty and governance, the global commons, and global public goods. Eight students were selected to attend a weekend retreat at the Centre’s base on Waiheke Island to further develop their ideas and a draft a report on what it means for a young person to be a global citizen in the 21st century.

2016

With project funding from the NZ National Commission for UNESCO, the Centre expanded its Global Citizenship Education project in 2016.

2nd student conference

In May 2016, a second student conference on global citizenship was held in Wellington, co-hosted by the NZCGS and the NZ National Commission for UNESCO. It was attended by 100 students from around New Zealand.

The conference was launched with a cross party reception at Parliament House, where the 100 participants were welcomed by NZCGS board members, members of parliament and the chair of the New Zealand National Commission for UNESCO. NZCGS Director and Member of Parliament, Dr Kennedy Graham welcomed and addressed the group. Words of welcome and encouragement followed from the NZ National Commission for UNESCO Chair, Ian McKinnon; NZCGS Chair, Dr Adrian Macey, and Members of Parliament, Mark Mitchell and Su’a Williams. This occasion provided and opportunity for the students to meet each other and their mentors. The scene was set for a full day ahead of presentations and workshops that were wide-ranging on issues around global governance and common goods. The day was facilitated and coordinated by Libby Giles, with the assistance of Isabella Lenihan-Ikin.

The conference day itself was divided into two parts, a morning of presentations at the Royal Society of New Zealand and an afternoon of mentored student workshops at Mātauranga House. Presentations were given by NZCGS board members, Dr Duncan Currie, Associate Professor Graham Hassall, Professor Chris Gallavin, Associate Professor Marjan van den Belt and two MPs (Jacinda Ardern and Tracey Martin). The day was facilitated by Libby Giles and the presentations covered life as a global citizen, global governance and common goods, sustainability, a Pacific perspective, and international law.

For the second part of the day, the group was welcomed to Mātauranga House by Emily Fabling, Director of the Ministry of Education’s International Division. The afternoon opened and closed with plenary sessions with the bulk of the time spent in workshops facilitated by a team of students from Victoria University led by Isabella Lenihan-Ikin.

3rd student conference

In July ’16, a third event was held, entitled Creative Activism and Global Citizenship Conference. Students linked up to a showcase of artists around the world, and created their own work in the areas of media studies, music, creative writing and drama.

This conference, held in association with Massey University, entitled Create1World, hosted around 200 students, providing an opportunity to explore way to engage as global citizens through the arts. A panel of global performers and activists were beamed in livestream to share in the event and to encourage the students in their endeavours. Participant finalists presented their performances on-site – the competition categories were performance, song writing, media studies and creative writing. Expert facilitated group discussions helped to clarify some of the concepts around global citizenship and galvanise the students into action. Create1World was developed and led by Elpeth Tilley, Associate Professor of English (Expressive Arts) at Massey University. The events of the day were facilitated by Professor Chris Gallavin, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor (Humanities and Social Sciences) Massey University, and NZCGS Board member.

A group selected from the two conferences met at a retreat, bringing together a range of skills and knowledge. The retreat was held at the Centre, based on Waiheke Island where they were briefed and guided by the NZCGS Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, board members and advisers, Rod Oram, Prue Taylor and Libby Giles. Largely, the students were left to their own devices in the board room where they identified their common values, understanding and commitment. This culminated in the drafting of a statement detailing the imperative to take action to address the challenges faced by the world and the ways in which education for global citizenship is the way forward.

The model of student conferencing developed by the NZ Centre for Global Studies and Massey University, provides a unique experience for school students to engage in depth with global issues and to gain an understanding of what it is to be a global citizen. The conferences have attracted a great deal of interest with students and from other organisations in New Zealand and internationally.

Multimedia

Student Global Citizenship Report 2016 NZCGS Student Global Citizenship Report
Student Global Citizenship Report 2014 Global Citizenship Report

Articles from the NZ Centre for Global Studies:
Global Citizenship Responsibility
Global Citizenship and Responsibility Summary2

Media Coverage:
Education Gazette Article: An Interdependent Whole
UNESCO NZ Article: Supporting Global Citizenship Education in New Zealand
Radio New Zealand story on #Create1 World Conference.

Coordinator: Prof. Chris Gallavin

 

 

 

Global Governance

The Concept

The concept of global governance is contested in a number of areas: its meaning, its prescriptive merit, and its political viability.  It does not mean ‘world government’ in a federalist sense, but rather a global framework of coordination among international organizations, national governments, civil society and the private sector, with the United Nations playing a central role.

An exploration of the idea of global governance, and in particular global constitutionalism, can be found in a range of modern authoritative studies, most particularly:

  • Global Governance: Ethics and economics of the world order, M. Desai & P. Redfern, Eds. (Pinter, NY; 1995)
  • On Humane Governance: Towards a new global politics, R. Falk (Penn State UP, University Park; 1995)
  • NGOs, the UN, and Global Governance, T. Weiss & L. Gordenker (Lynne Rienner, Boulder; 1996)
  • Approaches to Global Governance Theory, M. Hewson & T. Sinclair, Eds. (SUNY Press, NY; 1999)
  • Religion and Humane Global Governance, R. Falk (St Martins Press, NY; 2000)
  • Global Governance and the Quest for Justice, R. Brownsword, Ed. (Hart Publ., Oxford; 2004)
  • The Global Governance Reader, R. Wilkinson Ed., (Routledge, London; 2005)
  • Governing the World: The History of an Idea, M. Mazower (Penguin, NY; 2012)

A useful series is the Routledge ‘Global Institutions’ series (New York; and Oxford, UK), notably:

  • A Crisis of Global Institutions? E. Newman (2007).
  • Global Think-tanks, Policy Networks, and Governance, J. McGann (2010);
  • Non-governmental Organizations in World Politics, The construction of global governance, P. Willetts (2010);

Two journals directly related to the subject are:

  • Global Governance (a quarterly journal published since 1995)
  • Global Constitutionalism (three issues annually since 2012)
Global Governance, the UN and National Sovereignty

The relationship between global governance and the principle of national sovereignty is perhaps the single most critical, and contentious, issue of the modern era.  The UN Charter opens in the name of ‘We the Peoples of the United Nations’ yet its first principle is the sovereign equality of its 193 member states which act on their behalf. This is explored in the following books:

  • Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the state and civil society, A. Paolini et al, Eds. (St Martins Press, NY; 1998)
  • The Legitimacy of International Organizations, J-M. Coicaud & V. Heiskanen, Eds. (UNU Press, Tokyo; 2001)
  • International Organizations and their Exercise of Sovereign Powers, D. Sarooshi (OUP, New York; 2005)
  • Global Governance and the UN: An unfinished journey, T. Weiss & R. Thakur (Indiana UP, Bloomington; 2010)

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance submitted a report to the UN Secretary-General on the subject. Its observation on the relationship is perhaps the most insightful made to date:

“Sovereignty has been the cornerstone of the inter-state system. In an increasingly interdependent world, however, the notions of territoriality, independence, and non-intervention have lost some of their meaning. In certain areas, sovereignty must be exercised collectively, particularly in relation to the global commons”.  Our Global Neighbourhood, Commission on Global Governance (OUP, Oxford; 1995), p. 337

The idea of collective sovereignty for the global commons is pursued further in the Global Sustainability Programme section.

