Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 3 Years

441. Rudiments of a Space Security Policy Framework

Author:
Richard J. Chasdi
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
The commercial space industry is taking off, with a growing number of private companies sending people into orbit. Along with this growth in demand from businesses and consumers is the need for more space security and policy approaches to address the potential risks of space exploration. The Moon is currently the main target of future space missions because of its resources and its strategic location to support missions to Mars. International law can help mitigate threats, such as resource depletion on the Moon, which could lead to conflicts among stakeholders on Earth.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Space, and Innovation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

442. A Digital Loonie among Many Digital Currencies: Prospects and Outlook

Author:
Pierre L. Siklos
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Global interest in digitalization is growing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and driving central banks to introduce retail central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The successful rollout of retail CBDCs will depend on each country’s institutional capacity and the scope of international cooperation and regulation. Retail CBDCs are unlikely to replace domestic currencies but instead complement notes and coins in circulation, offering greater convenience and lower transactions costs.
Topic:
Economics, Science and Technology, Digital Economy, Currency, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

443. The First Space-Cyber War and the Need for New Regimes and Policies

Author:
Eytan Tepper
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Many dubbed the Gulf War of 1991 the “first space war” due to the US Armed Forces’ extensive use of satellites. The cyberwar in Ukraine, although it is mostly playing out in the shadows, may be remembered as the first space-cyber war. This policy brief makes the case that states should adopt national policies to defend against threats to space-based assets and applications, such as communications satellites, that are both vital to national security and economic security and increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks. It is time to explore and identify principles for responsible space-cyber behaviour that would represent a broad multilateral consensus. Identifying these principles may not prevent space-cyber hostilities but could provide “rules of the game.” States would also benefit from encouraging a space-cyber security industry that, beyond protecting against space-cyber threats, has the potential to be a significant growth engine.
Topic:
Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, Space, and Cyberspace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

444. A Two-Track Approach for Trustworthy AI

Author:
Michel Girard
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
Standards and certification programs are developed to support new trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) legislation. Recent developments point to the emergence of a two-track approach. One track would focus on the certification of AI applications embedded in tangible products using objective criteria through established conformity assessment bodies. Regarding AI interacting with humans and used in delivering services, there is a need to create a new track. This track is needed to verify and validate compliance against subjective criteria, values and ethics, seen by many as an integral part of what constitutes trustworthy AI. The practice of “assurance as a service” can be adapted to verify and validate conformance to upcoming trustworthy AI standards. This policy brief provides an update on key legislative and policy developments framing trustworthy AI. It sketches possible approaches for the certification, verification and validation of AI embedded in products and in services and looks at recent proposals regarding the creation of a new chartered profession to deliver assurance services to achieve trustworthy AI.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Regulation, Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Technology, and Trust
Political Geography:
Global Focus

445. Thinking through the Event: Alain Badiou versus Michael Hardt & Antonio Negr

Author:
Semra Akay
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
This article offers how the concept of the event is approached by two opposing post-Marxist thinkers - Alain Badiou, Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri. Since the beginning of the modern era, many events, which could be significant or not, have occurred, such as the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Zapatista movements, the Arab Spring, anti-globalisation movements, indigenous movements, agricultural movements and the contemporary global protests that have emerged in many parts of the world over the past few decades. They all have affected world politics in some ways. Hence, there are many ways to think about these events or conceptualise these events in distinctive ways. This article compares the approaches of Badiou, who has still been known for his commitment to Maoism, and Hardt & Negri, who established a postmodern relationship between biopolitics, capitalism and empire. The paper emphasises that although both Badiou and Hard & Negri believe that events bring up new possibilities, the event rarely occurs throughout history for the former. For the latter, global capitalism gives rise to the events. The paper stands with Hardt and Negri’s formulation as their perceptions enable us to perceive the novelties, potentialities, and creativeness of social uprisings that have become prevalent in the contemporary world.
Topic:
Political Theory, Social Movement, Intellectual History, and Philosophy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

