Search

Begin New Search Topic Governance Political Geography Global Focus

101. Proceedings from the Second International Conference “Security Sector Governance: The Role of Democratic Institutions & International Best Practices”

Author:
Philipp H. Fluri and Oleksiy Melnyk
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
This publication offers the proceedings of the Conference II “Security Sector Governance: The Role of Democratic Institutions & International Best Practices”. Following the Conference I findings, participants elaborated current challenges related to the role of democratic institutions in the Ukrainian Security Sector Governance and worked out solutions based on possible accommodation of best international practices in Ukrainian realities. This publication offers presentations of the key speakers and the summaries of the Working Group discussions. General assessments, conclusions and proposals are those of the participants and do not necessarily coincide with the positions of DCAF, the Razumkov Centre or the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. Publication was made possible in the framework of the joint DCAF-Razumkov Centre Project “Monitoring Ukraine’s Security Governance Challenges” sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
Topic:
Security, Civil Society, Human Rights, International Organization, Governance, Media, Legislation, and Oversight
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, and Global Focus

102. Intelligence Services: Roles and responsibilities in good security sector governance

Author:
Fairlie Chappuis and Ronja Harder
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
This SSR Backgrounder explains the roles and responsibilities of intelligence services in good security sector governance (SSG). Intelligence services perform an essential security function by providing governments with timely and relevant information necessary to protect the security of states and their societies. Applying the principles of good SSG to intelligence services makes them both effective and accountable within a framework of democratic governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. This SSR Backgrounder answers the following questions: What are intelligence services? What do intelligence services do? How is intelligence produced? What intrusive legal powers do intelligence services hold? How can intelligence services comply with good security sector governance? How does security sector reform benefit intelligence services? How can secrecy be made compatible with good governance? What is international intelligence cooperation?
Topic:
Security, Human Rights, Intelligence, Governance, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:
Geneva and Global Focus

103. Intelligence Oversight: Ensuring accountable intelligence within a framework of democratic governance

Author:
Ronja Harder
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
This SSR Backgrounder explains how the principles of democratic control and oversight can be applied to intelligence services. Oversight of intelligence matters, because intelligence services can pose a threat to democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights, even while acting in the public interest. Applying the principle of good security sector governance through a system of democratic control and oversight ensures intelligence services are both effective and accountable while providing security for the state and for its people. This SSR Backgrounder answers the following questions: Why is democratic oversight of intelligence important? How does democratic oversight of intelligence work? What are typical challenges for democratic oversight of intelligence? How does internal control of intelligence contribute to good governance? How does executive control of intelligence contribute to good governance? What role does parliament play in democratic oversight of intelligence? How is the justice system involved in the control and oversight of intelligence? How can public oversight apply to intelligence?
Topic:
Human Rights, Intelligence, Governance, and Law Enforcement
Political Geography:
Geneva, Europe, and Global Focus

104. The Accountability Sequence: From De-jure to De-facto Constraints on Governments

Author:
Valeriya Mechkova, Anna Lührmann, and Staffan I. Lindberg
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem)
Abstract:
Accountability is one of the cornerstones of good governance. Establishing accountable governments is a top priority on the international development agenda. Yet, scholars and democracy practitioners know little about how accountability mechanisms develop and thus can be supported by international and national actors. The present study tackles the questions of how, and in what sequence accountability sub-types develop. We consider not only vertical (elections and political parties) and horizontal accountability (legislature, judiciary and other oversight bodies), but also diagonal accountability (civil society and media) in both their de-jure and the de-facto dimensions. By utilizing novel sequencing methods, we study their sequential relationships in 173 countries from 1900 to the present with data from the new V-Dem dataset. Considering the long-term dimensions of institution building, this study indicates that most aspects of de-facto vertical accountability precede other forms of accountability. Effective institutions of horizontal accountability – such as vigorous parliaments and independent high courts – evolve rather late in the sequence and build on progress in many other areas.
Topic:
International Affairs and Governance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

