Suchergebnisse

AbstractCommunication departments of international organizations (IOs) are important intermediaries of global governance who increasingly use social media to reach out to citizens directly. Social media pose new challenges for IO communication such as a highly competitive economy of attention and the fragmentation of the audiences driven by networked curation of content and selective exposure. In this context, communication departments have to make tough choices about what to communicate and how, aggravating inherent tensions between IO communication as comprehensive public information (aimed at institutional transparency)—and partisan political advocacy (aimed at normative change). If IO communication focuses on advocacy it might garner substantial resonance on social media. Such advocacy nevertheless fails to the extent that it fosters the polarized fragmentation of networked communication and undermines the credibility of IO communication as a source of trustworthy information across polarized "echo chambers." The paper illustrates this argument through a content and social network analysis of Twitter communication on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM). Remarkably, instead of facilitating cross-cluster communication ("building bridges") Twitter handles run by the United Nations Department of Global Communications (UNDGC) seem to have substantially fostered ideological fragmentation ("digging the trench") by their way of partisan retweeting, mentioning, and (hash)tagging.

In ihren Beiträgen verbinden die Autoren grundsätzliche philosophische Überlegungen zur grundlegenden Bedeutung von Menschenwürde für die Menschenrechte mit konkreteren Forderungen, wie mit der Befriedigung lebensnotwendiger Bedürfnisse umzugehen und was zur Beendigung von Armut notwendig ist. Ihre rechtlichen und politischen Argumente stützen sich auf jüngere Rechtsprechung regionaler Gerichtshöfe und internationaler Menschenrechtsorgane. Sie berufen sich auf die Verpflichtungsdimensionen der Menschenrechte und fragen nach der Verantwortlichkeit für deren Umsetzung.Die Autorinnen kommen aus Universitäten in Deutschland, der Schweiz, den Niederlanden und dem Vereinigten Königreich.

This article looks at the International Biological Program (IBP) as the predecessor of UNESCO's well-known and highly successful Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB). It argues that international conservation efforts of the 1970s, such as the MAB, must in fact be understood as a compound of two opposing attempts to reform international conservation in the 1960s. The scientific framework of the MAB has its origins in disputes between high-level conservationists affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) about what the IBP meant for the future of conservation. Their respective visions entailed different ecological philosophies as much as diverging sets of political ideologies regarding the global implementation of conservation. Within the IBP's Conservation Section, one group propagated a universal systems approach to conservation with a centralized, technocratic management of nature and society by an elite group of independent scientific experts. Within IUCN, a second group based their notion of environmental expert roles on a more descriptive and local ecology of resource mapping as practiced by UNESCO. When the IBP came to an end in 1974, both groups' ecological philosophies played into the scientific framework underlying the MAB's World Network or Biosphere Reserves. The article argues that it is impossible to understand the course of conservation within the MAB without studying the dynamics and discourses between the two underlying expert groups and their respective visions for reforming conservation.

The present collection of essays gathers contributions written in honour of Professor Ryuichi Ida by his colleagues and former students, covering a variety of fields of international law with particular emphasis upon the context, effectiveness and purposes of international law.