Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Humanitarian aid is increasingly guided by strategic interests rather than humanitarian needs. Europe’s humanitarian commitments are under strain as geopolitics reshapes international solidarity. Rising nationalism, debt pressures and great-power rivalry have pushed European governments to prioritise strategic interests over humanitarian needs. European politicians are increasingly justifying aid disbursements to their public through the lens of national security and strategic influence.
• Authoritarian regimes weaponise these geopolitical trends to stoke distrust in the international community. They often label humanitarian actors as foreign agents, while state propaganda delegitimises international assistance as self-motivated and hypocritical, reframes aid as interference to justify crackdowns on the humanitarian space.
• That is why the way European donors talk about humanitarian aid matters as much as how they provide it. My experimental research in Turkey shows that transparent communication about the realpolitik behind humanitarian aid may help counter authoritarian propaganda in highly polarised middle-income countries with widespread anti-Western attitudes. My findings indicate that when donors openly acknowledge strategic motivations, propaganda messaging
may lose its effectiveness among conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic constituencies in recipient countries, whose attitudes are often hard to shift. Transparent communication may reduce conspiracism among this group, increase their trust in Europe and their support for international trade, while their support for the incumbent government may decline. Winning over these constituencies would be critical to democracy protection initiatives, as they often lend normative and systemic support to autocrats.
• However, donors must strike a careful balance and adopt a dual approach. While strategic messaging can persuade Eurosceptics, it may also alienate pro-EU, cosmopolitan citizens who value unconditional solidarity. They may grow disillusioned with European donors if humanitarian aid appears too self-interested or transactional. Donors should communicate strategic interests with transparency but still remain anchored in humanitarian values.
• Further research is needed to fully explore the implications of geopolitical shifts in aid, especially in middle-income autocracies with widespread anti-Western attitudes. In particular, more research is required to fully calibrate transparent messaging and mitigate negative unintended consequences.

Humanitarian aid is increasingly guided by strategic interests rather than humanitarian needs. Europe’s humanitarian commitments are under strain as geopolitics reshapes international solidarity. Rising nationalism, debt pressures and great-power rivalry have pushed European governments to prioritise strategic interests over humanitarian needs. European politicians are increasingly justifying aid disbursements to their public through the lens of national security and strategic influence.
• Authoritarian regimes weaponise these geopolitical trends to stoke distrust in the international community. They often label humanitarian actors as foreign agents, while state propaganda delegitimises international assistance as self-motivated and hypocritical, reframes aid as interference to justify crackdowns on the humanitarian space.
• That is why the way European donors talk about humanitarian aid matters as much as how they provide it. My experimental research in Turkey shows that transparent communication about the realpolitik behind humanitarian aid may help counter authoritarian propaganda in highly polarised middle-income countries with widespread anti-Western attitudes. My findings indicate that when donors openly acknowledge strategic motivations, propaganda messaging
may lose its effectiveness among conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic constituencies in recipient countries, whose attitudes are often hard to shift. Transparent communication may reduce conspiracism among this group, increase their trust in Europe and their support for international trade, while their support for the incumbent government may decline. Winning over these constituencies would be critical to democracy protection initiatives, as they often lend normative and systemic support to autocrats.
• However, donors must strike a careful balance and adopt a dual approach. While strategic messaging can persuade Eurosceptics, it may also alienate pro-EU, cosmopolitan citizens who value unconditional solidarity. They may grow disillusioned with European donors if humanitarian aid appears too self-interested or transactional. Donors should communicate strategic interests with transparency but still remain anchored in humanitarian values.
• Further research is needed to fully explore the implications of geopolitical shifts in aid, especially in middle-income autocracies with widespread anti-Western attitudes. In particular, more research is required to fully calibrate transparent messaging and mitigate negative unintended consequences.

Humanitarian aid is increasingly guided by strategic interests rather than humanitarian needs. Europe’s humanitarian commitments are under strain as geopolitics reshapes international solidarity. Rising nationalism, debt pressures and great-power rivalry have pushed European governments to prioritise strategic interests over humanitarian needs. European politicians are increasingly justifying aid disbursements to their public through the lens of national security and strategic influence.
• Authoritarian regimes weaponise these geopolitical trends to stoke distrust in the international community. They often label humanitarian actors as foreign agents, while state propaganda delegitimises international assistance as self-motivated and hypocritical, reframes aid as interference to justify crackdowns on the humanitarian space.
• That is why the way European donors talk about humanitarian aid matters as much as how they provide it. My experimental research in Turkey shows that transparent communication about the realpolitik behind humanitarian aid may help counter authoritarian propaganda in highly polarised middle-income countries with widespread anti-Western attitudes. My findings indicate that when donors openly acknowledge strategic motivations, propaganda messaging
may lose its effectiveness among conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic constituencies in recipient countries, whose attitudes are often hard to shift. Transparent communication may reduce conspiracism among this group, increase their trust in Europe and their support for international trade, while their support for the incumbent government may decline. Winning over these constituencies would be critical to democracy protection initiatives, as they often lend normative and systemic support to autocrats.
• However, donors must strike a careful balance and adopt a dual approach. While strategic messaging can persuade Eurosceptics, it may also alienate pro-EU, cosmopolitan citizens who value unconditional solidarity. They may grow disillusioned with European donors if humanitarian aid appears too self-interested or transactional. Donors should communicate strategic interests with transparency but still remain anchored in humanitarian values.
• Further research is needed to fully explore the implications of geopolitical shifts in aid, especially in middle-income autocracies with widespread anti-Western attitudes. In particular, more research is required to fully calibrate transparent messaging and mitigate negative unintended consequences.

