Suchergebnisse

BY Jessica L. Beyer Earl, Maher, and Pan's recent article (2022), "The Digital Repression of Social Movements, Protest, and Activism: a synthetic review," captures digital repression across states and presents invaluable conceptualizations of difficult concepts and clear typologies. The article … Continue reading →

Multistakeholder partnerships are characterized by institutional elements such as informality, voluntarism, and corporate partnerships which some commentators, like Nick Buxton, consider the "default mode of global decision-making." The rapid expansion and influence of multi-stakeholder partnerships have led some activists to argue that we are witnessing "The Great Takeover," in which elites promote multistakeholderism as a replacement for traditional intergovernmental multilateralism.
But how did multistakeholderism emerge within global governance? And is the future of multistakeholder global governance so certain?
In a recent article in the Review of International Political Economy, we approach this question historically by exploring the origins, development, and future of multi-stakeholderism in global governance.
The post Norms in a Post-Hegemonic World Order appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine—established by the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2022—published its report on 15 March 2023, detailing numerous violations of international human rights, criminal and humanitarian law, primarily carried out by Russian forces. Such commissions of inquiry are essential when other enforcement mechanisms are blocked, and can provide avenues for accountability in national, regional, and international courts. The full-scale attention of international institutions on Ukraine is a critical moment to strengthen the work of international fact-finding missions for future and existing armed conflicts.
Author information





Farnaz Dezfouli Asl



Farnaz Dezfouli Asl ist Doktorandin an der Justus-Liebig-Universität in Gießen und assoziierte Forscherin am HSFK-Programmbereich "Internationale Institutionen". Zu ihren akademischen Interessen gehören das Zusammenspiel zwischen internationalem Menschenrechtsgesetz und humanitären Völkerrecht, die Rolle des Völkerrechts bei der Tatsachenermittlung und dem Informationsmanagement, die Umsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts durch Menschenrechtsmechanismen und die Anwendung von Gewalt bei Terrorismusbekämpfungsmaßnahmen. // Farnaz Dezfouli Asl is a PhD candidate at Justus Liebig University in Giessen and an Associate Fellow at PRIF's research department "International Institutions". Her academic interests include the interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, the role of international law in fact-finding and information management, the Implementation of IHL through human rights mechanisms and the use of force in counter-terrorism operations. | Twitter: @farnazDezfouli

|



Der Beitrag From Facts to Norm Violations and Accountability? The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

In the aftermath of the atrocities committed in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s, the UN set out to establish a new international norm that would prevent future crimes against humanity. This commitment, dubbed the Responsibility to Protect or R2P, challenged the sacrosanct notion of state sovereignty, asserting that if a nation fails to protect […]
La entrada The limits of international law: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Israel and the International Court of Justice se publicó primero en Elcano Royal Institute.

Emerging technologies are transforming foreign and security policy as they challenge traditional understandings of power, influence and security. Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and the increasing importance of cyberspace are some of the most prominent in this regard. Yet, not only are there repercussions for security when narrowly conceived as state security, but they also affect gender relations and human security more broadly. Gender as an analytical category allows us to shed light on the impact of emerging technologies on inequalities, power and violence.
Author information





Anna-Katharina Ferl



Anna-Katharina Ferl ist wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin und Doktorandin im Programmbereich "Internationale Sicherheit" bei PRIF. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte sind autonome Waffensysteme, Rüstungskontrolle sowie internationale Normen. // Anna-Katharina Ferl is a Doctoral Researcher at PRIF's "International Security" research department. Her research interest focuses on autonomous weapons systems, arms control as well as international norms. | Twitter: @AnnaKFerl

| Twitter |



Der Beitrag Beyond the Code: Unveiling Gender Dynamics in AI and Cybersecurity for International Security erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

The increasing density and entanglement of international law and institutions leads to a growing potential for collisions between norms and rules emanating from different international institutions. It is an open question, however, when actors actually create manifest conflicts about overlapping norms and rules and how – and with what consequences – such conflicts are handled. We therefore utilize the concept of "interface conflicts" (ICs) in which two or more actors express positional differences over the scope or prevalence of different international norms. Building on the findings of the DFG research group OSAIC, we introduce the Interface Conflicts 1.0 dataset, which assembles information on 78 ICs. The dataset provides information on the actors and norms at stake in ICs and focuses specifically on their subsequent handling. It distinguishes co-operative from non-cooperative conflict management and codes the institutional as well as distributional outcomes of all management efforts.

Gesellschaftliche Grundwerte und Normen in 22 Ländern.

