Search results

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 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.

This research aims to examine the US–China policy shift from Obama to Biden emphasizing the centrality of Taiwan question in the geostrategic competition with Beijing and its prospect if the US strategy remains unchanged.

A conceptual framework is outlined, illustrating how the US grand strategy is driven by the ideological foundation of Exceptionalism. The paper highlights the associated US policy changes that evolved from Obama to Trump and then Biden to advance Washington's strategic interests in its rivalry with China over Taiwan.

Biden's policy led to an escalating geopolitical competition with Beijing over Taiwan to maintain US supremacy. The Biden administration is more stringent than the previous administrations on the Taiwan question and there is the conviction that the USA must not back down on Taiwan because the alternative will be a retraction of US world primacy to Beijing. With Washington's persistent hegemonic strategy, the US–China confrontation over Taiwan seems inevitable.

The research highlights how the Biden administration managed a perpetuated Ukraine crisis and forged unprecedented high-level ties with Taiwan, indicating the administration's determination to exacerbate contentions with Beijing over Taiwan rather than de-escalate.

The world is confronted by various current development challenges, including global health security and climate change. The rapid growth of these challenges warned all nations regardless of their development or geographical position. As an emerging international power, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was among these nations and is viewed as a proactive key actor.

This review was conducted as a thematic synthesis from 27 studies, reports and publications along with authors' insights. Using MS Word and Excel programs, three stages of data exploration, extraction and synthesis and analysis were applied. Data gathering, analysis and thematization and compilation.

The UAE is giving significant attention to global health and climate change. Over the past 20 years, multipolicies, strategies and bodies were developed to lead the national, regional and global SDGs. Global health and climate change became the most two notable priorities on the government agenda and its strategic thinking is that both priorities can no longer be overlooked. Nationally, the UAE has made significant economic, scientific, social and health growth. Building a resilient and world-class healthcare system was one of six national priorities of the achieved UAE National Agenda 2021. Globally, UAE has proved its global health leadership by ensuring lasting and collective multilateral partnerships and collaborations that led to remarkable achievements in global health and climate change. Examples on the global scale: partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO) to target billions of people of the world's population and ensure they get Universal Healthcare Coverage (UHC) without financial hardship, the partnership between UAE and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to establish the Global Institute for Disease Elimination (GLIDE) to fight diseases and put an end to polio. Additionally, the state's role in the COVID-19 global efforts such as vaccine development, supply chain and distribution targeted low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The UAE has shown a constant commitment to climate change mitigation and building a sustainable ecosystem by hosting global organizations, leading initiatives, supporting countries and is now organizing the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) this year. Great opportunities can be exploited to promote the country's contributions through further investment in cooperation, research and technology for better knowledge, sound policies, and innovative solutions for all regional and global health and climate change challenges.

This review is a fresh evidence-synthesizing attempt to document the role of the UAE. This role is well placed to play an additional major role with all partners to address these pressing challenges by boosting its role, especially in the Middle East region and advancing a new regional-oriented revolutionary expanded developmental plan that centered on low-resource countries empowerment, multilateralism, intersectionality and lasting collaborations.

This article offers an economic analysis of the main policy issues surrounding the proposed preferential trade area (PTA) between Japan, China, and South Korea. This initial assessment is done within the normative framework of customs union theory. Already, intra-regional trade between the three countries constitutes a high proportion of their total trade and is, in fact, cited as one of the main reasons for the PTA. As a consequence, trade creation following the PTA may not result in much new trade. However, it is expected that the PTA would lead to a vigorous growth of intra-industry trade, particularly in manufactured goods and components. Possibilities of trade diversion are real, but not insurmountable if the resulting preference structure is designed with a view to minimize disruption of trade with the rest-of-the-world.

With climate change and environmental degradation being major issues in the world today, it is imperative for governments within a regional setting to collaborate on initiatives, harmonize their policies and develop strategies to counter threats. In South Asia, several attempts have been made to create a common framework for action in implementing synchronized policies. However, both political and technical deterrents have thwarted moves to accommodate priorities and interests of collaborating states. The purpose of this paper is to assess these issues and existing policies/strategies in selected South Asian countries and evaluate integrated plans of action based on collaborative partnerships.

