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.

Clearly, a new agenda is emerging for private international banks. Political issues such as human rights seem to be a current concern. But what about democracy? What about political regimes? Are they taken into account by private banks when they decide whether to invest in a country? Put another way, do private banks have democratic political preferences? In this article, we focus on cross-border lending from international bank(er)s. The questions asked are as follows. Do bank(er)s react positively (that is by increasing their lending) when an emerging democracy appears? Do we witness increased bank lending after democratic transitions? Lastly, is there any relation between democratic consolidation and bank lending?

This article examines some of the ambiguities of efforts to protect Syrian civilians by problematizing the agency of civilians in armed conflict. Based on an analysis of existing discourses of intervention, it underlines the extent to which civilians have been portrayed as largely defenseless victims, when at least anecdotal evidence suggests that civilian resilience has been significant. The article emphasizes the degree to which civilians themselves may strive for other things in the conflict than their sole 'protection,' thus complicating efforts at protecting them. In this context, one of the most pressing and difficult issues is conceptualizing the relationship of civilians to the rebellion and vice versa, as well as the possible means of intervention of the international community in assisting civilians' efforts. The article finishes by returning to civilian voices and analyzing how some civilian and grass roots organizations have propounded their own vision of what appropriate protection in the circumstances would entail. In the end, it may be that it is this form of political agency about the needs and vision of civilians that most needs to be heard.

It is my purpose to show that radical humanist and feminist theorising have much to offer each other. Central to this article's thesis is the oligarchic structure of international relations; that is, a small, oligarchic clique of states exercising power in its own interests to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of the world's population. The core position and borders of radical humanist theorising are examined, along with an assessment of some of the major the theoretical divergences between radical humanist and feminist theorising. Areas for theoretical alliance are also located which indicate the necessity of an inter-disciplinary approach that takes into account Third World liberation and the Green movement. A review of world government literature is noted, along with a review of contemporary examples of mainstream International Relations publications - which continue to avoid the feminist standpoint, or relegate feminism to a subsidiary position – and the faulty theoretical positions of Anthony Giddens and the pro-polyarchy perspective. The conclusion considers the benefits of cross-theoretical dialogue between feminist theory and radical humanist theory.

Modern theoretical approaches to interpretations of the concepts "multilaterality", "multipolarity", "multi-vector foreign policy" are investigated. Features of multi-vector foreign policy are considered in the countries of the post-Soviet space.Aim. Determine the basic theoretical and consider practical approaches to multilateralism in international relations.Tasks. To identify the main differences in the interpretations of the concept of "multi-line" at the present stage. Determine the ratios between multilaterality and multipolarity. Formulate the main differences in views on the versatility between Western and developing countries. Consider the main manifestations of the multi-vector's external policy of the countries of the post-Soviet space, paying attention to the EAEU countries.Methods. The main place in the study was taken by the comparison method. Multilateity was seen as the principle of conducting international affairs and making decisions by the state; In other words, the foreign policy process. For this, the model of R. Patema was used, in which foreign policy decisions are made in the logic of a two-level game, with the domestic political and foreign policy levels. Multilateity is the factor of the second level. The factor of the first level is the manifestation of the socio-economic policy of the state.Results. Modern theoretical and practical approaches to multilateralism have been investigated.Conclusions. There are no uniform interpretations of the concept of multilaterality. The main differences are associated with a place that occupies the concept of "values". Whether the values are the basis of multilaterality or vice versa — the versatility of the process of coming to common values. This is a fairly fundamental issue for multipolarity. Multipolarity can exist without multilateralism.The centuries-old foreign policy in the conditions of the post-Soviet space contributes to the instability of states and leads to economic and political crises in these states.