Themen: 1.) Freizeit: Präferenz für aktive oder entspannende
Freizeitgestaltung; präferierte Freizeitpartner; Mitgliedschaft
in ausgewählten Organisationen und Vereinen; ehrenamtliche
Tätigkeit in Vereinen; regelmäßiges Zeitunglesen; täglicher
Fernsehkonsum; Einstellung zu Menschen mit abweichenden
Überzeugungen; Einsamkeitsgefühle; Einschätzung der Veränderung
der Hilfsbereitschaft der Menschen; ungeliebte Personengruppen
in der Nachbarschaft; Selbsteinschätzung des
Gesundheitszustands; psychologische Selbstcharakterisierung als
rastlos, depressiv und glücklich; allgemeines Vertrauen in die
Mitmenschen und Vertrauen in jüngere und ältere Menschen;
Kontrolle über den eigenen Lebensverlauf (Skala); Glücksgefühl;
Einschätzung der aktuellen Lebenszufriedenheit sowie der
Lebenszufriedenheit vor fünf Jahren und in der Zukunft anhand
von Skalometern.

2.) Arbeit: Arbeitszufriedenheit; Stolz auf den Beruf;
Entscheidungsfreiheit im Beruf; Nutzung zusätzlicher Freizeit;
Gefühl, durch die Arbeit ausgenutzt zu werden; allgemeine
Zufriedenheit mit dem Lebensstandard; erwartete Veränderungen
der finanziellen Situation in der Zukunft; Einstellung zum
Leistungsprinzip und zur Mitbestimmung der Beschäftigten bei
der Nominierung des Geschäftsführers eines Unternehmens;
Einstellung zum Befolgen von Anordnungen des Vorgesetzten;
Einstellung zum technischen Fortschritt.

3.) Sinn des Lebens: Nachdenken über den Sinn des Lebens und
den Tod; Glaube an das Gute und Böse im Menschen; Häufigkeit
des Bedauerns eigenen Fehlverhaltens; Bereitschaft zur
Landesverteidigung; Werte und Institutionen, für die es sich
lohnt, sein Leben einzusetzen; Kriegsgefahr; Selbsteinstufung
der Religiosität; Einschätzung der Kompetenz der Kirche in
moralischen Fragen, in Fragen des Familienlebens und der Frage
nach dem Sinn des Lebens; erwartete Bedeutung der Religionen in
der Zukunft; Glauben an Gott, Tod, Seele, Teufel, Hölle,
Himmel, Sünde und Wiedergeburt; Wichtigkeit von Gott im eigenen
Leben; Suche nach Kraft und Trost im Glauben; Beten; die
Bedeutung der einzelnen 10 Gebote für den Befragten sowie
Einschätzung der Bedeutung für die meisten Menschen;
übersinnliche Erfahrungen und daraus erfolgte Veränderungen des
Lebens.

4.) Familienleben: Bindung an die Eltern; Strenge der Eltern;
Einschätzung der Entspanntheit, der Geborgenheit, der
Ängstlichkeit, der Gereiztheit und des Glücks im eigenen
Zuhause; Zufriedenheit mit dem häuslichen Leben; gemeinsame
Wertorientierungen und Meinungen mit dem Partner sowie den
Eltern; Einstellung zur Heirat und zur sexuellen Freizügigkeit;
wichtigste Voraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche Ehe; ideale
Kinderzahl; mögliche Gründe für eine Scheidung; die Bedeutung
von Vater und Mutter für ein heranwachsendes Kind; Mutterschaft
als Voraussetzung für eine glückliche Frau; Notwendigkeit
sexueller Normen; Einstellung zu einer bedingungslosen Liebe zu
den Eltern sowie einer aufopfernden Liebe der Eltern zu ihren
Kindern; Einstellung zu einer freiwillig alleinerziehenden
Mutter; Erziehungsziele; Kinderzahl.

5.) Soziale und politische Fragen: Politikinteresse;
Einstellung zu ausgewählten Formen politischer Partizipation;
Freiheit oder Gleichheit als wichtigster Wert; Selbsteinstufung
auf einem Links-Rechts-Kontinuum; Einstellung zum sozialen
Wandel und zu revolutionären Veränderungen; Postmaterialismus;
Ziel von Freiheitsstrafen; Ziele einer idealen
Gesellschaftsordnung; Rechtsempfinden und Einstufung der
Verwerflichkeit von Schwarzfahren, Akzeptanz von
Schmiergeldern, Homosexualität, Prostitution, Scheidung,
Widerstand gegen die Staatsgewalt, Fahrerflucht, Euthanasie,
Selbstmord und politischem Mord; Alkoholkonsum; Einschätzung
des Drogen- und Alkoholproblems im eigenen Lande; Einstellung
zur Abtreibung und Akzeptanz möglicher Abtreibungsgründe;
eigene Meinungsführerschaft und Häufigkeit politischer
Diskussionen mit Freunden; Parteineigung; Verbundenheit mit dem
Ort oder der Nation; Nationalstolz; Einstellung zum
Terrorismus; Vertrauen in ausgewählte Institutionen;
Zukunftsunsicherheit; Wohnstatus.