105. Innovations in Global Governance

Author:
Miles Kahler and Deborah Avant
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Over the last three decades, a diverse collection of actors—private corporations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and subnational (state, provincial, and urban) governments—has developed and promoted a global agenda of collective action. From advancing human rights to combating climate change, these actors have become new governors in world politics. More recently, a second movement—a loose array of populist and nationalist groups and governments—has questioned the forward momentum of institutionalized global cooperation. Brexit, followed by the Donald J. Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Agreement on climate change, as well as proposed cuts in U.S. contributions to the United Nations and development assistance, suggest a weakening—if not undermining—of the network of treaties, institutions, and relationships constructed over the last seventy years. Each of these movements aims to transform a global order based on intergovernmental agreements and institutions. The first movement has already done so by increasing participation in global governance of new actors who are pursuing cooperative outcomes in collaboration with and independently of national governments and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Their involvement both complements and complicates the traditional international order. The second movement, in contrast, asserts national interest and sovereignty against the constraints of global governance. Although the conflict between these two movements remains unresolved, they will likely shape the future global order.
Topic:
Climate Change, Human Rights, Governance, and NGOs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

106. The Need for Governance of Climate Geoengineering

Author:
Janos Pasztor
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
Sooner rather than later, policymakers around the world will need to confront an uncomfortable reality: that despite the best efforts of national governments and thousands of mayors and other civic leaders, we can no longer contain global average temperatures to below 1.5–2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels through mitigation of carbon emissions alone. It is widely acknowledged that even if the world stopped all emissions today, there would still be a rise in global temperatures to a level that would stay for hundreds of years (the lifetime of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere) before temperatures began to drop, thus constituting a temperature “overshoot.” For many experts the question is no longer whether the world can keep the temperature rise below the goals stipulated in the Paris Agreement, but by how much will the world miss that target and how long will the overshoot last. For many experts the question is no longer whether the world can keep the temperature rise below the goals stipulated in the Paris Agreement, but by how much will the world miss that target and how long will the overshoot last. The acknowledgement of this temperature overshoot—alongside a growing appreciation of its devastating impact on people’s lives, the global economy, and the environment—may mark a new inflection point in our efforts to manage the risks of climate change.1 When you add to this the U.S. president’s announcement in June 2017 that the nation would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, it comes as no surprise that a growing number of scientists are thinking about additional approaches to managing the risks of an overshoot. Perhaps most dramatically, we have seen a resurgent interest in a field that once resided at the fringes of science or on the pages of sci-fi novels, but which is now being taken quite seriously in academic circles: geoengineering. As this interest develops, it is becoming more likely that a group of countries or cities or even one or more wealthy individuals might decide to deploy geoengineering technologies during the coming decades. We need to be ready for any such eventuality; and being ready means considering a host of pressing questions. How would we govern such actors? Who assesses the balance of risks and rewards when deploying geoengineering technologies? What safeguards and what compensation mechanisms need to be built in? If we start deliberately altering global temperatures, who controls the global thermostat? It was to address these questions that the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative was born: to bring the profoundly complex issues of geoengineering governance and ethics to a much wider audience.2 We are potentially at the dawn of an age of geoengineering. It is time for policymakers to start discussing whether geoengineering is to go forward and, if so, how.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Governance, and Geoengineering
Political Geography:
Global Focus

107. Global justice and environmental governance: an analysis of the Paris Agreement

Author:
Marcelo Santos
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Journal:
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:
Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:
Based on the major normative political theory contributions on global climate justice, the present paper analyzes the new international agreement on climate change, adopted at COP 21 in Paris (2015). Therefore, a literary review of the extensive normative theoretical discussion about global climate justice is made, with special attention to the two approaches that have permeated multilateral political negotiations - historical responsibility and equal per capita emissions. From this normative discussion, this paper recalls the global climate change negotiation process, focusing on the Kyoto Protocol. Next, the analysis emphasizes on the Paris Agreement in an effort to evaluate the normative questions on justice and equity within the environmental governance regime. Finally, the set of conclusions indicates that, although the flexibility of the Agreement has encompassed some dimensions of responsibility, necessity and ability to bear the costs, the most complex dimensions of justice and equity has not been completely solved, which may hinder the operation of environmental governance in a near future.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, Justice, and Paris Agreement
Political Geography:
Global Focus

