To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 7, From Banned to Embraced, provides an historical overview of South Africa’s relationship to the International Art Biennale in Venice. In 1968, protests at the Biennale changed how it took place. These changes included banning South Africa from exhibiting: a boycott of the apartheid regime. It was not until 1993, with the prospect of transition from apartheid to democracy, that South Africa was invited back to the Biennale. Through this invitation to exhibit at the Biennale, South Africa was being rewarded for political change. The chapter analyses correspondence between representatives of South Africa and the Biennale in order to chronicle the country’s appearances in the exposition between 1968 and 2013, and to reveal the complex national and international politics and diplomatic negotiations involved in becoming and remaining a member state of the Biennale. I argue that South Africa’s participation continues to be deeply affected by international and national politics; its long absence from the Biennale reverberates through the way in which it represents itself to the international community and establishes itself as a member state of this international organisation.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a collection of seventeen goals set by the United Nations in 2015. They form the backbone of the organization’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDGs have been criticized for overlooking Indigenous peoples (IP), principally for 1) inadequate recognition of IPs in the goals and targets themselves, 2) the indicators’ failure to disaggregate IP-specific figures from country-level data, and 3) for failing to recognize the potential contributions of IPs as active participants in attaining the Goals, as opposed to mere recipients. This chapter maps the SDGs to Indian nations in the United States. The chapter highlights examples of renewable energy on tribal lands as a lens through which to examine the ways the United States, tribes, and partners are achieving the SDGs domestically, and to show the necessity of SDG implementation within a framework that protects human rights, particularly the rights expressed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The 1940s are remembered as the birthplace of modern human rights, justifying wartime needs for regimentation and framing the utopian moment of the postwar years. The Catholic Church proved an early partisan of universal human rights in Australia, with the inauguration of the annual Catholic Social Justice Statement in 1940 dubbed a declaration of “fundamental human rights”. The statement and those that followed allowed the Church to eek out a place in the postwar world. At the same time, Australia's Labor Party sought a greater centralisation of state power to ensure that Australians could enjoy the "freedom from fear and want" the Atlantic Charter promised. The 1944 Powers Referendum saw the need for social and economic rights face off against personal liberties in a strenuous debate which informed Australia's approach to negotiating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Decade’s end saw Chinese and Malaysian seamen campaign alongside their white Australian wives for their “human rights”, only to find a less-than-receptive ear from a government and judiciary who, while supportive of the Universal Declaration in the abstract, wanted to protect domestic jurisdiction at all costs
In the present world, International Consensus Frameworks, commonly called global frameworks or global agendas, guide international development policies and practices. They guide the development of all countries and influence the development initiatives by their respective governments. Recent global frameworks, adopted mostly post-2015, include both a group of over-arching frameworks (eg, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [SFDRR]) and a group of frameworks addressing specific issues (eg, the Dhaka Declaration on Disability and Disaster Risk Management). These global frameworks serve twin purposes: first, to set a global development standard, and second, to set policies and approaches to achieve these standards. A companion group of professional standards, guidelines, and tools (ie, Sphere’s Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards) guide the implementation and operationalization of these frameworks on the ground.
This paper gathers these global frameworks and core professional guidelines in one place, presents an analytical review of their essential features, and highlights the commonalities and differences between and among these frameworks. The aim of this paper is to facilitate understanding of these frameworks and to help in designing development and resilience policy, planning, and implementation, at international and national levels, where these frameworks complement and contribute to each other.
This Special Report describes an important and evolving aspect of the discipline and provides core information necessary to progress the science. Additionally, the report will help governments and policy makers to define their priorities and to design policies/strategies/programs to reflect the global commitments. Development practitioners can pre-empt the focus of the international community and the assistance coming from donors to the priority sectors, as identified in the global agenda. This would then help governments and stakeholders to develop and design a realistic plan and program and prepare the instruments and mechanisms to deliver the goals.
