JournalTOCs

About Help News

Global Summitry
Number of Followers: 1

Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 2058-7430 - ISSN (Online) 2058-7449
Published by Oxford University Press

[419 journals]

The UN and Multilateralism under Siege in the “Age of Trump”
- Free pre-print version: Loading...
  Rate this result: What is this?
  
  Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
  A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
  
  Authors: Weiss T.
  Pages: 1 - 17
  Abstract: AbstractThis essay poses two questions: “Would the World Be Better without the UN'” and “Would the World Be Better without Donald Trump'” The answers are “No” and “Yes.” It begins by discussing the UN’s value and continues by probing the historical context of U.S. approaches to multilateralism and Washington’s unhesitating leadership during World War II, an era as fraught as ours. It then analyzes the implications of the Trump Administration’s “America First” policy on the United Nations and considers the possibilities for concerted international action without Washington. It concludes by examining the odds that the world body can become fitter-for-purpose.
  PubDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/global/guy013
  Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 1 (2019)
Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order
- Free pre-print version: Loading...
  Rate this result: What is this?
  
  Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
  A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
  
  Authors: Draper P; Freytag A, Dörffel C, et al.
  Pages: 30 - 49
  Abstract: AbstractEconomic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition.
  PubDate: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/global/guz001
  Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 1 (2019)
“Rising” States and Global Reach: Measuring “Globality” among
BRICS/MIKTA Countries
- Free pre-print version: Loading...
  Rate this result: What is this?
  
  Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
  A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
  
  Authors: Cooper A.
  Pages: 64 - 80
  Abstract: AbstractGlobal reach is equated with national ambition. In the contemporary international system, one measure of global reach for states is their inclusion in global summits. This association is particularly compelling for putative “rising” states from the Global South, among the BRICS (China, India, and Brazil) and also a less well-known forum, MIKTA (Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia) groupings. Yet the standard means of examining the attributes of rising states via country specific and impressionistic studies appears to reveal that these rising powers are similar in many respects but there are significant differences as well. To help identify these differences we turn to a concept and data referred to as “globality.” We believe that this concept is helpful in more accurately analyzing the global reach of rising Global South countries. Though not that well known in the international relations literature, globality emphasizes agency by self-aware actors. Globality can be operationalized by tracing certain dimensions: institutional/diplomatic range; trade profile; and the trajectory of official development assistance. Broadly, the conclusion drawn from such a globality analysis substantiates a sharp distinction between the BRICS members and the MIKTA countries. The BRICS countries have some considerable capacity for global reach while it turns out that the MIKTA countries are regionally entrapped and thus less capable of global projection. Moreover, the specifics in terms of this pattern of differentiation are salient as well. The overall confirmation of an interconnection between subjective impressions of hierarchy and objective measurements of global projection, underscore the contrast between BRICS and MIKTA in summitry dynamics.
  PubDate: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:00:00 GMT
  DOI: 10.1093/global/guz002
  Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 1 (2019)

JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address: 44.192.25.113

Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)