108. Dynamic Cities? The Role of Urban Local Governments in Improving Urban Service Delivery Performance in Africa and Asia

Author:
Jamie Boex, Ammar A. Malik, Devanne Brookins, and Ben Edwards
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Urban Institute
Abstract:
Cities are engines of economic growth that provide spaces for social transformation and political inclusion. Their ability to deliver widely accessible and efficiently functioning public services drives productivity and sustains development. We design and apply an assessment framework to 42 cities in 14 African and Asian countries to better understand the functional, administrative, and political dimensions determining the quality and coverage of water, sanitation, and solid waste collection services. We find that urban local governments are constrained in their authority and discretion to deliver basic public services. Reforming intergovernmental institutional structures to better match responsibilities is essential for realizing cities’ full economic potential.
Topic:
Government, Water, Governance, International Development, Economic growth, Urban, Sanitation, Services, and Cities
Political Geography:
Africa, Asia, and Global Focus

109. Assessing the Governance Practices of Sustainability Reporting

Author:
Jason Thistlewaite and Melissa Menzies
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
To promote climate change risk mitigation in financial markets, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) recently proposed the creation of a Climate Disclosure Task Force, coordinated through the G20, to develop standards for companies to disclose their exposure to climate change risks. With more than 400 existing disclosure schemes that employ a range of different standards to measure climate change risks and corporate sustainability, this task will be challenging. But the diversity of schemes also represents an opportunity to assess which practices are effective at improving corporate accountability for sustainability performance, as well as efficient at producing comparable reports that do not unfairly burden reporting organizations. This brief identifies the key categories of governance practices that must be addressed, how these divergent practices challenge end-users, and how the establishment of criteria that define effective and efficient reporting is a critical first step for the FSB and its Climate Disclosure Task Force.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Natural Resources, Governance, G20, Regulation, and Financial Markets
Political Geography:
Global Focus

110. The Privatization of Human Rights: Illusions of Consent, Automation and Neutrality

Author:
Emily Taylor
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation
Abstract:
The Internet enables the free flow of information on an unprecedented scale but to an increasing extent the management of individuals’ fundamental rights, such as privacy and the mediation of free expression, is being left in the hands of private actors. The popularity of a few web platforms across the globe confers on the providers both great power and heavy responsibilities. Free-to-use web platforms are founded on the sale of user data, and the standard terms give providers rights to intrude on every aspect of a user’s online life, while giving users the Hobson’s choice of either agreeing to those terms or not using the platform (the illusion of consent). Meanwhile, the same companies are steadily assuming responsibility for monitoring and censoring harmful content, either as a self-regulatory response to prevent conflicts with national regulatory environments, or to address inaction by states, which bear primary duty for upholding human rights. There is an underlying tension for those companies between self-regulation, on the one hand, and being held accountable for rights violations by states, on the other hand. The incongruity of this position might explain the secrecy surrounding the human systems that companies have developed to monitor content (the illusion of automation). Psychological experiments and opaque algorithms for defining what search results or friends’ updates users see highlight the power of today’s providers over their publics (the illusion of neutrality). Solutions could include provision of paid alternatives, more sophisticated definition and handling of different types of data — public, private, ephemeral, lasting — and the cooperation of all stakeholders in arriving at realistic and robust processes for content moderation that comply with the rule of law.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Human Rights, Human Welfare, Science and Technology, and Governance
Political Geography:
Global Focus