Neoliberal institutionalism frames international institutions as being able to “obviate the need for national power” (Barkin, 2003, p. 334). As the concept of transnational cooperation is informed by the school of neoliberal institutionalism, the question arises as to how relevant power relations are in settings of transnational cooperation, and in what way power can actually be obviated in these settings? Transnational cooperation formats are often seen as an ideal space for diverse actors to cooperate with each other, but like other political spaces, they are not free of questions of power – instead they are very much shaped by power relations. For the case of Sámi-EU relations as a para-diplomatic and post-colonial relationship, it is decisive to understand the dimension of power in order to comprehend this relationship and in what way power relations are challenged and changed in these transnational cooperative settings.
Global development governance has traditionally been dominated by states. Recent trends towards transnationalisation and multi-stakeholderism, however, emphasise non-state actor inclusion in more horizontal structures. This paper investigates the extent of genuine transnationalisation in global development governance, focussing on the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) as an ambitious attempt at transnationalisation. Although we find that the GPEDC demonstrates a strong commitment to formally incorporating non-state actors, (wealthy) states continue to wield decisive influence. Despite apparent inclusivity, we observe a condition we term “transnationalisation light”: the limited realisation of substantive non-state stakeholder inclusion. Notably, power imbalances persist between and among state and non-state actors, often favouring Northern stakeholders and exacerbating evolving North/South divisions.
Global development governance has traditionally been dominated by states. Recent trends towards transnationalisation and multi-stakeholderism, however, emphasise non-state actor inclusion in more horizontal structures. This paper investigates the extent of genuine transnationalisation in global development governance, focussing on the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) as an ambitious attempt at transnationalisation. Although we find that the GPEDC demonstrates a strong commitment to formally incorporating non-state actors, (wealthy) states continue to wield decisive influence. Despite apparent inclusivity, we observe a condition we term “transnationalisation light”: the limited realisation of substantive non-state stakeholder inclusion. Notably, power imbalances persist between and among state and non-state actors, often favouring Northern stakeholders and exacerbating evolving North/South divisions.
Global development governance has traditionally been dominated by states. Recent trends towards transnationalisation and multi-stakeholderism, however, emphasise non-state actor inclusion in more horizontal structures. This paper investigates the extent of genuine transnationalisation in global development governance, focussing on the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) as an ambitious attempt at transnationalisation. Although we find that the GPEDC demonstrates a strong commitment to formally incorporating non-state actors, (wealthy) states continue to wield decisive influence. Despite apparent inclusivity, we observe a condition we term “transnationalisation light”: the limited realisation of substantive non-state stakeholder inclusion. Notably, power imbalances persist between and among state and non-state actors, often favouring Northern stakeholders and exacerbating evolving North/South divisions.
jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-hgbgqz").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-hgbgqz").fadeIn(300);});});
In collaboration with the Malala Fund and the Atlantic Council, IPI hosted a high-level panel discussion to mark International Women’s Day on March 8th. The event addressed the harrowing reality of millions of women and girls living under systematic oppression at the hands of the Taliban and highlighted the ongoing efforts of Afghan women and the international, legal, and research communities to ensure justice for these abuses—in particular, the momentum around efforts to codify the crime of gender apartheid.
The discussion placed thought-leaders of international law, human rights experts, Afghan women, diplomats, and activists in dialogue to offer insights on the lack of basic rights and fundamental freedoms for women and girls in Afghanistan since the Taliban’s repressive regime took over in August 2021. Panelists shed light on the crimes being perpetrated by the Taliban, called on the international community to recognize these crimes, and discussed developing tools for accountability. The event also offered a platform for the testimony of women and girls impacted by the Taliban alongside that of legal and policy experts on gender apartheid.
Participants heard directly from Afghan women and girls in the audio recordings of the initiative “Inside Afghanistan’s Gender Apartheid,” an interactive audio timeline and collaborative effort between the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center and the Civic Engagement Project. The initiative, which was publicly launched at the event, documents the first-hand accounts of life under gender apartheid and analyzes the impact of the Taliban’s increasingly entrenched and institutionalized legal system that curtails freedom, stifles potential, and erodes dignity.
Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico Alicia Buenrostro Massieu delivered opening remarks, situating the deteriorating state of Afghan women and girls within the larger international imperative to achieve and protect gender equality for all. Articulating the global backlash on women’s rights she instructed, “the pushback is intensifying and so must our response…it is high time to end the systematic exclusion of women and girls.”
