2008-E-2
Institutionalization of Regional Metagovernance
Framework to Enhance Human Security in East Asia*
Changrok Soh
Dean, Graduate School of International Studies, Korea University

1. Introduction

With increasing trends of globalization and economic growth evolved a concern ofthe conflicting nature between economic development and the environment. The Brundtland
Commission was created by the UN General Assembly to address issues regarding thehuman environment and natural resources and its relationship to economic and social
development; in 1987 it published a report dealing with the importance of sustainable
development, i.e. development that “meets the needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” 1 Today, it isunderstood that there exist three pillars necessary towards achieving sustainable
development, economic, environmental and social spheres, and these three pillars areinterrelated and mutually reinforcing.2
Thus, the significance of alleviating poverty and promoting economic growth in
impoverished regions to enhancing sustainable development is evident. Furthermore, thegaining awareness of human rights issues within the realm of social developmentemphasizes the interrelated nature between poverty alleviation and promoting human rights.
While these concerns are a global phenomena, the historical and cultural characteristics ofthe East Asian region, make the current issue in East Asia distinct from the problems thathave been faced in other regions. As such, the solutions to the problem cannot be replicas of
successful frameworks from the West, but a new framework must be constructed that is
applicable to the conditions that are characteristic of East Asia.
When East Asian countries experienced fast paced economic growth that shocked
the international community, many scholars attempted to explain the causes of the*This paper is a draft version for presentation purposes only and should not be used for citation.
1
United Nations. 1987. Our Common Future, Report of the Commission on Environment and Development.
General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987.
2
United Nations. 2005. World Summit Outcome Document. General Assembly Resolution 60/1, 24 October
2005.
1

development. However, the historical and cultural characteristics distinguished the region
from traditional approaches to understanding the economic development and a new model
was developed to promote understanding of the phenomenon. What is interesting is the factthat the ideas and concepts that were widely accepted by the academia came from within
East Asia, e.g. the Asian Values idea, although it lost popularity after the financial crisis in
1997, was first introduced by Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, and the Flying Geese Paradigm
was developed by Japanese scholars, Akamatsu, Kozima and Ozawa.
As aforementioned, the distinct historical and cultural dimensions within East Asia
make it critical that it is studied by academia that can understand these inherent differences.
Similar to the development of the frameworks to explain the miraculous economic
development in East Asia, the characteristics of the human rights violations and the need tounderstand and conceptualize human security are also unique within the region andcontinuous efforts by regional scholars must be made to achieve an understanding of the
problem and develop a plausible solution.
This paper will elaborate on the relationship between poverty alleviation and humansecurity, the significance of the concepts, how they are mutually reinforcing and how they
can contribute towards achieving sustainable development. In doing so, it will concentrate on
East Asia and emphasize the importance of the Millennium Development Goals as a
guideline for promoting action within the region. Finally, a metagovernance3 framework will
be introduced that is based on the collaborative efforts of multilateral actors, including IOs
NGOs and nation states, which is applicable to the East Asian region to enhance humansecurity and contribute to poverty alleviation.

Ⅱ. Conceptualization of Human Security

3

Metagovernance is a newly evolved theory with increasing interests in good governance. It will be explained

in detail in Ⅴ. East Asian Metagovernance Structure.
2

The traditional views of security were based on the concept of national security, i.e.
security that was concentrated within the boundaries of individual populations or people
residing in a particular nation state. This was largely due to the power that was possessedby nation states in the international arena, after the development of the sovereign state with
the Westphalian Order. A new international order advanced and has radically changed
situation since the 17th century when state power and state security was established tosustain order and peace.4
Today, however, there are more internal conflicts within states than international
conflicts, and in many cases states were found to threaten the security of its people. Other
new threats emerged with trends of globalization; threats to human security were no longer
restricted to those within a nation’s borders but began to include transboundary issues suchas environmental pollution, transboundary terrorism, or infectious diseases. Thus, as the
traditional concept of state security diminished, there evolved an interest in the individual
persons security, and the concept of human security emerged.
Human security was developed to encompass the limitations of national security,
and as such, complements state security. It further protects and enhances human rights andcontributes to human development. While scholars have not yet found a concrete
conceptualization of human security, most studies agree that human security brings together
the human elements of security, of rights and of development. Many efforts have been
conducted on a global level with the UN leading the progress; in 1994 the UNDP introduced
new dimensions of human security in its Human Development Report, and in 1999 the
Human Security Network was established by 14 countries from all regions, and in 2003 theCommission on Human Security published a report entitled Human Security Now: Protecting
and Empowering People.