Demographie: Alter; Geschlecht; Zusammenleben mit den Eltern; Alter bei
Beendigung der Ausbildung; Berufstätigkeit; Branche des Betriebes;
Betriebsgröße; Haushaltseinkommen (klassiert); Befragter ist
Haushaltsvorstand; Charakteristika des Haushaltsvorstands;
Urbanisierungsgrad; Regionale Herkunft.

Interviewerrating: Ethnische Zugehörigkeit; sozio-ökonomischer
Status des Befragten; Kooperationsbereitschaft und
Zuverlässigkeit des Befragten.

Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's former Finance Minister, chats with David Axelrod about her Ukrainian-American upbringing in Chicago, how Russia's violation of international norms could portend global upheaval, and the potential costs of a Trump administration's isolationist policy both in the United States and globally.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Australia should stay true to its track record of promoting the international rule of law and counsel Israel to show restraint in Gaza. Only by adhering to the norms of war and humanitarian, can the ongoing bloodshed by aborted.

In defiance of international norms and rules, U.S. officials are laying claim to the large oceanic area in the central Pacific Ocean that is home to the compact states.Now that they are renewing the economic provisions of the compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, U.S. officials are insisting that the compacts provide the United States with exclusive control over an area of the central Pacific Ocean that is comparable in size to the United States."We control essentially the northern half of the Pacific between Hawaii and Philippines," U.S. special envoy Joseph Yun told Congress in July.For decades, the United States has overseen compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the compacts, the United States provides the three countries with economic assistance while it maintains powerful military controls over the islands and their waters.One of these military controls, "the defense veto," enables the United States to prevent the compact states from forging international agreements that could impede U.S. military priorities. Consequently, the compact states have never joined the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a nuclear free zone in the region.Another U.S. military control is "the right of strategic denial" by which U.S. officials assert that they can prevent other countries from accessing the compact states' lands, waters, and airspace."The compacts do give us full defense authority and responsibility in those countries and provide our ability to strategically deny third country military access," U.S. diplomat Jane Bocklage told Congress earlier this year.Although the compacts include language that permits the United States to foreclose access to the islands by third-party military forces, U.S. officials have broadly interpreted this language to mean that they can exclude third parties from the compact states' exclusive economic zones (EEZs), which extend up to 200 miles around each island's coastlines.At a congressional hearing in July, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) asserted that strategic denial authority "allows us to deny access to any potential adversary in an area of the Pacific comparable in size to the continental United States." An associate presented a map that portrayed the EEZs as one contiguous area under U.S. control. "It's nearly as large as the continental United States," Barrasso remarked.Defense Department official Siddharth Mohandas agreed with the senator's interpretation. He claimed that the United States maintains unfettered and exclusive access to the area. "We have the ability to deny foreign militaries access and the ability to operate in the exclusive economic zones of the Freely Associated States," Mohandas said, referring to the compact states.This interpretation of strategic denial is inconsistent with international law. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, all countries have the rights of navigation and overflight in the exclusive economic zones of other countries, as stipulated by Articles 58 and 87.Most countries, including the compact states, are parties to the convention. The United States has never ratified the convention, but high-level U.S. officials have expressed their support for it."Although not yet a party to the treaty, the U.S. nevertheless observes the UN LOSC as reflective of customary international law and practice," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explains, referring to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.When U.S. officials say that they have a right to exclude third-party actors from the compact states' exclusive economic zones, they are making claims that are inconsistent with the UN Convention. There is no legal basis for the United States to prevent ships from other countries from peacefully traversing the compact states' exclusive economic zones.More than two decades ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) acknowledged in a major report that strategic denial does not extend to the compact states' exclusive economic zones. According to the GAO report, strategic denial is limited to the 12-mile territorial waters that surround each island. Even within these smaller zones, the GAO noted, military vessels from other countries maintain the right of "innocent passage.""Statements by policymakers that indicate the United States has a right to deny military access to the islands and a vast area of the Pacific Ocean—a widely cited U.S. interest—overstate the breadth of this right, which only covers the individual islands and their 12-mile territorial waters," the GAO explained.A map included in the GAO report shows that strategic denial applies to small isolated areas rather than the much larger expanse of the Pacific Ocean that is often claimed by U.S. officials. A key implication of the GAO's map is that the United States cannot legally exclude third parties from the vast oceanic area that surrounds the compact states.In fact, U.S. officials have long taken the position that exclusive economic zones must remain open to navigation. Across the world, they have promoted "freedom of navigation," which they have presented as the freedom of ships to sail the world's oceans and waterways wherever the law allows, including in the exclusive economic zones of other countries.When U.S. officials have sent warships through some of the world's most contested waterways, such as the South and East China Seas, they have said that they are defending "freedom of navigation." The presence of U.S. military forces has often created tensions, possibly even violating Article 88 of the U.N. Convention, which requires ships to have peaceful purposes, but U.S. officials have always insisted that these operations are consistent with international law."We're committed to ensuring that every country can fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows," Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a speech in June. "Every country, large and small, must remain free to conduct lawful maritime activities."The U.S. mass media has often sided with the U.S. government's position on freedom of navigation, especially as it concerns U.S. military operations in the exclusive economic zones of rival countries. In a July 2023 report about North Korean criticisms of U.S. military activities in North Korea's exclusive economic zone, The New York Times indicated that North Korea has no legal basis for excluding U.S. military forces from the area."A country can claim the right to exploit marine resources in its so-called exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its 12 nautical-mile territorial waters," The New York Times reported. "But it does not hold sovereignty over the zone's surface and the airspace above it."When countries such as China and North Korea claim that they have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their exclusive economic zones, U.S. officials always disagree, insisting that these areas must remain open to freedom of navigation, particularly for U.S. warships.Regarding coastal states such as China and North Korea, the U.S. position is that they "do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs," according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. "The United States will continue to operate its military ships in the EEZs of other countries."By claiming to have a right of strategic denial over the compact states' exclusive economic zones, however, U.S. officials are taking a position that is inconsistent with international law and their own practices in many parts of the world, including the Indo-Pacific. If they were to use force to prevent a third party from accessing the vast expanse of waters around the compact states, then they would be violating the law and the very principles that they apply to other countries.In short, U.S. officials have no legal basis for their claims to control the vast oceanic area that is home to the compact states, just as the GAO confirmed in its landmark report more than two decades ago.This article has been republished with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus.

