Search

Begin New Search Topic Multilateralism Political Geography Global Focus

41. How Can Multilateral Organizations Strengthen Global Data Governance Practices? Roundtable Summary

Author:
Michael Pisa and Ugonma Nwankwo
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
This brief is based on a roundtable hosted by CGD as part of the Governing Data for Development project, which explores how governments can use data to support innovation, development, and inclusive growth while protecting citizens and communities against harm. The views expressed here are those of the participants and do not necessarily represent the views of CGD staff. For other briefs in the series, as well as more on the project, visit cgdev.org/governing-data. Cross-border data flows are governed through a patchwork of complex, overlapping arrangements and trade agreements. The absence of a more systematic approach to data governance at the global level may make it harder for low- and middle-income countries to participate in the global digital economy and develop their own frameworks for governing the use of data in a responsible manner. It also leaves them with limited leverage in negotiations with both Big Tech companies and wealthier jurisdictions. This meeting is the third in a series of private roundtables convened by the Center for Global Development aimed at exploring the relationship between data governance and economic development. The first event examined whether current approaches to data protection and privacy are a good fit for resource-constrained countries. The second explored whether evolving digital trade rules support or hinder economic development. This third roundtable explored the role and limitations of multilaterals in promoting better data governance. This document summarizes key takeaways from the meeting, including the remarks of four keynote speakers and themes raised in a discussion among 30 experts, who are listed in the appendix. The roundtable was moderated by Pam Dixon, founder and executive director of the World Privacy Forum, and co-chair of the working group for CGD’s Governing Data for Development project.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Digital Economy, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

42. A Review of Multilateral Development Banks’ Investments in Childcare

Author:
Megan O'Donnell, Kelsey Ross, and Shelby Bourgault
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increase in unpaid care work all over the world, causing women to leave the workforce, reversing decades of progress on gender equality, and resulting in increased focus and empathy around the global childcare crisis. Recognizing a gap in the evidence regarding multilateral development banks’ current (and historical) investments in childcare solutions, in this paper we seek to establish a baseline, exploring the extent to which MDBs have invested in childcare over time, across geographies, and through various sectors and activities. Using project data from eight multilateral development banks’ project databases, we compiled all projects with a childcare component from 2000 to June 2021. Our analysis explores best practices across institutions, identifies gaps and areas for improvement, and makes recommendations for how MDBs can increase and improve investments in childcare.
Topic:
Development, Multilateralism, Banks, Pandemic, COVID-19, and Childcare
Political Geography:
Global Focus

43. Improving Performance in the Multilateral Humanitarian System: New Models of Donorship

Author:
Patrick Saez, Lewis Sida, Rachel Silverman, and Rose Worden
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development (CGD)
Abstract:
The humanitarian system has undergone three series of reforms over the past couple of decades, with mixed results. Multilateral agencies play a central role in the system. Faced with the prospect of growing humanitarian needs as a result of conflict, climate change and pandemics, the elusive quest to improve their performance continues. Yet while donors agree on the benefits of a strong multilateral system to respond to humanitarian crises, they diverge when it comes to measuring performance and providing financial incentives. A political economy defined by co-dependence and information asymmetry complicates the picture. Donors should unbundle their funding of different multilateral functions and measure their performance accordingly. Commonly agreed core functions and capacities should be supported by a greater proportion of core rather than earmarked funding. Performance of these core functions should be measured using multi-donor assessments and functional reviews. Independent measurement of outcomes should be linked to pooled mechanisms that would channel a significantly greater proportion of funding earmarked to specific crises.
Topic:
Finance, Multilateral Relations, Multilateralism, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