4

Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human Security Now.
3

The Commission on Human Security defines human security as protecting the vitalcore of all human lives in ways that enhance the human freedoms and human fulfillment. In
addition the Commission identified four respects in which human security complements state
security; first, its concern is the individual and the community rather than the state; second,
menaces to people’s security include threats and conditions that have not always beenclassified as threats to state security; third, the range of actors is expanded beyond the statealone; and fourth, achieving human security includes not just protecting people but also
empowering people to fend for themselves. Human security attempts to protect individuals
from direct threats to their well-being, but a second aspect is the power for people to act on
their own behalf, which means that in order to promote human security, individuals must be
encouraged to build and develop capabilities and awareness of human dignity, which willlead to avoiding future threats.
While many global level studies on human security have reached a consensus on
the comprehensiveness of human security, the concrete conceptualizations must be done ona regional level5 to incorporate the conditions and situations that exist within a particularregion. For example, Western European countries have categorized human security into
seven different agendas, socio-economic security, health security, environmental security,
migrations security, cultural identity, personal liberty, and political security.6 Similar to these
efforts, East Asia must be able to reach a consensus on what constitutes human security
within the region.
This paper identifies human security in three regards in light of Kofi Annan’s
assessment. In 2000, he based the concept of human security on three building blocs, thefreedom from fear, freedom from want and the freedom of future generations to inherit a5

Ali Kazancigil. 2007. The Significance of Statehood in Global Governance. Regulating Globalization: Critical
Approaches to Global Governance. United Nations University Press.
6
J. Peter Burgess et al. 2007. Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and Educational Frameworks in
Western Europe. UNESCO 2007.
4

healthy environment7 which is relative to the three pillars of sustainable development, i.e.
economic development, human rights, and protecting the environment.
The economic development patterns in East Asia differ from those of other regions;the most significant cause being the existence of a strong government which interfered with
Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ in the market. While East Asia achieved economic
development at miraculous rates, giving birth to the Asian Tigers, Southeast Asian countries
continue to suffer from extreme poverty. The income gap among countries in the region isunbelievable, and with the 2000 Millennium Development Goals set to eradicate poverty by
2015, East Asian countries have split into recipient and donor countries. Under this context,
it is necessary to understand the poverty issues in the region and constructing a roadmap
that will lead to achieving the MDGs will help promote human security in the region.
If economic development relieves the material and temporal dimensions of humansecurity by providing a freedom from want, in order to protect people from fear, enhancing
human rights is a method of promoting human security. 8 Similarly, the need forinstitutionalizing regional human rights efforts is evident. While many other regions havebeen successful in establishing human rights regimes, East Asia is still without any specificframework. An inspection of the historical and cultural characteristics of the region that have
prevented the establishment of a human rights regime will lead to a possible solution to the
problem.
Finally, environmental security is a transnational phenomenon that contributes todegradation of the physical environment on which people depend. It affects individual’s wellbeing and health and influences economic productivity which indicates its direct relation tohuman security. However, efforts of protecting the environment must be differentiated fromthe above mentioned two pillars of sustainable development since many of the current

7

United Nations. 2000. We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st century. Speech to General
Assembly by Secretary-General, Press Release GA/9704, New York, 30 March.
8

Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human Security Now.
5

environmental problems are transborder issues that have no boundaries. For example,
recently, the United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Bali to discuss theglobal climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Although some environmental issues
are regional issues and emphasize the significance of efforts of direct stakeholders, manyare global phenomena and the cooperation and efforts of all countries are necessary; since
many emerging phenomena cannot be limited to the regional level, they have gained
recognition and global coordination on all levels is necessary to provide a solution.
The scope of this paper is concentrated on the regional institutionalization of ahuman security framework, therefore, it is limited to socio-economic and human rights
aspects of human security. Through a comparative analysis methodology, characteristics
that are unique in East Asia will be inspected to identify features that need to be understood
before building a possible East Asian framework that will lead to promoting human security inthe region.

Ⅲ. Regional Efforts to Building Human Security in the International Arena

The debate among universalists and relativists in perspective of human rights has
continued over the years. A universal consensus has formulated implying that universal
human rights do indeed exist. In the view of Donnelly, he disclaims that human rights can bederived from “God, nature or the physical facts of life”; instead they are said to be groundedin “man’s moral nature” in the need for “human dignity.”9
However, through these discussions, the study of human rights has continued andwith increasing efforts to globalize and institutionalize human rights, a general
conceptualization of human rights has developed. Today, about 90 regional and subject-

9Fred Dallmayr. 2002. “Asian Values” and Global Human Rights. Philosophy East and West, Vol. 52, No.2.
6

oriented international human rights regimes currently exist around the world. Most of theseregimes are state-oriented, or based on mutual agreements among nation states.10
In Europe, a regional human rights regime was created under the Helinski System topromote stability and peace in the context of the post-cold war Europe. The European
Human Rights regime was established by 40 member states of the European Council toprotect human rights and fundamental freedom. 11 The European Human Rights regime
extends beyond the boundaries of Europe by including provisions that require member
states to suggest human rights conditions when providing overseas assistance to developing
countries. In light of these efforts, it is possible to assess that efforts to prevent human rights
violations and promote human security are coherent with policies that concentrate on
economic development within not only member countries but also those of developing
countries.
Regional human rights regimes also exist in South America and even Africa.12 In
the case of South America, the human rights regime has contributed to political stability andpeace, and has promoted human rights, however, in Africa, they have not been as
successful with their efforts as in the other regions. Despite the limitations in theirachievements, the efforts of Africa to incorporate their needs into developing a uniqueframework must be valued.
East Asia is the only region that has not constructed human rights regime. The
awareness within East Asia of human rights violations and threats to human security has
10

UNESCO Korea. 1995. Principal International Documents Regarding Human Rights.

