A New World Order

by Anne-Marie Slaughter
Princeton University Press © 2004
341 pages

Focus Take-Aways
Leadership & Mgt.
• Informal networks of regulators, judges and legislators change how the world works.
Strategy
• Such networks make it possible to enforce laws and harmonize regulations in an
Sales & Marketing increasingly inter-connected world.
Corporate Finance • Critics charge that such networks are unrepresentative, secretive and dangerous.
Human Resources • Networks could be a positive force, but they need norms and checks-and-balances.
Technology & Production • Networks of financial officials have been key in responding to regional fiscal crises.
Small Business • Judges are reluctant to be bound by foreign court decisions, but international legal
affairs now affect their decisions.
Economics & Politics
• Legislators are latecomers to the networked world, for sound political reasons. Yet
Industries & Regions
even legislators are forming networks and learning from each other.
Career Development
• States once communicated only through carefully defined channels. Networks have
Personal Finance opened more pathways among countries.
Concepts & Trends • Networks need not replace traditional institutions and could reinvigorate them.
• States have clear boundaries and clear limits on authority, but corporations and other
transnational forces do not. Networks keep states relevant in an era of globalization.

Rating (10 is best)

Overall Applicability Innovation Style

8 7 10 7

To purchase individual Abstracts, personal subscriptions or corporate solutions, visit our Web site at www.getAbstract.com
or call us at our U.S. office (954-359-4070) or Switzerland office (+41-41-367-5151). getAbstract is an Internet-based knowledge rating
service and publisher of book Abstracts. getAbstract maintains complete editorial responsibility for all parts of this Abstract. The respective
copyrights of authors and publishers are acknowledged. All rights reserved. No part of this abstract may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, or otherwise, without prior written permission of getAbstract Ltd (Switzerland).
 Relevance
What You Will Learn
In this Abstract, you will learn: 1) How international networks of judges and regulators
cut across national boundaries to make policy; 2) Whether this type of globalization
helps or threatens traditional national governments; and 3) How global coalitions
change the world.

Recommendation
This excellent, thought-provoking analysis covers a widespread but little studied shift
in the way the world works. The advance of international communications, technology,
economics and finance networks has had an unmistakable effect on business and
industry. The ways states function has also changed — shifting the operation of the
world order. Author Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, is on expert ground. She asserts
that networks of financiers, regulators, judges and even legislators can solve problems
that would be intractable if left only to traditional states and familiar international
organizations. She provides many examples of such networks, notes the criticism against
them and suggests norms to govern their conduct. Her book is not light reading. Readers
need some familiarity with international organizations and institutions (sometimes
cited by unexplained acronyms), but getAbstract.com highly recommends this book to
sophisticated observers of international policy.

Abstract
Networks and the Global Order
Like business people, stock traders and criminals, governments now rely on networks
to achieve their objectives. Law enforcement agencies cooperate on investigations
through formal and informal networks. Financial ministers and central bankers work
jointly in networks such as the G-20, the G-8, the International Organization of
Securities Commissioners (IOSCO) and others. Environmental officials, justices and
“It would be a legislators have networks. There are even networks of government networks. Networks
world order in
which human hope
have several advantages:
and despair, crime
and charity, ideas • They allow regulators to develop better intelligence about the activities of transna-
and ideals are tional organizations such as corporations, lobbying groups and even criminal gangs.
transmitted around This enables regulators to respond with timely, well-coordinated action.
the globe through
networks of people
• They help members get to know each other and learn to trust each other.
and organizations. • They provide a forum for swapping information about best practices.
So, too, would it • They often offer various forms of assistance to members.
be in the power
of governments to Governments now confront cross-border problems, so they need cross-border solutions. Air
represent and reg-
ulate their people.”
and water pollution do not respect national boundaries. Just as Old West outlaw Billy the Kid
fled to Mexico, modern criminals often find similar refuge when they use national borders
to complicate the job of law enforcement. Without networks to enable compliance and
enforcement, many international agreements would amount only to so much paperwork.
The United States could benefit greatly from the network phenomenon. Although the
U.S. has historically believed that problems with domestic sources need domestic
solutions, even it has begun to understand that multilateral problems need solutions on
A New World Order © Copyright 2004 getAbstract 2 of 5
 that level. Networks can also help the U.S. learn from the example of other venues. When
the “American Way” is “best,” networks will help others to learn from it. When the
“Terrorists, arms “American Way” is not as good as some other approach, the networks will make that
dealers, money clear, to the benefit of all concerned.
launderers, drug
dealers, traffickers Envisioning a World of Networks
in women and
children, and the
To use networks most effectively, and to help them become all they could be, society
modern pirates of must think about the world in a different way. It is time to stop conceiving of a world
intellectual prop- of states. Such a world is made up of national institutions that interact in clearly defined
erty all operate official ways, usually through embassies, consulates and the associated bureaucracy of a
through global net-
works. So, foreign office. By contrast, the new world includes states, but also includes many other
increasingly, do networked channels. Some are formal; others are less formal.
governments.”
Changing the way society thinks about the world opens the possibilities of creating a new
world order. The foundation stones of the new world order include networks as well as
states. Networks would not substitute for states or abrogate national powers. They would
have only the power and authority that state governments decided to delegate to them.
And, national governments probably would delegate authority and power when it served
“The prerequisite
for a vertical gov-
their own interests.
ernment network is
the relatively rare A world of networks is a world able to address the challenge of globalization. Capital flows
decision by states across national borders; so does information. But the power of a national government
to delegate their stops at the nation’s borders. After World War II, institutional architects recognized
sovereignty to an
institution above the need for institutions that would function across borders. Yet such organizations as
them with real the World Bank, the United Nations and others have clear and increasingly problematic
power — a court deficiencies. The world needs a new way of working. Networks can provide it.
or a regulatory
commission.”
Regulatory Networks
In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf took power in Pakistan by military coup. The Clinton
administration protested and waited for Musharraf’s response. The General did not call
Clinton, his secretary of state, his secretary of defense or the American ambassador.
Musharraf went outside ordinary official circles and called a Marine general he knew.

