Immoral authorities: crusades, jihād and just war rhetoric
In: Journal of global ethics, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 17-26
ISSN: 1744-9634
72 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of global ethics, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 17-26
ISSN: 1744-9634
In: Peace & change: a journal of peace research, Band 35, Heft 2, S. 328-353
ISSN: 0149-0508
In: The China journal: Zhongguo-yanjiu, Band 63, S. 178-180
ISSN: 1835-8535
In: Peace & change: PC ; a journal of peace research, Band 34, Heft 1, S. 94-97
ISSN: 1468-0130
In: Peace & change: a journal of peace research, Band 34, Heft 1, S. 94-96
ISSN: 0149-0508
In: The SAIS review of international affairs / the Johns Hopkins University, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Band 29, Heft 2, S. 175-178
ISSN: 1945-4724
In: SAIS Review, Band 29, Heft 2, S. 175-178
In: The Whitehead journal of diplomacy and international relations, Band 10, Heft 1, S. 111-121
ISSN: 1538-6589
The international system faces two antithetical transnational forces. On the one hand, there is globalization, and on the other a prevalent rise in nationalist and sovereign claims emerging as a backlash to the growing net of transnational relations. Subsequently and following the revolution in individualization since the Cold War, individuals now have more than one social affiliation, and their affiliative choices are taken increasingly autonomously. With their presence in processes of foreign affairs, public demands can no longer be overlooked. The present article discusses the governmental and NGO actors of fundamental freedom across the globe, international advocacy aimed at either reaching global agreements, or at pointing out violations, and public diplomacy as the gray area between human rights and diplomatic practice. The second part of the article has for subject the interplay between foreign policy and human rights, and the improvement of human rights mediation. O. van Zijl
In: Alternatives: global, local, political, Band 33, Heft 4, S. 461-480
ISSN: 2163-3150
Many authors have issued anxious warnings about a disturbing "backlash against democracy"—this in spite of the growing affirmation of democracy as an international standard against which other systems are measured. This article considers the role of democracy promotion, which is understood as activities aimed at assisting in consolidating, disseminating, and advocating democratic governance in this context. The theoretical framework in which the promotion debate occurs is highlighted in order to show how the concept of "democracy" is socially constructed and interpreted in different ways by the various promoters. The article examines the main targets of this activity (state structures and civil societies) and compares two major supporters of democracy (the European Union and the United States). On this basis, claims about a "democratic rollback" are challenged by reference to hybrid regimes that contrast the idea of democracy with that of civilization. The backlash is better understood as resistence to some of the methods of promotion and some promoters, rather than as being against democracy itself, and the article holds that the best way to promote good governance worldwide is through an oblique, cosmopolitan or European-style democracy that fosters the multiple and processual grounds on which democratic polities can flourish.
In: Alternatives: global, local, political, Band 33, Heft 4, S. 461-480
ISSN: 0304-3754
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.
In: Global policy: gp, Band 10, Heft 4, S. 709-711
ISSN: 1758-5899
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.
In: Global policy: gp, Band 9, Heft S3, S. 15-22
ISSN: 1758-5899
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.
In: Global policy: gp, Band 9, Heft S3, S. 8-14
ISSN: 1758-5899
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.