The UN Secretary-General

The role of the UN Secretary-General has been a major focus in studies on global governance.  Among the most authoritative studies of this subject, there are the following:

  •  Secretary or General? The UN Secretary-General in world politics, S. Chesterman, Ed. (CUP, Cambridge; 2007)
  • The UN Secretary-General and Secretariat, L. Gordenker (Routledge Global Institutions series; 2010)

The Responsibility to Protect

Probably the most important issue that highlights the relationship between global governance and national sovereignty concerns the right, and/or the responsibility, of the UN to intervene in an internal issue of a member state on grounds of civilian protection.

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty submitted its seminal report, The Responsibility to Protect. The Report effectively reformulated the meaning of state sovereignty for the modern age, contending that sovereignty entails not only state rights but state responsibility, especially the protection of its own citizens from major violations of human rights.  If a state proves unable or unwilling to protect its own citizens in this respect, the responsibility to do so falls, in the second instance, to the international community, including the right to intervene with force under a UN Security Council mandate.

The R2P doctrine has been endorsed by the UN General Assembly (World Summit Outcome Document, A/RES/60/1, Sept. 2005), and appears in certain Security Council decisions and resolutions.

The Centre’s International Advisory Panel member, Prof Ramesh Thakur, who was a member and principal author of the 2001 report, has written several books on the topic;

  • The Responsibility to Protect: Norms, laws and the use of force in international politics, Thakur (Routledge, London & NY; 2010)
  • Reviewing the Responsibility to Protect: Origins, implementation and controversies, R. Thakur (Routledge, London; 2018)

The idea of responsibility to protect is explored further in the Global Security Programme section.

Multi-level jurisdiction

Many experts maintain that the ‘dilemma’ of global governance is rendered less challenging if the conceptual framework is re-focused on the more legal, and less political, concept of ‘multi-level jurisdiction’: the idea that legitimate governance is ensured so long as the scale of the institutional response is commensurate with the scale of the issue confronted.  This idea rests on, among other concepts, the principle of subsidiarity. Studies on this subject include the following:

  • Multi-level governance and European integration. G. Marks & L. Hooghe (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD: 2001)
  • Unravelling the Central State, but How? Types of multi-level governance, Marks & L. Hooghe, American Pol. Sci. Rev. 97, no. 2 (2003), pp. 233–43.
  • Multi-level governance, Bache & M. Flinders, eds. (OUP, Oxford; 2004)

Globalization

Globalization is entirely different from the concept of ‘global governance’, but it does raise issues of governance of analysis and prescription. The effect of economic globalization on national sovereignty is also a major issue of debate.  A useful reference, for New Zealand, is the following:

  • Sovereignty under Siege? Globalization and New Zealand, Patman & C. Rudd, Eds. (Ashgate, Aldershot, UK & Burlington, US; 2005)

World Order

Closely related to ‘global governance’ is the concept of ‘world order’.  Two authoritative academic studies on this subject are:

  • Eunomia: New order for a new world, P. Allott (OUP, Oxford; 1990)
  • A New World Order, A-M Slaughter (Princeton UP, NJ; 2004)

The concepts of global governance and world order are separate and distinct from the broader notion of ‘world government’ (or ‘world federalism’).   The idea of world federalism dates back millennia in a theoretical sense, and several centuries in a structural sense (usually taken to commence with Kant’s Perpetual Peace, 1795).  A spate of interest and activity among theoreticians and civil society occurred in the 1920s and ‘40s, coincident with official planning for the League of Nations and the UN.  Modern studies include the following:

  • World Federation? A critical analysis of federal world government, R. Glossop (McFarland, Jefferson, NC; 1993)
  • The Idea of World Government: From ancient times to the 21st century, J. Yunker (2011);

Most, almost all, of the studies emerge from, and reflect, a Western liberal worldview.  Few studies can be found emerging from China, Russia, the Arab world or Africa.

Global governance and ‘disruptive technology’

Many experts in both governmental and corporate worlds are warning that, in addition to the challenges confronting global security and global sustainability, the phenomenon of ‘disruptive technology’ is a third existential risk facing humanity in the 21st c. (see the Introductory section on Global Studies).  As Harari notes: The revolutions in information technology and biotechnology are still in their infancy … the technological revolutions will gather momentum in the next few decades, and will confront humankind with the hardest trials we have ever encountered.” 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Y. Harari (Jonathan cape, London; 2018), p. 17.  

The ability of the United Nations and its member states to handle this with due foresight, is very much an open question. A useful study on this issue is:

  •  Internet Governance: The new frontier of global institutions, J. Mathiason, Routledge Global Institutions series (2009);

All UN bodies are working to ensure that AI is properly handled.  The two principal bodies have recently published studies on the subject:

  • The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has published a wide-ranging study on the subject, namely: United Nations Activities on Artificial intelligence (ITU, Geneva; 2018); and
  • The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has recently published a study on the subject as part of its WIPO Technology Trends series. As the study observes: “… AI remains a challenging subject for many people: ….  The technology is complex and wide-ranging, potentially affecting many different areas of human activity.  And AI raises complex questions about privacy, trust and autonomy that are difficult to grapple with, and this has led to fears about humans themselves being under threat.” Artificial Intelligence (WIPO, Geneva; 2019)
The Centre’s Work

The Centre has been active in the area of global governance.  It adopts no policy positions on the question of global governance (or global citizenship or law), other than encouraging rigorous research and reasoned debate on the subject; each Board member is entitled to advance personal judgement and opinion in their writing and presentations.

Several of the Centre’s annual lectures have focused on this subject (see the Annual Lectures and Research sections for more detail):

  • In March 2015, Prof. Ramesh Thakur (ANU, Canberra; former UN University vice-rector and former UN Assistant-Secretary-General) gave the Centre’s 2nd Annual Waiheke Lecture on the issue of UN Security Council Reform.
  • In May 2016, former Prime Minister and Victoria law professor, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, gave the 3rd Annual Waiheke Lecture on the subject ‘Global Society and the Challenges of Governance’.

Global Governance: The three branches of government

Studies of global governance raise the question of the role of the legislative branch of governance in addition to the executive and judiciary.

