Suchergebnisse

This essay sets up a comparison between two types of negotiating tactics: the first, aggregating strategies, aims at merging parties into the fewest number of sides to a conflict as possible, in order to diminish the number of war‐related divisions, and the second, disaggregating strategies, rests on the idea that "cross‐cutting cleavages" help moderate social conflict because they run against the construction of opposed identities. Much of the literature on intrastate conflict and rebellions supports the latter approach, but little comparative analysis on the social costs and benefits of the two types has, in reality, been carried out. By drawing lessons from the insurgencies in Aceh, Bougainville and, in part, the Solomon Islands, the article takes up an opportunity‐based spoilers' framework to analyze the strategies. It concludes that neither of the two can be identified as a "best method" if measured against sustainability and social impact, nor does one of them have a stronger effect on spoilers. In either case, the study underlines, there is an intrinsic value in long‐term peace processes as constituted by repeated negotiations and continuing interaction; likewise, there are webbing effects of war on peacebuilding scenarios as a process of multiplication of social cleavages occurs after conflict.

AbstractThe globalization of Sydney and its rise to world city status tell us a profoundly political story that presents critical challenges both in terms of local development and long‐term sustainability. Green is at the centre of this imagineering, which situates environmental sustainability at the core of Sydney's competitive and innovative edge. Yet the Harbour City, while rising to worldwide fame, has also been progressively troubled by wicked challenges that question its increasingly entrepreneurial and largely unproblematized approach to urban governance. At present, the metropolis has tackled these challenges by means of ad hoc solutions and policy‐making processes that, on deeper analysis, reveal little coordination beyond an impetus for growth as the driver of collective action at the urban scale. Due to the lack of a clear metropolis‐wide authority and the multiscalar nature of urban governance, the city has turned too much towards tackling sustainability within its urban dimension as a source of global competitiveness, while social polarization questions are steadily advancing to the forefront. It is time, I argue, for a Greater Sydney Authority.RésuméLa mondialisation de Sydney et son ascension au rang de ville mondiale racontent une histoire profondément politique où apparaissent des problèmes cruciaux, à la fois en termes de développement local et de viabilitéà long terme. Défini comme pivot de cet 'ingéniomaginaire' ou imagineering, le thème 'vert' place la viabilité environnementale au cœur de l'avantage compétitif et novateur de Sydney. Pourtant, tout en bâtissant sa renommée mondiale, 'Harbour City' a peu à peu rencontré des 'problèmes pernicieux' qui menacent son approche de plus en plus entrepreneuriale de la gouvernance urbaine, approche dont la problématique est largement ignorée. La métropole a répondu à ces difficultés par des solutions ponctuelles et des processus de décision politique qui, une fois analysés en profondeur, révèlent une faible coordination hormis l'élan en faveur de la croissance comme moteur de l'action collective à l'échelon urbain. En l'absence d'autorité métropolitaine claire et à cause des multiples échelons de gouvernance, la ville s'est trop intéressée à la durabilité dans sa dimension urbaine en tant que source de compétitivité mondiale, alors que des problèmes de polarisation sociale prennent peu à peu le devant de la scène. Il est temps que soit instaurée une 'Autorité du Grand Sydney'.

Global city-thinking has, in the past years, had a very real pull on society. Global cities seem an unavoidable fact of everyday world affairs. This volume gathers a forum that integrates the extensive set of disciplinary dimensions to which the interdisciplinary concept of the global city can help to tackle the policy challenges of today's metropolises. Its chapters are drawn from viewpoints including the cultural, economic, historical, postcolonial, virtual, architectural, literary, security and political dimensions of global cities. Tasked with providing a rejoinder to the global city scholarship from each of these perspectives, the authors illustrate what twin analytical and practical challenges emerge from juxtaposing these stances to the concept of the 'global city'. They rely not solely on theory but also on sample case studies either drawn from long-lived global cities such as New York, Shanghai and London, or emerging metropolises like Dubai, Cape Town and Sydney.

AbstractC40, and city networks more in general, need to be seen 'inside out' too. In response to Davidson, Gleeson and Coenen, we argue that it is imperative to acknowledge more explicitly how networks like C40, or international urban policy programmes more generally, are situated within a broader political economy of 'global urban governance'. We detail that this means unpacking the often convenient use of popular names like 'C40' and 'Arup' to remember that these entities are complex organisational arrangements with internal (within their own organisation) as much as transversal (across them and other similar organisations) politics and, not least, often highly mobile people shaping the ways they act and react internationally.

AbstractWhether it is in climate change negotiations, pandemic scares, security threats or sustainable development agendas, science and technology are today at the heart of international affairs. Yet there is still limited academic work that deals with the complex relationships between international diplomatic and scientific endeavours. How can we bridge this divide and possibly 'rebalance' the encounter between the practice of science diplomacy, its practitioner‐driven literature, and the discussions of international relations theory (IR) that underpin the study of world politics? Here we propose that this move could start from a more explicit placing of science diplomacy discussions across the IR spectrum. We pose that taking seriously science 'diplomacy', whilst undoing conventions around the hitherto limited 'IR' reading of science in its literature, would do well in establishing this reality not just as a domain of reflective practitioners, but as an effective launchpad for international theorizing as much as more academically‐driven practice.

AbstractScientific advancements, their application through technological development, and world politics have been long acknowledged as affecting each other, and are today more than ever at the heart of global policy. Speaking of 'science diplomacy' as the encounter of world politics and the world of science at the heart of these advancements might be a unique window into our time. This potential is what prompts this special issue to gather views from a variety of scholarly and practical viewpoints, linking the well‐established world of reflective practitioners in science diplomacy to the growing field of international relations (IR) scholars theorising this realm. Can speaking of 'science diplomacy' situate our attention at the crossroads of science and international relations, and spur greater appreciation for their intersections? This introduction to the special issue summarises the rise of science diplomacy as field of inquiry, and casts questions as to the need to advance, where not reform, these conceptualisations. It defines science diplomacy as a 'boundary problem' par excellence and emphasises its 'productive tension' that emerges between the various ways of knowing of actors belonging to 'different social worlds', seeking to gather a productive tension of views on this theme in the issue.

AbstractOver the past few decades, cities have repeatedly demonstrated high levels of ambition with regard to climate action. Global environmental governance has been marked by a proliferation of policy actions taken by local governments around the world to demonstrate their potential to advance climate change mitigation and adaptation. Leading 'by example' and demonstrating the extent of action that it is possible to deliver, cities have aspired to raise the ambition of national and international climate governance and put action into practice via a growing number of 'climate change experiments' delivered on the ground. Yet accounts of the potential of cities in global environmental governance have often stopped short of a systematic valuation of the nature and impact of the networked dimension of this action. This article addresses this by assessing the nature, and challenges faced by, urban climate governance in the post‐Paris era, focusing on the 'experimentation' undertaken in cities and the city networks shaping this type of governance. First, we unpack the concept of 'urban climate change experimentation', the ways in which it is networked, and the forces driving it. In the second and third parts of the article, we discuss two main pitfalls of networked urban experimentation in its current form, focusing on issues of scaling experiments and the nature of experimentation. We call for increased attention to 'scaling up' experiments beyond urban levels of governance, and to transformative experimentation with governance and politics by and in cities. Finally, we consider how these pitfalls allow us to weigh the potential of urban climate ambition, and consider the pathways available for supporting urban climate change experimentation.