44. Global Governance 2.0: The Collective Choreography of Cooperation

Author:
Poorti Sapatnekar
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
Multi-stakeholder partnerships among states and non-state actors have become increasingly prevalent models for the delivery of global public goods. Various international organizations—particularly the United Nations entities—are pouring resources into large-scale efforts such as conferences and summits to promote partnerships. Are such efforts effective? If so, what is the causal mechanism at work? Analyzing all major UN conferences and summits on climate change in the 2000-2015 period, this study finds that contrary to conventional wisdom, only two were successful in driving the growth of climate partnerships. Six organizational attributes acted as conditions of success for these efforts, enabling a mechanism this study labels the collective choreography of cooperation. They are: (1) strategic timing; (2) leaders’ level convening; (3) emphasis on ambitious, cooperative commitments; (4) sectoral orientation; (5) subsidiarity; and (6) leadership with centralized decision-making. Effective collective choreography requires high level convening power and autonomy of the summit host. Among international organizations, only the UN Secretary-General has both these two attributes. Gaining sufficient autonomy on climate change without alienating key member states took decades, during which successive Secretaries-General engaged in ‘conference activism’ and expanded the range and breadth of their good offices to help overcome intergovernmental gridlock and steer towards constructive outcomes. Achieving the Paris Agreement goals is a global policy priority that requires exponential acceleration of climate partnerships across economic sectors during the first half of this century. A five-year choreography cycle led by the Secretary-General over the next thirty years, and coinciding with the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement, could serve to achieve this policy priority. Four features of the climate problem have made it conducive to collective choreography that are more or less characteristic of many other global governance challenges. (1) There is dispersed control over causes of the problem and over possible solutions. (2) Economic and social benefits to non-state actors for engaging in voluntary cooperation on climate change exist or can be made to exist. (3) Barriers to cooperation exist in the form of high transaction costs, risks, and limited trust. (4) The problem is mature enough that multilateral solutions had already been attempted, without success thus far. As such, this paper provides a basis for further investigation into the potential to apply collective choreography to other global public goods.
Topic:
Climate Change, International Cooperation, United Nations, Multilateralism, and Paris Agreement
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. TRIPS-Past to TRIPS-Plus: Upholding the Balance between Exclusivity and Access

Author:
James Bacchus
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
A deadly global pandemic and other unique circumstances have combined to present the World Trade Organization (WTO) with an opportunity to modernize its rules for the trade-related aspects of intellectual property (IP) rights. The best place to begin is with a full realization of the negotiated balance between exclusivity and access in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). There is the need to turn the “TRIPS-past” of WTO IP rules agreed in 1995 into the “TRIPS-plus” of improved rules more fit to purpose for the twenty-first century. New rules are needed to help spark new innovations of all kinds and the rapid spread of those innovations worldwide, including rules relating to intangible assets and especially to digital expressions of IP. Continuing questions over the extent to which the TRIPS Agreement protects the exclusivity of IP rights in COVID-19 vaccines underscore how much uncertainty remains about where the line of this balance is in this multilateral trade agreement, and also how much doubt still exists about whether that line is in the right place.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Multilateralism, Pandemic, COVID-19, and WTO
Political Geography:
Global Focus

46. Prioritization of Multilaterialsm Agreements on Export Control of Defense Products and Sensitive Technologies by Hierarchical Analysis Process

Author:
Luiz Octavio Gaviao, Luciano Dias Dutra, and Sergio Kostin
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
This paper proposes a model to support the decision to choose which multilateral export control regime of defense products and sensitive technologies in which Brazil does not yet participate, namely, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group and Zangger Committee, should be prioritized for adhesion. For the development of this model, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used, considered adequate for solving problems where criteria are qualitative and decisions tend to be based on personal experiences. The hierarchical structure of the problem used seven criteria (Country Legislation, Regulatory System, Licensing Structure, Enforcement Capacity, International Cooperation, Costs of Adhesion and Benefits for the Defense Industrial Base) to compare the three mentioned agreements. A questionnaire was set up and specialists related to National Defense were selected to answer them, after which their answers were collected, standardized, processed and analyzed. At the end, the agreements were ordered by preference to support decision making, illustrating the application of the proposed model.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Multilateralism, and Defense Industry
Political Geography:
Global Focus

47. Multilateral Training and Work at Foreign Ministries

Author:
Kishan S. Rana
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Editor’s note: The author was India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Environment Program and to UN Habitat at Nairobi, 1984-86. In foreign ministries, as in all organizations, training has risen to the top of the institutional agenda.[1] ‘Life-long training’ has taken root. In the past, most foreign ministries believed that diplomats needed training on entering the profession, and thereafter learnt on the job. In the past 20 years, at least 30 foreign ministries have established training institutes, including the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which had managed without one for over two centuries.[2] Thanks to increased work demands (new issues on the international agenda, the range of official and non-official partners involved, and concepts like public and diaspora diplomacy), the pace of work, especially multilateral, is more frenetic, complexified. Another question comes up: is multilateral work a speciality, or is it just a different diplomatic setting, compared with work in a bilateral embassy or consulate? For most countries, around 85 to 90% out of the diplomatic staff based abroad (as distinct from those in the foreign ministry), engage in bilateral work, also working in embassies and consulates, i.e. handling relations with individual foreign states. The balance are to be found in ‘multilateral missions’, accredited to international or regional organisations. But this is an oversimplification. At around 20 capitals, find the headquarters of multilateral and regional organizations, and the diplomatic missions at such places double as permanent missions accredited to that entity; examples: Addis Ababa (AU), Brussels (EU, NATO), Jakarta (ASEAN), Manilla (ADB), Nairobi (UNEP, Habitat) Paris (OECD, UNESCO), Rome (FAO), Vienna (IAEA, UNIDO). At the headquarters, multilateral and regional affairs may occupy around 10 to 15%. In this essay, we will subsume regional work with multilateral affairs. Other questions come up. How should diplomats be trained for multilateral work? Who should be selected for this work? What are the contemporary trends? We look also at senior management at the US State Department, and professionalization, related to multilateral work. These issues are interconnected.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Multilateralism, Training, and State Department
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

