Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

The People’s Republic of China has recently announced several global governance initiatives, with the Global Development Initiative (GDI) at the forefront. Launched in 2021, the GDI is simultaneously embedded within United Nations (UN) frameworks surrounding the Sustainable Development Goals and supposed to advance ‘true multilateralism’ aligned with China’s broader vision for world order. In doing so, the GDI complicates both ‘status quo’ and ‘revisionist’ interpretations of China’s engagement with global governance, alongside efforts to refine this binary. Bridging historical institutionalism and Neo-Gramscian political economy, we argue that the GDI constitutes a form of ‘institutional layering’ that serves as a component of a broader counter-hegemonic strategy: Rather than displacing existing frameworks, China seeks to embed new practices, principles, and alliances within them to advance its material, ideational, and organizational interests. We demonstrate how the GDI functions as a low-cost, low-risk component of a ‘war of position’ that leverages UN legitimacy while incrementally contesting liberal norms and assess its transformative potential for altering the nature of global (development) governance.

The People’s Republic of China has recently announced several global governance initiatives, with the Global Development Initiative (GDI) at the forefront. Launched in 2021, the GDI is simultaneously embedded within United Nations (UN) frameworks surrounding the Sustainable Development Goals and supposed to advance ‘true multilateralism’ aligned with China’s broader vision for world order. In doing so, the GDI complicates both ‘status quo’ and ‘revisionist’ interpretations of China’s engagement with global governance, alongside efforts to refine this binary. Bridging historical institutionalism and Neo-Gramscian political economy, we argue that the GDI constitutes a form of ‘institutional layering’ that serves as a component of a broader counter-hegemonic strategy: Rather than displacing existing frameworks, China seeks to embed new practices, principles, and alliances within them to advance its material, ideational, and organizational interests. We demonstrate how the GDI functions as a low-cost, low-risk component of a ‘war of position’ that leverages UN legitimacy while incrementally contesting liberal norms and assess its transformative potential for altering the nature of global (development) governance.

The People’s Republic of China has recently announced several global governance initiatives, with the Global Development Initiative (GDI) at the forefront. Launched in 2021, the GDI is simultaneously embedded within United Nations (UN) frameworks surrounding the Sustainable Development Goals and supposed to advance ‘true multilateralism’ aligned with China’s broader vision for world order. In doing so, the GDI complicates both ‘status quo’ and ‘revisionist’ interpretations of China’s engagement with global governance, alongside efforts to refine this binary. Bridging historical institutionalism and Neo-Gramscian political economy, we argue that the GDI constitutes a form of ‘institutional layering’ that serves as a component of a broader counter-hegemonic strategy: Rather than displacing existing frameworks, China seeks to embed new practices, principles, and alliances within them to advance its material, ideational, and organizational interests. We demonstrate how the GDI functions as a low-cost, low-risk component of a ‘war of position’ that leverages UN legitimacy while incrementally contesting liberal norms and assess its transformative potential for altering the nature of global (development) governance.

Seit Russland 2022 seinen vollumfänglichen Aggressionskrieg gegen die Ukraine begonnen hat, verfolgt die EU ihre Erweiterungspolitik unter geopolitischen Vorzeichen. Wie es bei der Europäischen Kommission und bei Kandidatenstaaten inzwischen heißt, könnte die EU ab 2028 neue Mitglieder aufnehmen; die Ukraine fordert sogar, 2027 beizutreten. Doch hohe Hürden stehen der Erweiterung im Weg. In der EU stagniert der Reformprozess, der ihre Handlungsfähigkeit verbessern und sie für eine Mitgliederzahl von 30 oder mehr fit machen soll. Beitrittsreife der Bewerber und Absorptionskraft der Union sind aber Schlüsselkriterien, die die deutsche Europa-Politik traditionell hochhält. In der EU wird nun intensiv über schrittweise Integra­tion, neue Schnellspuren und zusätzliche Sicherheitsklauseln debattiert, um den Ziel­konflikt zwischen geopolitischer Dringlichkeit und integrationspolitischer Solidität zu minimieren. Gegenüber den Staaten des Westbalkans sollte die EU am erprobten Beitrittsprozess festhalten. Im Fall der Ukraine ist die Lage so akut, dass es die poli­tische Verpflichtung, das Land aufzunehmen, zu bekräftigen gilt. Als Vorstufe zur Mitgliedschaft sollte die EU Kyjiw eine Beitrittsassoziierung neuen Typs anbieten, die auch eine Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspartnerschaft umfasst.

