"NATO needs to define its global purpose if it wishes to address global threats. What is the prospect of NATO going global and how will it affect NATO's future course? In the run-up to the NATO Summit in Riga in November 2006, a debate on both sides of the Atlantic has now evolved over NATO's global engagement that touches on the very foundations of NATO's original purpose and definition. Critically, the debate is no longer about wether NATO should go 'out of area or out of business' but whether the Alliance should enlarge on a global level from Vancouver to Tokyo and Wellington. In order to place this debate into the recent historical context of the Alliance, this article examines U.S.-European security relations since September 11 within the institutional framework of NATO and, subsequently, draws conclusions for the future role of the Alliance. As the transatlantic community faces security threats of inherently global nature such as internationally organized terrorism and crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, collapse or lack of state structures in certain regions, and ruptures in the stable supply of energy resources, NATO will have to define its role as a global security actor if it wishes to avoid becoming a mere service provider of security." (author's abstract)
This article analyses the impact of new institutional structures in global health governance (GHG) on the realization of social rights in poor countries. Focusing on the example of global HIV/AIDS politics. The article argues that new governance modes increase the participation of civil society groups and affected communities, but also that they are frequently instrumentalized by powerful actors to pursue their particular interests. In fact, increasing resources are mobilized for the fight against poverty-related diseases. The article concludes that, as the experience of HIV/AIDS politics, the conflicts around the TRIPS Agreement and the development of Global Public-Private Partnerships GPPPs suggest, GHG is characterized by a combination of moral values and material interests that does not guarantee a comprehensive realization of social rights, but which allows some progress in the fight against poverty-related diseases - a step toward realization of social rights.
"Angesichts der Globalisierung und der Erosion nationalstaatlicher Steuerungsfähigkeit wird unter dem Begriff Global Governance politikwissenschaftlich über die Möglichkeiten neuer internationaler Regelsetzung gestritten. Bislang wird dabei Globalen Gewerkschaften und transnationalen industriellen Beziehungen kaum Bedeutung beigemessen. Umgekehrt hat die Governance-Debatte bisher die Industrial Relations- und Gewerkschaftsforschung kaum erreicht. Der vorliegende Artikel will die teildisziplinären Suchbewegungen zur Identifikation neuer internationaler Regulationsmechanismen und die Möglichkeit ihrer Zusammenführung im Governance-Konzept diskutieren. Es wird argumentiert, dass Gewerkschaften genauso wie andere gesellschaftliche Akteure eine Artikulations-, Steuerungs- Partizipations- und Legitimationsfunktion ausüben und damit einen Beitrag zur Etablierung einer 'Weltsozialordnung' leisten. Rudimentäre Ansätze eines globalen sozialen Regelwerks lassen sich feststellen, wenn gleich internationale Regulationsgewinne die Steuerungsverluste innerhalb des Nationalstaats - gerade in der Tarifautonomie und Wirtschaftspolitik - nicht kompensieren können. Es teilt zudem die Strukturfehler der Global Goverance-Architektur insgesamt: nämlich begrenzte Reichweite, Implementations- und Demokratiedefizite." (Autorenreferat)
'Globale Gesundheitsprobleme haben in den letzten Jahren mehr als in früheren Jahrzehnten die Aufmerksamkeit der Menschen auch in den Industrieländern erregt. Dies betraf vor allem tödliche Infektionskrankheiten: Nach der AIDS-Pandemie folgten SARS und in den vergangenen Monaten die Vogelgrippe: Auch wenn diese im Augenblick in Europa aus den Schlagzeilen geraten ist, werden aus Afrika weiter steigende Infektionszahlen gemeldet. Allerdings sind in den letzten Monaten auch wichtige Weichenstellungen im Bereich von 'Global Health Governance' erfolgt (International Health Regulations, Forschung und Entwicklung zu Medikamenten). Die veränderten globalen Rahmenbedingungen durch den Globalisierungsprozess verlangen neue Formen des politischen und finanziellen Engagements in der globalen Gesundheitspolitik, die die Möglichkeiten der bis in die 1990er-Jahre hinein diesen Sektor dominierenden internationalen Organisationen (WHO, Weltbank, UNICEF) erheblich übersteigen. Dies betrifft vor allem folgende Aspekte: Die Bedrohung durch Infektionskrankheiten aufgrund steigender Mobilität und wachsender Resistenz von Krankheitserregern gegen Antibiotika nimmt zu. Die schlechte Gesundheitssituation in armen Ländern wird als Hindernis für Entwicklung und ein Faktor für politische Instabilität wahrgenommen. Die Liberalisierung der Welthandelsordnung und vor allem das TRIPS-Abkommen implizieren zweifelhafte - vor allem an der erwarteten zahlungsfähigen Nachfrage orientierte - Anreize für medizinische Innovationsprozesse, die Patienten in armen Ländern tendenziell vernachlässigen. Als Reaktion auf globale Gesundheitsprobleme lässt sich eine erhebliche Stärkung zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen und die Entstehung neuartiger Organisationsformen (vor allem Global Public Private Partnerships) beobachten. Diese stärken zwar die in der globalen Gesundheitspolitik verfügbaren politischen und finanziellen Ressourcen, führen aber immer mehr zu Koordinationsproblemen.' (Autorenreferat)
People tend to agree on the vital importance of peace, but there is no consensus on what peace is and even less so on how it can be accomplished and secured. International peace-building strategies privilege a concept of peace that stems from Western experiences of a centralised democratic state. A global approach to peace needs to include the experiences of the Global South and to focus on reducing various forms of violence rather than simply ending war. Peace is a complex process that is influenced by social, economic, and political structures; a variety of actors; and a multitude of policies. Current post-war societies reveal a high degree of variation regarding post-war violence and changes to the political system. A global approach to peace is required in order to include the diverse cultural and historical experiences of all regions across the globe. There is no shortcut to or way to replicate the state-centred Western development path. An interregional comparison of violence patterns suggests that conflicts are closely related to processes of social change at the intersection of increasing globalisation and local, salient cultural and historical trajectories. The analysis of these conflicts is thus the necessary starting point for peace-building strategies. Peace-building strategies must focus on violence reduction and non-violent conflict transformation. The termination of war is an essential first step but does not suffice. Although the specific arrangements to end collective violence are shaped by the incompatibilities and structures of conflicts, such agreements need to be open to future change. External support for peace processes by the German government, the European Union, or the United Nations needs to take seriously the claims and interests of various local constituencies and the fact that peace processes are a form of contentious politics. Promoting peace is not about following a single globalised template but rather about searching for common ground in order to end violence and non-violently transform conflicts.
