The proliferation of international policymaking organizations has intensified and institutionalized the influence of global governance. Suprastate and non-state actors, such as the United Nations, NGOs, and international financial institutions, have risen in prominence and power, bringing with them internationalist agendas that are challenging states' abilities to steer their own domestic policies and priorities. As the lines between state sovereignty and global governance become increasingly blurred, who should decide what's right for the world?
 
What are the processes by which international agendas are declared universal, and 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 aspect of sovereignty?

Twenty years ago, no reasonable person could have successfully argued that it was possible for the United Nations to globally govern economic and social affairs. More recently, however, a combination of events has given rise to UN global governance ambitions and activities. These factors include the increased global awareness of economic disparities among nations, enhanced global communications capabilities, greater availability of research and information, and the growing international human rights movement....

On any given day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in charge of the nation’s borders, processes almost a quarter-million people seeking to enter the United States through international airports like JFK in New York. Most are like us—people going about their business, seeking to enter the country legally, living ordinary lives. They are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent resident aliens, aliens possessing non-immigrant visas (such as student or work visas), or individuals traveling under the Visa Waiver Program. Some are refugees or asylum seekers. But regardless of their legal status, most mean no harm, and bring significant benefits to our country. Indeed, this massive flow of people across international boundaries—not just the U.S. border—is perhaps the essential lifeblood of the U.S. and global economy. Our prosperity, and the global integration of economies and societies, depends on the unhindered ability of people to move and conduct business around the world, and access, deploy, and nurture talent anywhere....

In its 2004 decision Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court seemed to resolve the long-standing academic and judicial debate over the propriety of international law litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). A six-member court majority rejected the U.S. government’s argument that the ATS, enacted in 1789, is a jurisdictional provision that cannot be the basis for an independent cause of action under customary international law. On the other hand, the majority held that federal courts must act with great caution when recognizing causes of action under international law, for a variety of prudential and constitutional separation of powers reasons....