“Only by pushing Military officers, heads of state, senior ministers and economic officials network. The
the envelope of famous economic “Groups,” usually identified by “G” followed by the number of member
what we assume
to be natural or
states, include the G-7, G-8 and G-20. They have been important factors in the world’s
inherent can we response to major economic shocks, such as the East Asian crisis of the late 1990s. They
hope to envision helped coordinate efforts to control criminal or terrorist use of the world’s financial system.
and create a gen-
uinely new world Regulatory networks generally take on one or more of these missions:
order.”
1. Information exchange — Participants discuss problems, analyze various approaches
to resolving them and sometimes draft codes of best practice. Developed countries use
networks to share know-how on institution building with undeveloped countries.
2. Enforcement — Members may cooperate in tracking and arresting criminals, terror-
ists, violators of antitrust laws or egregious polluters.
“So what exactly 3. Harmonization — Members use the network to make their policies, procedures and
do government regulations consistent and congruent. Regulators refer to networks when trying to
networks do?
persuade home-country legislators that change in a particular direction is necessary.
Their members
talk a lot.”
These networks represent a form of diplomacy, but the diplomats involved are, in fact,
regulators whose ordinary responsibilities do not include international diplomacy.
A New World Order © Copyright 2004 getAbstract 3 of 5
 Legal Networks
Even without any sort of treaty, judges have begun to learn from each other. Justices
“To the extent that on the U.S. Supreme Court meet with their peers in Europe, Latin America and Asia.
pockets of global Under the auspices of the United Nations, the Global Judges Symposium convened
jurisprudence are in Johannesburg to discuss environmental laws. Judges have begun to discuss how to
emerging, they are
most likely to proceed when conflicting decisions in various venues threaten such procedures as, for
involve issues of example, bankruptcy. The five most common ways that judges utilize networks are:
basic human
rights.” 1. Constitutional dialogue — A Chief Justice of the Norwegian Supreme Court has
said that his country’s judges have an obligation to import good ideas from abroad.
Although Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court may not agree,
it is clear that even in the U.S., Supreme Court judges learn from their peers abroad.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, mentioned a European Court of Justice deci-
sion in an opinion on an anti-sodomy law.
2. Human rights law — Decisions by the European Court of Human Rights have been
“According to a cited in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Latin America and Britain.
former justice of 3. Building the European community’s legal system — Judges in Germany, France and
the Supreme Judi-
cial Court of even Britain have shown remarkable deference to the European Court of Justice.
Massachusetts, Although they do not necessarily accept it as a higher authority, it is clear that courts
Charles Fried, in the European Union are becoming more of a “community” than ever in history.
drawing on foreign
decisions could
4. Transnational disputes — Even in the U.S., judges have been speaking with remark-
change the course able clarity about the need for harmony and cooperation with non-U.S. courts. Judges
of American law.” in various countries read each other’s decisions and negotiate with each other.
5. Face-to-face meetings — U.S. Supreme Court justices have traveled to other conti-
nents to meet with their peers. Within Europe, judges meet every few years. The
Organization of Supreme Courts of the Americas brings together representatives
from numerous countries. They have created mechanisms to exchange information
and promote “judicial independence and the rule of law among members.”

