Browse results
Abstract
The concept of the levée en masse was designed to legitimise armed civilian opposition to an unfolding invasion by conferring temporary combatant status upon certain civilians. The range of individuals eligible for this status was defined narrowly to include only ‘inhabitants’ of invaded territories. This approach made sense in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when international travel was beyond the reach of all but the elite minority. Today however, mass air transit has expanded horizons and allows people to travel and to emigrate much more readily. Consequently, the global diaspora of emigrants is larger now than ever before. As seen during the Russian invasion of Ukraine beginning in February 2022, many among these diaspora communities wish to return to defend their homelands upon invasion. This is precluded under the orthodox interpretation of international humanitarian law owing to their lack of residency. This is unsatisfactory as it bars individuals with legitimate familial, political, cultural, and historical connections to a State from participating in a levée in its defence. This article sets out the policy and legal arguments in favour of recognising non-resident citizens – or ‘diaspora fighters’ – as legitimate participants in levées en masse.
Abstract
Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean—but also, more broadly, across the Global South—are being subjected to pressures from Washington and Beijing to take sides in what is emerging as a Second Cold War. How should countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America react to this ? The purpose of this essay is to outline one response that has arisen to it in Latin America; namely, Active Non-Alignment (ANA). The essay first examines the concept of ANA. Then, it deals with the reaction elicited across the Global South to the war in Ukraine, in what many have referred to as a “new non-alignment”. Finally, the essay examines the case of India, seen by many as a leader of the Global South, and Africa. ANA provides a useful guide to action for the foreign policy of postcolonial states to navigate the stormy waters of a world order in transition.
Abstract
The expansion of “BRICS Plus” indicates a more explicitly hierarchical world order. The putative equality of nation-states enshrined through the UN General Assembly’s one state–one vote formula is increasingly being eroded by neglect or through the emergence of unequal multilateral formats where rising powers have accorded themselves greater primacy in the new structures because of failures to gain greater shares of power or responsibility in global institutions. However, a more explicitly power-based order that dispenses with putative sovereign equality will be more unstable as the primary power-sorting mechanism will tend toward conflict. This article therefore calls for urgent reform for sustaining the multilateral rules-based order underpinned by the United Nations.
Abstract
This commentary addresses the challenges and opportunities of renewing multilateral cooperation, including at the UN Summit of the Future. It argues that despite pessimism given global political divisions, significant potential exists for reform. Recent successes demonstrate the efficacy of networked multilateralism, in which coalitions of states supported by nongovernmental organizations played pivotal roles. The piece suggests such coalitions can help Member States renew the multilateral system based on fair representation, increased contributions from emerging powers, shared responsibility among major powers, and inclusion of nongovernmental actors. It emphasizes the need for world leaders to address pressing challenges and restore trust in multilateral systems by showing they can deliver fair, inclusive, and effective solutions. The author offers a framework to guide global governance reform—which defends the old, governs the new, strengthens the borrowed, and renews the blue—and ensure the UN remains a relevant and central body in global governance.
Abstract
Power shifts leading to heightened conflict and negotiation deadlocks, as well as growing institutional fragmentation and informality, constitute major challenges for global economic governance. The three books reviewed in this article provide innovative and unique explanations for these developments, through the lens of Southern countries (Shaffer and Narlikar) as well as the industrialized West (Roger). While the studies by Narlikar and Shaffer highlight changes in the negotiation strategies and the legal capacities of poor countries and emerging powers, Roger develops a theory explaining why economically advanced Western democracies increasingly rely on informal institutions. The article examines how and in what ways the three books complement conventional wisdom in economics, International Political Economy (IPE) and International Relations (IR) literature on global economic governance. It discusses the books’ contributions to the theorizing of global (economic) governance, the advancements towards a Global IR (and IPE), the changing power relations in global economic institutions, the domestic and the transnational dimensions of global economic governance, and the role of informality in the design of global economic fora. The conclusion summarizes the main insights offered about the current crises of multilateralism and delineates avenues for future research.
Abstract
In 2022, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) released a Special Report on threats to human security in the Anthropocene, a year after UN Secretary-General António Guterres released his report Our Common Agenda. In anticipation of the 2024 Summit of the Future, both called for a reinvigoration of networked multilateralism and for solidarity to be adopted as a third human security pillar alongside protection and empowerment. This article explores those expectations against a deeper understanding of the UN history of human security and a cycle of declared concerns about human insecurity and precarity dating at least to UNDP’s 1994 Human Development Report. It argues that there is little new in the “next-generation” model of networked multilateralism and that, as a global governance norm, solidarity for human security is underconceptualized and poorly operationalized. It points to the importance of reclaiming the local as a site of people-centered agency, care, and voice.
Abstract
For nearly half a century, negotiations in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have sought to reduce pressures on nature without curtailing the North’s wealth or thwarting the South’s economic development. Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, science has become more granular, the global economy has grown phenomenally, greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rises have accelerated rather than slowed, the climate crisis and inequality have become more extreme, and the status quo interests have become more entrenched. After three lost (wasted, rather) decades, climate mitigation is terribly urgent, yet hugely contested. Choices are stark: financing mitigation and adaptation, or stomaching immense suffering.
Abstract
As countries formerly deemed to be “developing” and relatively powerless begin to exert more influence in global arenas, fresh attention is being paid by Western policymakers as well as scholars to the possibility of the creation of a multipolar system that is shaping up to be a highly diverse one. To assess whether this incipient multipolarity can be sustained, it is important to examine the evolving diplomatic strategies of the nations of the Global South, in particular their reliance on multilateral mechanisms for normative guidance and tangible gains. This requires an examination of the content of the foreign policies of current and potential leading nations of the Global South, not only those that are fortunate enough to exert influence at the global level, but also those that are in key positions at the regional and subregional levels. A study of selected leading countries found that organizational membership and leadership, regionalism, nonalignment, multialignment, and agility in adopting and operationalizing norms such as South-South cooperation and environmentalism are among the key strategies that are being employed by Global South states in their efforts to gain visibility in global affairs.