11

The European Human Rights Regime is headquartered in Strasbourg, France and was established based on
the European Convention, ratified in 1950. In addition, the European Social Charter works to induce change insocial policies and constitutions in European Countries by introducing clear standards for social and economic
rights. Agreements exist regarding gender equality or racial discrimination.
12Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court established under the OAS of
1959 form the American Human Rights Regime. The American Human Rights Regime differs from that of theEuropean Human Rights Regime in that it is not based on separate human rights principles. Instead, InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights concentrates on increasing awareness of human rights, producing
recommendations, reviewing individual petitions as well as conducting investigations of violations. The Human
Rights regime in Africa is a part of the African Union(AU), and was established based on the African Charter on
Human and People’s rights. It is characterized by an emphasis on individual rights, collective rights and people’s
rights. It also contains rights to development and peace.
7

heightened during the past decades, but an effective mechanism structure is still in need ofdevelopment. Despite the lack of success in implementing a regional framework in East Asia,
there have been several significant efforts to promote human security, e.g. several individualstates, Japan, Korea, or Thailand are exampled of state level efforts that have madeimportant contributions. More importantly, there have also been regional level efforts within
East Asia, i.e. ASEAN.
ASEAN was established in 1967 in Bangkok and currently contains 10 member
countries. 13 The objectives and purposes of the ASEAN Declaration are stated as
accelerating economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region, andto promote regional peace and stability. 14 Furthermore, three pillars, ASEAN Security
Community, ASEAN Economic Community, and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community were
established in 2003 by ASEAN leaders. In order to promote security in the region ASEAN
understood the necessity of cooperation and dialogue within Asia-Pacific, e.g. in 1994 theASEAN Regional Forum(ARF) was established in recognition of the importance of security
interdependency in the region. Diverse regional security issues were under discussion suchas non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, transnational crimes. However, the concept of humansecurity is not at issue within the ARF and the efforts emphasize more traditional security
issues and have yet to consider human security that concentrates on the individual persons.
Although the efforts to improve dialogues among countries to promote security are critical,
ASEAN was unable to incorporate non-state actors into the discussions. Present participants

13

The original member countries were Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei
Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Cambodia have also gained membership as of today.
14
See http://www.aseansec.org/64.htm
8are limited to the state level and also include states that are not geographically located within
the region, such as the United States or Canada.15
Under such conditions, a constructive framework that implements multilateraldialogues of diverse non-state actors is necessary. However, this framework must be
adaptable to the unique conditions that are inherent in the East Asian region. In order to beable to establish a plausible framework within the region, the characteristics of the historicaland cultural circumstances that differentiate East Asia from other regions must be analyzed
and understood.

Ⅳ. Understanding East Asia: Characteristic Threats and Conditions

The situation in East Asia is more complex and must be understood in light of two
significant factors. The first, is the threat posed by the North Korean regime. The violationsof human rights in North Korea are dire, as is the difficulties faced by the people due to alack of resources and food. The serious food shortage has led to mass starvation and it isreported that 1~2 million people, which accounts for 10% of the total population died ofmalnutrition. According to a report by Good Friends, a South Korean NGO devoted to theissues of peace, human rights, and refugees, it is estimated that the mortality rate of children
under 9 is 40.5% and that of elderly people who are 60 and over is almost 80%.16 In a 2004
report, UNICEF and WFP research surveyed 4,800 children under 6 years of age and foundthat 23% were underweight, 37% suffered from malnutrition, and 7% were in the state of15

The present participants include: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, EU, India,
Indonesia, Japan, DPRK, ROK, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New
Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, the US and Vietnam.
16

Ahn-Sook, Jung. North Korea’s Food Shortage Problems and Current Situation of North Korean Refugees.
Good Friends.
9extreme malnutrition.17
Inequalities of distribution of the Northern developed nations compared to theSouthern less developed nations has gained recognition within the global arena, but similar
to this wide gap of wealth, a difference of wealth exists within East Asian nations, with
developed countries like Singapore, Japan and Korea ranking in the top largest economies
in the world, while others such as Vietnam and Cambodia continue to struggle to provide
necessities to its people.18 This problem is becoming more severe in the region due to thenegative aspects of China’s economic development. Thus, the second major threat in East
Asia is posed by the increasing inequalities persisting in China. China is a developing at avery rapid pace, and despite its economic development it has achieved after opening market
economy, inequalities of income and wealth is prevalent in the country, which poses anothersevere problem to the region.
Although China has advanced its economy and showed a strong growth rate ofgross domestic product (GDP) 9.37% per year, on average,19 according to its 2005 MDG
country report, the population below the international poverty line has shown improvement
since 1990, the 85 million suffering from extreme poverty has decreased to 26.1 million in
2004, which is 2.8% of the rural population. In addition, reported cases of HIV infection areclose to 50,000 and estimates of HIV/AIDS prevalence range between 650,000 and
1,020,000 million. Nearly 40% of the population in rural areas does not have access to clean
drinking water, while under five mortality rate is at 25%. Gender inequality is another direct
violation of human rights, with less than 50% of girls participating in primary education in
2002.20