Legislative Networks
“U.S. judges have Legislators have not moved to form networks as rapidly as judges and regulators, but they
not shied from have created some. For example, networks of legislators have helped monitor elections.
conflict with their
foreign brethren.” They have discussed issues of international trade, such as issues of standardization in
the European Union or the effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement on
labor. Political factors require legislators to exercise some caution about networks. An
accusation that a candidate has gone on too many foreign “junkets” can resonate in an
electoral campaign. Moreover, because legislative terms may be short and uncertain,
legislators find it more difficult to develop the kind of cross-border relationships that
come more easily to bureaucrats, judges, bankers and even military officers.

“The traditional The Disaggregated World

way for legislators The existence of regulatory, judicial and legislative networks (embryonic though
to express them- these may be) points to a new kind of world order. International communication and
selves in foreign
affairs is by trying
cooperation is no longer the exclusive domain of embassies, consulates, secretaries of
to keep members state and foreign ministers. These networks form the bedrock of a new world order,
of the executive based not on old institutions but on new and often flexible networks. These networks can
— the ministers or
be structured as:
head of state — on
a short leash.” • Horizontal — Essentially these networks bring together peers or colleagues. They
may be permanent networks, such as the Basel Committee, or they may be tempo-
rary, such as the Financial Stability Forum.
A New World Order © Copyright 2004 getAbstract 4 of 5
 • Vertical — Vertical networks have the power and authority to make decisions that
bind government institutions. These networks are more rare than horizontal net-
works, because governments are reluctant to put themselves under the authority of
“The ability to use any other power. Yet examples include the European Court of Justice, the European
government net- Court of Human Rights and the World Trade Organization Appellate Body.
works as the work-
ing machinery of • Networks of government networks — New government networks and old-fashioned
a formal interna- international institutions can and do coexist. The North American Agreement on
tional treaty or Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was signed by Canada, Mexico and the U.S.
convention — as
with NAFTA and
to institutionalize mutual environmental agreements. It created the Commission on
its side-agree- Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a trilateral network. Sometimes new government
ments — provides networks help reinvigorate traditional international institutions. Along those lines, the
a guarantee of Organization of American States (OAS) has established networks of specialized offi-
continuing respect
for national sov- cials to deal with issues of terrorism, children, women, agriculture and so on.
ereignty in the
implementation of Networks can make the world more just, cooperative, harmonious and prosperous.
international com-
mitments.” Cooperation can lead to beneficial competition in creating new solutions to difficult
problems. By facilitating enforcement, networks can advance legal compliance. They
can also help countries with scant resources or experience build effective institutions by
providing access to crucial information about what has worked elsewhere. Networks can
provide multilateral solutions to the problems of failed, transitional or weak states, and
even states that need rebuilding. Networks can combine the functions of self-regulating
“Imagine legisla-
organizations and professional associations. They can use “hard power” when it is
tors or regulators
being made aware delegated, but they can also use the “soft power” of information, example, persuasion,
of the divergence debate and discussion.
between their laws
or rules and those
of a substantial The picture is not all rosy. Because network operations are not governed by clear
number of other standards, some see them as secret, undemocratic or unaccountable. Setting five norms
countries and nev- may diffuse this:
ertheless conclud-
ing to prize and
preserve their dif- 1. Global equality — All government networks should freely admit any official who
ferences on his- meets the criteria for membership. Once admitted, every member should have an
torical, cultural,
political, eco-
equal right to hear what others say and to be heard in return.
nomic, social, reli- 2. Tolerance for differences — Members should recognize, accept and act on the belief
gious, or any other that there is space for legitimate differences in point of view or in approach.
distinctive national
3. Positive comity — Traditionally, states have merely deferred to each other. The net-
grounds.”
work norm should be to work on cooperation.
4. Checks and balances — Use institutional mechanisms to limit network power.
5. Subsidiarity — Address issues at the lowest practicable level.

About The Author

Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University and the current president of the American
Society of International Law.

A New World Order © Copyright 2004 getAbstract 5 of 5