Searching for shared norms: Global governance of biosafety

Global governance efforts have long sought to develop collective responses to technological, environmental and associated social change. A key challenge for governance is mediating diverse perspectives on potential harms associated with such changes. This challenge is now exacerbated by growing need for anticipatory governance of issues where the very existence of harm is contested. Under such conditions, what kind of global governance is likely? And why does anticipatory governance matter?; This study analyzes a key anticipatory governance challenge: regulation of biosafety or safe trade in products of modern biotechnology. Risks and benefits associated with biotechnology remain deeply contested and uncertain. If so, I examine whether a shared understanding of the biosafety problem emerges in the newest global governance regime in this area, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates trade in genetically modified organisms. In order to analyze how this global regime matters, I also examine its relevance for national-level biosafety governance in India.; The dissertation argues that this global regime's obligations for "advance informed agreement" prior to trade in genetically modified organisms reflect continued conflict over the nature of the biosafety problem. The lack of shared understanding of biosafety results in minimalist and contested science-based regime obligations.; Through analyzing conflicts at the global-level over minimalist and science-based obligations, as well as their interpretation in the Indian context, this study argues that shared governance norms are missing in this area. Furthermore, it argues that reliance on science alone cannot mediate persisting normative conflict. If so, I suggest that the Cartagena Protocol's privileging of science can be seen as a growing trend towards a technicalization of normative conflict in anticipatory governance. This is evident from regime obligations that national concerns about technological and environmental change be couched in the language of scientifically assessable harm. The implications, especially for developing countries, are urgent to explore. In conclusion, I argue that global governance matters most fundamentally as a site for norm-building and that search for shared norms is the key challenge facing anticipatory global governance.