Nayera Kohistani, women’s rights defender and teacher, spoke from her personal experience of “dehumanization” and being reduced to a “second-class citizen…with no human agency or dignity.” While she painted a vivid and grim picture of the situation that Afghan women face on the ground where “the Taliban has criminalized [their] whole existence and identity,” she also shared details of Afghan resistance and protest.
Nobel Peace Laureate Malala Yousafzai labeled the event a true moment of solidarity. She drew attention to the technologies of “highly calculated policies of oppression” that the Taliban relies on, noting that Afghanistan is the only country in the world that forbids girls from completing an education. She emphasized the need for solidarity from the global community with the girls who are “having their childhood and their future stolen” to not only change the conditions for Afghan girls but to also communicate to all girls around the world that their education, humanity, and human rights matter.
Panelists Penelope Andrews, anti-apartheid expert and Professor of Law and Director of the Racial Justice Project at New York Law School, and Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, Chair of the UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls, provided the legal and policy expertise on the codification of gender apartheid in international law. Drawing from a depth of knowledge on racial apartheid in South Africa, Professor Andrews identified the situation of women in Afghanistan as unequivocal gender apartheid based on the evidence of systemic, vicious, and comprehensive oppression and denial of basic civil and political rights on every level. She made an actionable request: include gender apartheid in the draft convention on crimes against humanity. To galvanize and focus efforts, she said, naming a harm is one of the most influential tools available so there is an imperative to recognize what is happening to Afghan women clearly: “This is gender apartheid – calling this what it is, we can create the conditions for people to be able to live dignified lives.”
Dorothy Estrada-Tanck identified the explicit codification of gender apartheid in Afghanistan as a priority for the UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls. While there are legal instruments currently available to address the rights violations women in Afghanistan are facing based on human rights tools built over the last 80 years, Estrada-Tanck pinpointed their insufficiency to identify and frame the mass nature and scale of this “state-sponsored, institutionalized and systematic oppression and subjugation.” Recognizing and codifying this as a crime against humanity is necessary to accurately name and understand the full scope of the elements of this regime and most importantly, to trigger action from the international community. Calling on the international community’s not just moral, but legal obligation to prevent and combat this crisis, she concluded, “This is a test for the multilateral system, where are we going to draw the red line?”
The event was co-sponsored by the Global Justice Center, Rawadari, the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, and the Permanent Missions of Mexico and Malta.
Opening/Closing Remarks:
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, President and Chief Executive Officer, International Peace Institute
H.E. Vanessa Frazier, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Malta to the UN
H.E. Alicia Buenrostro Massieu, Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN
Speakers:
Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Laureate
Nayera Kohistani, Afghan Activist and Expert
Penelope Andrews, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law & Director, Racial Justice Project, New York Law School
Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, Chair, UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls
Moderator:
Jomana Karadsheh, International Correspondent, CNN
Zu den Ergebnissen der jüngsten Sitzung des Rates der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) äußert sich Marcel Fratzscher, Präsident des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), wie folgt:
Die EZB hätte ein klares Signal für eine Kehrtwende ihrer Geldpolitik und eine baldige Zinssenkung geben sollen. Die Entscheidung der EZB und ihre Kommunikation sind eine verpasste Chance, mehr Klarheit zu schaffen und die Finanzierungsbedingungen zu verbessern. Damit bleibt die Geldpolitik eine der wichtigsten Bremsen für die Konjunktur und für die schwachen Investitionen in der Eurozone und in Deutschland.Nach einem mehrjährigen und intensiven Gesetzgebungsprozess auf EU-Ebene tritt heute der Digital Market Act in Kraft, der den großen Tech-Unternehmen Verpflichtungen auferlegt, um den Missbrauch ihrer Marktmacht zu verhindern. Wettbewerbsexperte Tomaso Duso, Leiter der Abteilung Unternehmen und Märkte im DIW Berlin, kommentiert das Gesetz wie folgt:
Mit dem Digital Market Act (DMA) tritt endlich eine Regelung in Kraft, die die Marktstellung der großen Digitalkonzerne aufgreift und faire Wettbewerbsbedingungen im digitalen Binnenmarkt zu gewährleisten verspricht. Sechs Tech-Giganten wurden zunächst als Gatekeeper definiert: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta und Microsoft, aber auch andere Unternehmen wie Booking.com stehen auf der Beobachtungsliste. Diese Unternehmen bieten Dienste an, die für jeden Anbieter, der in der digitalen Welt Geschäfte machen will, unverzichtbar sind. Aufgrund ihrer zentralen Stellung und ihrer großen Marktmacht müssen sie künftig besondere Pflichten erfüllen und sich an Verhaltens- und Datenzugangsregeln halten. Anders als im Wettbewerbsrecht, wo die Beweislast bei den Behörden liegt, die nachweisen müssen, ob Unternehmen gegen die Wettbewerbsregeln verstoßen haben, wurden im DMA spezifische Pflichten im Voraus definiert. Deren Einhaltung müssen die großen Tech-Unternehmen nun durch Compliance Reports nachweisen.Die Abteilung Unternehmen und Märkte im DIW Berlin sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt
zwei studentische Hilfskräfte (w/m/div) (für jeweils 10 Wochenstunden)
Da es sich um eine Sammelausschreibung handelt, beachten Sie bitte die verschiedenen Konditionen und Aufgabenfelder. Bitte geben Sie in Ihrer Bewerbung an, für welche Ausschreibung(en) Sie sich bewerben möchten.