Using a broad exploratory and interpretive approach, this paper evaluates how harmonization of environmental principles and synergies among countries can help reduce the effect of climate change and environmental hazards. Based on a review of ideas and concepts as well as both primary and secondary sources, including official records, legislation, inter-state and regional agreements, evaluation reports, impact studies (social, economic and ecological), and commentaries, it highlights several initiatives and processes geared to creating environmental protection standards and practices for the South Asian region.

Climate change has resulted in devastating impacts on people. It contributed to the proliferation of climate refugees and high incidence of poverty in South Asia. The region faces both political and technical obstacles in developing a sustainable approach to combat climate change. This is exacerbated by non-availability of information as well as reluctance to acknowledge the problem by key actors. The best strategy will be to integrate policies and regulations in the various countries of the region to develop strategic plans. The approach of prevention and protection should replace the existing emphasis on relief and rehabilitation.

The paper provides a critical overview of the climatic and environmental problems encountered in the South Asian region and provides pointers to resolving shared problems through the use of policy instruments for regulating the problems within the gamut of regional environmental governance. It attempts to identify solutions to offset regulatory and institutional barriers in achieving preferred results by emphasizing the need for redesigning regulatory structures and policy approaches for ecological well-being.

Economists along with policy makers are generally viewing trade agreements as a “second best” process for trade expansion and economic growth on a global scale. The current surge of preferential trade arrangements on a bilateral basis, particularly in Asia, is somehow challenging such common view. The following paper is based on updated rough facts and put forward that the standard economic approach is a bit flawed. Obviously, the outcomes and prospects for Asian countries seem much more problematic insofar as power asymmetry and discrimination are embedded in these agreements.

This study aims to investigate the environmental effects of climate financial fragmentation in the form of emerging multilateral institutions.

Among the countries that have economic relations with China, those involved in climate finance cooperation are taken as the experimental group, and those not involved in other areas are taken as a control group. Using system generalized method of moments regression, the difference-in-differences method is used to test the environmental effects of climate finance cooperation of emerging multilateral institutions. In this way, this study explores the financial and trade mechanisms of cooperation among emerging multilateral institutions.

The results of this empirical study show that the cooperation of emerging multilateral institutions has a positive impact on the environment. Research results further reveal the financial and trade mechanisms of climate finance cooperation projects. When the invested countries are more likely to obtain international capital, environmental effects will be greater. However, trade intimacy could inhibit the improved environmental effects.

This research is one of the few studies to test the environmental effects of climate financial fragmentation empirically. This study provides a better understanding of the multilateral cooperation of emerging economic entities and China’s climate finance policy, thus providing evidence for the collaborative governance of global climate finance.

This paper aims to contend that populism is damaging to both domestic and international politics; not only does it erode liberal democracy in established democracies but also fuels authoritarianism in despotic regimes and aggravates conflicts and crises in international system.

The research is divided into two main sections. First, it examines how populist mobilization affects liberal democracy, and refutes the claims that populism is beneficial and reinforcing to democracy. Second, it attempts to demonstrate how populism is damaging to domestic politics (by undermining liberal democracy and supporting authoritarianism) as well as international relations (by making interstate conflicts more likely to materialize). Theoretically, populism is assumed to be a strategy used by politicians to maximize their interest. Hence, populism is a strategy used by politicians to mobilize constituents using the main features of populist discourse.

The research argues that populism has detrimental consequences on both domestic and international politics; it undermines liberal democracy in democratic countries, upsurges authoritarianism in autocratic regimes and heightens the level of conflict and crises in international politics. Populism can lead to authoritarianism. There is one major undemocratic trait shared by all populist waves around the world, particularly democracies; that is anti-pluralism/anti-institutions. Populist leaders perceive foreign policy as the continuation of domestic politics, because they consider themselves as the only true representatives of the people. Therefore, populist actors abandon any political opposition as necessarily illegitimate, with repercussions on foreign policy.

Some scholars argue that populism reinforces democracy by underpinning its ability to include marginalized sectors of the society and to decrease voter apathy, the research refuted these arguments. Populism is destructive to world democracy; populists are reluctant to embrace the idea of full integration with other nations. Populists reject the idea of open borders, and reckon it an apparent threat to their national security. The research concludes that populists consider maximizing their national interests on the international level by following confrontational policies instead of cooperative ones.