Search results

AbstractIn the early 2000s, Dubai seemed the apotheosis of the global city model. Lauded as an embodiment of globalist ideals, or harshly criticized as a representation of the dangers of contemporary urbanism, it was clearly under the spotlight. Then, like the concept of the 'global city' itself, it disappeared from the headlines, to be subject only to sporadic and cynical attention. Today some are heralding a 'return' of Dubai from the anonymity of the middle ground of global city hierarchies and rankings. What is often forgotten, however, is that urbanism in Dubai did not stop. On the contrary, Dubai's continuous 'worlding' offers a productive opportunity for the encounter of 'global' and 'ordinary' modes of urban analysis. By unpacking the construction of a global Dubai, this article advocates greater sensitivity to the multiscalar politics that shape its continuity. Stepping beyond rumours of crisis and decline, it aims to connect the global fortunes and everyday processes that jointly characterize the development of global cities. 'Global' and 'ordinary' urbanism, it argues, are but two registers of how we could, in Warren Magnusson's words, 'see like a city'.

Garbage is stuff that matters: the generation, disposal, and management of waste represent some of the most visceral flows in our society. Yet most international scholars continue to regard it as trivial to focus on the mundane practices and menial materiality associated with managing rubbish. Contra this dissociation, and through an analytics of assemblages, I argue that international theory can (and nowadays must) encompass both the grand designs of diplomacy and the mundane cosmopolitics of everyday life. In the everyday, the 'international' is embodied, performed, and domesticated. I chart these multi-scalar connections as they unfold in Sydney, Australia, demonstrating how a focus on a global challenge such as climate change has been redefining the mundane realities of waste management. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractC40, and city networks more in general, need to be seen 'inside out' too. In response to Davidson, Gleeson and Coenen, we argue that it is imperative to acknowledge more explicitly how networks like C40, or international urban policy programmes more generally, are situated within a broader political economy of 'global urban governance'. We detail that this means unpacking the often convenient use of popular names like 'C40' and 'Arup' to remember that these entities are complex organisational arrangements with internal (within their own organisation) as much as transversal (across them and other similar organisations) politics and, not least, often highly mobile people shaping the ways they act and react internationally.

AbstractWhether it is in climate change negotiations, pandemic scares, security threats or sustainable development agendas, science and technology are today at the heart of international affairs. Yet there is still limited academic work that deals with the complex relationships between international diplomatic and scientific endeavours. How can we bridge this divide and possibly 'rebalance' the encounter between the practice of science diplomacy, its practitioner‐driven literature, and the discussions of international relations theory (IR) that underpin the study of world politics? Here we propose that this move could start from a more explicit placing of science diplomacy discussions across the IR spectrum. We pose that taking seriously science 'diplomacy', whilst undoing conventions around the hitherto limited 'IR' reading of science in its literature, would do well in establishing this reality not just as a domain of reflective practitioners, but as an effective launchpad for international theorizing as much as more academically‐driven practice.

AbstractScientific advancements, their application through technological development, and world politics have been long acknowledged as affecting each other, and are today more than ever at the heart of global policy. Speaking of 'science diplomacy' as the encounter of world politics and the world of science at the heart of these advancements might be a unique window into our time. This potential is what prompts this special issue to gather views from a variety of scholarly and practical viewpoints, linking the well‐established world of reflective practitioners in science diplomacy to the growing field of international relations (IR) scholars theorising this realm. Can speaking of 'science diplomacy' situate our attention at the crossroads of science and international relations, and spur greater appreciation for their intersections? This introduction to the special issue summarises the rise of science diplomacy as field of inquiry, and casts questions as to the need to advance, where not reform, these conceptualisations. It defines science diplomacy as a 'boundary problem' par excellence and emphasises its 'productive tension' that emerges between the various ways of knowing of actors belonging to 'different social worlds', seeking to gather a productive tension of views on this theme in the issue.

AbstractOver the past few decades, cities have repeatedly demonstrated high levels of ambition with regard to climate action. Global environmental governance has been marked by a proliferation of policy actions taken by local governments around the world to demonstrate their potential to advance climate change mitigation and adaptation. Leading 'by example' and demonstrating the extent of action that it is possible to deliver, cities have aspired to raise the ambition of national and international climate governance and put action into practice via a growing number of 'climate change experiments' delivered on the ground. Yet accounts of the potential of cities in global environmental governance have often stopped short of a systematic valuation of the nature and impact of the networked dimension of this action. This article addresses this by assessing the nature, and challenges faced by, urban climate governance in the post‐Paris era, focusing on the 'experimentation' undertaken in cities and the city networks shaping this type of governance. First, we unpack the concept of 'urban climate change experimentation', the ways in which it is networked, and the forces driving it. In the second and third parts of the article, we discuss two main pitfalls of networked urban experimentation in its current form, focusing on issues of scaling experiments and the nature of experimentation. We call for increased attention to 'scaling up' experiments beyond urban levels of governance, and to transformative experimentation with governance and politics by and in cities. Finally, we consider how these pitfalls allow us to weigh the potential of urban climate ambition, and consider the pathways available for supporting urban climate change experimentation.

Abstract
A number of economists, historians, and political scientists have begun to examine what happens when globalization unravels. From an urban point of view, this question seems at odds with current trends: the reaction to globalization has come about at a time where, paradoxically, international discussions around the future of cities and their contribution to global sustainability have galvanized international cooperation amongst multilateral, regional, private and local actors. Does this mean that we should rethink these trends? Taking this cue, we ask what happens when globalization unravels in a more focused urban way: what happens to the global city when the economic and political relationships behind the postwar international order, and in particular the post-1970 version of that order, begin to fray or come completely undone? What happens then if the globalization of the global city unravels when its core material and infrastructural conditions are now necessarily globalized? This special issue of New Global Studies seeks to open an interdisciplinary and critical debate about the real possibilities of de-globalization and the challenges, and the dangers, of an unraveling globalization in a more and more urbanized world.