446. Advancing SVRI’s Work on VAC and CSA to Strategically Contribute to the Field

Author:
Ayesha Mago, Anik Gevers, and Elizabeth Dartnall
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Sexual Violence Research Initiative
Abstract:
The SVRI is a global south based, women-run organisation, focusing on supporting practitioner research partnerships for evidence-building around the issue of violence against women (VAW) and violence against children (VAC), committed to building a gender equitable world, where we can all live free from violence driven by gender inequality. Through our strategic plan we contribute to regional and global evidence building on what works to end violence against women and violence against children, with a focus on low and middle income countries (LMICs) where the burden of gendered violence is greatest, yet where the least resources are available for research and evidence based response and prevention efforts.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Gender Based Violence, Violence, and Sexual Violence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

447. To Prevent the Collapse of Biodiversity, the World Needs a New Planetary Politics

Author:
Stewart Patrick
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The planet is in the midst of an environmental emergency, and the world is only tinkering at the margins. Humanity’s addiction to fossil fuels and voracious appetite for natural resources are accelerating climate change and degrading ecosystems on land and sea, threatening the integrity of the biosphere and thus the survival of our own species. Given these risks, it is shocking that the multilateral system has failed to respond more forcefully. Belatedly, the United States, the EU, the UK, and some other advanced market democracies have adopted more aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets, but their ability to deliver is suspect, while critical emerging economies like China and India have resisted accelerating their own decarbonization.1 Even more concerning, existing multilateral commitments, including on climate change, fail to address the other half of the planet’s ecological crisis: collapsing biodiversity, which the leaders of the Group of 7 nations rightly call an “equally important existential threat.”
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Politics, Multilateralism, and Biodiversity
Political Geography:
Global Focus

448. Reducing Pernicious Polarization: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Depolarization

Author:
Jennifer McCoy, Benjamin Press, Murat Somer, and Ozlem Tuncel
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The global rise of political polarization has fueled concerns about its detrimental impact on politics and society. From an increase in political violence to a decrease in the quality of democracy and governance, the threats posed by pernicious polarization—the division of society into two mutually antagonistic political camps—are diverse and acute. Determining how to reduce these tensions is therefore an urgent challenge. Using data on political polarization from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data set, this working paper assesses various instances of depolarization around the globe since 1900 and analyzes their long-term sustainability. Polarization is increasing worldwide. When broken down by region, V-Dem data suggest that every region except Oceania has seen polarization levels rise since 2005. Africa has had the smallest increase during this period, although it has long had high levels of polarization. Rising polarization in Europe is being driven by deepening political divisions in Eastern and Central Europe, Southern Europe, and the Balkans. In the Western Hemisphere, the largest democracies—Brazil, Mexico, and the United States—are all experiencing extreme levels of polarization. East Asia’s polarization levels have traditionally been low, though increasing political tensions in places like South Korea and Taiwan are driving up the region’s score. And in South Asia, India’s polarization has skyrocketed since 2014. Jennifer McCoy Jennifer McCoy is a nonresident scholar