48. “Reformed Multilateralism” at the United Nations

Author:
Asoke Mukerji
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Editor’s note: The author was the Indian Ambassador to the UN 2013-2015. Calls for “reformed multilateralism”[1] at the UN’s 75th anniversary session in September 2020 stressed the need for equal participation by member-states in UN decision-making. Five years earlier, when adopting Agenda 2030, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) acknowledged the inter-linkage between peace, security, and development.[2] With its universal scope, Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development has become the central focus of the United Nations (UN) for the foreseeable future. Agenda 2030 requires a paradigm shift in the approach of UN member-states to global issues and underscores the imperative for an inclusive human-centric approach through the participation of multiple stakeholders in UN activities. This would enable the UN to pool resources through partnerships to meet the major challenges in all its three “pillars” – political, human rights, and socio-economic development.
Topic:
Development, Human Rights, Politics, United Nations, Reform, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

49. Making Change Happen Within the United Nations

Author:
Catherine Bertini
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Editor’s note: The author was Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme 1992-2002 and United Nations Under Secretary General for Management 2003-2005. President Biden’s nomination of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield as US Ambassador to the United Nations promises to bring effective leadership, professionalism, and immense knowledge to the role. She is one of only a few American diplomats who have had leadership postings dealing with important UN operations at every level—in countries where she served as a foreign service officer, in Geneva, and in Washington DC. In New York, the ambassador will need to summon all her skills and experience to lead the American team at the US mission to the UN. Along with the USUN ambassador and the Secretary of State, US multilateral efforts are led by the Assistant Secretaries of the Bureau of International Organizations and the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and the Permanent Representatives to the UN in Geneva, Rome, Vienna, and Nairobi. The president should nominate people for these positions who have in-depth knowledge of the system and related issues, solid judgment, and strong interpersonal skills. The diplomats must be strategic, prepared, creative, goal oriented, and personally engaging. Process oriented micro-managers will not accomplish much.
Topic:
Diplomacy, United Nations, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

50. Multilateralism and the Superpower

Author:
Jeremy Greenstock
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Editor’s note: The author served as UK Ambassador to the UN 1998-2003. The UN, with its network of institutions and agencies, is the only truly global organisation. It is a great experiment, not in global governance, because the political direction of the UN lies firmly in the hands of sovereign nations, but in providing both norms and tools for managing the international arena 1. Its system is flawed and may well be unimprovable. But what it tries to do, and does, is indispensable for the avoidance of catastrophic war and for the development of a sustainable world. The UN as an institution is also, not unlike the American Constitution, an adversary of raw power. Born in an era of war and empire, its charter and principles provide shelter and help for weaker nations, and set limitations on the capacity of the strongest countries to throw their weight around selfishly—the generator of empires and wars. It came into being at the instigation of the great powers, and so they know —or they used to know—what they were creating and why. The United States was at the centre of it, seeing it as a great step towards the ending of the era of imperialism. The UN is not just about what happens in the Security Council. The work of the Secretariat, the funds, agencies and programmes, and indeed of several of the intergovernmental institutions such as ECOSOC, is primarily dedicated to every aspect of international development. They act on the premise that if a large part of the world is racked by poverty and disease, the more fortunate part will not have a stable environment in which to enjoy their relative success. The history of regional conflict over the last 75 years bears this out. As the UK’s Permanent Representative between 1998 and 2003, with a permanent place on the Security Council, I made a point of setting my inevitable focus on the Council’s work in the context of this wider UN purpose. The maintenance of international peace and security is an essential component of sustainable development, not just an end in itself.
Topic:
Security, United Nations, Governance, Sustainable Development Goals, Multilateralism, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America