Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0260210510000136
复制
发表时间：
2010-04-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Brown, Garrett Wallace
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brown, Garrett Wallace
人们常常争辩说，多边主义不再是应对全球优先事项的有效机制，需要更多的审议和多部门治理。为了探讨这一点，本文的目的是审查全球抗击艾滋病、结核病和疟疾基金内部多部门审议的做法，并确定它是否导致对全球卫生优先事项作出了更审慎的反应。为此，本文将把协商民主的各种理论论据应用到对多部门组织全球基金为期四年的研究结果中。通过理论与实践的联系，本文将认为，全球基金实践的多部门主义继续遭受协商赤字，它没有保障利益相关者的平等参与，利益攸关方之间的平等审议或缓解目前多边治理形式的代表性的不对称权力关系。尽管如此，通过找出理论与实践之间的这些差距，可以概述审议保障措施，如果在章程上得到加强，这些保障措施可能会使全球基金更接近其自身的多部门审议决策的规范价值。
It is often argued that multilateralism is no longer an effective mechanism to respond to global priorities and that more deliberative and multisectoral governance is needed. To explore this, the purpose of this article is to examine the practice of mutlisectoral deliberation within the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and to determine whether it has resulted in providing a more deliberative response to global health priorities. To do so, this article will apply various theoretical arguments for deliberative democracy to the results of a four year study on the multisectoral organisation the Global Fund. By making links between theory and practice, the article will argue that the multisectoralism practiced by the Global Fund continues to suffer from a deliberative deficit and that it has not safeguarded equal stakeholder participation, equal deliberation between stakeholders or alleviate the asymmetric power relationships which are representative of current forms of multilateral governance. Nevertheless, by locating these gaps between theory and practice, it is possible to outline deliberative safeguards that might, if constitutionally enhanced, pull the Global Fund closer to its own normative values of multisectoral deliberative decision-making.