Far-right parties are gaining support across Europe. Their level of participation in national governments is increasing, and they are expected to make further gains in the European Parliament elections in June 2024. As their influence over European Union (EU) policy rises, it is imperative to assess how they are positioning themselves on crucial dimensions of EU foreign and security policy. A closer look shows that geostrategic issues remain a cleavage point that is contributing to the fragmentation of the far-right spectrum. Their positions fluctuate between a transatlantic orientation and clear support for Ukraine among the national-conservative European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), to fundamental opposition with an anti-Western stance among parts of the right-wing populist to extremist parties in the Identity and Democracy (ID) Group. Due to the intergovernmental nature of EU foreign and security policy, the biggest challenges will come with national elections and coalition-making.
Rechtsaußenparteien gewinnen europaweit an Zustimmung. In immer mehr Staaten der Europäischen Union (EU) sind sie an nationalen Regierungen beteiligt, und für die Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament (EP) im Juni 2024 wird erwartet, dass sie weitere Zuwächse erreichen. Angesichts der zunehmenden Mitentscheidungsrolle dieser Parteien ist es für die außen- und sicherheitspolitisch herausgeforderte EU wichtig, wie sie sich in diesem Politikfeld positionieren. Ein genauerer Blick zeigt, dass die geostrategische Positionierung sehr unterschiedlich ausfällt und zur Fragmentierung des Rechtsaußenspektrums beiträgt. Die Positionen reichen von transatlantischer Orientierung und deutlicher Unterstützung für die angegriffene Ukraine, wie sie die Europäischen Konservativen und Reformer (EKR) vertreten, bis hin zu fundamentaler Opposition mit antiwestlicher Ausrichtung unter Teilen der rechtspopulistisch bis rechtsextremen Parteien der Fraktion Identität und Demokratie (ID). Bedeutend für die Handlungsfähigkeit und Kohärenz der EU-Außen- und ‑Sicherheitspolitik werden die nationalen Wahlen und Koalitionsentscheidungen sein.
Das DIW-Graduiertenzentrum bietet in Kooperation mit Berliner Universitäten ein hochkarätiges Doktorandenprogramm in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften an. Es hat derzeit rund 50 junge und motivierte Doktorand*innen aus der ganzen Welt.
Dafür sucht die Abteilung zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine*n
Bewerbungsmanager*in (w/m/div)
(19,5 Stunden)
Russische Schiffe sind seit einigen Jahren damit beschäftigt, kritische Infrastruktur in den Gewässern rund um Europa auszukundschaften. Dieses »Mapping« dient offenbar der Vorbereitung möglicher Sabotageakte und stellt somit eine erhebliche Sicherheitsbedrohung dar. Nach internationalem Seerecht können Küstenstaaten solche Mapping-Aktivitäten jenseits staatlicher Territorialgewässer nicht ohne weiteres unterbinden. Welche Eingriffsbefugnisse Küstenstaaten in ihrer ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone haben, ist umstritten. Eine einheitliche Staatenpraxis ist nicht erkennbar. Dies eröffnet Argumentationsspielräume, wenn es darum geht, Maßnahmen gegen Schiffe zu rechtfertigen, die an solchen Aktivitäten beteiligt sind. Kommt es zu Sabotageakten, die die Schwelle zum bewaffneten Angriff überschreiten, besteht ein Recht auf Selbstverteidigung nach Artikel 51 der Charta der Vereinten Nationen.