56 Fla. L. Rev. 921 (2004) | | | |

INTRODUCTION :: Professor Dinh raises the right issue highlighted by the 9/11 Commission: what should be the post-Cold War organizing principle for the global order? Historians may well consider the period between 1989 and 2001 a confused interim, in which it was unclear what would replace the bipolar world. While I agree with Professor Dinh that we now face an altered international landscape rife with transnational problems, the most pressing of which is terrorism, I disagree with his proposition that the solution lies in bolstering patriotism and returning to the primacy of the nation-state. Rather, I contend that these problems beseech us to create additional layers of governance whose jurisdiction will equal the scope of the unmistakably global problems that challenge us. Therefore, I will first outline the basic contours of these new layers of global governance on a practical level. It is then crucial to move to a normative level, within which I will point to the seeds of an emerging global synthesis of values between the East and the West.

Global governance is possible only if there exists a sense of community based on shared values. Therefore, though I agree with Professor Dinh’s diagnosis of the problems, I believe his solution falls far short of what is required if we are truly to end the assault on the safety and moral culture of all the world’s peoples.