Search results

This paper studies the formation and management of an international entity for promoting the provision of global public goods in a setup of international treaties on concessions and reservations. Based on the so-called Vienna Convention by which there can be a discrepancy between the original treaty obligation and the ratified one in the multi-lateral treaty implementation, we construct two-stage mechanisms for international treaties on global public goods; the concession stage and the ratification stage with reservations. We explicitly analyze the optimal reservation levels from the optimal mechanism when the countries face asymmetric information on the preference parameters to global public goods. Specifically, we characterize the environments where the optimal mechanism with dominant-strategy incentive-compatibility and ex-post participation- constraint in the literature of mechanism design exists. The result shows that the sophisticatedly calculated transfers in the principal of quid pro quo control the international concessions and reservations.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.

The spread of COVID-19 is not just a health crisis. The pandemic has taken a geopolitical dimension. The health crisis amplified the competitive dynamics between the USA and China, affected the provision of global public goods and injected instability into the global order. In line with the geopolitical zero-sum thinking, both the USA and China have sought to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. Instead of working together to mitigate the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, the two powers fear that the other will exploit the current situation to accrue political, economic or military gains that will give it an edge after the pandemic subsides. The spread of COVID-19 has set off a “battle of narratives,” in which China and the USA are accusing each other of failing to rise to the challenge. The world seems to be falling into a “Kindleberger Trap,” in which the established power is unable to lead while the rising power is unwilling to assume responsibility. The COVID-19 crisis is occurring amid the collapse of global cooperation. The USA, the traditional leader of international collective efforts in times of crisis, has abandoned its role entirely. The lack of leadership at the global level during an international crisis may cause the breakdown of the international order.

This paper examines the US-China competitive dynamics through the lens of the work of Charles Kindleberger, which both liberals and realists regard as foundational when examining the dynamics of global crisis management. This paper also uses the meta-geopolitics framework to determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and its implications for their power and standing in the international system.

This paper concludes that the only way to escape the Kindleberger trap is “to embed Sino-American relations in multilateralism.”

As rivals, both the USA and China are seeking to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. This paper probes how China and the USA navigated the ongoing COVID-19 crisis to determine whether or not they are currently in a “Kindleberger Trap,” using elements of the meta-geopolitics framework of analysis, namely, health issues, domestic politics, economics, science and international diplomacy. Using the meta-geopolitics framework will help us determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and the implications of that on their power and standing in the international system.

The purpose of this paper is to build a conceptual framework helping to understand the relationship between the principle of multilateralism in global policy relations and the role of international governmental organizations (IGOs). The paper develops conceptual building blocks to design adequate for international organizations for result-oriented effective multilateralism.

Literature review and in-depth theoretical analysis served to construct a framework that helps to see the variety of IGOs against global policy problems they serve to solve.

The analysis highlighted several lessons that can be learned, including the need for an efficient match between the nature of the global policy problem and the mandate and the size of IGO. The paper indicated the importance of efficient mechanisms to make international organizations accountable to member states while allowing for effective leadership.

The heterogeneity of IGOs makes a generalization difficult, hence, the proposed framework necessarily remains relatively generic. Still, this paper provides a first analytical basis for the comparison of IGO with regard to global policy problems they have been set to solve.

The author pointed to the way how to improve the fit between global policy problems and IGOs to make multilateralism more effective. The framework can be used to learn what can be expected from a given IGO and to see IGOs in their proper roles.

The paper might of interest to decision-makers and international public opinion eager to either criticize or praise international organizations based on a simplistic, if not ideological approaches. The paper develops arguments that help influence the evolution of international organizations.

IGO are increasing in number and forms leading to confusion to their role and impact. This framework can be used to realistically assess the role of IGOs in global public policies.

The concept of environmental diplomacy appears associated with events (conventions) promoted between states and transnational organisations to discuss aspects related to regulating the use of natural resources and regulating pollution. In this study, the authors intend to highlight the contribution brought to environmental diplomacy by leading television figure David Attenborough and his focus on the destruction of biodiversity by humans (the problem). It is intended to analyse the frames of his public interventions, comparing them with the prevailing frames in the UNFCCC policies.

A predominantly inductive method of qualitative and interpretative nature is used. In epistemological terms, the framing analysis stems from a social constructivist perspective. A theoretical model for frame analysis was defined by combining the frameworks proposed by Entman (1993) and Semetko and Valkenburg (2000) and considering previous studies (Anholt, 2015; Seelig, 2019). Analysis scrutinised a two-fold corpus comprising articles regarding actions and statements by David Attenborough published in The Guardian between 2018 and 2020, and the UN's legal framework for climate change.

