Slaughter began by summarizing the first segment of her lecture, which she delivered on Oct. 16 at the College. "There is an immense infrastructure of global governance that already exists, but we can't see it because we wear theoretical lenses," she said. She reasoned that since innumerable government officials from many countries regularly meet and network, a large portion of policy-making at the national level utilizes standards and ideas from these informal international forums of officials.
Slaughter gave a few examples. "The regional commanders in the Pentagon do their job by networking with their national counterparts," she said. "This is a new American diplomacy." She further pointed out that financial regulators, intelligence operators and high court judges from around the world communicate in this way.
The encompassing authority inherent in international gatherings of top officials greatly empowers these networks. "[For instance,] if our central banker agrees on something that's within his jurisdiction, he can then go home and implement it," she said.
"The networks exchange information, which is important in a world of excessive information, getting information from reliable sources," she said. "[The networks] then put out codes of best practices [for many professional fields]."
"We need to make the networks more visible, accountable and inclusive," she said. Slaughter pronounced the need to first recognize the existence of these networks and then compel them to make their decisions public. The public must insist on including representatives from dispersed areas of the world, although, she said, expanding these networks to the size of the United Nations would render them inefficient.
"We also see a lot of unelected officials in networks," said Slaughter. Decisions that affect vast populations should represent diverse interests, she added. Therefore, elected legislative officials should further involve themselves in international networks. Slaughter recognized, however, the electoral difficulties politicians face when they negotiate and inevitably compromise with their counterparts.
According to Slaughter, the benefits that can be derived from these networks, such as more informed policy decisions, are considerable. In addition, these global networks are laden with experts from various fields and they can help struggling countries with the task of nation-building. "Reducing the inequality between developed and developing countries is crucial [to the success of this world order]," she said. She also noted that such networks can help govern the global economy.
"We need the capacity to address global problems. Terrorism is an example of a global problem," she said. "The most effective measures we have taken were through global networks. Through cooperation of intelligence operatives, attacks on Singapore and the European parliament were foiled."
Members of the audience questioned the prudence of handing vast power to officials, most of whom are unelected, who would have the ability to shape the fates of countless people. "If we lived in a world where international organizations had [legally-anchored] authority, we would be very careful of what powers we give them," said Slaughter. "We don't want a centralized global government. This is a way of giving us power to solve global problems without creating a centralized government."
When asked about the unwritten imbalances of power between nations, Slaughter said, "No world order will erase the differences in power between nations. But, she continued, "officials from small countries will have more influence individually than they would have in a comparable treaty-based international organization [such as the United Nations]."
Professor of Economics Beth Yarbrough hosted Slaughter during this visit. "Anne-Marie and I have known each other for years. We share research interests in many questions of international governance," she said.
Political Science Professor Pavel Machala, chair of the department, placed Slaughter's argument within the big picture of international relations research.
"Her theme [global governance] has been one of the most important 'stories" in [international relations] literature since the collapse of the Cold War system," he said. "Slaughter challenges those scholars who believe that as a result of globalization, states are losing sovereignty to international and transnational institutions. Instead, she maintains that the key to global governance lies in the network of state officials from executive, legislative as well as judiciary," he added.
"If only a tiny fraction of what I've talked about comes to existence, we will indeed have a new world order," concluded Slaughter, referring to educated nation-building and management of the economy.