17

Changrok, Soh. 2007. Enhancing Human Security in North Korea Through Development of Human Rights
Regime in Asia.
18
According to the Global Competitiveness Report conducted by the World Economic Forum(WEF), in the
2007-08 report, Singapore ranked 7th, Japan 8th, and Korea 11th. Compared to these high rankings, Vietnam
ranked 68th, while Cambodia ranked 110th.
19
Statistical Yearbook 2003, p.57
20
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, United Nations System in China. 2005.
China’s Progress Towards the Millennium Development Goals.
10While the 2002 data present that all provinces in China have reached the 0.5 UN
global cut-off that indicate ‘medium’ development; improvements in the Human Development
Index have grown from 0.522 in 1975 to 0.726 in 2000, and ranked 96 out of 173 countries
in the 2002 Human Development Report. However, the problem is that the inequalities thatpersist within China are at a difference of 30% among the richest and the poorest. As of
1999, China is no longer a low-income country, 21 and although there are continuous
discussions as to the nature of China as a threat, or a beneficial factor to the East Asian
region, it is evident that the severe inequalities of distribution that are prevalent in the
country and further within the region is an issue of utmost concern, within the agenda ofpromoting human security.
These two significant threats, in the form of individual nation states, North Korea andChina, distinguish the East Asian region from that of Europe or the Americas. Nevertheless,the model frameworks that have been studied and advanced in these western societies
provide a basic foundation for constructing a framework that is applicable to the East Asian
region.
Another distinctive characteristic of East Asia can be analyzed within the success of
its fast paced economic development. While the international arena was more oriented
towards laissez-faire market policies, many East Asian countries were dominated by strong
government policies that monitored and assisted the private sectors market behaviors.
Strong states are able to deploy state institutions to perform certain public policy functions
despite the existence of other public policy functions,22 as such, they are able to play asignificant role in designating the course of the market. Thus, although the effects of thestate power on the market economy are still under study, i.e. the positive and negative21

In 1999, the World Bank raised China’s classification to a lower middle income country when China’s per
capita income surpassed the $755 cut-off point for low-income countries. Information is taken from China’s
Progress Towards the Millennium Development Goals, MDG Country Progress Report.
22
Grainsborough, M. (2002). Political Change in Vietnam: In Search of the Middle-Class Challenge to theState. Asian Survey, Vol. 42, No. 5.
11aspects of state interference, the fact that the market was influenced by the state within East
Asian development patterns is undeniable.
The importance of constructing a regime that is applicable to the unique conditionsof East Asia can be supported by the difficulties that were faced in explaining the East Asian
economic miracle. Literature indicates that the Flying Geese Paradigm, coined by Kojima, aJapanese scholar, is the most widely recognized as explaining the patterns of economic
growth in the region. The Flying Geese Paradigm was a development of Akamatsu’s23
discussion of industrial diffusion across nations and Vernon’s interpretation of investments
made by exporting economies in the form of FDI or ODA which increased trade andeconomic growth. East Asian countries were identified as following a pattern of growth withless developed countries following precedent forerunners.
The Flying Geese Paradigm, or catching-up product cycle model, identified spillover
effects and benefits that neighboring countries received from Japan. This led to adevelopment of the East Asian market, which resulted in increased inflows of capital from
Western industrialized economies. Bruce Cumings later interpreted the Flying Geese Modelin light of Japanese colonialism. According to Cumings, while most western countries
exploited the resources found in their colonies; the inflow of capital was from the colonizedcountry to the colonizer, in the case of Japan, it invested heavily in its colonies. Cumings
interprets this by understanding Japanese colonialism in the context of national expansion.
What is significant within these interpretations of East Asian economic growth
patterns is the fact that they incorporate the unique conditions that are prevalent in the
23