At present, the UN and Bretton Woods systems focus exclusively on the executive and judiciary.  The legislative branch of governance is to be found separately in the form of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Geneva.  A movement exists for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, and this has attracted some academic focus.

Board chairman, Ass Prof Graham Hassall, has written on this in the 2017 Policy Quarterly:

  • Reviewing Principles of Governance: branches of government at the global level, G. Hassall, Policy Quarterly 13 (1), Feb. 2017, pp. 15-19

 

Collaboration with Victoria University

The Centre has also worked with Victoria University in this area.  In July 2016, the Centre convened a conference on the subject of the relationship between global citizenship and global constitutionalism.

Multimedia

We the Peoples: Global Citizenship and Constitutionalism
July 22nd, 2016
Victoria University, Wellington.

Conference Powerpoints and Texts:
Dr. Kennedy Graham: Global Constitutionalism: a challenging concept
Rod Oram: Seeking Order – Towards Global Economic Governance
Kevin Clements: Universal Peace and Global Governance

 

Coordinator: Assoc. Prof. Graham Hassall

 

 

 

Global Law

The Concept

The idea of ‘global law’, as a development of traditional, consent-based, international law, is a challenging subject in the early 21st c.  The stress from the deteriorating global environment, the burgeoning global population, and widespread socio-political instability are causing inter-regional migration resulting in heightened nationalism and diminished universalism.

This notwithstanding, the rational approach to inter-human relationships, including international political and diplomatic relations, requires a strengthened rule of law. Many of the young generation of leaders at the 73rd UN General Assembly in 2018, including the NZ Prime Minister, called for retention and indeed strengthening of the ‘multilateral rules-based order’.

In the early 21st century, five levels of law might be discerned, namely:

  • ‘Global law’ (or ‘supranational law’), involving issues of the global commons that transcend direct jurisdictional control by the nation-state. Traditional treaties cover the legal status and usage of these areas (Antarctic Treaty System, Outer Space Treaty, Law of the Sea Convention, Ozone Treaty and Climate Change Convention).
  • ‘Transnational law’, involving issues of common concern to humankind as a single group, but covering actions that fall mainly (though not exclusively) in international relations among states and within areas of domestic jurisdiction: such as transnational crime, drugs trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, health and human rights.
  • ‘International law’, the traditional approach to legal relationships among sovereign nation-states, commencing in the 16th and culminating in the 20th c. with the 1945 UN Charter (covering state responsibility for relations among states – inter alia, self-determination, the use of armed force, humanitarian law and trade law).
  • ‘Domestic law’, national laws that are legislated and enforced within the domestic jurisdiction of the sovereign nation-state.
  • ‘Individual law’, international criminal law, applying criminal liability to individuals including political leaders, for the (four) ‘crimes of gravest concern to humanity’ under the 1998 Rome Statute.

Yet the four levels of law identified above (excepting ‘domestic’ law) still rely on treaty-making among nation-states for codification of law, even though their application and their consequential impact extends beyond the traditional national interest.  At present only customary international law goes some way to ameliorating this shortcoming.

Apart from domestic law, the other levels of law reflect serious weaknesses in terms of legislative and enforcement capacity and effectiveness.

  • Global Law is subject to far-reaching proposals for a fresh approach in both legislation and enforcement. (see Global Sustainability Programme section).
  • Transnational law reflects issues of serious concern to the global community, but the legislative response remains subject to negotiation among nation-states through traditional treaty-making procedures.
  • International Law remains subject to the International Court of Justice (with 193 Member States) and the right of a State to submit to a case or withhold recognition. There are three principal sources: treaties, custom and general principles. Judicial decisions and teachings may also be used as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
  • Individual law, through the International Criminal Court (with 123 Member States) also remains vulnerable to non-recognition, and to a complex relationship with both domestic courts and the UN Security Council.

The weaknesses of traditional international law render it inadequate for the 21st century, in particular:

  • The near-exclusive reliance on treaty-making, involving some 200 sovereign entities, usually employing a consensus-based procedure;
  • The option of acceding or not to most treaties, and subsequently withdrawing on grounds of national interest that is subjectively determined;
  • The weak investigative, arrest, and prosecutorial powers that make enforcement power ineffective.

How the law can be conceived, drafted and codified, and observed and enforced, at the global level is the quintessential challenge for today’s international lawyers, diplomats and political leaders.  Authoritative studies on the subject include the following:

  • The Law of the United Nations, H. Kelsen (Praeger, New York; 1964 4th edition)
  • The Changing Structure of International Law, W. Friedman (Columbia U.P.; 1966)
  • World Peace through World Law, G. Clark & L. Sohn (Harvard UP, Boston; 1966 3rd ed.)
  • United Nations Legal Order, O. Schachter & C. Joyner (CUP, New York; 1995)
  • International Organizations as Lawmakers, J. Alvarez (OUP, New York; 2006)
  • International Law, M. Evans, Ed. (Oxford U.P., Oxford; 2006)
  • General Jurisprudence—Understanding Law from a Global Perspective, W. Twining, (CUP, Cambridge; 2009)
  • International Judicial Institutions, R. Goldstone & A. Smith (Routledge, NY; 2009);
  • Theorising the Global Legal Order, A. Halpin & V. Roeben, Eds. (Hart Publishing, Oxford; 2009)
  • The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, B. Simma et al Eds. (OUP, Oxford; 2012 3rd edition) 
  • Legality and Legitimacy in Global Affairs, R. Falk et al, eds., (OUP, Oxford; 2012), pp. 45–71.

Legal concepts at the supranational level draw from three areas of thought: jurisdictional responsibility, customary law, and constitutionalism.  Each is subject to active exploration within the academic and policy communities.

  1. Jurisdictional responsibility and the ‘common interest’

The UN Charter is in the name of ‘We the Peoples of the United Nations’. Its preamble contends that armed force shall not be used ‘save in the common interest’, and Article 1 requires the Organization to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment its ‘common ends’.

Since then, juridical thought has increasingly engaged with the notion of the ‘common interest’ of humankind, specifically:

  • The Antarctic Treaty (1959) refers to the ‘interest of all mankind’;
  • The Outer Space Treaty (1967) regards the celestial bodies as the ‘province of all mankind’;
  • The Law of the Sea Convention (1982) introduced the concept of the ‘common heritage of all mankind’; and
  • The conventions on climate change and biodiversity (1992) each perceives its subject area as a ‘common concern of humankind’.

The challenge remains for UN member states to refine the positivist approach to treaty-making in a manner that faithfully responds to this higher interest.

  1. Customary international law

The relationship of customary international law to global constitutionalism is a central focus of study in the development of global law.  The ICJ Statute defines customary international law as ‘a general practice accepted as law’, deriving from either of two sources: the general practice of states and what states have accepted as law.

