In ruling T-1022/01, the Colombian Constitutional Court responded to a claim brought by a member of the United Pentecostal Church of Colombia against the Yanacona Indigenous Council. The claimants alleged the violation of their rights to freedom of conscience, worship, and dissemination of thought based on two facts: (a) the refusal of their petition to carry out a “Spiritual Renewal Day” in the main square of the indigenous reservation of Caquiona, and (b) the interruption of the religious gatherings of the United Pentecostal Church of Colombia, as well as the prohibition of their pastors entering the indigenous reservation territory. The Court found no violation of the rights alleged. The purpose of this comment is to explore the understanding by the Colombian Constitutional Court of the right to cultural identity of indigenous communities, focusing particularly on whether it encompasses the right to be free from religious proselytism.
Mandates of recent peacekeeping operations across Africa have shown substantial innovation in the thinking of the UN Security Council. Offensive use of force, use of unmanned aerial vehicles, strategic intelligence and communication, and state-building mandates in the midst of conflicts have all expanded the scope of activities beyond what the UN peacekeepers are accustomed to. The UN is entering a new era of enforcement peacekeeping. Enforcement peacekeeping manifests itself both in enforcement of political solutions through support of a government’s statebuilding ambitions and its attempts to extend state authority in the midst of conflict and in enforcement of military victories through the offensive use of force. These developments further unsettle the basic principles of UN peacekeeping—consent, impartiality, and nonuse of force—resulting in a schism between the doctrine and practice. This contribution argues that such fundamental challenges, when not properly acknowledged, create a wall between operational activities and strategic considerations. They preclude a proper debate on the problematic externalities, in particular on political processes and peacebuilding.
We explore how the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program, a network that is simultaneously global and local, state and nonstate, could be conceptualized as part of global environmental governance. We suggest that traditional approaches to international relations—regime theory and transnational networks—offer limited conceptual space for analyzing such networks. These approaches obscure how the governance of global climate change takes place through processes and institutions operating at and between a variety of scales and involving a range of actors with different levels and forms of authority. We contend that it is only by taking a multilevel perspective that we can fully capture the social, political, and economic processes that shape global environmental governance.
Since entering office, US president Trump has reversed key multilateral achievements of his predecessors, initiating a new US retreat from multilateral cooperation. For other governments wishing to preserve and deepen existing global agreements, this has posed the question of whether and how multilateral cooperation can work without the leadership and support of the dominant global power. International relations scholars have already debated the possibility of “nonhegemonic cooperation” in earlier periods marked by US unilateralism. This article draws on these previous analyses to evaluate the current prospects and limits of a “multilateralism minus one” in three key global policy areas: nuclear arms control, climate change, and trade.
In the 1990s, liberal optimism permeated the study and practice of international politics. International institutions were strengthened and the discourse and practice of global governance consolidated as a new approach to world affairs. Today, new powers are emerging in this institutionalized order. New powers have changed the power relations that underpinned global governance and are also economically, politically, and culturally different from established powers. Against this backdrop, this article investigates the impacts emerging powers are having on global governance. It presents six major trends and outlines their implications for the new global governance currently taking shape. Because new powers are emerging in an already institutionalized order, the emerging global governance order is gradually growing out of the existing one. Emerging powers are rendering parts of global governance dysfunctional, layering onto it, complicating it, but not overthrowing it.
This article examines the most significant international policy responses that seek to address the resource trap and spur development in resourcerich, but fragile states. It applies a regime theoretical framework to assess recent multistakeholder initiatives within the extractive sector by focusing on the processes through which they seek to alter the behavior of public and private organizations. Based on a review of the Nigerian and Azeri cases, the article finds that civil society often does not have the capacity to live up to the high expectations placed on it by these initiatives. The effectiveness and eventual success of multistakeholder initiatives in the extractive sector require exploring alternative pathways to affect behavior of key actors. Stronger market incentives and regulation can provide the conditions required for extractive activities to result in positive development outcomes.