Search results

AbstractIn the early 2000s, Dubai seemed the apotheosis of the global city model. Lauded as an embodiment of globalist ideals, or harshly criticized as a representation of the dangers of contemporary urbanism, it was clearly under the spotlight. Then, like the concept of the 'global city' itself, it disappeared from the headlines, to be subject only to sporadic and cynical attention. Today some are heralding a 'return' of Dubai from the anonymity of the middle ground of global city hierarchies and rankings. What is often forgotten, however, is that urbanism in Dubai did not stop. On the contrary, Dubai's continuous 'worlding' offers a productive opportunity for the encounter of 'global' and 'ordinary' modes of urban analysis. By unpacking the construction of a global Dubai, this article advocates greater sensitivity to the multiscalar politics that shape its continuity. Stepping beyond rumours of crisis and decline, it aims to connect the global fortunes and everyday processes that jointly characterize the development of global cities. 'Global' and 'ordinary' urbanism, it argues, are but two registers of how we could, in Warren Magnusson's words, 'see like a city'.

Garbage is stuff that matters: the generation, disposal, and management of waste represent some of the most visceral flows in our society. Yet most international scholars continue to regard it as trivial to focus on the mundane practices and menial materiality associated with managing rubbish. Contra this dissociation, and through an analytics of assemblages, I argue that international theory can (and nowadays must) encompass both the grand designs of diplomacy and the mundane cosmopolitics of everyday life. In the everyday, the 'international' is embodied, performed, and domesticated. I chart these multi-scalar connections as they unfold in Sydney, Australia, demonstrating how a focus on a global challenge such as climate change has been redefining the mundane realities of waste management. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractLittle interest has thus far been paid to the role of cities in world politics. Yet, several are the examples of city-based engagements suggesting an emerging urban presence in international relations. The Climate Leadership Group, despite its recent lineage, is perhaps the most significant case of metropolitan intersection with global governance. To illustrate this I rely on Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to develop a qualitative network analysis of the evolution of the C40 in the past seven years from a limited gathering of municipal leaders to a transnational organisation partnering with the World Bank. Pinpointed on the unfolding of a twin diplomacy/planning approach, the evolution of the C40 can demonstrate the key role of global cities as actors in global environmental politics. These cities have a pivotal part in charting new geographies of climate governance, prompting the rise of subpolitical policymaking arrangements pinpointed on innovative and hybrid connections. Yet, there remains some important rational continuity, in particular with neoliberalism, which ultimately limits the revolutionary potential these cities might have for international relations.

Summary
Drawing on the case of the Olympics, and in particular on the role of London in securing, planning and administering the 2012 Summer Games, this article investigates how cities participate in world politics beyond the traditional avenues of the international system. Tracing how the planning of a sporting mega-event has been woven into London's international role as a global 'green' leader, the article seeks to shed some light on the diplomatic role of cities, as well as on how sport has been used in relation to city diplomacy and urban governance. The Olympics offer a unique window on the multi-scalar reach of these subnational authorities, allowing for substantial public diplomacy initiatives. Major cities such as London, as the article argues, can exert a pervasive diplomatic influence, and planning for sporting events can extend their capacity to link 'city diplomacy' with tangible impacts on everyday lives.

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.