There are two levels of customary international law: a custom that reaches the level of a ‘peremptory norm’ (ius cogens) and one that does not.  Peremptory norms are of universal validity and are non-derogable. They are generally accepted as including prohibitions on slavery, torture, genocide, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity.  Such peremptory norms might be seen as a legitimate part of the contextual foundation of global constitutionalism.

Much of international law including customary law, however, is regarded by some as unduly Western in origin and influence.  Prof. Yasuaki Onuma, for example, has been critical of the role played by ‘traditional West-centric international law’ in the development of global law.  As he put it: “ [I]mportant notions in the global constitutionalism and legal order, such as jus cogens, obligations erga omnes and hierarchy of norms in international law, all presuppose the notion of international law with universal validity. How and to what extent can norms of international law assert universal validity, transcending national, regional, cultural, religious and civilizational boundaries? How can they be realised in international society where power, interests and value judgements of its members are so diverse? These constitute crucial problems in the deliberation of global legal order in the 21st century.”  Y. Onuma, A Trans-civilizational Perspective on Global Order in the 21st Century (In Macdonald & Johnston, p. 172)

Useful articles on the subject, both supportive and critical, include:

  • Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: Customary international law from an interdisciplinary perspective, M. Byers, Michigan 17(1) Jnl. of Int. Law (1995), p. 110
  • The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law, O. McIntyre & T. Mosedale, 9 Jnl Envtl Law (1997), p. 221
  • The Twilight of Customary International Law, J Patrick Kelly, 40 Va Jnl Int’l Law (1999), p. 449
  • The Underlying Legal Theory to Support a Well-Defined Human Right to a Healthy Environment as a Principle of Customary International Law, J.Lee, 25 Columbia Jnl. Envtl. Law (2000), p. 283
  • Hidden anxieties: Customary international law in NZ, T. Dunworth, 2 NZJPIL (2004), p. 67
  • The Rising Tide of Customary International Law: will New Zealand sink or swim? T. Dunworth, 15 Publ. Law Review (2004), p. 3.
  • Customary International Law: A new theory with practical applications [book review], N. Baird, 8 NZ Yrbk. Int. Law (2010), p. 365
  • The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine: Customary international law, an emerging legal norm, or just wishful thinking, P. Stockburger, 5 Intercultural Hum Rts Law Rev (2010), p. 365
  • The Dominance of the ICJ in the Creation of Customary International Law, L. Chan, 6 Southampton Stud. Law Rev (2016), p. 44
  1. Global constitutionalism

The concept of global (or world) constitutionalism has been a central focus of progressive thinking in international law, relating to the concept of global governance.  This includes, but is not confined to, the question of the extent to which the UN Charter might be seen as an incipient version of such a constitutional document.  Relevant studies on this important topic include

Reading

Books:

  • Towards World Constitutionalism: Issues in the legal ordering of the world community (R. Macdonald & D. Johnston, Eds., (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden; 2005)
  • The Constitutionalization of International Law, J. Klabbers, G. Peters & G. Ulfstein (OUP, Oxford; 2009)
  • Ruling the World: Constitutionalism, international law and global governance, J. Dunhoff & J. Trachtman, Eds. (CUP, Cambridge; 2009)
  • The United Nations as the Constitution of the International Community, B. Fassbender (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden; 2009)
  • Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking legality, legitimacy, and constitutionalism, J. Cohen (CUP, Cambridge; 2012)
  • The Future of International Law: Global government, J. Trachtman (CUP, Cambridge; 2013)
  • Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, A. Lang & A. Wiener, Eds. (Elgar, Cheltenham; 2017)

Articles & chapters:

  • The UN Charter as Constitution of the International Community, B. Fassbender, Columbia Jnl. of Transnational Law 36 (3) 1998, pp. 529-619
  • Is the UN Charter a Constitution? T. Franck in Verhandeln fur den Frieden, J. Frowein et al, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, New York; 2003), pp. 110-19
  • The UN Security Council as World Legislature, S. Talmon, American Jnl. of International Law 99 (1) 2005, pp. 175-93
  • Dialectics of a global constitution: The struggle over the UN Charter, M. Doyle, European Jnl. of International Relations 18 (4) 2012, pp. 601-24
The Centre’s Work

The Centre’s Work

The Centre has been active on many fronts in respect of the relationship between global governance and global law, in particular in two areas: the global commons and individual criminal law.

Global Law and the Commons

In the 2017 Special Edition of Policy Quarterly, Board members focused specifically on the manner in which contemporary law is striving to meet the challenges of the global commons.  In particular:

  • The Atmosphere: the Paris Agreement and global governance, A. Macey (Policy Quarterly 13 (1), Feb. 2017, pp. 26-31)
  • The Oceans: the Law of the Sea Convention as a form of global governance, D. Currie (Policy Quarterly 13 (1), Feb. 2017, pp. 32-36)

Other comparable contributions can be found in the Global Sustainability section)

Transnational law

Board member, Prof Neil Boister, has earned international recognition in this area of work, in particular with his book:

  • An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law, Boister (OUP, Oxford, 2nd ed. 2018).

The book gives an introduction to the subject and then covers, in addition to the above issues, new challenges such as cyber-crime, wild-life and pollution offences and trafficking in cultural property.  It also analyses new techniques of investigation, including surveillance.

Individual Criminal Law

The Centre has been especially active in exploring one aspect of international law in particular, namely, the accountability and liability of the human individual, particularly political leaders, in international law, rather than simply state responsibility.  The establishment of the International Criminal Court, under the Rome Statute 1998, and its assumption of jurisdiction in 2002 over three of the four major crimes in the Statute, has been a matter of focus.

  • Board member Prof. Neil Boister completed a research report for the Centre in April 2016: Building Criminal Accountability at the Global Level: The historical experience of a small island state – New Zealand. This paper may be found in the Research section.
  • Prof Chris Gallavin, Dep. Pro-Vice Chancellor at Massey University, wrote his Ph D thesis on Prosecutorial Discretion in the International Criminal Court.  His current thoughts on the ICC (Building Criminal Accountability at the Global Level: The ICC and its discontents) can be found in the 2017 Policy Quarterly’ Special Edition (pp. 50-65) referred to on the Home Page (co-authored with Dr Kennedy Graham).

The Crime of Aggression 

The Centre has been especially active on the fourth crime under the Rome Statute, namely aggression (in manifest violation of the UN Charter) as an individual leadership crime.

  • 2016 Symposium

In July 2016, the Centre convened a major symposium in the Beehive Theatrette at the NZ Parliament, collaborating with the International Law Association (NZ Branch).  Advisory Panel member, Prof Roger Clark gave the keynote, with two respondents replying — Attorney-General Hon. Chris Finlayson and former Justice Minister Hon. David Parker.