The dispute between India and Pakistan over the State of Jammu and Kashmir is the United Nations’ longest running and among its most intractable problems, beginning in 1947 and still continuing more than 70 years later. Australia was involved in trying to resolve this dispute for almost half this time. As a fellow member of the Commonwealth, Australia had an early interest in contributing to diplomatic negotiations, and an Australian, Owen Dixon, was the first UN mediator. Another Australian, Major General Robert Nimmo, was appointed Chief Military Observer in 1950 and remained in the job for a further 15 years. Meanwhile, Australian military observers served in Kashmir (as Jammu and Kashmir were often described) for some 35 years until the Australian Government withdrew them in 1985. Also, between 1975 and 1979, Australia provided an aircraft with crew to support the UN observer mission. This chapter describes the early diplomatic efforts; later chapters are devoted to the observer mission and the Air Force contribution.
On 24 June 1950, two Australian UN military observers, Major Stuart Peach and Squadron Leader Ronald Rankin, completed a report on their observation of South Korean forces along the border between North and South Korea. At 4am the next day, North Korean tanks and infantry crashed across the border, thus initiating the Korean War. Within two days, based on Peach and Rankin’s report, the UN Security Council had passed resolutions authorising the use of force to eject the North Koreans from the South. The Peach–Rankin report became perhaps the most important written by Australian UN observers in the 70 years of Australian peacekeeping.
Chapter 3 described the diplomatic efforts by the UN Committee of Good Offices (Ungoc), which led to the Dutch and Republicans signing the Renville Agreement on 17 January 1948, and the subsequent efforts by Ungoc’s military observers to help the parties establish demarcation lines and demilitarised zones, as well as supervising the withdrawal of forces stranded on the wrong side of the line, the exchange of prisoners and maintenance of the ceasefire. This work culminated with a conference of senior observers, who produced an important statement of practice and peacekeeping principles, ‘General instructions for military observers, Committee of Good Offices’.
Between 18 November and 25 December 1962, eleven members of the Australian Army’s 16 Light Aircraft Squadron were deployed to West New Guinea (now the Indonesia province of Papua) to assist with efforts to control an outbreak of cholera. This was essentially a humanitarian mission, but it became part of a wider UN peacekeeping mission, namely the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (Untea) in West New Guinea, which operated from October 1962 to April 1963. The mission, which enjoyed the support of both Indonesia and the Netherlands, was held up as one of the success stories of the United Nations’ first 20 years of peacekeeping operations, satisfying its mandate on schedule and under budget. In a technical sense this was true, but Untea faced constant pressure from Indonesia and, in the end, the United Nations failed to uphold the right of the West New Guinea people to self-determination.
On 13 September 1947, four Australian officers arrived by air in Batavia (now Jakarta), the capital of the Netherlands East Indies. The four represented all three services: they were led by Brigadier Lewis Dyke, who was accompanied by Major David Campbell, Commander Henry Chesterman and Squadron Leader Lou Spence. They had arrived to oversee a ceasefire, and the next day they split into two groups and went into the field. They were the first UN peacekeepers, and for Australia represented the start of a continuous record of service in peacekeeping that lasts to the present day.
Chapter 4 – Global arenas of transformation – analyses how the transformation concept has been used to describe or advocate change towards sustainable development in international contexts. The chapter presents the development of the research field and provides an overview of how sustainability transformations have been approached in the news media in different parts of the world. Media texts also present a range of transformation goals that are of two types: those intended to prevent the risks of environmental degradation and human insecurity, and those that propose ideas on how to attain various sustainable futures. Finally, the chapter explores how sustainability transformations have been conceptualized in international politics, with particular focus on the variations in policy discourse in low–, middle–, and high-income countries, in Agenda 2030 and the Voluntary National Reviews of the Sustainable Development Goals as well as the Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement.
This chapter locates Ghana’s quest for nuclear power within the context of French bomb tests in the Sahara that sent radioactive materials across West Africa. In 1959, French scientists announced plans to detonate a series of bombs in their colony of Algeria, where resistance fighters sought to remove the French occupation. The French bomb tests further exacerbated tensions between the European nation and African leaders like Nkrumah, who supported the Algerian independence struggle. The prospect of French nuclear weapons extended the terror of Western atomic bomb activity from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the South Pacific test fields to the African continent. Once fallout from the French detonations reached Ghanaian towns, the outrage from Nkrumah’s government and his international supports was tremendous. The French bombs helped to mobilize interest in fallout monitoring at the University of Ghana and led to Ghana’s bid to join the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Ghana’s efforts to eliminate bomb testing across Africa through the United Nations.
