Internationale Institutionen und nichtstaatliche Akteure

ence in Beijing (both of 1995). Of particular
relevance for the ethics of global governance
is the Millennium Declaration of 2000 which
sets high standards for universal peace, prosperity
and sustainability.
Mallavarapu: The UN is undoubtedly
the international body which enjoys the widest
legitimacy globally. However, in my opinion
it is essential in the interest of legitimacy
that we get back to regional or local sources
to find global values. In India, Mahatma Gandhi
and Rabindranath Tagore, a popular Bengali
poet, novelist and musician, are excellent
exemplars of locally anchored cosmopolitan
beings. Why always refer only to [Imma nuel]
Kant when we think of cosmopolitanism?
Sure, he had some very important ideas to offer
the world but we need to also take into
consideration sophisticated thinking in other
parts of the world. In my view, regional references
are essential in order to find a global
consensus on values and norms. The archive
must be opened up to include thinking available
in both past and present in Africa, Latin
America and Asia. This has to be done with
genuine interest, rather than merely as token
gestures of goodwill. To begin with we must
all be better listeners. The rest follows only
subsequently.
Fues: I would agree that many examples
from history can also be valuable sources for
the constitution of global norms. I am thinking
for example of the governing principles of
the Indian Emperor Ashoka (304–232 BCE),
who established a political system based on
ethical commitments in regard to equality of
all human beings, respect of religions, nonviolence,
prohibition of slavery and the death
penalty, environmental protection and animal
welfare. His kingdom is also seen as the
first to provide humanitarian assistance to
neighbouring countries, including medical
personnel, facilities, medicine as well as engineers.
Another interesting example is the
Tang dynasty in China (618–907 CE), with its
cosmopolitan achievements such as peaceful
coexistence of ethnic communities, religious
and cultural freedom, equality of women
and, to a limited extent, rule of law. In my
understanding, any global ethical framework
derived from historical experiences, religious
teachings and cultural values would
have to be deliberated and negotiated in an
inclusive, transparent fashion, preferably un-
der the aegis of the United Nations. For this
purpose, I could imagine both a decision of
the UN General Assembly by consensus or a
majority decision which allows for a limited
number of dissenting votes.
“Nobody forces a government
to ratify a human rights agreement”
And where do you see the main challenges to
these universal projects?
Fues: We have to acknowledge that the impact
of normative frameworks such as that of
the UN is weak since member states ignore
them at their will with impunity. There are
huge gaps in monitoring and no sanctioning
mechanisms – except in international security
and trade. These gaps structurally privilege
the arbitrary exercise of sovereign rights
– the pursuit of narrow national self-interest –
over the ethically based concept of “enlightened
sovereignty” (Stephen Harper) which
puts equal emphasis on global responsibilities
and multilateral cooperation. Another
challenge to UN norm-creation comes under
the guise of anti-colonial emancipation. It is
claimed by some quarters that ethic al standards
in general and the particular hierarchy
of moral priorities have been created to serve
the interests of western states. This position
disregards the broad participation of political
leaders and scholars from the developing
world. Still, in a historical perspective, the
contested documents originate from a period
of western predominance. It may therefore be
advisable to initiate a new process for global
ethics which reflects multipolarity and explicitly
draws on value systems and historical
experiences from the South.
Mallavarapu: This is not only a question
of historical perspective. One of the big challenges
is the contradiction between the principle
of equal legal standing between all UN
member states, and the stark differentials
in the world system in terms of actual state
standing. The UN is probably the most attractive
forum to jointly discuss global values.
But even within the UN system, the Security
Council is an exclusive club. The UN
General Assembly, which is far more representative
than the Security Council, is not
half as influential. The structures of the UN
are in high need of reform. Outside the UN
APuZ 34–35/2010 11