Professor Roger Clark lecture: “Making Aggression a Leadership Crime in 2017: The Rome Statute and the Kampala Amendment” at Parliament on 11 July 2016, at invitation of the New Zealand Centre for Global Studies.

Multimedia

Professor Roger Clark lecture: “Making Aggression a Leadership Crime in 2017: The Rome Statute and the Kampala Amendment” at Parliament on 11 July 2016, at invitation of the New Zealand Centre for Global Studies.

Audio: Recording from the Lecture

Coordinator: Duncan Currie

 

 

 

Global Security

The Concept

Global security is seen, historically, as the first existential issue for humankind to have had to confront.

The twin advent, in 1945, of the UN Charter (26 June), designed to prevent traditional inter-state aggression using conventional weapons, and the first atomic explosion (16 July) was an extraordinary juxtaposition of events. The existence of weapons of mass destruction which has destructive capacity of global proportion has overshadowed, and undermined, the traditional legal and political premises on which the Westphalian era, and its contemporary constitutional document, the UN Charter, rest.

In the 1940s, the central concept for security was seen as the ‘national security’ of each state, and the strategic aim of the UN Charter was to secure ‘international peace and security’.  With the onset of the ‘global age’, however, new concepts have entered academic and diplomatic parlance:

  • ‘common security’, as described in the 1982 Palme Commission;
  • ‘responsibility to protect’, as described in the 2001 Evans-Sahnoun Commission;
  • ‘human security’, as described in the 2003 Ogata-Sen Commission.

Notwithstanding this conceptual creativity, the traditional Westphalian concepts of sovereign equality of states and of national security remain entrenched in political, diplomatic and legal thought in the early 21st century.

Two challenges in particular confront scholars in conceptually reconciling the future with the past: the action to date by the UN Security Council in the maintenance on international peace and security, and the impact of nuclear weapons on this.  The Centre has been working on both of these.  The question of UN reform, and specifically Security Council reform (explored further in the Global Governance Programme) relates the theme of global security to the framing of global governance. Two of the most authoritative studies on the subject are:

  • The UN Security Council: from the Cold War to the 21st century, D. Malone Ed. (Lynne Rienner, London; 2004)
  • The United Nations Security Council and War: evolution of thought and practice since 1945,V. Lowe et al Eds. (OUP, Oxford; 2008)
Reading

Books:

  • Towards World Constitutionalism: Issues in the legal ordering of the world community (R. Macdonald & D. Johnston, Eds., (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden; 2005)
  • The Constitutionalization of International Law, J. Klabbers, G. Peters & G. Ulfstein (OUP, Oxford; 2009)
  • Ruling the World: Constitutionalism, international law and global governance, J. Dunhoff & J. Trachtman, Eds. (CUP, Cambridge; 2009)
  • The United Nations as the Constitution of the International Community, B. Fassbender (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden; 2009)
  • Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking legality, legitimacy, and constitutionalism, J. Cohen (CUP, Cambridge; 2012)
  • The Future of International Law: Global government, J. Trachtman (CUP, Cambridge; 2013)
  • Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, A. Lang & A. Wiener, Eds. (Elgar, Cheltenham; 2017)

Articles & chapters:

  • The UN Charter as Constitution of the International Community, B. Fassbender, Columbia Jnl. of Transnational Law 36 (3) 1998, pp. 529-619
  • Is the UN Charter a Constitution? T. Franck in Verhandeln fur den Frieden, J. Frowein et al, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, New York; 2003), pp. 110-19
  • The UN Security Council as World Legislature, S. Talmon, American Jnl. of International Law 99 (1) 2005, pp. 175-93
  • Dialectics of a global constitution: The struggle over the UN Charter, M. Doyle, European Jnl. of International Relations 18 (4) 2012, pp. 601-24
The Centre’s Work

The Centre’s Work

UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security

  • In March 2015, Panel member Prof Ramesh Thakur gave the Centre’s 2nd Waiheke Annual Lecture on whether the Security Council is ‘fit for purpose’.  His address can be found in the Annual Lectures section of this website.
  • In July 2015, the Centre’s Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, completed a research paper for the Centre on the same subject. This can be found in the Research section

This subject is closely related to the question of United Nations reform, and specifically Security Council reform. This is also explored in the Global Governance Programme.

One of the most far-reaching modern concepts introduced into global thinking is the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine.  This was conceived by the Independent Commission of that name, in 2001, and submitted to the UN Secretary-General.  It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in its seminal World Summit Outcome Document (A/RES/60/1, Sept. 2005).  A member of the Centre’s International Advisory Panel, Prof Ramesh Thakur, was a member of the Commission, and one of the report’s principal drafters.

Nuclear Disarmament 

  • November 2017: Former Australian Foreign Minister, Hon Gareth Evans, gave the Centre’s 4th Waiheke Annual Lecture, on the subject of the recently-concluded Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).  His lecture, and the responses by NZ ambassador HE Dell Higgie and Auckland Assoc Prof Treasa Dunworth, can be found on the Annual Lectures section of this website.
  • June 2018: The Centre wrote a submission for the NZ Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs & Trade, in consideration of ratification of the Treaty.  The submission, in the form of a Cover Note and a Paper, can be found here 180612 Cover Note and here 180612 FADT Submission (1). It is also available on the Parliament’s website:
  • March 2019: The Centre hosted  a major conference on the Treaty, in Wellington.  The programme and speakers can be found here: NZCGS TPNW Poster and ProgrammeSee below for photos of the conference.
  • Sept. 2019: The Centre is hosting a student symposium: ‘Understanding Nuclear Disarmament: Insights for, and from, young global citizens. University and high-school students from all across Aotearoa New Zealand are attending (6-7 Sept.).  A Summary Paper is being prepared with a view to developing a Youth Pledge for Nuclear Disarmament which the students will draft. Also, two background research papers are being prepared on the Treaty (TPNW); and on the reform of the UN Security Council.  These can be found here:  Student Symposium – TPNW Paper
Coordinator: Prof. Kevin Clements

 

 

 

Global Sustainability

The Concept

Global sustainability is the second existential threat facing humanity, equivalent in magnitude and danger to the existence of nuclear weapons.  The Centre therefore treats Global Security and Global Sustainability as the two thematic programmes, of equal import and urgency.

A. The concept

In many ways, sustainability is a more complicated danger than the weapons, because it has to do with how humans conduct their daily lives — the increasing global population from 1 billion about 200 years ago to 7.5 b. today; the increasing production and consumption patterns per capita, and the intensifying threat of climate change.  After 10,000 years of stable climatic conditions during the Holocene in which humankind settled into a post-nomadic life and developed civilization, we have within the past 100 years or so entered a new age — the Anthropocene in which the fate of planet Earth is directly affected by, even determined by, human action.