in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, where she focuses on political polarization and democratic resilience in the U.S. and around the world. To better understand the various paths by which polarized societies might overcome or reduce their political divisions, this working paper examines perniciously polarized countries that have successfully depolarized, at least for a time. Through a quantitative analysis of the V-Dem data set, this study identifies 105 episodes from 1900 to 2020 where countries were able to reduce polarization from pernicious levels for at least five years. These 105 episodes represent roughly half of the total episodes of pernicious polarization during the time period, thus indicating a fairly robust capacity of countries to depolarize. If considered in terms of country experiences rather than episodes (because many countries have experienced multiple episodes in a cycle of polarization and depolarization), then the data indicate that two-thirds of the 178 countries for which V-Dem provides polarization data have experienced one or more episodes of pernicious polarization, but only thirty-five countries (20 percent) have failed to experience any depolarization to below-pernicious levels. Given this apparent capacity among the majority of the world’s countries to depolarize from pernicious levels at least some of the time, this analysis seeks to identify the contexts and sustainability of those experiences and to encourage further research into their causal mechanisms and outcomes for democracies. The analysis offers a preliminary discussion of the potential meaning and normative implications of depolarization as a concept and policy goal. It then uses qualitative analysis to identify patterns in the contexts of various depolarization cases and gauge the sustainability of these trends. Most of these depolarization episodes were associated with dramatic changes in a country’s political life. An analysis of contextual factors showed that almost three-quarters of the cases came after major systemic shocks: a foreign intervention, independence struggle, violent conflict, or regime change (primarily in a democratizing direction). In the remainder of cases, countries depolarized within a given regime structure, whether democratic or autocratic. Tellingly, the authors identified no cases of depolarization from pernicious levels among liberal democracies. This is because very few countries classified as full liberal democracies have ever reached pernicious levels; the United States stands out today as the only wealthy Western democracy with persistent levels of pernicious polarization. Just under half of all depolarizing cases were able to sustain depolarization for a decade or longer. In a second sizeable group of cases, countries managed polarization to some degree, either living with chronic near-pernicious levels after depolarizing, or else repolarizing to near-pernicious levels within ten years. Finally, 15 percent of the cases returned to pernicious levels within the first decade. Troublingly, when the authors analyzed the entire time period from 1900 to 2020, nearly half of the countries that had sustained depolarization or managed polarization for at least a decade later returned to pernicious levels of polarization. These outcomes illustrate the difficulty of sustaining low levels of polarization, and they indicate that a cyclical pattern of polarization, depolarization, and repolarization may be a characteristic feature of political life in many places. Only a fraction (14 percent) of cases resulted in sustained depolarization over the long term.The mechanisms and strategies that enable such sustained depolarization in democracies will be the subject of future research. But given the small number of democracies (eleven) able to accomplish this feat amid the larger pattern of cyclical polarization and depolarization, it will be crucial to also understand strategies of managing polarization at moderately high levels while avoiding democratic erosion, government dysfunction, or returns to pernicious polarization and potential violence.
Topic:
Politics, History, Polarization, and Society
Political Geography:
Global Focus