This book studies global economic governance using an innovative structure to juxtapose normative arguments with empirical analysis. Chapters investigate the most important areas of global economic governance, including trade, investment, finance, labour and taxation. Bringing together leading scholars in political philosophy, international relations, economics and international law, the book sheds new light on the justice of political decision-making, the distribution of benefits and burdens of the global economy, and intergenerational justice in global economic governance.

This book studies global economic governance using an innovative structure to juxtapose normative arguments with empirical analysis. Chapters investigate the most important areas of global economic governance, including trade, investment, finance, labour and taxation. Bringing together leading scholars in political philosophy, international relations, economics and international law, the book sheds new light on the justice of political decision-making, the distribution of benefits and burdens of the global economy, and intergenerational justice in global economic governance.

This book studies global economic governance using an innovative structure to juxtapose normative arguments with empirical analysis. Chapters investigate the most important areas of global economic governance, including trade, investment, finance, labour and taxation. Bringing together leading scholars in political philosophy, international relations, economics and international law, the book sheds new light on the justice of political decision-making, the distribution of benefits and burdens of the global economy, and intergenerational justice in global economic governance.

Due to the level of global economic interdependence our world has reached, the question of how the global economy should be governed is of utmost importance. The rules of global economic governance have to balance the often-conflicting interests and claims of the diverse actors who participate in or are affected by the global economy. Economic governance structures are never morally neutral; they have particular collective decision-making proce- dures and they strongly influence how the benefits of economic cooperation are distributed. This chapter aims to introduce the reader to the concept of justice and provide an overview of some of the key distinctions in the contemporary normative philosophy of social and global justice, with special attention to the issues relevant to global economic governance.

Due to the level of global economic interdependence our world has reached, the question of how the global economy should be governed is of utmost importance. The rules of global economic governance have to balance the often-conflicting interests and claims of the diverse actors who participate in or are affected by the global economy. Economic governance structures are never morally neutral; they have particular collective decision-making proce- dures and they strongly influence how the benefits of economic cooperation are distributed. This chapter aims to introduce the reader to the concept of justice and provide an overview of some of the key distinctions in the contemporary normative philosophy of social and global justice, with special attention to the issues relevant to global economic governance.

Due to the level of global economic interdependence our world has reached, the question of how the global economy should be governed is of utmost importance. The rules of global economic governance have to balance the often-conflicting interests and claims of the diverse actors who participate in or are affected by the global economy. Economic governance structures are never morally neutral; they have particular collective decision-making proce- dures and they strongly influence how the benefits of economic cooperation are distributed. This chapter aims to introduce the reader to the concept of justice and provide an overview of some of the key distinctions in the contemporary normative philosophy of social and global justice, with special attention to the issues relevant to global economic governance.

Foreign Direct investment (FDI) is considered a key promoter of economic development, since it provides access to external financing, technology, managerial expertise and jobs. However, FDI is limited to a small number of locations and many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to be excluded from global foreign investment flows. The reasons for this exclusion are manifold and may vary from country to country. A particular policy instrument LMICs have traditionally resorted to in order to attract FDI are international investment agreements (IIAs).¹ LMICs have signed thousands of these agreements since the late 1950s.[...] The following section reviews the global investment regime from the perspective of socioeconomic justice and analyses the distributional effects of IIAs. Then, the chapter assesses the global investment regime from an intergenerational perspective and asks to what extent IIAs contribute to (or restrict) the pursuit of sustainabale develoment. The final section concludes and provides on overview of current reform proposals.

Foreign Direct investment (FDI) is considered a key promoter of economic development, since it provides access to external financing, technology, managerial expertise and jobs. However, FDI is limited to a small number of locations and many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to be excluded from global foreign investment flows. The reasons for this exclusion are manifold and may vary from country to country. A particular policy instrument LMICs have traditionally resorted to in order to attract FDI are international investment agreements (IIAs).¹ LMICs have signed thousands of these agreements since the late 1950s.[...] The following section reviews the global investment regime from the perspective of socioeconomic justice and analyses the distributional effects of IIAs. Then, the chapter assesses the global investment regime from an intergenerational perspective and asks to what extent IIAs contribute to (or restrict) the pursuit of sustainabale develoment. The final section concludes and provides on overview of current reform proposals.