In fact, the danger of global sustainability extends more broadly than climate change.  The World’s leading scientists have identified nine planetary boundaries whose threshold (minimum or maximum) must not be breached if Earth is to remain stable and humanity and other life-forms enjoy a normal existence.  All affect the global commons, which essentially lie outside jurisdictional reach of national governments and which suffer the fate of the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

One of the most authoritative studies on global sustainability, within the context of global governance, is:

  • International Environmental Law and World Order, J. Carlson, G. Palmer & B. Weston (West, St. Paul; 2012)

Sustainability: governance, ethics and international law

The challenge of developing an appropriate legal framework to deal effectively with the problems of the global commons is immense.  The Centre’s focus on planetary boundaries is part of its work in this area.  But the question arises whether contemporary international law is adequate to handle such global problems.  And there is the broader underlying issue whether global sustainability requires a more rigorous ethical foundation, not only on the part of nation-states but individual humans in the era of the Anthropocene.

The concept of planetary boundaries is the creation of Prof Johan Rockstrom, Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, University of Stockholm, and colleagues.  It was originally published in 2009 (in the journal Nature) and has been modified since.  [see below]. https://stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

A member of the Centre’s Board, Prof Klaus Bosslemann, has authored a number of seminal books on the subject of global sustainability:

  • The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming law and governance, K. Bosselmann (Taylor & Francis, London; 2008);
  • The Earth Charter: A framework for global governance, K. Bosselmann & R. Engal, Eds. (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam; 2010); and
  • Earth Governance: Trusteeship of the global commons, K. Bosselmann (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, USA; 2015)

In Earth Governance, Prof Bosselmann describes how the United Nations, together with member states, can draw from their own traditions to develop new, effective regimes of environmental trusteeship. Only an ethic of trusteeship and stewardship, he maintains, will create the institutions, laws and policies powerful enough to reclaim and protect the commons.

The Centre’s Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, was involved in early international work on climate change, through his role as Secretary-General of Parliamentarians for Global Action.  In June 1990, he convened  what was perhaps the first parliamentarian workshop on the subject in Bellagio, Italy, bringing together leading MPs from 14 major countries.  Benefiting from input from IPCC experts engaged in the 1st Assessment Report, the group produced The Bellagio Statement: Global Warming: North-South and the planetary partnership, calling for a 50% reduction in global emissions off 1988 levels by 2010.  The Bellagio Statement can be seen here.

Global Warming North South…1990

Board member, Dr Adrian Macey (former NZ ambassador for climate change), has also discussed the shortcoming of existing international institutions for solving problems of the global commons:

Climate change has been described as “a diabolical policy problem ….. harder than any other issue of high importance that has come before our polity in living memory.  To deal with it effectively involves many different policy areas. … The financial implication of climate change – impacts, adaptation and mitigation – are huge and growing. There is a need for massive deployment of technology, a sector notoriously difficult to regulate.  Climate change also involves time-frames unknown in public policy.  There is currently no overall governance arrangement to integrate all these dimensions.  The Bonn-based UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, with its mandate defined by the existing convention and its protocol, can easily be seen as too narrow in scope and expertise, and too small to cope with the scale and complexity of this global challenge.  

Climate Change: Governance challenges for Copenhagen, A. Macey (Global Governance 15(4), 2009, pp. 443-449.

Board member Prue Taylor (Auckland University) has recognised expertise on the ethics of sustainability.  As early as the late 1990s, she argued that international environmental law was fundamentally flawed and unequipped to meet global challenges. She examined international legal responses to global climate change by analysing key concepts such as the doctrine of state sovereignty, the law on state responsibility, environmental rights and the common heritage of mankind.

  • An Ecological Approach to International Law: Responding to the challenges of climate change, P. Taylor (Routledge, 1998)

Similarly, the Centre’s Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, has prescribed a ‘qualitative change’ to the traditional conceptual framework for political perception, analysis and prescription, to tackle successfully solve the problems of the global commons.   A new framework is needed in three fundamental ways — analytical, spatial and temporal.

  1. Analytical: Supplementing, in political thought, the traditional left-right axis (which deals with the normative issue of how humans live together) with a new vertical axis of sustainability (which deals with the imperative of whether humanity survives).
  2. Spatial: Adopting a global worldview, in which ‘global solutions’ are found to global problems, and national responsibilities are derived, rather than ‘global outcomes’ are the product of competitive national negotiations.
  3. Temporal: Adopting a longer time-frame for policy formulation than the short-term electoral cycles.

Reframing Politics: Towards a new conceptual framework, K. Graham (Christchurch Press, 16 June 2009)

The Centre’s Work

The Centre has been active on global sustainability issues since its inception in 2013. The Ecological Footprint and the Planetary Boundaries are probably the two most critical concepts for governmental and non-governmental thought and action today.

  1. The Planetary Boundaries

The Centre has held two of its Annual Lectures on the subject of the planetary boundaries.

  • In March 2014, Board member Prof Klaus Bosselmann gave the Centre’s 1st Lecture on this subject.
  • In April 2018, Prof Johan Rockstrom, Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre (Stockholm University) and pioneer of the concept, gave the Centre’s 5th Lecture on the subject.

Both lectures can be found on the Waiheke Annual Lectures section of this website.

2. Global Public Goods

In May 2014, the Centre collaborated with two other institutions, Victoria University’s Institute for Governance and Policy Studies and the UN Association of New Zealand (UNANZ) to hold a one-day conference in Wellington on the concept of ‘global public goods’ and its relationship to global governance and the global commons.

See the flyer for the conference: 2014 Global Governance Conference flyer

A member of the Centre’s International Advisory Panel, and leading authority on the subject, Prof Inge Kaul of the Hertie School of Government, Berlin, prepared the key-note address. In the event, Prof Kaul was unable to travel to New Zealand, so her paper was delivered by Prof Bosselmann.

The programme is here: 140221 Conf Programme

Prof Kaul’s paper is here: NZ_Lecture_GPG_GG_final[1]

3. The Global Economy and Global Governance

The focus on sustainability does not absolve the international community from ensuring that the global economy provide adequate development for all of humanity.  Indeed, one of the seminal reports of the modern era, Our Common Future, (World Commission on Environment & Development; 1987) coined the phrase ‘sustainable development’ which has guided international organizations and national governments ever since.

The role of the Bretton Woods system of organizations (IMF, World Bank, GATT-WTO) does not attract as much attention as it should in understanding how global governance and global law might assist in achieving sustainable development.  A member of the Centre’s Board, Rod Oram, has commented on this, in his contribution to the 2017 Special Edition of the Policy Quarterly:

  • Reviewing the Global Economy: The UN and Bretton Woods systems. R. Oram, Policy Quarterly, 13 (1), 2017, pp. 20-25.

