Suchergebnisse

Let us define a cycle as a recurrent pattern in the life (or functioning) of a system. The concept implies that over a certain period of time the system, in some meaningful sense, returns to its starting point, that it regains a state occupied at an earlier stage. If such behavior is demonstrably regular and if recurrence takes place in a pattern that is potentially predictable, such behavior may appropriately be called cyclical or periodic. Cycles are commonly distinguished from trends.

The post-World War II era has seen the rise of international organizations such as the UN, NATO, and the World Bank. Coinciding with this, there has been accompanying trend toward global governance -- i.e., the coordination of multiple interdependent actors, minus a central authority, in the formulation, implementation, monitoring, enforcement and review of rules and regulatory institutions. While global governance proponents defend such arrangements as necessary to address problems and produce for states and societies benefits that would not come about through other means, concern has been voiced regarding the fact that decisions previously made at the national level have shifted to the international level. Decision-makers involved in global governance frequently consist of state officials and international bureaucrats, with limited participation by civil society actors. The authors attempt to address the question of whether global governances can or should be democratized. Citing protests held during meetings of the World Trade Organization, G7, and the European Union, they take up the matter of how to balance the concerns of civil society elements who feel excluded from the global governance decision process with concerns over the effectiveness of global governance in achieving its purported goals. Democratization processes (or their absence) are analyzed for five key organizations that, between them, represent such fields as health, economic development, and the environment. Adapted from the source document.

The growing visibility of indigenous political organizations and activism in Latin America has a variety of claims and methods to interrelate with the state and organized civil society. These claims are framed within the logic of development and state construction; thus, these political projects fueled by ethnic actors do not have a secessionist outlook. This article addresses the different types of ethnic conflict current in Latin America. It also discusses the practical experience of implementing rights of autonomy. By highlighting the frequent types of ethnic conflict and their prevalence, the author looks forward to proposing a comparative model to explain the different routes taken by the construction of an inclusive, plurinational state led by ethnic actors. The article derives its analysis from the data bank of indigenous organizations, ORGINDAL.