The Global Public Sphere and Authority?

This week’s soliloquy dealt with the question “Is there a global public sphere”, defined as the audience from legitimation claims to be acting on the public’s authority via its institutions. Professor Jackson asked the question, in terms of the domestic realm, “Do we condone “X” being done on our behalf” and can that same public consensus exist at the international level.

On reflection, I have come to initially think that there is not one public sphere, but rather multiple public spheres, existing within nations and international organizations, overlapping and intersecting. Take, for instance, NATO. NATO operates on behalf of its constituent states, via consensus as established in its treaty. In the late 1990s, NATO’s members believed there needed to be an international response to the on-going conflict and possible genocide taking place in Kosovo, between ethnic Albanians and the Serbian government. It seemed likely that when presented to the United Nations Security Council, Russia, and possibly China, would veto any UN-sponsored effort to intervene. Rather than be deterred, NATO utilized its own public authority to begin military operations to end Serbian military operations in Kosovo. Only after NATO began operations did the UN provide approval for NATO’s request to intervene. In this example, we see two similar global public spheres, operating on their own authorities and with the consent of their publics.

To date, I’m not sure if there have been any military conflicts openly declared between two internationally recognized international organizations, but I’m curious as to how the United Nations would respond were that to happen. What would it do if say, NATO and the AU were to each independently request authorization to commence military operations against each other? Presumably the US, UK and France would veto the AU while possibly Russia and/or China would veto NATO. Would that render the whole issue moot and force the two sides to negotiate? Or would they simply ignore the UN and go at it? If there is no way to enforce public authority, does it really exist? In the case of Kosovo, NATO acted as an autonomous entity, with hard borders, despite being an international organization. Each member state's government had to authorize NATO to move forward, but in the public sphere, it was a single entity, NATO, that conducted the operation. Where does the line come down?