Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 1 Year

121. Data Disquiet: Concerns about the Governance of Data for Generative AI

Author:
Susan Ariel Aaronson
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The growing popularity of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about their accuracy. These chatbots can be used to provide information, but it may be tainted by errors or made-up or false information (hallucinations) caused by problematic data sets or incorrect assumptions made by the model. The questionable results produced by chatbots has led to growing disquiet among users, developers and policy makers. The author argues that policy makers need to develop a systemic approach to address these concerns. The current piecemeal approach does not reflect the complexity of LLMs or the magnitude of the data upon which they are based, therefore, the author recommends incentivizing greater transparency and accountability around data-set development.
Topic:
Accountability, Transparency, Artificial Intelligence, Data Governance, and Large Language Models (LLMs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

122. New Logics for Governing Human Discourse in the Online Era

Author:
Richard Reisman
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The democratization of access to online media tools is driving a transformation of human discourse that is disrupting freedom of thought. This shift in the flow of thought is being encoded into a global infrastructure dominated by commercial platform companies whose operations co-opt individual, collective and governmental agency. In this policy brief, Richard Reisman argues that attempts to govern these tools are relying on “yesterday’s logic.” The new logic, largely unrecognized, relates to acceleration of word-of-mouth propagation, much like rumouring, putting the listener’s freedom of impression, rather than the speaker’s freedom of expression, at the fore. Reisman writes that governance is needed to restore individual and community agency, which could re-energize the vision of technology as “bicycles for our minds,” enabling individuals and society to flourish and maintain resilience in an increasingly challenging world.
Topic:
Governance, Democracy, Internet, Emerging Technology, and Discourse
Political Geography:
Global Focus

123. Breaking Barriers: The Link between Stronger IPRs and Trade in Services

Author:
Olena Ivus
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
As innovation becomes more prevalent and systematically integrated into service industries, service firms increasingly turn to intellectual property rights (IPRs) as a means of safeguarding their intellectual assets. The reliance on these legal rights becomes even more pronounced when service companies endeavour to expand their global reach and tap into international markets where the protection of IPRs is relatively weak, and imitation is more widespread. Disparities in the level of IPRs protection and enforcement across countries can pose significant barriers to cross-border trade and investment in service sectors where the safeguarding of intellectual property (IP) is fundamental. The risk of IP infringement and the limited protection afforded to patents, copyrights and trademarks in certain countries can discourage the expansion of businesses into these markets, limiting the overall growth and accessibility of services in those areas. This paper studies the relationship between trade in services and the strength of IPRs protection at the international level. More specifically, it uses data for 94 countries over the period of 1990–2010 to put forward new empirical evidence about the impact of global strengthening of IPRs protection on cross-border trade in services.
Topic:
Intellectual Property/Copyright, Investment, Trade, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

124. State Intervention in the Public and Private Spheres in Times of Crisis: Covid-19 Pandemic

Author:
Dilber Akbaba
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
Especially in times of crisis, states can influence the public and private spheres by relying on their legitimacy power. Aside from its emergence and importance for humanity, the state reshapes individuals' private and public spheres by influencing them. The reshaped public and private spheres undoubtedly require a new perspective. Whether these areas have changed, the fate of their boundaries and the approach of individuals and the state to these areas may differ between ordinary and extraordinary periods. In the emergence of differences, the current understanding of governance is as important as how the state perceives its people and how the people perceive the state. Because these perceptions affect the parties' expectations in ordinary and crisis periods, criticism or acceptance develops due to the actual practices. In this article, the Covid-19 pandemic has been defined as a crisis period, and the Republic of Türkiye has been chosen as the subject whose policies implemented during the crisis period have been observed. The study examines the state's authority to intervene in the public and private sphere boundaries during the Covid-19 pandemic and the changes in these boundaries. Within the scope of the article, the study carried out in this direction examines how the edges of the public and private spheres were affected by the state's interventions/practices/policies during the Covid-19 crisis.
Topic:
Crisis Management, COVID-19, Public Space, Private Space, and State Intervention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

