Suchergebnisse

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' in 2016. Whilst the definition has received a significant amount of media attention, we are not aware of any comprehensive philosophical analysis. This article analyses this definition. We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. This causes widespread self-censorship, has an adverse impact on freedom of speech, and impedes action against the unjust treatment of Palestinians. We also identify intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar 'to that leveled against any other country', ambiguous wording about 'the power of Jews as a collective', lack of clarity as to the Jewish people's 'right to self-determination', and its denial of obvious racism. We consider alternative definitions and prefer one like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, 'hostility to or prejudice against Jews', with the addition of the words 'as Jews'. We recognise that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) can play a useful purpose in illustrating the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. However, we do not advocate promoting it as the prime international definition. Indeed, we question the efficacy of using complex new definitions to combat racism against Jews or other groups, and instead advocate combatting it through collective action across societies.

Negative emissions technologies (NETs), especially bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and storage, have been invoked as necessary to achieve the aspirational 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. However, currently their costs are estimated to be very high, NETs do not seem to offer co-benefits besides mitigating climate change and there are significant concerns regarding possible negative impacts of their large-scale implementation on sustainable development. Costs can vary significantly due to locational factors such as availability of biomass resources and geological storage capacity. It will be up to progressive industrialized countries to take first steps to mobilize the mitigation potential of NETs. In order to understand whether NETs can provide a significant contribution to mitigation, financial incentives are needed that allow implementing the most attractive NET activities at the global scale. We see the market mechanism under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement – colloquially called 'Sustainable Development Mechanism' – as a possible cornerstone of such a policy instrument. While initially NETs will not be competitive on the free market, the mechanism can facilitate bilateral financial transfers for NETs, where mitigation units accrue to the financier. We discuss the functions and design elements that an international policy instrument may need to fulfil to successfully mobilize NETs. This includes in particular robust quantification of removed carbon under international oversight and preventing social and environmental conflicts particularly on land and water use by NETs to ensure long-term acceptability.

Negative emissions technologies (NETs), especially bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and storage, have been invoked as necessary to achieve the aspirational 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. However, currently their costs are estimated to be very high, NETs do not seem to offer co-benefits besides mitigating climate change and there are significant concerns regarding possible negative impacts of their large-scale implementation on sustainable development. Costs can vary significantly due to locational factors such as availability of biomass resources and geological storage capacity. It will be up to progressive industrialized countries to take first steps to mobilize the mitigation potential of NETs. In order to understand whether NETs can provide a significant contribution to mitigation, financial incentives are needed that allow implementing the most attractive NET activities at the global scale. We see the market mechanism under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement – colloquially called 'Sustainable Development Mechanism' – as a possible cornerstone of such a policy instrument. While initially NETs will not be competitive on the free market, the mechanism can facilitate bilateral financial transfers for NETs, where mitigation units accrue to the financier. We discuss the functions and design elements that an international policy instrument may need to fulfil to successfully mobilize NETs. This includes in particular robust quantification of removed carbon under international oversight and preventing social and environmental conflicts particularly on land and water use by NETs to ensure long-term acceptability.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore a regime switching asset allocation model that includes six major real estate security markets (USA, UK, Japan, Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore) and focuses on how the presence of regimes affects portfolio composition.Design/methodology/approachA Markov switching model is first developed to characterize real estate security markets' risk‐return in two regimes. The mean‐variance portfolio construction methodology is then deployed in the presence of the two regimes. Finally, the out‐of‐sample analyzes are conducted to examine whether the regime switching allocation outperforms the conventional allocation strategy.FindingsStrong evidence of regimes in the six real estate security markets in detected. The correlations between the various real estate security markets' returns are higher in the bear market regime than in the bull market regime. Consequently the optimal real estate portfolio in the bear market regime is very different from that in the bull market regime. The out‐of‐sample tests reveal that the regime‐switching model outperforms the non‐regime dependent model, the world real estate portfolio and equally‐weighted portfolio from risk‐adjusted performance perspective.Originality/valueThe application of the Markov switching technique to real estate markets is relatively new and has great significance for international real estate diversification. With increased significance of international securitized property as a real estate investment vehicle for institutional investors to gain worldwide real estate exposure, this study provides significant insights into the investment behavior and optimal asset allocation implications of the listed real estate when returns follow a regime switching process.

Situations of hostility between States and armed groups located on the territories of other States are difficult to classify because they call into question the categories of international and non-international armed conflicts. This contribution argues for the single classification of non-international armed conflicts of those transnational armed conflicts. The article starts with a clarification on the relevant circumstances for the contribution. The different classifications proposed by scholars, tribunals and States are then examined, leading us to our arguments for a single classification of non-international armed conflicts, and to the test adopted for a rapid categorization of those transnational hostilities. Finally, we mention some important observations and challenges on this topic, like the classification of situations involving at the same time hostilities between a State and an armed group located on the territory of another State and the occupation of the territory of this second State.