There is also a clear ethical-legal dimension to ensuring that global governance and law evolve in a manner that meets the development needs of all the world’s peoples.  Prue Taylor has written on this: see her recent article:

  • Governing the Global Commons: an ethical-legal framework. P. Taylor, Policy Quarterly, 13 (1), 2017, pp. 43-50.
Coordinator: Prof. Klaus Bosselmann

 

 

 

New Zealand in Global Affairs

The Concept

In addition to the five global programmes which the Centre runs, a sixth concerns, pursuant to the Centre’s Trust Deed, an ‘insightful and constructive role’ by New Zealand in global affairs, ‘proportionate to size’.

The ‘NZ Programme’ comprises an analysis of what NZ governments have done in each of the five global programmes, and an assessment of what might be possible in the future.

The aim in this programme is not to second-guess NZ governments on specific aspects of foreign policy; but rather to assess whether New Zealand is in a position, and if so whether it is exercising the opportunity, to collaborate with other UN member states in reforming and strengthening the international order (having regard to the ‘preliminary question’ explored in the introductory section on ‘Global Studies Programmes’.

Examples of analyses are: what has New Zealand done, or might potentially do, to demonstrate global citizenship; through initiatives to strengthen global law and governance, and contribute to global security and global sustainability? Such analyses have to do with conceptual and structural issues within the global system – contributing to strengthening the ‘multilateral rules-based order’ (see below).

The analyses, therefore, do not explore, or make judgements about, specific foreign policy issues, such as NZ policies on North Korea, or Iran, or Venezuela, Kashmir, Syria or Palestine – other than to ensure that any NZ policy is not incompatible with existing international law.

As a small country, New Zealand has limited direct influence.  But the scope for ‘indirect influence’ on contemporary international relations exercised by a small state is determined purely by the quality of its creative thinking and policy prescriptions, and its political courage in advancing them.  The historical record makes it clear that small states can exercise considerable influence: examples include Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Marshall Islands and Norway.  The Centre seeks to assess whether New Zealand validly comes within this group.

Specifically, the Centre has explored, or intends to explore, the following issues.

Global citizenship

At the 73rd UN General Assembly in September 2018, the NZ Prime Minister made the following comments in her speech, which she opened by addressing ‘friends in the global community’:

…  none of [the UN’s] founding principles should be consigned to the history books. In fact, given the challenges we face today, and how truly global they are in their nature and impact, the need for collective action and multilateralism has never been clearer. And yet, for all of that, the debate and dialogue we hear globally is not centred on the relevance and importance of our international institutions. Instead, we find ourselves having to defend their very existence.  ….

This generation is a borderless one – at least in a virtual sense. One that increasingly see themselves as global citizens. And as their reality changes, they expect ours to as well – that we’ll see and understand our collective impact, and that we’ll change the way we use our power.  …..

 That’s why, as a global community, not since the inception of the United Nations has there been a greater example of the importance of collective action and multilateralism, than climate change. It should be a rallying cry to all of us.  …. We must redouble our efforts to work as a global community.   ….   I can assure all of you, New Zealand remains committed to continue to do our part to building and sustaining international peace and security. To promoting and defending an open, inclusive, and rules-based international order based on universal values.

For video, see:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/09/jacinda-ardern-s-full-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly.html

The Prime Minister’s comments are directly in accord with the global vision in Centre’s statutory statement of purpose (see Administration section reference to Trust Deed).

The research work of the Centre in this programme, in a general sense, is to explore ways in which that global vision can take substantive form through various initiatives.

The Centre’s Work

The Centre’s Work

UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security

  • In March 2015, Panel member Prof Ramesh Thakur gave the Centre’s 2nd Waiheke Annual Lecture on whether the Security Council is ‘fit for purpose’.  His address can be found in the Annual Lectures section of this website.
  • In July 2015, the Centre’s Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, completed a research paper for the Centre on the same subject. This can be found in the Research section

This subject is closely related to the question of United Nations reform, and specifically Security Council reform. This is also explored in the Global Governance Programme.

One of the most far-reaching modern concepts introduced into global thinking is the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine.  This was conceived by the Independent Commission of that name, in 2001, and submitted to the UN Secretary-General.  It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in its seminal World Summit Outcome Document (A/RES/60/1, Sept. 2005).  A member of the Centre’s International Advisory Panel, Prof Ramesh Thakur, was a member of the Commission, and one of the report’s principal drafters.

Nuclear Disarmament 

  • November 2017: Former Australian Foreign Minister, Hon Gareth Evans, gave the Centre’s 4th Waiheke Annual Lecture, on the subject of the recently-concluded Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).  His lecture, and the responses by NZ ambassador HE Dell Higgie and Auckland Assoc Prof Treasa Dunworth, can be found on the Annual Lectures section of this website.
  • June 2018: The Centre wrote a submission for the NZ Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs & Trade, in consideration of ratification of the Treaty.  The submission, in the form of a Cover Note and a Paper, can be found here 180612 Cover Note and here 180612 FADT Submission (1). It is also available on the Parliament’s website:
  • March 2019: The Centre hosted  a major conference on the Treaty, in Wellington.  The programme and speakers can be found here: NZCGS TPNW Poster and ProgrammeSee below for photos of the conference.
  • Sept. 2019: The Centre is hosting a student symposium: ‘Understanding Nuclear Disarmament: Insights for, and from, young global citizens. University and high-school students from all across Aotearoa New Zealand are attending (6-7 Sept.).  A Summary Paper is being prepared with a view to developing a Youth Pledge for Nuclear Disarmament which the students will draft. Also, two background research papers are being prepared on the Treaty (TPNW); and on the reform of the UN Security Council.  These can be found here:  Student Symposium – TPNW Paper
Global Governance

New Zealand has traditionally been active in strengthening the United Nations, its Prime Minister having argued strenuously if unsuccessfully against the veto at 1945 founding conference.  Since then, it has been active on matters of UN structural reform, including more recently membership of the ACT group (Accountability, Coherence, Transparency).

New Zealand has also served for three full terms on the Security Council, most recently in 1993-94 and 2015-16.  During these terms, it was actively engaged, including during its terms as Council President, on crisis issues of Rwanda, Syria and Palestine. It also took the opportunity, during its recent membership term, to take effective initiatives on procedural reform of the Council.

The Centre’s work

The Centre has held several conferences on global governance, which are described in the Global Governance Programme section.

Board chairman, Ass. Prof Graham Hassall, is co-editor of a forthcoming book, which examines the experience, and performance, of New Zealand in its recent term as Security Council member:

  • New Zealand and the United Nations Security Council 2015-2016, Hassall & N. Partow (2019).