125. How the International Investment Law Regime Undermines Access to Justice for Investment-Affected Stakeholders

Author:
Ladan Mehranvar
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
For over a decade now, the international investment law regime, which includes investment treaties and their central pillar, the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, has been facing sustained calls for reform. These have largely centered on the concerns regarding the high costs of ISDS, the restrictions placed by the investment treaty regime on the right—or duty—of states to regulate in the public interest, and the questionable benefits arising from these treaties in the first place. Several states have taken proactive measures: some have revised investment treaty standards to better protect their regulatory powers;1 others have introduced new approaches to investment promotion, protection, and dispute settlement that more closely align with their sustainable development objectives;2 and some states have withdrawn from the investment treaty regime altogether.3 In addition, reforms to the regime are taking place at the multilateral level within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL),4 the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),5 the World Trade Organization (WTO),6 and through other regional fora.7 Despite being the subject of extensive and prolonged public debate for several years, these reforms have continued to reinforce the binary structure of the regime. This structure restricts the focus of investment relations solely to investors and host states, disregarding the actual or potential impacts of investment projects, relations, disputes and awards on the rights and interests of other impacted stakeholders. In particular, large-scale, land-based investment projects involve a broad network of people and relations, and often intersect with local communities whose social identity, way of life, and livelihoods are intimately connected to the land and natural resources at stake.8 It is this category of investments, which result in the creation of a new “project” with a large land footprint, that is the topic of this paper. The consequences of these types of investments can be significant, as they often lead to land expropriations, negative human health consequences, water pollution, air contamination, deforestation, or shifts in migration patterns within the area,9 thereby impacting the rights and interests of people in these communities and the environment more broadly. From the perspective of investment-affected communities,10 foreign investments arise out of a partnership between the investor and the state.11 After all, it is the government that facilitates the establishment and development of these very projects. Meanwhile, these impacted people are often not consulted or involved in project establishment or development, and many may not even know that a project has been approved until after it has been approved or once it is operational. According to scholarship in this area,12 these affected individuals and communities often find themselves in a situation where they must assert their rights against the negative impacts of such projects, or resist these projects by mobilizing, protesting, or resorting to legal (and non-legal) measures against the investor and/or the state. This dynamic is frequently reflected in investment disputes, in which foreign investors challenge measures that state agencies have taken in response to, inter alia, local opposition to investments, in an attempt to safeguard their economic interests.13 However, even though the underlying investments, government measures, ISDS disputes, and any resulting awards often implicate local people and communities in profound ways, these stakeholders find it difficult, if not impossible, to assert their rights and have their concerns addressed in investment policy making, in the establishment or continuation of investment projects, and in any ensuing investor-state disputes that may arise under investment treaties (or investment contracts). In fact, the voices of investment-affected people are effectively, and in most cases, actually excluded from the “institutional logic” of the investment treaty regime.14 This is because of the narrow scope of the applicable treaties and the limited consideration given to human rights and domestic legal frameworks in ISDS proceedings. In addition, these communities often encounter legal and practical obstacles when seeking to protect their rights and interests under other instruments and fora, like international human rights law, or domestic and regional judicial systems. This is because victories won by investment-affected communities at these other fora are often pyrrhic since they may ultimately be undermined by the investment treaty regime if or when the investor succeeds in its ISDS claim. It is this local dimension, which has received little attention in public debate and action on reform at the global, regional, and national levels, that is the focus of this paper. We draw on a group of 13 investor-state claims (and two potential claims)15 that relate to the rights and interests of impacted communities and identify ways in which their access to justice is undermined, hampered or denied entirely by the ISDS mechanism.16 Before describing the ways that access to justice is undermined or denied in these ISDS cases, we first define the term “access to justice” below.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, Investment, and Stakeholders
Political Geography:
Global Focus

126. Harms from Concentrated Industries: A Primer

Author:
Denise Hearn
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
Clashes between dominant firms exercising private power across the economy, and regulatory agencies tasked with preserving democracy have oscillated in ferocity throughout history. Today there is widespread recognition that in many markets, concentrated private economic and political power has yielded a range of anti-democratic, anti-innovation, and inequitable outcomes for consumers, workers, and smaller businesses. A vast literature1 now documents the macroeconomic and social harms from concentrated markets. As a 2019 International Monetary Fund (IMF) report states, “further increases in the market power of already-powerful firms could weaken investment, deter innovation, reduce labor income shares, and make it more difficult for monetary policy to stabilize output.”2 Competition policy, or antitrust, is a subset of a broader anti-monopoly agenda, and an important foundation for the functioning of fair markets. How its laws are crafted, interpreted, and enforced has substantial economic and social effects at local and regional levels, as well as national and international levels. The way that competition policy is written, interpreted, and applied has wider societal impacts beyond competition, including effects on democracy, economic inequality, growth and innovation, racial and gender imbalances, privacy, geopolitical implications and more. Competition policy also has redistributive economic effects between stakeholders, often privileging the largest corporate actors and their shareholders at the expense of other stakeholders.3 As the largest global firms have grown in size and reach, many national jurisdictions have set up competition authorities. In the last four decades, more than 120 legal systems have created competition rules, establishing National Competition Authorities (NCA) across a significant portion of countries.4 However, competition policy includes, but is not limited to, antitrust enforcement. It can also include a broader set of legislative and regulatory reforms which provide market guardrails that protect consumers, workers, independent businesses, and fair market dealing.5 The recently introduced Digital Markets Act in the EU is an example of competition policy using additional regulatory layers to protect the rights of consumers, start ups, and to spur innovation and economic growth. Today, competition policy and antitrust law are experiencing new political potency as various global jurisdictions have strengthened and enhanced their enforcement regimes.6 New market realities like digital market platform gatekeepers, the financialization of firms, the rise of private equity, resurgent labor movements, trade wars and industrial policy, and sustainability challenges, among others, have forced reconsiderations of how to adapt competition policy to meet new 21st century market realities. Competition policy’s narrow focus on consumer welfare (typically defined as low prices)7 over the last 40-50 years saw technological giants ascend to new heights with little to no scrutiny or challenges to mergers. A focus on lowering prices for consumers meant that new assetization strategies – such as monetizing a user’s attention while offering “free” products – went ungoverned by competition regulators. Non-price effects from concentrated markets like: threats to democracy or privacy, and effects on worker’s rights or the environment were mostly ignored. Mergers largely went unchallenged, leading to concentration across many sectors of the economy which is well documented in the US,8 Canada,9 and Europe10 and increasingly so in other jurisdictions. As so-called “superstar firms” have come to dominate national and global economies – in part due to a lack of strong countervailing regulatory structures and antitrust enforcement, and in part due to new network effects or economies of scale and scope in financial, digital, and other markets – many large companies are now akin to para-state institutions, which set the terms and norms of markets, acting as de facto private regulators. Global collective action problems like inequality, climate change, and biodiversity loss, which threaten the ecological and social thresholds upon which open societies are built, have also challenged the status quo of competition policy interpretation and enforcement. This presents a moment of political opportunity for a new vision, which asserts a concerted challenge to the ways in which concentrated corporate power undermines healthy economic, political, and social functioning across a range of industries. An anti-monopoly policy agenda ensures that markets operate on fair and competitive terms, that they reward innovation, create widely shared ownership and prosperity, and allow the best ideas, products, and services to flourish. Markets are public creations, governed by democratically determined rules. Anyone can be an anti-monopolist and participate in the active governance and shaping of markets, and there is now a wide global community of people who identify as such. At the end of this document we list some civil society organizations that are working to foreground anti-monopoly policy approaches and to build communities of practice, for those interested in learning more. Below, some of the harms from market concentration are outlined, as well as industryspecific or thematic considerations in technology, agriculture, and trade.
Topic:
Finance, Sustainable Development Goals, Business, and Industry
Political Geography:
Global Focus

