Efforts to combat climate change will proceed apace regardless of Copenhagen; indeed, the possible shortcomings of the summit should not detract from the task that national governments have already embarked upon and will continue to face over the decades to come. This is because globalisation means that problems are precisely that: global.
The economic crisis has brought about a transformation in international governance, signalling a break with the established economic architecture. While at the outset, measures taken appeared in an ad hoc or temporary manner, the decision at the recent Pittsburgh Summit to institutionalize the Group of 20 leaders’ summit reflects a decided shift in economic leadership. New players, new institutions and new issues have moved to the centre of the agenda.
It has become generally assumed that ‘Liberal Peace Transitions’ offer a way out of local, civil, regional and international conflict, as well as complex emergences and development problems. All military, humanitarian, diplomatic, political, economic, and social, interventions since the end of the Cold War have been geared to this programme – with limited success.
The recent clashes between Han Chinese and Uyghurs illustrate dramatically the difficulties facing China as the existing chasm between the Han majority and the Uyghur minority deepens. Both incidents constitute an enormous setback to China’s minority policy and to government efforts at persuading the minority Uyghurs that they are citizens with equal rights in the new China.
With the emergence of swine flu in April 2009, international actors have quickly scrambled to develop and implement health measures in an attempt to minimise or eliminate the possibility of a full-blow pandemic. In particular, during these early stages states and the World Health Organization (WHO) appear to have begun the process of engaging swine flu with political priority. This raises two interrelated points: is swine flu being securitised and if so, why?
Though small states certainly cannot have the impact that the great powers do, they can do more than merely survive. Under the right circumstances they can prevail against far larger powers and can even have palpable influence on the world stage. How is this done?
This comment considers some implications of territoriality (and deterritoralisation) as they affect global politics and as they impact states’ policies towards global politics. A special emphasis will be put upon a security perspective, namely on transnational terrorism and subsequently on imperatives for counter-terrorism policies.
In 1998, Jonathan Fox and David Brown found that a loose, interactive group of civil society actors and small numbers of Bank and donor officials, had provided the evidence, ideas and encouragement for donors such as the United States to pressure the World Bank to move away from environmentally and socially hazardous projects.
Historically, the Arctic has held a definitive place in global politics. This history, however, is one defined and written about far from the Arctic itself. The narrative includes endless tales of national exploration and its centre stage military role during the Cold War. As such the Arctic has always provided a tell tale sign of all things political. The present-day is no exception.
Much of development has historically been directed by colonial powers and more recently by the neo-liberal consensus. This has led to a situation whereby developing countries have had little control over their own resources, policies, economies and futures.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
