Suchergebnisse

Public opinion can often become a key challenge to international cooperation efforts. In their attempt to garner support for their position, stakeholders fight for the hearts and minds of the public based on arguments about the consequences of different policy options. But to what extent do individuals' preferences change when exposed to such information? And how does this depend on the information being congruent or contradictory to pre-existing preferences? We address these questions in the context of the negotiations on the potentially largest regional trade agreement in history: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Based on a two-waves-panel-survey-experiment fielded in Germany and the United States, we examine how individuals' prior opinion influences the way they process new information. We argue that individuals' existing priors about how they generally think about economic openness interact with new information to inform their opinion about the specific policy proposal at hand. Our experimental results show that while prior opinion constrains opinion updating to some degree, overall, citizens update their existing beliefs in line with new information. This updating process can even result in respondents changing their opinion, although only in one direction: namely to turn from a TTIP supporter to a TTIP opponent.

Texts and legal analysis of the current legal arrangement in the Palestinian territories for foreign investments; recommendations for modernization

From Buenos Aires to Bogota, the information environment across Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is increasingly replete with authoritarian-driven narratives from domestic and foreign actors alike, often in concert. This has implications far beyond the information space, as access to reliable information, pluralistic media, and freedom of expression are foundational elements of democracy and […]
The post Lessons and Challenges in Countering Foreign Authoritarian Influence in the Information Space: A View from Latin America appeared first on International Republican Institute.

This paper provides a comprehensive review of existing international labeling policies of genetically modified (GM) food and associated relevant international agreements in order to evaluate India's proposed mandatory labeling rule. Existing evidence from developed countries shows that mandatory labeling regulations have resulted in no additional consumer choice or information. Among the few developing countries with labeling policies, most have not effectively implemented their regulations. We show that India's proposed labeling rules for GM food would be among the most stringent globally and could potentially result in low consumer benefits at a high cost both domestically and internationally. India's proposed regulation also lacks a number of elements to be implemented. However, these conclusions are based on experiences from other countries and limited available information from India. More studies are needed to evaluate the potential economic effects of GM food labeling in India.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- About the Global Forum -- Executive Summary -- Introduction -- Information and methodology used for the peer review of El Salvador -- Overview of El Salvador -- Recent developments -- Compliance with the Standards -- A. Availability of Information -- Overview -- A.1. Ownership and identity information -- A.2. Accounting records -- A.3. Banking information -- B. Access to Information -- Overview -- B.1. Competent Authority's ability to obtain and provide information -- B.2. Notification requirements and rights and safeguards -- C. Exchanging Information -- Overview -- C.1. Exchange-of-information mechanisms -- C.2. Exchange-of-information mechanisms with all relevant partners -- C.3. Confidentiality -- C.4. Rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties -- C.5. Timeliness of responses to requests for information -- Summary of Determinations and Factors Underlying Recommendations -- Annex 1: Jurisdiction's response to the review report -- Annex 2: List of all exchange-of-information mechanisms -- Annex 3: List of all laws, regulations and other material received.

Why do nation states in conflict with one another refrain from weaponising water? Water has long been a standard weapon of armed conflict. In the post-World War II period, however, nation states in international conflict have made concerted efforts to restrain its weaponisation. This is puzzling given the absolute vitality of water to an adversary, a long historical record of water weaponisation, and water's heightened military utility in the face of rising scarcity. Distinct from existing scholarship, this study contends that water has become embedded in a global normative inhibition – a "water taboo" – that denounces its weaponisation as morally unacceptable. Through qualitative case research involving elite interviewing and historical analysis, this study examines the water taboo. Three focal points include its existence, how it evolved over time, and most importantly, how it influences states' decisions on whether or not to weaponise water. The study first outlines the water taboo. Next it analyses the taboo's historical origins, and later its strengthening from the 1950s to the present via a confluence of broader humanitarian and environmental protection movements. It then examines the taboo's influence in a "hard" case of India in the 1999 Kargil War, and "deviant" case of the US in the 1991 Gulf War. Altogether, the study contributes that: (i) a moral aversion to weaponising water exists; (ii) it has evolved through multiple phases of norm strengthening in the past seventy years; and (iii) it influences state behaviour at an instrumental level and, in some cases, more internalised level of compliance. Where the taboo is not fully internalised, this study finds that the taboo's influence is mediated by levels of military necessity, operational dependence of the military on politicians, and embeddedness of belligerents in the international community. These findings firmly extend IR and Peace and Conflict literature into the domain of water, and suggest future avenues for research and policy to charter long-term peace and security around water.