127. The Advisory Function of the International Court of Justice: Are States Resorting to Advisory Proceedings as a “Soft” Litigation Strategy?

Author:
Myrto Stavridi
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
In the last decades, there has been an increase in advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that relate to vital political interests directly affecting the sovereignty of states. Even though advisory opinions are not binding and do not require the consent of the states involved, advisory proceedings have been increasingly and strategically used by states and international actors as contentious proceedings in disguise. Exploring the history of the advisory function of the ICJ and its predecessor, this article argues that advisory proceedings constitute a “soft” litigation strategy and a particularly useful tool for small states or non-state entities, as it has the potential to counterbalance the inherent power disparities in the process of international bargaining by adding the authoritative voice of the ICJ to the debate. This paper connects this development to a modern tendency of states to judicialize international affairs.
Topic:
International Law, Sovereignty, International Affairs, International Court of Justice (ICJ), and Advisory Opinions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

128. Exploring Law Enforcement Hacking as a Tool Against Transnational Cyber Crime

Author:
Gavin Wilde and Emma Landi
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
In terms of revenue, 2023 will go down as a record-breaking year for ransomware, with over a billion dollars in payments going to hackers.1 The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports a record $12.5 billion lost to cyber crime more broadly over the course of that year.2 As the quantities of affected users and organizations, payoff amounts, critical services, and pilfered sensitive data continue to rise, Western capitals have in recent years come to treat transnational cyber crime as a major national security concern. Because cyber criminals often operate from third countries where prosecution or extradition are unlikely, policymakers often look to military and intelligence services as the best (or only) entities capable of operationally disrupting cyber crime syndicates. Yet another growing trend challenges this notion: Western law enforcement agencies (LEAs) also have been expanding their own abilities to cross both technical and national boundaries to take on cyber criminals. This trend is creating new opportunities and challenges for both domestic and international cyber policy.
Topic:
Crime, Science and Technology, Law Enforcement, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:
Global Focus

129. Red herrings: A model of attention-hijacking by politicians

Author:
Margot Belguise
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP)
Abstract:
Politicians often use “red herrings” to distract voters from scandals. When do such red herrings succeed? I develop a model in which an incumbent runs for re-election and potentially faces a scandal. Some incumbents enjoy telling “tales” (attention-grabbing stories) while others use tales to distract voters from the scandal. Multiple equilibria can arise: one with a norm of tale-telling in which red herrings succeed and another with a norm against tale-telling in which they fail. Increased media attention to tales has a non-monotonic effect, facilitating red herrings at low attention levels, but serving a disciplinary function at high levels.
Topic:
Politics, Elections, and Media
Political Geography:
Global Focus

130. Mapping exile: Bridging knowledge and advocating for scholars at risk

Author:
Pascale Laborier
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
About the speaker: Pascale Laborier is a professor of political science at Paris Nanterre whose research over the past decade has focused on the history of scholars in exile. Some of her recent scholarship has focused on refugee scholars from Uruguay and Chile during the dictatorships. She is one of the founders of PAUSE, a French organization with private and government funding that helps refugee scholars in France find university jobs and funds them for their first year of teaching. Together with an artist-photographer she has created an exposition on these themes that will be shown at MIT in April. The exposition has been shown in Germany, France, and Belgium and currently in Uruguay and Chile.
Topic:
Refugees, Advocacy, Exile, and Scholars
Political Geography:
Global Focus