Foreign Direct investment (FDI) is considered a key promoter of economic development, since it provides access to external financing, technology, managerial expertise and jobs. However, FDI is limited to a small number of locations and many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to be excluded from global foreign investment flows. The reasons for this exclusion are manifold and may vary from country to country. A particular policy instrument LMICs have traditionally resorted to in order to attract FDI are international investment agreements (IIAs).¹ LMICs have signed thousands of these agreements since the late 1950s.[...] The following section reviews the global investment regime from the perspective of socioeconomic justice and analyses the distributional effects of IIAs. Then, the chapter assesses the global investment regime from an intergenerational perspective and asks to what extent IIAs contribute to (or restrict) the pursuit of sustainabale develoment. The final section concludes and provides on overview of current reform proposals.

Climate change is deeply unjust. Not only are the physical impacts of climate change felt the most by poorer countries and those at the base of the economic pyramid within countries, but poorer countries and poorer segments within societies have also contributed the least to global warming and are least capable of investing in resilience and adaptation. Moreover, climate change is diminishing the development prospects of future generations, which have not contributed to the problem at all. The financial sector sits at the heart of the problem. It has financed ecoomic activities that have contributed to climate change, and it continues to do so. [...]. The next section discusses the shortcomings of the current global financial system and outline attempts at introducing sustainability elements into global financial governance. The following section assesses sustainable finance from the perspective of political, socioeconomic and intergenerational justice. The final section offers policy recommendations for developing a global governance framework for sustainable finance.

Climate change is deeply unjust. Not only are the physical impacts of climate change felt the most by poorer countries and those at the base of the economic pyramid within countries, but poorer countries and poorer segments within societies have also contributed the least to global warming and are least capable of investing in resilience and adaptation. Moreover, climate change is diminishing the development prospects of future generations, which have not contributed to the problem at all. The financial sector sits at the heart of the problem. It has financed ecoomic activities that have contributed to climate change, and it continues to do so. [...]. The next section discusses the shortcomings of the current global financial system and outline attempts at introducing sustainability elements into global financial governance. The following section assesses sustainable finance from the perspective of political, socioeconomic and intergenerational justice. The final section offers policy recommendations for developing a global governance framework for sustainable finance.

Climate change is deeply unjust. Not only are the physical impacts of climate change felt the most by poorer countries and those at the base of the economic pyramid within countries, but poorer countries and poorer segments within societies have also contributed the least to global warming and are least capable of investing in resilience and adaptation. Moreover, climate change is diminishing the development prospects of future generations, which have not contributed to the problem at all. The financial sector sits at the heart of the problem. It has financed ecoomic activities that have contributed to climate change, and it continues to do so. [...]. The next section discusses the shortcomings of the current global financial system and outline attempts at introducing sustainability elements into global financial governance. The following section assesses sustainable finance from the perspective of political, socioeconomic and intergenerational justice. The final section offers policy recommendations for developing a global governance framework for sustainable finance.

The international tax system forms a regime in global economic governance that governs the allocation of taxing rights for cross-border transactions between countries. The regime is based on domestic tax laws, bilateral or regional tax treaties, non-binding guidelines, and multilateral agreements. There is no global institution such as an international tax organisation, although discussions on a new UN tax convention are currently underway (Laudage Teles & von Haldenwang, 2023). The key challenges for global justice are harmful tax competition between countries, as well as tax avoidance and tax evasion by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. Such practices are facilitated by the widespread use of tax expenditures, referring to preferential tax treatments that favour specific sectors, activities or groups of taxpayers. At an international scale, the use of tax expenditures strips countries of desperately needed public revenues and deepens inequalities between tax havens and countries with high-income tax rates.[...]. Th eGlobal Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) is the first to shed light on the scale of tax expenditures and tax expenditure reporting worldwide. We use GTED data in this chapter to present a descriptive analysis of tax exependitures worldwide.

The international tax system forms a regime in global economic governance that governs the allocation of taxing rights for cross-border transactions between countries. The regime is based on domestic tax laws, bilateral or regional tax treaties, non-binding guidelines, and multilateral agreements. There is no global institution such as an international tax organisation, although discussions on a new UN tax convention are currently underway (Laudage Teles & von Haldenwang, 2023). The key challenges for global justice are harmful tax competition between countries, as well as tax avoidance and tax evasion by multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. Such practices are facilitated by the widespread use of tax expenditures, referring to preferential tax treatments that favour specific sectors, activities or groups of taxpayers. At an international scale, the use of tax expenditures strips countries of desperately needed public revenues and deepens inequalities between tax havens and countries with high-income tax rates.[...]. Th eGlobal Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) is the first to shed light on the scale of tax expenditures and tax expenditure reporting worldwide. We use GTED data in this chapter to present a descriptive analysis of tax exependitures worldwide.