Akamatsu’s Flying Geese Paradigm explains the industrial development through analysis of a sequential
phenomenon of production related to trade. Akamatsu applied the Flying Geese Paradigm on both domestic andinternational levels. The “intra-industry” product cycle is made by the emergence of new product groups withineach industrial sector. The second diversification is more important for the analysis of this paper; the “interindustry” product cycle shows the level of development within a national economy and is characterized by ashift in the relative mass of production from consumer to capital goods.
On the international level, “international economy” implies existence of hierarchies within regional
economies. This “international economy” explains that industrial transfers are caused by resources andtechnological capacities. The Flying Geese Paradigm explains patterns of industrial development on the basis ofless-advanced country’s economy entering into an international economic relationship with advanced countries.
12

region. It is evident that the nation-state played a dominant role in undertaking development
policies and it is important to recognize such historical and cultural conditions that arecharacteristic of the region.
It must be recognized that an aspect of concern in the region is the power struggle
among the three largest economies, Korea, China and Japan. The political tension thatpersists among these countries are a hindrance to enhancing human security in the region
and make it more important to find a method that will encourage these countries tocooperation and collaborate their efforts to promote human development and well being in
the region.
Within the sphere of human security, in constructing a new framework that is uniqueto the East Asian region incorporating its characteristics and conditions, it is important tounderstand the role that the government played in achieving economic growth. A similar
framework that recognizes the possibility of the government can be utilized to construct a
metagovernance model that incorporates the historical past of East Asia, while transforming
the role that was played by the state into a new more appropriate one.

Ⅴ. East Asian Metagovernance Structure

Governance was first formed as a mechanism to reliably measure and determine
objects of international assistance and promote effective regulation in answer to the MDGs
efforts to eradicate poverty by 2015. The UN Millennium Declaration addressed the“collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity”24 in light of the MDGs,
which explicitly indicates the relationship between poverty and human security.
Efforts to formulate a governance structure at a regional level are important becauseof the strategic role it can play in democratized multilevel global governance. Two specific24

United Nations Millennium Declaration Section 1 Article 2.
13reasons are given by Kazancigil, the first being that regional integration efforts andintergovernmental regional organizations are instruments for articulating and defending theinterests and policies of governments, and second, to offer a solution to the perennial
dilemma of the transnational system and global governance system.25
Within the context of the East Asian situation it is necessary to moderate the role ofthe nation-state and collaborate the efforts on a governmental level with non-governmental
efforts. Furthermore, due to the dramatic differences in development among states, acoalition needs to be formed among leading nations, or nations that can provide a leadingrole in solving the problem, which can moderate and facilitate the actions of other nation
states in the region. In short, a Flying Geese Paradigm, must be constructed among theparticipating nation-states, and the roles of each individual state in promoting human security
will differ accordingly.
Although most human rights work has aimed at holding the state accountable forrights violations, especially political and civil violations, which occur within its borders,26
while it must be accepted that the state is a major actor of human rights violations, by limiting
responsibility to state actors, it is impossible to grasp the entire scope of human security. Theview that the state is responsible for human rights violations is more acceptable within theboundaries of the traditional national security concept; human security is a far more complex
and comprehensive concept, encompassing violations of not only state actors, within
national borders but also the actions of other states, inter-state, and private actors, which
contribute directly and indirectly to a wide range of human and environmental rights
violations.27
Under such context, although the state must continue to play a significant role in25

Ali Kazancigil. 2007. The Significance of Statehood in Global Governance. Regulating Globalization:
Critical Approaches to Global Governance. United Nations University Press.
26
Grahame Russell. 1998. All Rights Guaranteed, All Actors Accountable: Poverty is a Violation of Human
Rights. Development in Practice.
27
Grahame Russell. 1998. All Rights Guaranteed, All Actors Accountable: Poverty is a Violation of Human
Rights. Development in Practice.
14

advancing human security, the efforts must be on a multilateral level, including thecollaboration of IOs, NGOs, and the private sector; thus a metagovernance system must be
created to incorporate these various actors into a well functioning good governance model.
Global governance is an attempt to effectively functionalize multilateral institutions.
“Traditional” multilateralism refers to an exclusively state centric, top-down approach that is
focused on inter-state efforts. The limitations of this approach have led to a “bottom-up” or“cosmopolitan” multilateralism, which emphasizes the role of NGOs and civil actors. 28
Metagovernance incorporates the limitations of both of these approaches and collaborates
both the efforts made by nation-states in a top-down approach and civil actors of the bottomup approach.
Metagovernance attempts to modify the relative balance among various governancemechanisms and modify their relative importance, in short by managing the complexity,
plurality, and tangled hierarchies found in prevailing modes of co-ordination and involves the
judicious mixing of market, hierarchy, and networks. 29 It refers to all government
arrangements including the containing process of regulations on the supragovernmental
level. Through a metagovernance system, new boundary-spanning roles and functions aredefined which create linkage devices and sponsor new organizations. Metagovernancefunctions to facilitate the effective usage of the networks that exist among the diverse actors
and arrangements, or objectives. Furthermore, through a metagovernance system it ispossible to effectively regulate among governance partners and enhance discussions among
political units.
Due to the characteristics of the region, the need for a metagovernance regime isespecially important in East Asia. The historically state-centrism that was prevalent in many
East Asian countries, the traditional top-down government structure, and the lack of a anticorruption mechanism has led the state to become a strong player in diverse spheres, and in28

