Suchergebnisse

Every year, BICC's Global Militarisation Index (GMI) maps the relative weight and importance of a country's military apparatus in relation to its society as a whole. The Index is financially supported by Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. The GMI 2021 is an anniversary edition. Its first part reflects, as usual, current developments and trends based on the latest available data. It covers 153 countries and is based on the latest available figures (in most cases, data for 2020). The ten countries with the highest levels of militarisation in the GMI 2021 are Israel, Oman, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Armenia, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Bahrain, Singapore and Russia. These countries allocate particularly high levels of resources to the military compared to other areas of society. Besides countries primarily from conflict regions in the Middle East, three European countries can also be found here, all of which are involved in violent conflicts. A further three - Greece and Cyprus, both EU member states, and Ukraine - are among the Top 20. In the regional focus on Europe, one overall trend of the GMI 2021 becomes particularly clear: Despite the decrease in global GDP as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are spending more resources on the military in absolute terms and as a proportion of their economic output. Another regional focus this time is on Sub-Saharan Africa. In West Africa, in particular, the security situation has deteriorated dramatically over the past few years. Therefore, it is particularly interesting to look at the dynamics of militarisation on that continent. Alongside relatively stable countries, such as Botswana, Namibia, Mauritania, Angola, Gabon and Guinea-Bissau, countries with current violent conflicts, such as Chad, South Sudan and Mali, can be found among the Top 10. The second part of the GMI looks at the global and regional development of militarisation over the past 20 years. This overall view of global militarisation between 2000 and 2020 shows that, except for an interim peak in 2005, it initially decreased steadily. Our resource-based concept of militarisation explains this as follows: It is due to the increase in the world's population and that of global financial resources, which cause the proportion of the military sector in the GMI to decrease from 2000 to 2018. This, however, does not imply "true demilitarisation", as is evidenced by the absolute increase in military spending over the period under review (SIPRI, 2020). Since 2019, this trend has reversed again. In the past two years, rising militarisation can be observed again across the globe, mainly because the resources allocated to the military are increasing in absolute and in relative terms.

'Globalisation führt zu weitreichende Strukturen gegenseitiger Abhängigkeiten im internationalen System. In vielen Bereichen sind lokale nationale Lösungen nicht mehr realisierbar. Dies gilt für divergierende Bereiche wie dem internationalen Frieden und der internationalen Sicherheit, dem Umweltschutz sowie für die internationale Wirtschaft und dem Schutz der Menschenrechte. Ohne Global Governance können weder die allgemeinen Menschheitsprobleme noch viele nationale Probleme gelöst werden. Erste Anstrengungen, einen Institutionen- und Gesetzesrahmen zu entwickeln, um Globalisierung in ihren unterschiedlichen Formen bewältigen zu können, haben begonnen worden. Die Strukturen der Global Governance sind jedoch noch unterentwickelt. Ein gemeinsames nachhaltiges Engagement von staatlichen und nichtstaatlichen Akteuren ist dringend erforderlich. Ein Nord-Süd Dialog zu Global Governance, gemeinsam organisiert durch die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) und der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), soll diese Anstrengungen unterstützen. Diese beiden Stiftungen haben eine Reihe internationaler Konferenzen organisiert, die die wichtigsten Forschungseinrichtungen auf dem Gebiet der internationalen Politik aus den Ländern des Südens sowie des Nordens miteinbeziehen. Ziel des Dialogs ist es, konkrete Maße und Probleme von Global Governance zu erforschen. Was muß getan werden, um wirksame Normen für Global Governance, politische Systeme und Organisationen aufzubauen? Wie wirken sich vorhandene Richtlinien und Einrichtungen in diesen unterschiedlichen Bereichen hinsichtlich Global Governance aus? Wie können sie verbessert werden? Die erste Konferenz, am 6-8 April 2000 in Ebenhausen, Deutschland, thematisierte vor allem die Sicherheitslage der Weltzentren sowie die Frage, wie Universalorganisationen wie die UNO und regionale Organisationen zusammen arbeiten können, um Global Governance hinsichtlich des Friedens und der Sicherheit zu verbessern.' (Autorenreferat)

This book assesses the forces of social struggle shaping the past and present of the global political economy from the perspective of historical materialism. Based on the philosophy of internal relations, the character of capital is understood in such a way that the ties between the relations of production, state-civil society, and conditions of class struggle can be realised. Conceiving the internal relationship of global capitalism, global war, global crisis as a struggle-driven process is a major contribution of the book providing a novel intervention on debates within theories of 'the international'. Through a set of conceptual reflections, on agency and structure and the role of discourses embedded in the economy, class struggle is established as our point of departure. This involves analysing historical and contemporary themes on the expansion of capitalism through uneven and combined development (global capitalism), the role of the state and geopolitics (global war), and conditions of exploitation and resistance (global crisis). The conceptual reflections and thematic considerations raised earlier in the book are then extended in a series of empirical interventions. These in