National courts often use international norms in their decisions even when such norms have not been incorporated into their domestic legal systems. Judicial cross-fertilization also occurs as a result of mutual referencing of foreign decisions that have persuasive appeal, and through extensive networking initiatives. It is argued that this phenomenon signals the emergence of a "global community of courts" and the merging of international and domestic legal systems. To evaluate this claim, research needs to engage two types of questions with far reaching implications for politics and law. The first, empirical question is whether transjudicial cooperation is indeed a global trend: is it occurring across legal traditions and cultures? What motivates courts to turn to international and foreign law in reasoning their decisions? How do other actors outside the judiciary perceive this practice? The second, normative question is whether this observed merging of international and national law may take place in the absence of shared values, principles and normative underpinnings. In other words, even if empirically it can be shown that judicial cross-fertilization is global in scope, and that it may blur the distinctions between international and national law, what are the ethical implications of such developments?

Participants: Kerstin Blome (University Bremen), Charlotte Ku (Univerity of Illinios), Philip Liste (University of Hamburg), Andreas von Staden (University St Gallen), Chair: Antje Wiener (University of Hamburg)

The Round Table discussion is taking place at the ISA Annual Convention, Montreal, Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:30 AM
Room: Viger A

Conflicts over climate and energy policy, security and geopolitical dimensions of global decarbonisation, or human and environmental rights violations in global value chains: The current socio-ecological transformation is causing new and exacerbating existing socio-political conflicts that will characterise the 21st century. The new working group on socio-ecological transformation conflicts, which introduces some of its fields of research in this blog series, brings together existing expertise on these conflicts at PRIF.
Author information





Hendrik Simon



Hendrik Simon ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am PRIF im Programmbereich "Transnationale Politik". Er forscht zu Normen in der internationalen Politik und der Rolle des Völkerrechts. // Hendrik Simon is a Researcher at PRIF's research department "Transnational Politics". He researches norms in international politics and the role of international law.

|



Der Beitrag Socio-ecological Transformation Conflicts: A Central Field of Conflict and Research in the 21st Century erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Australia and Indonesia share many interests, including upholding international law and norms, particularly on questions of sovereignty. With China's ongoing assertions in Indonesian waters, new diplomatic space has opened to consider boosting ties to encompass a Special Strategic Partnership.

Women in Pakistan's major cities, such as Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, and Multan, rallied on International Women's Day, demanding gender equality, justice, and safety, challenging patriarchal norms for the seventh consecutive year.

As we witness a rise in radical right politics in Europe and beyond, our host ⁠Cassandra van Douveren⁠ speaks to ⁠Dr. Vicente Valentim⁠, a Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow at Nuffield College at the University of Oxford. Vicente's work focusses on the role of social norms in normalising the expression of views and behaviours associated with authoritarianism. Join us as we discuss his upcoming book, ⁠The Normalisation of the Radical Right: A Norms Theory of Political Supply and Demand⁠ (forthcoming: September 2024), pathways to restore democratic norms and Vicente's hopes for the future. Politics, Re-Imagined is a series by the Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR) at the University of Oxford focused on exploring tangible and sustainable solutions to the ...