Ali Kazancigil. 2007. The Significance of Statehood in Global Governance. Regulating Globalization:
Critical Approaches to Global Governance. United Nations University Press.
29
Bob Jessop. 2003. The Future of the Capitalist State. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
15

some cases allowed countries to achieve development. However, with regard to humansecurity, states must be moderated and monitored by non-governmental actors to prevent
threatening human development.
A metagovernance system provides an answer to the cooperation and collaborationof multilateral actors in East Asia. The state will continue to play a strong role within this newframework, but will be assisted by International Organizations such as the UN which
provides broad guidelines for action, and evaluation of state behaviors which will act as amonitoring mechanism against individual governments. Furthermore, IOs will be able tomonitor general behaviors of the international community and individual states, which willcontribute towards achieving policy coherence.
Civil societies must play a crucial role for the metagovernance framework to be
successful; the importance of incorporating the bottom-up approach, which will function as astronger monitoring and checking system must be recognized. The advantage that NGOs
and civil society has compared to International Organizations is that they can concentrate
their efforts on specific issues and projects. Whereas, IOs provide broad and general
guidelines for action, NGOs are able to critically assess a situation and analyze the actual
behaviors that are necessary under given conditions.
The future of sustainable development can be enhanced by the private sector.
Multinational corporations have expanded their boundaries to encompass the global market,
MNC behaviors are no longer limited to national boundaries but production is outsourced
globally to increase efficiency. Since, the behaviors of any corporation are founded on theefficiency and effectiveness to increase competitiveness, incorporating the advantages ofcorporations into the framework to enhance effectiveness.
More important than the allocation of roles to different actors within the
metagovernance system is the effectiveness of relationships among these various actors. Allof these actors are interrelated, and must cooperate in order to achieve a functioning good
governance system. Since the linkages among multilateral actors are complicated and many
16

networks must be interconnected, a comprehensive and exhaustive study to provide anunderstanding of the diversity that prevails within the system is critical to its successful
implementation. It must also be recognized that the exact roles of each actor is tentative, sothat they will change according to the agenda.

Ⅵ. Hypothetical East Asian Metagovernance Framework Proposal
Case Study: Towards Achieving the MDGs

The MDGs are a global level effort, but regional efforts to eradicate poverty will leadto promoting human security. As indicated above, in order to be successful, it is necessary toconstruct a regional metagovernace framework that reflects the historical and culturalcharacteristics of East Asia. More important than the allocation of roles to the diverse actors
within the framework, which will be elaborated in detail, is the collaborative efforts of all of
the actors to cooperate and build relationships that are mutually reinforcing. The complexityof the relationships need not be discussed, but it necessary to recognize that theinterconnectedness of the networks that exist among the different actors must becomprehensive and exhaustive to function as a successful mechanism.

International Organizations

The Millennium Development Goals were initiated at the UN Millennium Summit in
September 2000 and was adopted by 189 nations.30 They consist of 8 different goals set for
the year 2015, measured by 48 different indicators. The first 7 goals focus on increasing thewelfare of less developed nations, whereas Goal 8, Global Partnership, concentrates on the30

Secretary General K. Annan. Road Map Towards the Implementation of the Millennium Declaration. UN
Document 56/326.
17

relationship between recipient and donor countries.
While the ultimate goal of the MDGs is poverty eradication, an inspection of thespecific goals indicate that many are centered on providing basic human needs, such asproviding education opportunities, protecting health or providing sufficient drinking water
facilities or infrastructures, and promoting environmental sustainability.31 The MDGs weredeveloped to “recognize explicitly the interdependence between growth, poverty reduction
and sustainable development” 32 and emphasizes respect for human rights, peace andsecurity.
The achievement of the MDGs set by the UN was that they provided substantial
guidelines for action and quantified these guidelines to assist practical implementation by theinternational community. The first step within the proposed metagovernance structure wasundertaken by International Organizations, namely the UN in this case, to provide a trigger
for action.
Furthermore, as indicated in MDG 8. entitled Global Partnership, by requiring
participating countries to report their progress, although non-binding in nature, the UN has
implemented an evaluation mechanism. Since it is difficult to establish legally binding
legislatives in the case of ODA, peer review among countries was implemented as apossible method of providing evaluation of participation, and to encourage future action. By
monitoring the actions of individual countries it will be possible to achieve policy coherence
31

32

UN Millennium Development Goals·

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger·

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education·

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women·

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality·

Goal 5: Improve maternal health·

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases·

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability·

Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

See www.undp.org/mdg
18

with ODA approaches, e.g. the WTO monitors trade and tariff rates while the UNDP
concentrates on analyzing development policies of countries.