To further elucidate the effects of the international sphere, this chapter examines specific international treaties and protocols to see how IGOs attempt to influence reproductive policy, and to illustrate the quantitative findings of the previous chapter. We take the ICPD PoA and the Maputo Protocol. These two documents, while both addressing women’s reproductive health and rights, are dramatically different. The comparison between their writing and ratification process, their text, and their impact provide detailed illustrations of the findings in Chapter 6 and shed new light on the underlying causal mechanisms. The ICPD PoA writers avoided controversy, used restrained language, and generated a document that did not take a firm stance on abortion. In comparison, the AU writers did not shy away from taking a strong stance, benefited from the work of NGOs leading up to the event, and eventually produced the first document of its kind proclaiming abortion as a woman’s right (at least under certain circumstances). Juxtaposition of these two documents helps us decipher the influence of international organizations on the production of reproductive rights.
The CEDAW, the SDGs, and the ICPD PoA are all but a few salient examples of how the international sphere attempts to influence abortion policymaking. In the international sphere, we focus on intergovernmental organizations and examine how they impact reproductive policy. Our theory distinguishes regional from international intergovernmental bodies and goes into detail about the rationale for this distinction. The first significant finding here is a heretofore-overlooked relationship between international entities and reproductive health. Additionally, we compare the influence of international organizations with domestic government measures meant to increase women’s substantive representation, such as quotas. This chapter, thus, also incorporates discussions from Chapters 4 and 5. Our findings reveal the influence of intergovernmental organizations in determining international norms of women’s rights and gender equality. That said, not all types of action are equal, and who attempts to influence national reproductive policies from within the international sphere and how they do so is of great importance.
In this chapter we argue that the key to an understanding of international governmental organizations (IGOs) is to conceptualize them not as standard forms of organizations with individuals as their members, but as meta-organizations comprising organized actors as members. Meta-organizations are paradoxical constructions: autonomous actors with autonomous actors as members. Organizational elements cannot be considered in isolation in meta-organizations; their combination are key factors; therefore meta-organizations are often partially organized. IGOs are permanently competing for actorhood with their member states and this competition has far-reaching implications for to what extent they can make use of all organizational elements. Using one element may require the avoidance of other elements or certain forms of decision-making. This helps to explain why IGOs have problems achieving co-ordinated organizational action and why they are less powerful actors than standard organizations are. Yet IGOs are strong in other respects. The most important organizational element in IGOs is membership. The strengths of IGOs can be understood in relation to their creation, their expansion, and their long-term influence on their members.
The idea of partial organization has not been fully explored. Relatively little attention has been paid to organization within organizations or to the possibility of partial de-organization. We explore this possibility in the context of business firms for which innovation and strategic renewal are imperatives. The firm’s top management created conditions for autonomous action in the form of a dedicated internal development program for strategic renewal. Thus, it attempted to partially deconstruct its organizational hierarchy and other elements of its decided order. Employees from all over the organization were invited to participate in the program and to present proposals for new strategic initiatives. The contribution of the paper is in the introduction of the concept of partial de-organizing and in the argument that partial organization is also observable within, and not just without, the boundaries of formal organizations.
compares cosmopolitan vs communitarian issue positions of national, European and global elites. It is important to go beyond the national elite focus since the prototypical members of a cosmopolitan elite are thought to be no longer attached to one national context but to have an entire region or even the ‘global village’ as their point of reference. Our empirical analysis supports this expectation: The positions of European-level elites turn out to be even more strongly cosmopolitan than those of national elites, which indicates that a particularly large gap exists between the cosmopolitanism of European elites and the more communitarian orientation of mass publics. Cultural explanations - measured by embeddedness in transnational networks - have the greatest explanatory power. Those elites who have more transnational contacts and travel experience are more cosmopolitan with regard to trade, immigration and supranational integration. However, economic explanations help us to explain within-elite variance in cosmopolitanism. In particular, we find that business and labour union elites diverge strongly in their positions on international trade and supranational integration.