Suchergebnisse

This collection of Southern African case studies is intended to contribute to the burgeoning literature on transboundary water governance (TBWG) particularly as it applies to areas of the Global South. Specifically, the collection interrogates the idea of the 'boundary'. Transboundary Management is most commonly conceived of as the management of surface and groundwater shared by two or more sovereign states. This conceptualization is codified in international law devised in the first instance as bilateral agreements concerning specific uses of (primarily surface) water, often along specific stretches of river. Through time, these practices have been upscaled to generalized principles expressed as rules, norms and procedures for the management of all 'international rivers'. While the world's states seem to be moving steadily toward an accepted framework for transboundary water resources management (TBWRM), it should be noted that the de facto use of much of the world's shared freshwater resources remains outside this mostly ideal-typical framework. Indeed, in contrast to the rationally constructed framework for the management of water in all its forms and across all uses, de facto management – at whatever social scale – reflects water's changing role and place within the history of uneven global development

No matter how narrowly you focus your spatial or temporal lenses, you are bound to catch sight of multiple significant challenges to human community. Many of these challenges are shared, such as Covid-19, though their impacts on individuals and groups are felt unevenly. Some challenges are immediate and existential, such as the wars in Ukraine, Syria, and Yemen. Others, such as race, gender, caste, and class-based inequalities, are deeply embedded in social structures, providing privilege and persecution, and reward and oppression in unequal measures. And climate change, though slower moving, holds out the prospect of leading to total social collapse. How to make sense of these dramatic changes? This essay explores the adequacy of theories of IR and G/IPE in explaining the emergent world (dis)order. It argues that, whether orthodox or critical, theory must find a way to centre humanity within the biosphere if theory is to adequately inform practice.

A broad divergence between rhetoric and reality characterizes U.S. Africa policy through time. Given Africa's relatively marginal place in U.S. global strategy, a policy of minimum risk/minimum expense is considered sufficient for American interests. Africa is important only in so far as instability on the continent assists America's enemies and contributes to global terror. Secondarily, Africa is seen to be an untapped market for U.S. goods and services, but this is more potential than real. In consequence, a relatively unoriginal package of aid 'products' is available to the continent: money for peacekeeping, HIV/AIDS, good governance, education and health, regional peace and security. Where problems increase or persist, a bit more money is made available. This I label "cybernetic foreign policy making", a heuristic meant to impart a sense of the virtually automatic way in which U.S. policy reacts to events on the continent. It is the central argument of this essay that such policy making and practice does more harm than good. This is because the underlying assumption - that liberal politics and economics can be pushed simultaneously - runs against historical fact. There are positive policy options available - debt forgiveness, access to U.S. markets - but these run counter to American grand strategy. U.S. Africa policy therefore contributes to continental instability, but as long as this is 'low level', a policy based largely on containment is all that should be expected.