State Actors

Under the guidelines set by the UN, individual nations have provided assistance todeveloping countries. However, the majority of assistance is multilateral and project based.
This is because multilateral aid is more effectively utilized than bilateral aid, and projectbased assistance contributes more towards sustainable development than programme
based, which is in many cases one-time assistance. In order to effectively utilize multilateral
aid projects, again diverse actors must be able to construct an effective method ofcooperation.
Among the countries that have provided ODA in East Asia, the efforts of Japan and
Korea as individual countries are especially noticeable. In the case of Japan, in 2000 thenPrime Minister Yoshiro Mori, declared at the Millennium Development Summit that Japan will
uphold human security as one pillar of Japan’s foreign policy, and called for theestablishment of an international commission on human security to further and deepen theconcept. 33 Kofi Annan established the “Commission on Human Security” following this
proposal in 2001 and Japan continued its efforts by establishing a Trust Fund for Human
Security in the UN, and has continued to hold symposiums, e.g. “Human Security
Now(2003),” “Human Security and National Security(2004),” “APEC Human Security
Seminar(2005)” and in celebration of the 20th anniversary of Japan’s admission to the UN,“50th Anniversary of Japan’s Admission to the UN: International Symposium on Human
Security.”34

33

Global Issues Cooperation Division. 2007. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. The Trust Fund for Human
Security For the “Human-centered” 21st Century.
34

Global Issues Cooperation Division. 2007. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. The Trust Fund for Human
19

Japan started the Trust Fund for Human Security with a contribution of ¥500 million
in 1999, as of 2006 total contributions exceeded ¥33.5 billion. As identified within the 2007
report, the objective of the fund was to translate the concept of human security into concrete
activities implemented by UN agencies through supporting projects that address diverse
threats including poverty, environmental degradation, conflicts, health problems to securepeople’s lives, livelihoods and dignity.
While there was no explicit concentration on East Asian threats, and the effort was
based on a global level, an inspection of the actual projects implemented since its initiation
present a preference for assistance to East Asian countries. As of February 2007, a total of
139 projects have been approved, of these 35 are in the Southeast Asian region and another25 are categorized as Asia, other than Southeast Asia. 35 A further inspection of theindividual projects in Asia present that they are categorized under 9 different issues, poverty,
health, drug, refugees, crime, conflict, disaster, environment and others. Within Southeast
Asia 18 of the 35 projects are categorized under poverty, while 7 are health issues, implying
the extreme poverty issues that are prevalent in Southeast Asia. In contrast, in Asia, otherthan Southeast Asia only 7 of the 25 projects were categorized under poverty.36 This gap
that exists among Southeast Asian countries and East Asian countries is severe, and so
developed countries in the region must work to alleviate the inequality gap before thesituation becomes more accentuated.
Japan’s efforts towards enhancing human security are evident, on both global andregional levels, thus it is obvious that Japan should play a leading role among the nations
within the metagovernace framework so that other countries can follow its example. Although
Japan has been the leading country in economic prosperity in East Asia, the case of Korea is
Security For the “Human-centered” 21st Century.
35

See table p. 7 Approved Budget: Region. Global Issues Cooperation Division. 2007. Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan. The Trust Fund for Human Security For the “Human-centered” 21st Century.
36
See List of Projects Supported by the Trust Fund for Human Security(As of February 2007). Global Issues
Cooperation Division. 2007. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. The Trust Fund for Human Security For the“Human-centered” 21st Century.
20different and provides new implications to recipient countries.
As Jefferey Sachs professed during his visit to Korea in 2007, the fact that Korea
was able to transform itself from a recipient country to a donor in the course of a few
decades is miraculous; Korea is a model case for other developing countries to envy andfollow. Although the contributions that Korea has made in the total amount of ODA is minimalcompared to that of Japan, the actual amount of ODA in 2006 was over $450 million, andwas over $750 million in 2005, it is planning to increase its total volume in 2007. Further, due
to the traditional zeal for education in Korea, many of the projects funded by Korea areconcentrated on increasing education opportunities, which will improve the qualities of lives
in developing nations and provide increasing awareness and skills that allow people to work
to sustain them.37
More importantly, however, is the fact that the actual implications of Korea as amodel country case for developing countries are invaluable. Korea is also distinguishable
from other East Asian countries since its democratization process was based on a bottom-up
approach. This historical experience will also contribute towards making a well balances
effective metastructure that attempts to incorporate the values of top-down and bottom-up
approaches.
Furthermore, due to the tension that still exists between Japan and Korea based on
their historical ties, the cooperation of Japan and Korea to create a coalition that leads otherstates within the regime in addition to the symbolic implications of the effort will lead to astronger and more effective metagovernance framework which could possibly result inproviding a substantial halo effect.

