On Tuesday 1 October 2024, co-author Nils Gilman joined us to share the findings of his book, Children of a Modest Star: Planetary Thinking for an Age of Crises. He was joined by Dr Ganga Shreedhar, Assistant Professor in Behavioural Science at LSE, and Professor Karen E Smith, Professor of International Relations at LSE. The panel was chaired by Professor Robert Falkner, Professor of International Relations at LSE. The discussion revolved around the reimagination of architecture for global governance on key planetary challenges.
Nils Gilman began by making the conceptual distinctions between the ‘global’ and ‘planetary’. The current method by which we conceptualise international politics is through the lens of the ‘global’: managing the flow of goods, services and people between states. Institutions for ‘global’ governance were thus formed as a means for nation-states to negotiate their interests and engage in international cooperation. Yet, Gilman argues that contemporary challenges faced by the world today have surpassed the capacity of both individual nation-states and international institutions. In light of transboundary biogeographical and biogeophysical challenges like pandemics and climate change, Gilman proposes a new ‘planetary’ framework for thinking about the most pressing issues of our generation.
In light of transboundary biogeographical and biogeophysical challenges like pandemics and climate change, Gilman proposes a new ‘planetary’ framework for thinking about the most pressing issues of our generation.
Gilman uses this conceptual framework to examine international governance systems. Shared challenges that cannot be solved by any one nation-state alone should incentivise cooperation, yet this is not always effective due to institutional constraints where nation-states are empowered to prioritise their national interests. This tension is exacerbated by how things like tech for the sustainable transition and pandemic cooperation are increasingly viewed as areas of strategic importance in the international political economy. Hence, Gilman suggests alternatives that address such challenges. On one hand, we can empower technocrats by creating a new set of ‘planetary’ institutions chaired by experts, or invest in the transformation of existing institutions. On the other, we can empower those most affected by said planetary issues via means of network translocalism, such as by tapping upon the C40 network.
However, it is limited to argue that the primacy of the national state and its interests in international politics solely explains the limitations of global frameworks to resolve planetary challenges. Other possible factors include the politicisation of planetary challenges by individual politicians, corporate interests and the broader lack of solidarity on resolving them. Nils Gilman ultimately clarifies that he adopts an incrementalist agenda—it is more realistic to work within a framework composed of nation-states in the short term.
Nevertheless, systems thinking is conducive to re-evaluating why we have been limited in mounting an effective ‘global’ response to planetary challenges.
Nevertheless, systems thinking is conducive to re-evaluating why we have been limited in mounting an effective ‘global’ response to planetary challenges. The lecture concluded with an inquiry into when the moment will come when these theoretical frameworks are applied to real-world problem-solving—will it take a catastrophe to spur ‘planetary’ governance in the age of the anthropocene?
Event report by Jinyi Li, BSc Politics and International Relations
This article represents the views of the author, and not the position of the Department of International Relations, nor of the London School of Economics.