449. Governance for Resilience: How Can States Prepare for the Next Crisis?

Author:
Frances Brown
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The pandemic has presented policymakers with daunting, interlinked, and often unprecedented challenges. From health emergencies that also upend economies to trade disruptions that also pose new multilateral diplomatic dilemmas, the pandemic has generated challenges that seem exceptional in both scale and degree of interconnection. Although the coronavirus pandemic has generated a dizzying series of harsh social, political, and economic firsts, such dilemmas will not be the last. Trend lines around a series of domestic and multinational governance issues, including climate change, migration, rising geopolitical tensions, and citizen alienation from governing institutions, suggest that complex, interlinked crises will be features of the future. While national and multilateral policymakers should work to alleviate the drivers of such crises, they must also strive to prepare their countries to adapt and recover from complex shocks. In short, they must try to build resilience. The need for resilience will be especially acute in developing and fragile states. These countries will need to respond to compounding shocks across multiple domains, without the head start that their developed-world counterparts enjoy. Equally, donors and policymakers from the Global North must also elevate resilience and adaptation as key components of their approaches to supporting fragile states. This call to bolster countries’ resilience is hardly new. Even before the pandemic, the policy arena featured increasing calls for resilience; now, the chorus has become almost deafening. Recent seminal policy and analytic documents—including the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s flagship report,1 the UK’s Integrated Review,2 and the U.S. Interim National Security Strategy3—have underscored that states’ resilience and capacity for adaptation will be key to their future success in the geopolitical arena. In donors’ peacebuilding and development policies, high-level emphasis on resilience has also swelled over the past few years, including in official communications from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,4 the United States government,5 and the European Union.6 In some development practitioner and civil society circles, the need for resilience is so frequently invoked that it sometimes borders on cliché.7 The increasingly ubiquitous recommendation to “bolster resilience” is valuable for at least two related reasons. First, it offers a more specific strategic objective than conversations around “state fragility” writ large, which have often been too broad to generate concrete policy responses. Second, recent, failed international statebuilding projects have underscored that state fragility is not to be “fixed”—instead, it is to be managed and mitigated.8 The emphasis on resilience thus marks a helpful shift away from maximalist policy framing and toward a more attainable one. But concrete insights on how developing or fragile countries actually achieve resilience are less clear and less common. Given the broad consensus that state fragility is deeply linked to governance, for many policymakers, good governance is central. To be sure, many other factors beyond governance—including demographic, geographic, military, and economic ones—affect a state’s resilience. But a country’s governance and political institutions generally undergird all other dynamics in determining how effectively that state can bounce back from setbacks. What exactly does the concept of “good governance for resilience” entail in practice? This paper surveys the evidence. Below, it reviews the governance-related characteristics and capabilities that affect a country’s resilience. For the purposes of this paper, resilience at the national level can be understood as a country’s capacity to respond to, adapt to, and grow from stresses and shocks.9 Resilience focuses on bolstering the overall performance of a system in the face of unpredictable and often interconnected hazards, making it different from risk management, which relates to specific hazards.10 A country’s resilience depends on the internal characteristics that allow for states and their institutions to navigate a variety of disruptions.11 An overarching insight from the evidence is that governance for resilience is complex and often multidirectional. Several characteristics, such as decentralization, have an ambiguous effect on resilience: they enable a country to withstand some setbacks but leave it more vulnerable in other ways. Still other characteristics—including whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian political system—do not appear have a clear-cut effect on resilience. In contrast, a few governance “super-factors”—such as control of corruption, societal trust, and high quality political leadership—are exceptionally powerful in enabling a country to augment its resilience through multiple pathways. Finally, this paper considers the broader implications of governance for resilience as a policy agenda. The framing of bolstering countries’ resilience is a valuable one, but it also raises several vexing trade-offs and dilemmas. In particular, it prompts the question of whose resilience, in specific, it refers to, since resilience of state institutions does not always mean resilience of all parts of the population. Looking ahead, the policy refrain of “building resilience” in fragile and developing states, appealing though it is, should be refined to encompass these thorny realities.
Topic:
Governance, Crisis Management, Resilience, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

450. Understanding and Responding to Global Democratic Backsliding

Author:
Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Over the past two decades, democratic backsliding has become a defining trend in global politics. However, despite the extensive attention paid to the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little consensus about what is driving it. The most common explanations offered by analysts—ranging from the role of Russia and China and disruptive technologies to the rise of populism, the spread of political polarization, and democracies’ failure to deliver—fall short when tested across a wide range of cases. A more persuasive account of backsliding focuses on the central role of leader-driven antidemocratic political projects and the variety of mechanisms and motivations they entail. This paper identifies and analyzes three distinct types of backsliding efforts: grievance-fueled illiberalism, opportunistic authoritarianism, and entrenched-interest revanchism. In cases of grievance-fueled illiberalism, a political figure mobilizes a grievance, claims that the grievance is being perpetuated by the existing political system, and argues that it is necessary to dismantle democratic norms and institutions to redress the underlying wrongs. Opportunistic authoritarians, by contrast, come to power via conventional political appeals but later turn against democracy for the sake of personal political survival. In still other backsliding cases, entrenched interest groups—generally the military—that were displaced by a democratic transition use undemocratic means to reassert their claims to power. Although motivations and methods differ across backsliding efforts, a key commonality among them is their relentless focus on undermining countervailing governmental and nongovernmental institutions that are designed to keep them in check. As international democracy supporters continue to refine their strategies of responding to democratic backsliding, they must better differentiate between facilitating factors and core drivers. Such an approach will point to the need for a stronger focus on the nature of leader-driven antidemocratic projects, identifying ways to create significant disincentives for backsliding leaders, and bolstering crucial countervailing institutions. Moreover, they should deepen their differentiation of strategies to take account of the diverse motivations and methods among the three main patterns of backsliding. Only in this way will they build the needed analytic and practical capacity to meet the formidable challenge that democratic backsliding presents.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Democracy, Populism, and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
Global Focus