Suchergebnisse

How do we face uncertainty in times of crisis? Debates in International Relations often struggle to disentangle the processes involved in turning the uncertainty of a crisis into decisions and actions. Drawing on the analysis of Frank H. Knight, we argue that decisions and actions taken by international actors in times of crisis are underpinned by the way that information is accessed, interpreted, and evaluated in order to claim reliable knowledge for shaping future states of the world. We illustrate our argument with the global politics of the ecological crisis and three contrasting methods used by international actors to convert the time of the crisis into decisions and actions: United Nations agencies, financial accounting standard-setters and central banks.

Dealing with uncertainty has become a matter of great concern for policy makers and scientific research in a world facing global, epochal and complex changes. But in essence, you cannot entirely predict the future. This article aims at conceptualizing the limits to anticipate the future – or what is often referred as the substitution of risk for uncertainty. In contrast to most theories examining risk and uncertainty, we start from the assumption that there are limits in the substitution of risk for uncertainty and that distinguishing between ontological and epistemic levels of analysis helps clarify such limits. The paper makes two arguments: first, most approaches see no ontological and/or epistemic limit in the substitution of risk for uncertainty; second, the pluralization of science is the only way to cope with limits in substituting risk for uncertainty. This second argument draws on the assumption that accounting for the uncertainty of the future depends on knowledge production processes able to overcome disciplinary boundaries and better include lay and expert knowledge. In times of great concerns regarding mitigation and adaptation to the ecological crisis, we illustrate our arguments with insights from global environmental governance.

Bilateral and regional free trade agreements increasingly substitute for the World Trade Organization in trade negotiations. Accordingly, civil society organisations opposed to trade liberalisation target this new generation of trade agreements as well. This paper examines the case of activists concerned about agricultural and food issues in India who raised their voice against the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), negotiated by India with the European Union and Asian and Oceanian countries, respectively. Among them were members of La Via Campesina - a farmer movement including 182 organisations around the world, the Right to Food Campaign - a coalition committed to the realisation of the right to food in India, and the Forum against Free Trade Agreements - a discussion platform on free trade agreements. Drawing on discourse analysis, we show that civil society actors are able to exert a diffused form of power even when they are essentially excluded from formal arenas of negotiation such as the BTIA and RCEP. They do so in particular by (1) campaigning outside the negotiating arenas, (2) framing an alternative narrative about regional trade and its implication for food, and (3) assigning new roles to participants in the policymaking process.

Bilateral and regional free trade agreements increasingly substitute for the World Trade Organization in trade negotiations. Accordingly, civil society organisations opposed to trade liberalisation target this new generation of trade agreements as well. This paper examines the case of activists concerned about agricultural and food issues in India who raised their voice against the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), negotiated by India with the European Union and Asian and Oceanian countries, respectively. Among them were members of La Via Campesina – a farmer movement including 182 organisations around the world, the Right to Food Campaign – a coalition committed to the realisation of the right to food in India, and the Forum against Free Trade Agreements – a discussion platform on free trade agreements. Drawing on discourse analysis, we show that civil society actors are able to exert adiffused form of power even when they are essentially excluded from formal arenas of negotiation such as the BTIA and RCEP. They do so in particular by campaigning outside the negotiating arenas, (2) framing an alternative narrative about regional trade and its implication for food, and assigning new roles to participants in the policymaking process. Les accords de libre-échange bilatéraux et régionaux se substituent de plus en plus à l'Organisation mondiale du commerce dans les négociations commerciales. Par conséquent, les organisations de la société civile opposées à la libéralisation du commerce ciblent également cette nouvelle génération d'accords commerciaux. Cet article examine le cas de militant•e•s préoccupé•e•s par les questions agricoles et alimentaires en Inde qui se sont élevé•e•s contre le Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) et le Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), négociés par l'Inde avec l'Union européenne et des pays d'Asie et d'Océanie, respectivement. Parmi eux et elles se trouvaient des membres de La Via ...

Bilateral and regional free trade agreements increasingly substitute for the World Trade Organization in trade negotiations. Accordingly, civil society organisations opposed to trade liberalisation target this new generation of trade agreements as well. This paper examines the case of activists concerned about agricultural and food issues in India who raised their voice against the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), negotiated by India with the European Union and Asian and Oceanian countries, respectively. Among them were members of La Via Campesina – a farmer movement including 182 organisations around the world, the Right to Food Campaign – a coalition committed to the realisation of the right to food in India, and the Forum against Free Trade Agreements – a discussion platform on free trade agreements. Drawing on discourse analysis, we show that civil society actors are able to exert a diffused form of power even when they are essentially excluded from formal arenas of negotiation such as the BTIA and RCEP. They do so in particular by (1) campaigning outside the negotiating arenas, (2) framing an alternative narrative about regional trade and its implication for food, and (3) assigning new roles to participants in the policymaking process.

The global environmental crisis has prompted the development of a wide range of tools to define firms' relation with nature, such as environmental management systems standards. Few studies have so far explored the puzzle raised by the development of natural capital accounting methodologies. Such instruments aim at assigning a book value to nature, which allows an environmental costs and benefits analysis. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is currently setting standards for such methodologies (ISO 14007 & ISO 14008). Other actors, including the Big Four accounting and auditing firms – Deloitte, E&Y, KPMG and PwC –, and the Natural Capital Coalition, already developed their own methodologies outside the scope of ISO. This paper examines why and how ISO develops natural capital accounting standards that are likely to compete with other arenas. We build from semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders of ISO. We suggest that the development of ISO 14007 & ISO 14008 compete with the existing methodologies of the first-movers, in particular on concerns regarding transparent documentation and reporting. We build our argument on international political economy approaches to emphasise the link between technical specifications and power relations in contemporary capitalism.