Global Governance and Domestic Politics: Fragmented Visions

  • Başak Çalı
  • Ayça Ergun


Global governance is mostly studied as a top-down project. The meaning of the concept is analyzed and investigated from the perspective of a designated concept of the “global.” Such investigations focus rightfully on questions such as “How is the global defined?” “What does it replace?” “How valid is it?” “What and whom does it favor?” or more affirmatively, “How does it work?” and “How can it be done better?” In this chapter, we aim to alter the order of the investigation by focusing on how this influential contemporary Western idea can be understood by exploring its meaning and use in domestic settings. Our study of global governance thus aims to further the exploration of how global governance practices and discourses are produced and materialized in specific contexts.1 Within such a perspective, our focus is to identify and question the types of actors that emerge from the practices of global governance, the ways in which institutionalized power relations emerge amongst these actors, and how global governance practices frame or are reflected in domestic normative orders.


European Union International Actor Global Governance Domestic Actor Domestic Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amnesty International Turkey Human Rights Report. 1996. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  2. Aydınoğlu, E. 1992. Türk Solu: Eleştirel Bir Tarih Denemesi 1960–1971. İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.Google Scholar
  3. Baxi, U. 2002. The Future of Human Rights. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Charter of Paris for a New Europe. 1990. Vienna: Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.Google Scholar
  5. Communication 975 on the EU’s Role in Promoting Human Rights & Democratisation in Third Countries. 2001., accessed on July 30, 2003.
  6. Communication 976 on the EU’s Role in Promoting Human Rights & Democratisation in Third Countries. 2001., accessed on July 30, 2003.
  7. Development and Human Rights: The Role of World Bank. 1998. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  8. Ergun, A. 2003. International Challenges and Domestic Preferences in the Post-Soviet Political Transformation of Azerbaijan. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 2 (3–4): 635–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forsthye, D. 2000. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedom House Report on Turkey. 2001. Washington DC: Freedom House.Google Scholar
  11. Gayri Hökümet Teskilatlari Informasya Bulleteni. (Information Bulleting for Non-Governmental Organisations). September 1999. Baku. No: 3.Google Scholar
  12. Herzig, E. 1999. The New Caucasus, London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  13. Human Rights Watch Turkey Human Rights Report. 1999. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  14. ISAR. Third Sector. February–March 2001. No: 34.Google Scholar
  15. Özbudun, E. 2000. Contemporary Turkish Politics. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  16. Risse, T., S. C. Ropp, and K. Sikkink, eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Samim, A. 1981. The Tragedy of the Turkish Left New Left Review 126: 60.Google Scholar
  18. United Nations Development Report. 2002. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  19. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. 1993. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  20. Woodywiss, A. 2003. Making Human Rights Work Globally. London: Glass House Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Markus Lederer and Philipp S. Müller 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Başak Çalı
  • Ayça Ergun

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations