The proliferation of international policymaking organizations has intensified discussions about global governance, making certain questions imperative for those concerned about the implications of shared sovereignty. What are the processes by which international agendas are declared universal? Are they democratic? What happens when national governments disagree with world agendas, and how are disputes arbitrated? As globalization progresses, should national governments expect to cede some aspects of sovereignty?

To address these issues, policymakers and the general public can now turn to Global Governance Watch (GGW)--a new web-based resource that monitors suprastate and nonstate actors, such as the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other entities with influence over international law and policy. A project of AEI and the Federalist Society, GGW provides information on four "pillars" of global governance: development; global regulation, which includes climate change, health, and intellectual property; human security, which focuses on protecting basic human rights and ensuring freedom from fear and want; and national security.

At a recent GGW launch event hosted at AEI, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society explained that "sovereignty and self-determination have been essential elements of our constitutional republic since its founding, and yet, more than ever before, international law and policy are placing enormous pressures on our governing institutions." Increasingly, U.S. courts are pressured to look to foreign and international sources of law in interpreting the Constitution. GGW, Leo said, was established to shine "a spotlight on the institutions and the civil society groups that drive the development of this international law and public policy."

AEI's Danielle Pletka explained the evolution of GGW, which began as a project called NGOWatch. Pletka said that the need for the resource arose from the fact that, while they are highly influential, "NGOs are not accountable. NGOs are not transparent. NGOs are not elected. . . . National governments, state governments, parliaments, your council, your mayor: these are the folks from whom we can demand accountability." She emphasized the need "to more closely scrutinize the activity" of NGOs. GGW--an expanded and revamped version of NGOWatch--now looks at the broader global governance movement. It is intended, Leo said, to be a resource for informing citizens as well as the public debate on the impact international law should have on policy in the United States.

AEI's John R. Bolton gave the keynote address at the launch event. He pointed out that some people try to use the expanding scope of global governance to sidestep the U.S. Constitution, saying that people "who are dissatisfied with political outcomes they have achieved at the state and federal level" take their arguments to international forums to constrain the United States.
But Bolton warned that sharing sovereignty could mean undermining constitutional prerogatives. "To Americans, sovereignty is not some abstract concept," Bolton said. "For us, in this country, we are sovereign. We govern." He cautioned that "by talking about breaking sovereignty down or sharing it or limiting it, people are saying to us that we do not know how to govern ourselves effectively and that a little less self-government would be good for us." Bolton said he thought "the vast majority of Americans [would] disagree" with this sentiment.

For video and audio of the launch event, visit www.aei.org/event1706/. The GGW website is available at www.globalgovernancewatch.org.