The Centre’s Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, has contributed a chapter for the book, entitled Security Council Reform: New Zealand action in 2015-2016. 

Global Law

New Zealand has not been active in exploring the question of global constitutionalism, but this is unsurprising insofar as the focus has been confined to academic circles rather than inter-governmental negotiations.  New Zealand has, however, been active in areas of Law of the Sea and whaling.

Individual criminal law has been a focus of the international community over the past three decades. New Zealand played an active role in the negotiating conference leading to the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, and it was a founding signatory.

The Court has had jurisdiction, since July 2002, over the first three crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity).  There are currently 123 States Parties (33 African, 28 Latin American, 25 West European and other (i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand), 19 Asian-Pacific and 18 East European).

The fourth crime (aggression as an individual leadership crime) became justiciable in July 2018, once the Kampala Amendment to the Rome Statute came into force for the ratifying states.  The 37 ratifying states (as at Feb. 2019) include 26 European states (of which 13 are NATO countries).  New Zealand, however, has not yet ratified the 2010 Amendment.

 The Centre’s work

 Board member, Prof Neil Boister (Head of School of Law, Canterbury University) has written a research paper for the Centre on the subject of New Zealand and individual criminal liability for aggression:

  • Building Criminal Accountability at the Global Level: The historical experience of a small island state – New Zealand, Boister, NZCGS Research Report 2; 2016

The paper can be accessed in the Research section.

The Centre has been active in exploring the question of New Zealand ratification of the Kampala Amendment, convening two symposia in Wellington on the subject in 2016 and ‘18.  Details are set out in the Global Law Programme section.

The Centre will continue to work on this critically important issue.  A multilateral rules-based order requires not only that countries assume state responsibility for non-aggression, but that their leaders assume individual liability under criminal law for not violating that state responsibility.

Global Security

New Zealand has been active on the two central issues in global security – the legal and legitimate use of force, and the prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction.

Use of force

The UN Security Council has authorised the use of force against ‘aggression’ only on a few occasions, and New Zealand committed its armed forces in both major collective security responses: troops in Korea (1950-57) and military transport aircraft in Iraq (1991).  It refused to send troops to Iraq in 2003 when Western powers led a ‘coalition of the willing’ without Security Council authorisation – generally regarded as an act of aggression.

Beyond that, the Council has created the phenomenon of UN peacekeeping (‘classical peacekeeping’ since the 1950s and ‘mission-enforceable’ peacekeeping since the 1990s). New Zealand, like certain other Western member states (Canada, Ireland, Norway) was committed to sending troops for the earlier missions, but in the past few decades it has tended to send mission commanders, and undertake training missions, rather than send troops.

The Centre’s work

The Centre maintains a continuing focus on New Zealand’s contribution to global security through the strengthening of the Security Council’s role in maintain international peace and security under the UN Charter.  In particular, the 2nd Annual Lecture and a specific research paper were dedicated to this question:

  • Global Governance and the UN Security Council: Fit for purpose? Thakur, 29 March 2015 [see Waiheke Annual Global Affairs Lectures section]
  • Global Governance and the UN Security Council, Part A & Part B, Graham, NZCGS Research Report 1 (2015) [accessible in the Research section]
WMD Prohibitions

New Zealand was quick to sign and ratify the first two WMD prohibition conventions: on biological weapons (1972) and chemical weapons (1993).

With respect to nuclear arms weapons, New Zealand has had a long record of commitment:

  • It was quick to sign and ratify the arms control treaty (NPT, 1967), and to argue for enforcement of Article VI requiring the nuclear powers to negotiate and conclude a disarmament treaty ‘in good faith’.
  • It successfully took France to the ICJ for an advisory opinion (1973) on whether atmospheric nuclear weapon tests were legal;
  • It led, along with Australia, negotiations for the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Treaty (1985);
  • It went a step further in 1987 with its domestic Nuclear-free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act which bans the presence of any nuclear weapon in NZ national territory (including airspace and territorial waters).
  • In 1996, it participated in the ICJ case for an advisory opinion for the Court to declare the use or threat of nuclear weapons to be illegal under existing international law.
  • In 2017, it played a leading role in the negotiations on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and was an early ratifier of the treaty in August 2018.

The Centre’s work

The Centre has been active in assessing New Zealand’s contribution to nuclear disarmament.

Early contributions by the Centre’s Director, Dr Kennedy Graham, who was a member of the NZ negotiation team for the 1985 Rarotonga Treaty, on the meaning of New Zealand’s non-nuclear policy for global security were published in the 1980s:

  • New Zealand’s Non-Nuclear Policy: Towards Global Security, Graham, in Alternatives Xii (2), April 1987, pp.217-242.
  • National Security Concepts of States: New Zealand, K. Graham (Taylor & Francis for UNIDIR; 1989)

In 2019, the Centre is hosting a major conference on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, in Wellington, 18-19 March.  Details can be found on the welcome page of the website.

Global Sustainability

New Zealand is deeply engaged in issues of global sustainability.  In her UNGA-73 speech referred to above, the Prime Minister made the following observation:

“That surely leaves us all with the question, how did we get here, and how do we get out? If anything unites us politically in this place right now it is this – globalisation has had a massive impact on our nations and the people we serve.

While that impact has been positive for many, for others it has not. The transitions our economies have made have often been jarring, and the consequences harsh. And so, amongst unprecedented global economic growth, we have still seen a growing sense of isolation, dislocation, and a sense of insecurity and the erosion of hope.  As politicians and governments, we all have choices in how we respond to these challenges.”

And, as quote above, with specific reference to climate change:

That’s why, as a global community, not since the inception of the United Nations has there been a greater example of the importance of collective action and multilateralism, than climate change. It should be a rallying cry to all of us.  …. We must redouble our efforts to work as a global community.

Historically, New Zealand has been criticised by expert research institutes for what is regarded as weak GHG emission-reduction targets off 1990 – for 2020 (5%), 2030 (11%) and 2050 (50%).  A new 2050 target of 100% has been announced (Nov. 2018) and work is underway to ensure legislation to facilitate achievement of that long-term target.

In addition, the Government is developing a ‘well-being’ approach to its fiscal planning in 2019.

The Centre’s work

Planetary Boundaries

The Centre has held two Annual Lectures on the issue of the ‘planetary boundaries’ – the 1st Lecture in 2014 and the 5th Lecture in 2018.   It intends to explore the extent to which New Zealand might incorporate this global concept and the associated science into its national long-term risk management and environmental stewardship.

The Centre also is exploring ways of assessing NZ policy on the following:

  • Climate change;
  • Maritime jurisdiction;
  • Seabed exploration;
  • Antarctica.

Website designed and hosted by The Island's Computer Guy

© 2019 NZCGS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED