Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of globalization on the formation of a global political system.

Taking into account the fact of global political evolution, the authors of the paper point out that the global political structures tend to change.

During the past millennium the global political architecture has changed greatly from a state of low degree of cohesion and a simple structure to a fairly high level of unity and strong structure of today. Moreover, this development of the global political order was not just a simple change in the system of social relations, but also a directed search for such forms of organization that will be acceptable for a growing population.

The authors examine the development of a political system changing from the world phase to the global era. The paper aims to deepen the understanding of global political processes.

The results of the research can be used as recommendations for state governments to strengthen the position of civil society and political institutions within a certain country.

The development of a global political order was evolutionary in the sense that it took place as a “natural” process of “trial and error” (it can be viewed as a phenomenon of the deployment of evolution), which does not require the postulation of a general plan or focus. Political globalization is closely connected with the process of informatization. The global political system makes it easier to use information technologies as an instrument of political pressure.

While technologies are often packaged as solutions to long-standing social ills, scholars of digital economies have raised the alarm that, far from liberatory, technologies often further entrench social inequities and in fact automate structures of oppression. This literature has been revelatory but tends to replicate a methodological nationalism that erases global racial hierarchies. We argue that digital economies rely on colonial pathways and in turn serve to replicate a racialized and neocolonial world order. To make this case, we draw on W.E.B. Du Bois' writings on capitalism's historical development through colonization and the global color line. Drawing specifically on The World and Africa as a global historical framework of racism, we develop heuristics that make visible how colonial logics operated historically and continue to this day, thus embedding digital economies in this longer history of capitalism, colonialism, and racism. Applying a Du Boisian framework to the production and propagation of digital technologies shows how the development of such technology not only relies on preexisting racial colonial production pathways and the denial of racially and colonially rooted exploitation but also replicates these global structures further.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the basis for, and ramifications of, applying relevant human rights norms – such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In doing so, the paper seeks to contribute to scholarship on the political legitimisation of the IASB’s structure and activities under prevailing global governance conditions.

The paper explores three distinct argumentative logics regarding responsibilities for justice and human rights vis-à-vis the IASB. First, the authors explore the basis for applying human rights responsibilities to the IASB through reasoning based on the analysis of “public power” (Macdonald, 2008) and public authorisation. Second, the authors develop the reasoning with reference to recent attempts by legal scholars and practitioners to apply human rights obligations to other non-state and transnational institutions. Finally, the authors develop reasoning based on Thomas Pogge’s (1992b) ideas about institutional harms and corresponding responsibilities.

The three distinct argumentative logic rest on differing assumptions – the goal is not to reconcile or synthesise these approaches, but to propose that these approaches offer alternative and in some ways complementary insights, each of which contributes to answering questions about how human rights obligations of the IASB should be defined, and how such a responsibility could be “actually proceduralised”.

The analysis provides an important starting point for beginning to think about how responsibilities for human rights might be applied to the operation of the IASB.

We review academic journal articles, chapters in scholarly books, and dissertations that were published in the global leadership domain in 2018 and compare our findings with those of Mendenhall, Li, and Osland’s (2016) earlier review of the 2010–2014 period. Specifically, we trace and discuss relevant changes over time in the number of authors, nature of employed methodologies, linkages of global leadership to related phenomena, and the prevalence of drawing on other conceptual approaches compared to those previously used to study global leadership. We conclude by discussing implications for advancing (1) an integrated body of global leadership theory, (2) novel forms of empirical research, and (3) collaborative global leadership research.

This article explores two gaps in the literature on European Union (EU) crises: firstly, the external effects of the crises on EU actorness and its relations with other countries and regions and, secondly, the uniqueness of the EU crises when compared to other world regions. The article explores these questions and argues that the crises did affect external views on the EU and its role in the world due to the influence of third country perspectives on its actorness and its “intermestic nature,” but that the EU is not the only regional organization in crisis. As the case of Latin American regionalism shows, other regions have suffered from common systemic factors at the global level as well as from the decreased EU support of regionalism abroad.

The paper aims to give an interesting insight into the rise in event bidding and delivery of sports mega‐events from Qatar and the Middle East. This paper seeks to examine the shift in government policies and citizen relationships in the Middle East and Gulf Region, focusing on the specific case of Qatar from its staging of the 15th Asian Games in 2006 to present.

The paper begins with an overview of the main literature on the importance of sport events as a vehicle for securing global profile for cities and nations. The paper draws upon the authors' participation at the 15th Asian Games and interviews conducted there and latterly, desk‐based research involving scrutiny of Qatar's recent policy pronouncements and published materials pertaining to sporting events in the intervening period since the 2006 Games.

The findings are presented in the form of a case study, using the Asian Games as a starting point and finishing with Qatar's latest bids for sporting mega‐events. The paper presents a conceptual analysis of the situation in Doha and reveals a ten‐year strategy from Qatar to set itself apart from its neighbors in bidding to host mega‐sporting events and in its progress in terms of civil rights for women. This has allowed wider participation in sport and ensured Qatar can bid for the most prestigious global sporting events.

This paper adds to the wider public policy discussion and contributes to the body of knowledge in this area. The authors have written extensively on events policy but believe issues of democracy versus ruling states, emotional bidding and awarding to such states will continue to rise over the coming years and these have significant implications for both event owners in awarding such bids but also for policy makers in legitimizing bidding for such events in this context.