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.
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
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
In: TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis / Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice, Band 28, Heft 2, S. 64-68
Der Aufstieg des globalen Südens hat Folgen für die bislang eurozentrische Soziologie. Der Aufsatz fasst einige Aspekte des Aufstiegs und der eurozentrischen Soziologie zusammen, um dann einige Folgerungen für die Erneuerung der Soziologie zu ziehen.
Every year, ICC'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. Its first part reflects current developments and trends based on the latest available data. It covers 154 states and is based on the latest available figures (in most cases, data for 2021). The ten countries with the highest level of militarisation in the GMI 2022 are Israel, Kuwait, Armenia, Singapore, Oman, Bahrain, Greece, Russia, Brunei and Saudi Arabia. These countries allocate particularly large amounts of resources to their military compared to other areas of society. As far as the general militarisation trend is concerned, the GMI 2022 offers a seemingly contradictory picture. It appears that the general upward trend of the previous years is not continuing. This is mainly due to the drop in relative military expenditure, which, measured as a share of GDP (gross domestic product), fell on average from 2.3 to 2.2 per cent, which, in turn, is mainly due to the economic recovery after the Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, despite a positive population trend, the number of heavy weapons increased in relative and absolute terms, reaching 396,914 this year, a figure last measured in 2012. The second part of the GMI focuses on two regional aspects. For one, we will investigate the planned enlargement of NATO to include Sweden and Finland as member states. Using the three GMI parameters of personnel, financial resources and heavy weapons, we compare NATO with Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). In addition, we take up the 100 billion special fund for the Bundeswehr and sketch out two different scenarios for the militarisation of Germany for the next five years. This year, the conflict between China, Taiwan and the so-called AUKUS countries (Australia, United Kingdom and United States) in the China Sea and the Pacific Ocean continued to escalate. The second regional focus is, therefore, on East Asia and Oceania. Here, we contrast the military potential of the AUKUS countries with that of China. We estimate the degree of militarisation of North Korea and Taiwan, two key countries in the regional conflict. However, as this estimate is based on divergent or older data sources, it is not included in the GMI dataset or the official ranking. This year, the GMI has also evolved methodologically: We complemented the Heavy Weapons Index by including unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) and loitering munitions (so-called kamikaze drones) as well as satellites.
Los gobiernos vienen implementando medidas fiscales y monetarias más flexibles para revertir los efectos negativos de la crisis global, pero los resultados son estériles o mínimos. A pesar de haberse inyectado miles de millones de dólares en sus operaciones de salvataje financiero, las empresas multinacionales siguen mostrando señales de deterioro económico, tal es así que empresas emblemáticas en el mundo han caído en la peor crisis de su historia. El hecho de que las empresas continúan en el círculo pernicioso de la crisis, a pesar de las ayudas financieras, es valido afirmar que los paradigmas empresariales también necesitan de una reestructuración en lo profundo de su filosofía. Por ello, la crisis que afronta el modelo de globalización no amerita soluciones de coyuntura ya que no serán sostenibles en el tiempo, lo que se requiere son soluciones globales, inclusivas e integradoras de tal forma que lleve a la economía del mundo a desarrollarse simétricamente desterrando para ello todo acción especuladora que como se conoce fue el factor que condujo a la economía mundial a una de las peores crisis de su historia. ; Governments are implementing fiscal and monetary flexibility to reverse the negative effects of global crisis, but the results are sterile or minimal. Despite that injected billions of dollars to save their financial operations, multinational corporations continue to show signs of economic deterioration, so much so that flagship companies in the world have fallen into the worst crisis in the history. The fact that businesses continue in the pernicious cycle of crisis; although, financial aid is valid to assert that the paradigms of business also need a deep restructuring of their philosophy. That is why the crisis facing the model of globalization and economic merits of solutions that will not be sustainable over time, which requires global solutions, inclusive and integrate in such a way that leads to the world economy to grow symmetrically banishing all this action is know as speculators which was the factor that led to the global economy to one of the worst crisis of their history.