The most prominent frames regarding climate crisis in transnational policies are responsibilities. Attenborough's calls for action highlight the frames of “morality”, “responsibilities” and “problems”. However, it is necessary to make a distinction between the discourse used in transnational treaties and that by Attenborough. In the former, discourse is more technical and impersonal, presented in a structure of legal diplomas and barely accessible to the public. In contrast, Attenborough's speech is more emotional, appealing and sometimes dramatic. His message is transmitted straightforwardly to the public in a pedagogical, personal tone.

The choice of high-profile personalities like David Attenborough as ambassadors has implications in the visibility of the environmental cause, and in the multiplication of initiatives that denounce environmental degradation.

This study explores and analyses the narrative construct regarding climate change as carried out by a trusted and respected media voice. The authors intend to contribute to understanding the amplification role of public figures in controversial issues and diplomatic matters. The main contribution of this study is to highlight the strategic nature of the choice of SDA by political powers to voice the drama of climate emergency.

This paper introduces a new set of equity and rights-based principles for health data governance (HDG) and makes the case for their adoption into global, regional and national policy and practice.

This paper discusses the need for a unified approach to HDG that maximises the value of data for whole populations. It describes the unique process employed to develop a set of HDG principles. The paper highlights lessons learned from the principle development process and proposes steps to incorporate them into data governance policies and practice.

More than 200 individuals from 130 organisations contributed to the development of the HDG principles, which are clustered around three interconnected objectives of protecting people, promoting health value and prioritising equity. The principles build on existing norms and guidelines by bringing a human rights and equity lens to HDG.

The principles offer a strong vision for HDG that reaps the public good benefits of health data whilst safeguarding individual rights. They can be used by governments and other actors as a guide for the equitable collection and use of health data. The inclusive model used to develop the principles can be replicated to strengthen future data governance approaches.

The article describes the first bottom-up effort to develop a set of principles for HDG.

The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework of the relationship between technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system from a historical perspective and discuss its consequences for technologically dependent countries and regions.

This paper analyzes the relationship between technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system from a historical perspective. It then constructs four possible transition scenarios for China's international order and the USA's central role in defining the international order. IT closes with a discussion of how changes in ICT and global health public goods can impact China's position in the international order and opportunities for Latin America–China technology partnerships.

Historically, technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system simultaneously occur, with the country winning the technological dispute emerging as the international system's hegemon. The USA and China are currently involved in technological races in several next-generation technologies. The outcome of these technological races will define each country's position in the international system in the coming decades and the transformations in the international order.

This paper is limited to discussing the technologies/sectors: ICT, specifically 5G, and AI technologies, and medical technologies with the potential of global public health goods. Research on other technologies/sectors will provide a deeper understanding of the likely outcomes of the current technological transition and its implications for the balance of power in the international system.

This paper makes a case for Latin American countries to (1) engage in a pragmatic bargain with China and the USA to establish technological partnerships in emerging technologies and (2) to develop national technology strategies aimed at promoting autonomous technology development capabilities.

This paper addresses the need for Latin America to take a strong stance for technological autonomy, stressing the differences in buying technology and making technology.

This paper presents an original framework of the relationship between technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system. It discusses how technological leadership impacts the international order by establishing relations of technological dominance and technological dependency.

Economic diplomacy refers to methods and processes by which states take advantage of cross-border economic activities to achieve their national interests. It makes connections between the sphere of corporate players, who export or invest abroad, and the sphere of diplomats, who represent the state on the international scene and implement geopolitical decisions. The main purpose of this paper is to provide an overall and coherent framework for asking, classifying and discussing the main issues raised by economic diplomacy. It investigates concepts such as national interest, power and influence. It surveys the relevant literature and deals with various expressions of economic diplomacy such as export promotion agencies, economic role of embassies and consulates, or international economic sanctions. It analyzes the two-way relationship between international economics and international politics, which is at the core of economic diplomacy, and tries to answer the following questions: on the global scene, is diplomacy just accompanying the economy? Is diplomacy driving the economy?

This paper critically aims to review existing monitoring strategies of Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals and proposes an alternative approach for reporting country progress on relevant Target 4.7 themes. Since this target constitutes one of the most ambitious and transformative education targets there is considerable value in developing a comprehensive reporting and monitoring strategy.

The paper draws on key policy documents to clarify processes leading up to the definition and measurement of a global indicator for Target 4.7. It also discusses limitations associated with the current reporting and measurement strategy.

The paper finds that the current monitoring approach to Target 4.7, based on an existing reporting mechanism for the 1974 Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, is unfit for purpose and needs to be overhauled. The current process for revising the 1974 Recommendation is unlikely to result in a new monitoring strategy that would address existing weaknesses in the current strategy.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, a critical review of measurement, reporting and monitoring strategies of Target 4.7 has not been undertaken. Also new in this paper is the proposed global observatory of Target 4.7 policies, practices and initiatives, which, if established, would work to: (1) create a more dynamic and informative monitoring infrastructure; (2) foster peer learning among countries; and (3) identify notable strategies of national, regional and international action in relation to Target 4.7.