The paper reveals that the currency of awarding events to countries in the Middle East, Africa and South America is politically and socially important and of major interest to both the public and academics at present.

The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought about a panoply of institutional challenges both domestically and in the international arena. Classical constitutional theory thereby underwent a reinvention by the executive for the sake of speedy policy action and to the detriment of institutional control while favouring authoritarian forms of governance. This paper concerns itself with institutional responses to such developments, placing emphasis on the role of the judiciary and people*s in contesting emergency decrees and other executive orders, especially where fundamental rights are infringed upon. The paper aims to explore the difficulties arising with exerting absolute executive powers during the health crisis, the respective role assumed by constitutional courts and the impact of the new governance paradigm on forms of public contestation, also as a means of quasi institutional control.

Indeed, the right to health may be translated into political discourse and become foundational to security and public interest paradigms. This may result in a shrinking public space given the constraints to the freedom of movement. In the name of public safety, the (collective) right to assembly, expression and protest have been submitted to major limitations in that regard.

Ultimately, this re-opens debates on the meaning of absolute rights and contextualities of derogations, as well as the reconcilability of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. It also exposes social inequalities, social justice dimensions and vulnerabilities, often exacerbated by the health crisis; migrant rights demonstrably face particularly severe and intersectional forms of violations.

Particular values lie with the interdisciplinary approach embraced in this paper; the authors draw on a variety of social sciences disciplines to shed light on this very current issue. Both theoretical and empirical methods are used and combined here, making sense of the underlying logic of virus governance and its impacts on fundamental rights.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the themes and aims of this Accounting, Auditing & Accountability (AAAJ) special issue and comments on the papers included in the issue. The paper provides a thematic outline along which the future researchers can undertake more empirical research examining how neoliberalism shapes, and shaped by, management accounting.

This entails a brief review of the previous critical accounting works that refer to liberalism and neoliberalism to identify and highlight the specific themes and trajectories of neoliberal implications of management accounting has been and can be explored. This is followed by a brief commentary on the papers the authors have included in this special issue; these commentaries explain how these papers capture various dimensions of enabling and enacting neoliberal governmentality.

The authors found that management accounting is now entering new territories beyond its conventional disciplinary enclosures of confinement, reconfiguring its functionalities to enable and enact a circulatory mode of neoliberal governmentality. These new functionalities then produce and reproduce entrepreneurial selves in myriad forms of social connections, networks and platforms within and beyond formal organizational settings, amid plethora of conducts, counter-conducts and resistances and new forms of identities and subjectivities.

This review can be read in relation to the papers included in the special issue as the whole issue will inspire more ideas, frameworks and methodologies for further studies.

There is little research reviewing and commenting how management accounting now being enacted and enabled with new functionalities operating new territories and reconfiguring forms of governmentality. This paper inspires a new agenda on this project.

I discuss the case of Hassan Almrei, one of the five Arab men detained as suspects who have the potential to engage in terrorism. Hassan Almrei's detention arises out of a section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of Canada that authorizes security certificates. A security certificate permits the detention and expulsion of non-citizens who are considered to be a threat to national security. Detainees have no opportunity to be heard before a certificate is issued and a designated judge of the Federal Court reviews most of the government's case against the detainee in a secret hearing at which neither the detainee nor his counsel is present. The detainee receives only a summary of the evidence against him. I discuss this legal situation as a state of exception that is part of a legal structure in which non-citizens have fewer rights than do citizens. Two conceptual tools shape my understanding of security certificates and their use in the “war on terror”: race thinking and the state of exception. The five detainees are more than simply victims of racial profiling. Their Arab origins, and the life history that mostly Arab Muslim men have had, operate to mark them as individuals likely to commit terrorist acts, people whose propensity for violence is indicated by their origins. When race thinking, the belief in the division of humanity into those prone to violence and those who are not according to racial descent, is accompanied by the idea that there must be two different, hierarchical legal regimes for each, and when we begin to grow accustomed to places without law and to people to whom the rule of law does not apply, we enter the terrifying world of the colonies and the concentration camp. This article examines how a space where law is suspended operates in the “war on terror” and it attends to the work that ideas about race do in the environment of the exception.

Nuclear proliferation in Asia is basically rooted in psycho-cultural complexes of their ruling elites who are engaged in a frantic search for national security, national identity, and influence by developing n-weapon capability. A propensity for acquiring a credible nuclear deterrence as a security guarantee against any potential threat from adverse or hostile neighbours, political and military elites in volatile regions such as South Asia, Middle East, and Northeast Asia are perpetually indulged in producing artificially insecurity syndrome among their people to legitimize the imperative of nuclear weapon building programme. Inter-Asian regional nuclear collaboration, for instance, between North Korea and Pakistan, between North Korea and Myanmar, between Iran and Pakistan, between Pakistan and China are alarming signs of fomenting the nuclear armament and missile race in Asia. Alexei Arbatov, Director of the Centre of International Security, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences; writes that with the ceasing of ideological and geopolitical rivalry between the two superpowers, nuclear proliferation has gained momentum in the horizontal proliferation in countries of volatile regions of Asia – India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya – with the flawed support systems of the NPT, IAEA, and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). For instance, NPT does not offer any tangible benefits to those countries renouncing acquisition of nuclear weapons, nor does it “envision serious punishment for military nuclear activities” (Arbatov, 2004).