Suchergebnisse

Abstract The term 'artificial intelligence' has arguably come to function in political discourse as, what Laclau called, an 'empty signifier'. This article traces the shifting political discourse on AI within three key institutions of global governance–OHCHR, WHO, and UNESCO–and, in so doing, highlights the role of 'crisis' moments in justifying a series of pivotal re-articulations. Most important has been the attachment of AI to the narrative around digital automation in human healthcare. Greatly enabled by the societal context of the pandemic, all three institutions have moved from being critical of the unequal power relations in the economy of AI to, today, reframing themselves primarily as facilitators tasked with helping to ensure the application of AI technologies. The analysis identifies a shift in which human health and healthcare is framed as in a 'crisis' to which AI technology is presented as the remedy. The article argues the need to trace these discursive shifts as a means by which to understand, monitor, and where necessary also hold to account these changes in the governance of AI in society.

1. Introduction : embedding the World Trade Organization -- 2. Contesting global trade governance : a genealogy of the WTO -- 3. The WTO as an uncertain political project -- 4. The emergence of new actors in the WTO : the "NGO" identity -- 5. The formation of new actors contesting the WTO : the example of anti-GATS campaigning -- 6. Conclusion : the discursivity of global trade governance.

Writing Global Trade Governance operationalises a key post-structuralist methodology in order to expand understanding on the institution at the heart of the global political economy. Despite the WTO's centrality and the growing popularity of methods utilizing discourse theory, no other text has yet demonstrated how these two fields of learning can be productively combined. The book seeks to move beyond existing literatures that assume the WTO to be a structure, institution or normative framework, in order to enquire into the discursive processes of identity formation that make the WTO both.

AbstractHealthcare systems are the embodiment of big data – as evident in the logistics of resource management, estate maintenance, diagnoses, patient monitoring, research, etc. – such that human health is often heralded as one of the fields most likely to benefit from AI. Yet, the prevalence of hype – both positive and negative – risks undermining that potential by distracting healthcare policy makers, practitioners, and researchers from many of the non-AI factors that will determine its impact. Here we categorise AI hype in healthcare into three types that include both utopian and dystopian narratives and plot a series of more productive paths ahead by which to realise the potential of AI to improve human healthcare.

Nearly two decades have passed since the events of the WTO's Seattle Ministerial marked civil society as relevant to global trade politics. Despite this, and as the chapter explains, there remains significant ambiguity as to what is meant by the term 'civil society'. That civil society matters in global trade governance needs to be understood in terms of two inter-related questions: how the WTO Secretariat, and other institutional actors, give recognition to certain groups and individuals; and, why it is that the actors described as 'civil society' seek to contest a governance domain often seemingly closed to their demands.

Future trade negotiations to which the UK is party are unlikely to be possible without significantly impacting politically sensitive issues such that, without innovative solutions, the government will find it increasingly difficult to be active in negotiations necessary to maintaining current UK access to foreign markets post-Brexit. There is a widening gap between the broadening scope of what is covered by 'trade policy' and the necessary knowledge base within not just UK society but also amongst key policy-makers. The UK needs to adopt a multi-level strategy for ensuring there is an ongoing national conversation on trade policy that is well-informed, that includes politicians at all levels of government, as well as civil society, but also new initiatives that allow the public to become sufficiently informed so as to ensure a nuanced debate on trade that curtails the risk of knee-jerk protectionism through being sensitive to societal concerns. ; UTP0011

The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body provides the teeth of the global trade regime – empowering it with substantial means to adjudicate in disagreements between Memberstates over the implementation of WTO law. The WTO's teeth have, however, also helped make the organisation controversial. The Dispute Settlement Body has frequently found itself at the centre of a much wider societal critique of the broader WTO – as well as contemporary global trade governance – in which its legitimacy to operate has been fiercely questioned.
The political sensitivity of its work has been made most apparent in those cases where the principles of WTO law appear to run counter to environmental or consumer safety concerns, taking the system into the mass media and making it the subject of street protests. Yet, where rulings have given new access to non-state actors campaigning for these concerns (e.g. amicus curiae provisions), there has been further controversy amongst Member-states over whether the Dispute Settlement Body has acted outside its delegated authority by effectively rewriting 'who' or 'what' is an actor in the system.
The changing character of this specific institutional arrangement is approached in the article as part of a wider struggle over the terms of what is 'legitimate' in global governance. Where WTO Dispute Settlement has been re-politicised, both inside and out-side the formal institution, a contradiction becomes visible – between its legal-technocratic identity and a world that is fundamentally political. The legal normalisation of new actor identities needs to be understood in this context, as an attempt to manage that tension and reinforce the claim that WTO Dispute Settlement is legitimate. How the institution has changed and new identities emerged since its birth in 1995 is enhanced if understood in the context of a struggle in which the terms of what is legitimate in global governance are ultimately unfixed.

The World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body provides the teeth of the global trade regime – empowering it with substantial means to adjudicate in disagreements between Member-states over the implementation of WTO law. The WTO's teeth have, however, also helped make the organisation controversial. The Dispute Settlement Body has frequently found itself at the centre of a much wider societal critique of the broader WTO – as well as contemporary global trade governance – in which its legitimacy to operate has been fiercely questioned.The political sensitivity of its work has been made most apparent in those cases where the principles of WTO law appear to run counter to environmental or consumer safety concerns, taking the system into the mass media and making it the subject of street protests. Yet, where rulings have given new access to non-state actors campaigning for these concerns (e.g. amicus curiae provisions), there has been further controversy amongst Member-states over whether the Dispute Settlement Body has acted outside its delegated authority by effectively rewriting 'who' or 'what' is an actor in the system.The changing character of this specific institutional arrangement is approached in the article as part of a wider struggle over the terms of what is 'legitimate' in global governance. Where WTO Dispute Settlement has been re-politicised, both inside and outside the formal institution, a contradiction becomes visible – between its legal-technocratic identity and a world that is fundamentally political. The legal normalisation of new actor identities needs to be understood in this context, as an attempt to manage that tension and reinforce the claim that WTO Dispute Settlement is legitimate. How the institution has changed and new identities emerged since its birth in 1995 is enhanced if understood in the context of a struggle in which the terms of what is legitimate in global governance are ultimately unfixed.

The European Union (EU) plays multiple roles within global trade governance as a unitary actor with particular interests to promote, a tool for dominance by powerful interests, and a site of contestation facilitating civil society mobilization. Identifying these roles is key to analyzing the role of the EU particularly in times of crisis in global trade governance where new forms of politics are most likely to emerge. This is investigated through considering two cases of politically sensitive trade negotiation in which the EU played, and continues to play, an active role: the GATS 2000 negotiations and the EU-US TTIP.

The World Trade Organization's dispute settlement body provides the teeth of theglobal trade regime – empowering it with substantial means to adjudicate in disagreementsbetween Member-states over the implementation of WTO law. The WTO's teeth have, however, also helped make the organisation controversial as part of a general critique from civil society groups concerned that global trade governance has become unaccountable to the societies it affects. Could the growing presence of NGOs and other non-state actors in WTO dispute settlement – empirically identified within a growing body of literature – solve this apparent accountability deficit? Drawing upon existing findings and new research, the article argues that non-state actors have significant consequences for the accountability of WTO dispute settlement, but to whom the system is accountable and whether these consequences are good or bad is not pre-determined. Rather, as the burgeoning literature on accountability shows, the term itself is multi-faceted. Only by engaging with specific cases, as is done here in the case of WTO dispute settlement, can research properly draw out the shape of accountability in global governance.