Search results

Although "international crisis" is a widespread term, no common definition has yet been achieved: its features have neither been clarified in relation to contemporary events, nor has the role of diplomacy in relation to crises been outlined with precision. Diplomats have even become part of the problem, rather than the problem-solvers, as realist approaches have lost touch with today's poly-lateral world politics. To make up for these lacunae, this article enquires into the present-day nexus between international crisis and diplomacy by first illustrating what international crises mean beyond traditional state-centric definitions and then by considering what diplomacy can offer to tame such turbulent disruptions to the routine of world affairs. In doing so, it introduces a critical definition of international crisis and tests it in relation to a system-oriented description of diplomacy both in its routine and crisis dimensions. Outlining the role of "crisis diplomacy" beyond "diplomatic crises" the essay calls for both a novel understanding of the role of diplomats in these contexts and a greater awareness to the growing complexity of such engagements.

This article calls for greater attention to global cities in the study of world affairs so as to promote a more holistic reading of global governance as a multiscalar set of processes composed by overlapping spheres of authority. The article shows how international studies have been insufficiently sensitive to the strategic role of global cities and how they are capable of acting on the global stage by exerting network power. This sheds light on the multilayered governmentality of global governance from an urban perspective. Looking through a lens of global cities, it is argued, will enable theorists to connect macro processes to micro dynamics across a far wider spectrum of governance and political agencies.

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 high-lighted 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.

Although "international crisis" is a widespread term, no common definition has yet been achieved: its features have neither been clarified in relation to contemporary events, nor has the role of diplomacy in relation to crises been outlined with precision. Diplomats have even become part of the problem, rather than the problem-solvers, as realist approaches have lost touch with today's poly-lateral world politics. To make up for these lacunae, this article enquires into the present-day nexus between international crisis and diplomacy by first illustrating what international crises mean beyond traditional state-centric definitions and then by considering what diplomacy can offer to tame such turbulent disruptions to the routine of world affairs. In doing so, it introduces a critical definition of international crisis and tests it in relation to a system-oriented description of diplomacy both in its routine and crisis dimensions. Outlining the role of "crisis diplomacy" beyond "diplomatic crises" the essay calls for both a novel understanding of the role of diplomats in these contexts and a greater awareness to the growing complexity of such engagements.

The 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.

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 high-lighted 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.

This article calls for greater attention to global cities in the study of world affairs so as to promote a more holistic reading of global governance as a multiscalar set of processes composed by overlapping spheres of authority. The article shows how international studies have been insufficiently sensitive to the strategic role of global cities and how they are capable of acting on the global stage by exerting network power. This sheds light on the multilayered governmentality of global governance from an urban perspective. Looking through a lens of global cities, it is argued, will enable theorists to connect macro processes to micro dynamics across a far wider spectrum of governance and political agencies.

The 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.

International audience ; The water-energy-food nexus has achieved considerable prominence across academic research and policy sectors. The nexus sets an imperative for integrated management and policymaking, centring on the potential trade-offs and complementarities between interdependent water, energy and food systems. Applications of the nexus focus largely on technical or managerial solutions and calls to acknowledge the political dimension of nexus interdependencies have implications for governance at the urban scale. This paper aims to 'urbanise' the nexus agenda and consider the implications of policy integration for urban governance. This examines the nexus in the context of current approaches to urban governance and power relations shaping the provision of water, energy and food in urban areas. Urban infrastructure networks underpin these resource systems and related management systems, although their management tends to operate in silos, with little joint decision-making and planning. Three hypotheses about the interplay between integrative policy framings and urban governance are explored to reconcile integrative policy framings at the urban scale: the appropriation of the nexus narrative by urban governments; re-establishment of political power through integrated management, and implementation of the nexus through smart city approaches. These hypotheses progress the political dimension of the nexus debate and reflect on the role of urban governance in addressing global challenges.

International audience ; The water-energy-food nexus has achieved considerable prominence across academic research and policy sectors. The nexus sets an imperative for integrated management and policymaking, centring on the potential trade-offs and complementarities between interdependent water, energy and food systems. Applications of the nexus focus largely on technical or managerial solutions and calls to acknowledge the political dimension of nexus interdependencies have implications for governance at the urban scale. This paper aims to 'urbanise' the nexus agenda and consider the implications of policy integration for urban governance. This examines the nexus in the context of current approaches to urban governance and power relations shaping the provision of water, energy and food in urban areas. Urban infrastructure networks underpin these resource systems and related management systems, although their management tends to operate in silos, with little joint decision-making and planning. Three hypotheses about the interplay between integrative policy framings and urban governance are explored to reconcile integrative policy framings at the urban scale: the appropriation of the nexus narrative by urban governments; re-establishment of political power through integrated management, and implementation of the nexus through smart city approaches. These hypotheses progress the political dimension of the nexus debate and reflect on the role of urban governance in addressing global challenges.

In urban policy there is an increasing emphasis on the management and sharing of information in and about cities. This paper focuses on external sharing practices which are facilitated by boundary‐spanning organisations. Boundary‐spanning organisations are hybrid structures that provide a platform to link internal networks of the city government with external actors, and in particular focus on engaging various types of stakeholders. The paper offers a preliminary assessment of a sample of boundary‐spanning organisations based across six case studies (Barcelona, Chicago, London, Medellin, Mexico City and Seoul) and across three types of BSOs: living labs, innovation districts and sector‐oriented BSOs. Unpacking the shape and development of BSOs, and "placing" them in urban governance, we begin to sketch a preliminary agenda geared to offer a better appreciation of the "information ecosystem" underneath policy‐making in cities.