Knowledge brokers have emerged as a key mechanism for facilitating knowledge exchange across institutional and epistemic divides to enable more inclusive, informed, and context-sensitive decision-making. However, despite growing recognition about their value and importance, critical gaps remain related to how knowledge brokers operate that hinders their effectiveness and efficiency in practice. One such gap relates to the ethical dimensions of their work, which remain underexplored and lack formal conceptualization. This perspective addresses this gap by examining the overarching ethical challenges knowledge brokers face, and proposing a set of twelve experientially-derived principles to guide more ethically grounded knowledge brokering. For each principle we also outline a suite of practical behaviours, attitudes and actions to support their realisation in practice. In doing so, our goal is to help recognize and engage with the depth of ethical complexity that knowledge brokers must navigate, support those working in these often-invisible roles, and contribute to a broader conversation about how to strengthen the interface of sustainability science, policy and practice. We conclude by calling for greater institutional support, leadership, and a shift toward ‘ethics by design’ approaches that embed ethical reflection and practices in knowledge brokering efforts from the outset.

Knowledge brokers have emerged as a key mechanism for facilitating knowledge exchange across institutional and epistemic divides to enable more inclusive, informed, and context-sensitive decision-making. However, despite growing recognition about their value and importance, critical gaps remain related to how knowledge brokers operate that hinders their effectiveness and efficiency in practice. One such gap relates to the ethical dimensions of their work, which remain underexplored and lack formal conceptualization. This perspective addresses this gap by examining the overarching ethical challenges knowledge brokers face, and proposing a set of twelve experientially-derived principles to guide more ethically grounded knowledge brokering. For each principle we also outline a suite of practical behaviours, attitudes and actions to support their realisation in practice. In doing so, our goal is to help recognize and engage with the depth of ethical complexity that knowledge brokers must navigate, support those working in these often-invisible roles, and contribute to a broader conversation about how to strengthen the interface of sustainability science, policy and practice. We conclude by calling for greater institutional support, leadership, and a shift toward ‘ethics by design’ approaches that embed ethical reflection and practices in knowledge brokering efforts from the outset.

Knowledge brokers have emerged as a key mechanism for facilitating knowledge exchange across institutional and epistemic divides to enable more inclusive, informed, and context-sensitive decision-making. However, despite growing recognition about their value and importance, critical gaps remain related to how knowledge brokers operate that hinders their effectiveness and efficiency in practice. One such gap relates to the ethical dimensions of their work, which remain underexplored and lack formal conceptualization. This perspective addresses this gap by examining the overarching ethical challenges knowledge brokers face, and proposing a set of twelve experientially-derived principles to guide more ethically grounded knowledge brokering. For each principle we also outline a suite of practical behaviours, attitudes and actions to support their realisation in practice. In doing so, our goal is to help recognize and engage with the depth of ethical complexity that knowledge brokers must navigate, support those working in these often-invisible roles, and contribute to a broader conversation about how to strengthen the interface of sustainability science, policy and practice. We conclude by calling for greater institutional support, leadership, and a shift toward ‘ethics by design’ approaches that embed ethical reflection and practices in knowledge brokering efforts from the outset.

La Libye marque cette année les 15 ans depuis sa révolution qui a déposé Mouammar Kadhafi. Malgré une relative stabilité sécuritaire, le pays reste divisé en deux. L'ouest est dirigé par un gouvernement reconnu par la communauté internationale. L'est et une grande partie du sud sont, eux, dirigés par le régime militaire du maréchal Khalifa Haftar. Reportage à Benghazi, dans l'est du pays.

The Pax Americana, which guaranteed the security of Germany and Europe after the Second World War, is coming to an end. Europe can no longer rely on its alliance and partnership with the United States. Even before Donald Trump’s second presidency, Europe was seeking to reduce its dependency on Washington for peace, democracy and prosperity. This cannot be achieved overnight, and will require a significant increase in material resources and strategic thinking over the next five to ten years. The fourteen contributions to this SWP Research Paper show how differ­ent the starting conditions for developing transition strategies are, depending on the policy area and challenges. Europe needs to consider all the options: with, without or even against Washington. The analyses of Europe’s agency and the scope for European policy towards Russia, the Middle East and China are very wide-ranging. Trump’s logic of quick deal-making and unilateralism under the banner of “MAGA” often collides fundamentally with the EU’s multilateral foreign and security policy, which is bound by international law, and its commitment to sus­tainable peace. The keywords for the urgent reorganisation of security in Europe are: Europeanisation of NATO, strengthening Europe’s own military capa­bilities, new leadership constellations for security policy in Europe, and resilient governance in technology and cybersecurity. Even at this geopolitical turning-point (“Zeitenwende”), the EU should continue to develop its soft power. When it comes to the crucial questions of global governance – from UN and international law to trade, climate and energy policy – Europe must find new partnerships and, if necessary, new institutional solutions without and against the United States.