NGOs and Civil Societies

37

Statistics taken from www.koica.go.kr
21

Non-governmental actors and civil actors are able to specify their efforts onparticular causes and needs; they are more compassionate and committed to the individualtasks and provide the acute personal attention that is needed in many cases. 38 As
mentioned above, if international organizations provide general guidelines for actions, NGOs
and civil actors can provide specific action plans. Since their interests are limited to specificissues they are able to effectively analyze characteristic conditions in individual countries toassess the direct needs of recipient countries. This is particularly important since recent
ODA practices are project-based and conducted on a case-by-case analysis.
By providing in-depth analysis of the conditions and needs within a specific country,
taking into consideration the historical and cultural aspects of the recipient country will
facilitate assistance efforts from external sources. In addition, because NGOs are able towork closely with recipient countries, they provide an critical link between the recipient
country and the donor partner, and can ease discussions and conflicts that can occur
because of a lack of understanding.
In order to effectively utilize ODA in developing countries, there is increasing
concern of ownership and partnership. Without recipient countries awareness of
responsibility and efficient usage of funds, it will be impossible to achieve the MDGs.
Unfortunately, however, many developing countries are suffering from corruption, and lackanti-corruption mechanisms. Civil societies must monitor both recipient and donor partners
and act to hinder corruption to increase efficiency.
Another important role that civil societies must play is with regard to the evaluation
process. Although a peer review evaluation system and progress reports are implemented
by the UN, the progress reports are created by the participating countries, which may result
in lack of objectivity.

38

United Nations Publication. 2005. A Future Within Reach: Reshaping Institutions in a Region of Disparities to
Meet the Millennium Development Goals in Asian and the Pacific. Thailand. ISBN:92-1-120439-9
22

Private Sector

With globalization and increasing trade and investments, corporations are now
operating in a global market, not limited to importing and exporting manufactured goods but
expanding the production process over a number on countries to gain efficiency andcompetitiveness. An important aspect in East Asia is the increasing intra-regional trade andinvestment that has led to larger market economy for participating countries. With China
emerging as a huge potential market, the majority of foreign direct investment from the Westhas flown into China, which has raised continuous questions about the potential threat that
China poses on the regional economy.
Despite these concerns, many private corporations in the region have grown in size
to and today many MNCs exist within East Asian countries. With rising interests in Corporate
Social Responsibility, e.g. the Global Compact that was initiated by the UN, including
corporations in the future metagovernance structure is beneficial. Private operations are
more effective at economic tasks, they have the potential capability to innovate new methodsof activities. For example, the private sector service was able to expand mobile telephones,
which has made phone services more available to the poor. A Bangledashi company,
Grameen Phone is the countries largest mobile phone provider; women, by a phone with aloan and then sell calls to users.
Since the basic intention of all corporations is profit, extreme caution is necessary
with regard to corporate activities, so that they contain responsibility throughout assistanceprocesses. In the case of ODA, it is crucial to maintain a balance between providing
efficiency and being open to the needs of the suffering. This balance must be monitored byboth international organizations and civil societies.

Ⅶ. Conclusion
23

Human security is a fairly new concept under study by the academia that has gained
recognition largely in answer to the limitations of the traditional state security concept andthe increasing interests in achieving sustainable development. Although the current
conceptualization of human security is not definitive or concrete, continuous efforts tounderstand and identify the boundaries of human security are necessary.
Under the context that human security has emerged as a more comprehensive andcomplicated concept that encompasses state security, and includes newly arising threatsthat have emerged from the new international order, it is obvious that the solution toproviding human security is not possible by the singlehanded effort of the state. The conceptof the sovereign state itself has changed since its development, and today the power that thestate possesses in the international arena is limited.
Thus, the collaborative effort of diverse actors on all levels is necessary to enhance
human security. However, the threats to human security that exist differ from region to region,
as the historical and cultural backgrounds differ; by creating effective regional efforts todissolve of potential threats, increasing human security on regional levels will lead topromoting human security in the global arena. It is also possible for regional efforts to reflect
an understanding of characteristic situations and conditions that are unique to a particularregion which is precisely why an East Asian human security framework, that incorporates thevalues and conditions unique to East Asia, must be constructed to protect individuals fromthreats to their well-being, livelihoods, and human dignity.
By implementing a metagovernace framework in East Asia, it will be possible to forma structure of diverse actors, state and non-state actors, that collaborate and cooperate theirefforts to increase efficiency and effectively enhance human security. Since there will becomplexities inherent in the networks among these actors, in order for this model to be
successful, the traditional role of the strong sovereign state that dominated behaviors within
24

national boundaries must be discarded and the state must transform radically into a new
type of state that undertakes the role of managing and moderating the interactions among
the diverse actors. By incorporating both the efforts from above and below, the new staterole must be able manage effectively to facilitate the efforts of the diverse actors and tofurther promote efficiency in order to create a strong well-functioning metagovernanceframework.

25

GIARI Working Paper Vol. 2008-E-2,
May. 30, 2008
Published by Waseda University Global COE Program
Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI),
Waseda University, Nishiwaseda Bldg. 5F#507 1-21-1
Nishi-waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan
E-mail: affairs@waseda-giari.jp
http://www.waseda-giari.jp
Printed in Japan by International Academic Printing Co.Ltd

26