March 22nd 2011: Global Governance and the Multilateral UN System:
•global governance a framework of rules and prevailing practices set by international institutions,
national governments and others for tackling global problems
•UC 266 final test EXACTLY AT 10. two essay questions on test*
•.today William C. Graham lecture. prof at law school, g8 research group, MP toronto-rosedale.
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
•most thing war and chaos in FP. trying to react to events as they occur. work on canada being
serious in americas but got lost in shuffle. canada-us relations in iraq. supposed to talk about UN
and WTO. did teach intl trade law. first 50 mins he will talk.
•UN essential institution. canada always been a big supporter of multilateral institutions. many
reasons for that. middle power, from his perspective canada big multilateralist because we
thought it was one area we could create set of rules based intl system and diplomacy opposed to
power based system, we better off with our relative capabilities, way to move away from US
shadow. where we are determines a lot of things. multilateralism factor of bilateralism runs
• UN linking NA and European security, place for humanitarian activity, links us to NATO
(organization that is not entirely US)
• Canada-us bilateral primary preoccupation. paradox because we want to be multilateral to
offset US ability, but we use multilateral inst as entry point into war and as increasing our
influence in washington. if we’re influential in UN and washington needs us we become more
• Not simple to just say we want UN to counter US bilateral influence because we’re using
position as establishing credibility in washington.
•sometimes its dangerous to be in multilateral inst if you’re in wrong place and US has different
views. times when we dont necessarily want to be in security council.
• Security; if you look at UN as instrument of security, compare it to NATO. whats on positive
side of UN? universal membership=legitimacy. its only global body under art 6 and 7, and has
only inst SC that can authorize intervention with legal legitimacy. larger the group more
complicated it is.
•G7/8 more efficient, but economically couldnt represent major countries and lost legit, had to be
increased in size
•always efficiency, legitimacy and universality complex to institutions.
•Sometimes UN acts successfully (Korea), cold war paralyzed however its efficiency. big powers
can always block action delaying process.
• NATO much more like minded group where agreement and timely action easier.
• Peacekeeping point of view, suggest that his thesis is that UN in peacekeeping is able to
legitimize action, but more capable of making it legit than carrying it out. Libya UN mandate but
no UN force enforcing no fly zone, someone else has to do it for UN(one of its problems)
Cameron said that libya action legal, measured.
• Kosovo was illegal but legitimate.
•canada had big role in UN, long active role not just in the past.