Conflict Prevention in the Framework of Contemporary Government Procedures and International Cooperation / Предотвращение конфликтов в рамках современных правительственных процедур и международного сотрудничества

Брамбила Мартинес Франсиско Хавьер аспирант, Институт государственной службы и управления, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы 119571, Россия, г. Москва, Проспект Вернадского, 82 Brambila Martinez Francisco Javier Postgraduate student, Institute of Civil Service and Administration, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 119571, Russia, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82 francisco.brambila@mail.ru Другие публикации этого автора

Governance

To understand how and to which extent does international cooperation in the contemporary era diminishes conflicts, is necessary to review the functions of governance as well as its relationship to the context and external forces. Governance is assessed by government performance, measured according to the input and output ratio of the state (Rotberg and Boardman, 2014), state capacity is measured by the operations of the government with emphasis on bureaucratic procedures and their degree of autonomy from political forces (Fukuyama, 2013). Hold and Manning (2014) however claim that upstream bodies at the center of the government operate however differently than downstream delivery mechanisms as they may provide, administer and fund services under specific policies directions while retaining a degree of autonomy from political control while boosting the performance of the state. Notwithstanding, to assess the performance of the state comprehensively in the context of conflict prevention, is necessary to consider a set of boundaries and rules relative to role of the nation in a global order composed by multidimensional actors and processes. Coleman (2012) claims that the interdependence of states takes place in the form of economic globalization and the movement of capital across nations, thereafter for nations to protect their internal sovereignty according to their territorial foundation, states had to increase their policy-making focus to a global level. The concept of interdependence sovereignty is introduced by Stone and Ladi (2015) in the context of Global Public Policy as the willingness and capacity of governments to control the flows of goods, capital and people in and out of a determined nation as it fails the challenges and constrains of Globalization.

Globalization

According to the previous definitions, we can understand Globalization as a two-dimensional concept that encompasses cross-border trade to international regulations as well as driving force for international cooperation between one state and a number of international stakeholders by virtue of agreements and other interactions. Coleman’s (2012) globalization definition combines the processes that involve state and non-state actors in a global geographical extension that lead to a transformative growth of connections. This definition however rises a numerous questions regarding both the responsible authority as well as the content and regulating mechanisms of said interactions. Stone and Ladi (2015) propose a framework to regulate these interactions under the term transnational administration, in which the regulation, management and implementation of global policies of a public nature take place by both private and public actors operating beyond the boundaries and jurisdictions of the state, but often in areas beneath the global level. The authors propose the combination of globalization with governance in the form of public policy, in which a set of over set of overlapping but disjointed processes of public-private deliberation and cooperation among both official state-based and international organizations and non-state actors take place in a wide array of issues that range from boosting trade to resolving conflicts.

International cooperation

According to these definitions, is possible to assess international cooperation under a global public policy framework as a multidimensional area in which a wide array of stakeholders interact on different levels, whose coordination would only be achieved by international policy brokers to channel and deliver policy directions (Peck, 2015). Questions arise however on the capacity and legitimacy of international policy brokers on covering international multidisciplinary paradigms specially in the context of conflict prevention, as well as to their functions aimed at substitution key actions of states and supranational organizations accordingly. This issue is exacerbated by the areas free from intergovernmental regulation in which non-state actors dominate (Bernstein and Cashore, 2007), Abbot (2014) claims states that a significant amount of international cooperation is carried through dedicated interactions in the form of decentralized entities rather than through national governments as such. The extent and influence of international policy brokers in relation to states remains however diminished under the argument that states hold the monopoly of law and force that allows them to retain the exclusive rights to carry specific policies according to varying political objectives as well as to convey their interests in the international community with particular power. Furthermore, is necessary to note the nature and goals of international policy brokers in two groups, those who belong to the category of semi-autonomous agencies as well as those of trans-governmental configuration with those that evolve from the civil society whose agendas will drastically differ according their socio-cultural setting in addition to their political and economic affiliations. Taking into account this information, special attention should be made to recommended policy directions by reviewing the criteria, information and bias of international policy brokers according to a comprehensive situational assessment in different levels.

The contemporary capacity-sovereignty dilemma

Contemporary nations face a growing dilemma; on the one hand, state capacity is increased by international collaboration mainly regulated by a wide array of international policy brokers. On the other hand, the state requires comprehensive situational assessment tools to assess a wide array of risks as to evaluate its interactions with multiple stakeholders in a global level. The closure of the government from external flows is unrealistic due to the interconnection of markets, information and governance methods while a partial closure can only be achieved to different extents thereafter defeating its purpose. The simultaneous inter-governmental collaboration in periods of conflict carries different challenges as elements within the international cooperation framework can be weaponized in a wide array of forms. These conditions are exacerbated by the common goals of international Policy Brokers, which seek to continually reform systems to attract investors based in the quality of governance as a part of risk management practices Arndt & Oman (2008). Furthermore, by the prevalence of a common ideological consensus in the aftermath of the Cold War that contributed to unregulated flows due to the absence of ideological limitations and predispositions. A pragmatic solution is the separation of ideological components form flows by limiting their content to numeric values, however the lack of a definitive governance indicator prevents their widespread use Arndt & Oman (2008), this issue is furtherly exacerbated by the lack of clear interpretation mechanisms into issues of wide complexity relative to conflict resolution and prevention.

General conclusions

As a conclusion is possible to note the role of governance and international policy brokers as the main particularity of the state in the conflict resolution sphere as key determinants of their interactions with a wide array of stakeholders in the global order along their role in contributing to state capacity. In the context of conflict prevention is however necessary to understand the interactions between governments and international policy brokers due to the absence of common rules nor mechanisms of attribution or retribution of their actions. Regarding to the governance – sovereignty dilemma for conflict resolution, this paper suggests a two-step solution. First, the unimpeded flow of capital, goods, people and information that provides the state with the necessary capacity to assess and act upon global risks and challenges. Second, a continuous effort of the state to shield its core processes from foreign interference as well as from the adverse conditions from the context. To achieve this, a comprehensive regulatory framework is required to set and manage bureaucratic procedures with emphasis on their delivery mechanisms according to geostrategic objectives.