A Passage to Europe. The Global Politics of Mobility in the Age of Revolutions

Introduction This chapter will introduce three of the most prominent global environmental discourses: sustainable development, environmental security and environmental justice. It begins by tracking the emergence of environmental problems as a ‘global’ political problem and tracing the discursive shift from ‘limits to growth’ in the early 1970s to sustainable development in the 1980s. It then highlights the environmental challenges of the post- Cold War period and introduces the discourses of environmental justice and ecological security. This is followed by a brief introduction to the different ways in which the basic questions of global environmental politics have been addressed by the three broad traditions of international relations: realism , liberalism and critical theory . Finally, the chapter turns to contemporary challenges, focusing on the failure of the US to take a leadership role in tackling the most serious global environmental problem of all – global warming. The study of global environmental politics has emerged as a problem-oriented and multidisciplinary field of inquiry that seeks to understand: (a) how and why global ecological problems arise and persist; (b) how ecological risks are distributed through space and time; and (c) how the global community (encompassing states and non-state actors ) has responded, or ought to respond. These three basic questions frame the field of inquiry of global environmental politics. They also signal the enormous political challenges facing international and transnational collective efforts to protect the Earth’s ecosystems and climate in a world of 193 sovereign states with vast disparities in capacity, resource endowments, population, cultures and levels of economic development.

Introduction This chapter will introduce three of the most prominent global environmental discourses: sustainable development, environmental security and environmental justice. It begins by tracking the emergence of environmental problems as a ‘global’ political problem and tracing the discursive shift from ‘limits to growth’ in the early 1970s to sustainable development in the 1980s. It then highlights the environmental challenges of the post- Cold War period and introduces the discourses of environmental justice and ecological security. This is followed by a brief introduction to the different ways in which the basic questions of global environmental politics have been addressed by the three broad traditions of international relations: realism , liberalism and critical theory . Finally, the chapter turns to contemporary challenges, focusing on the failure of the US to take a leadership role in tackling the most serious global environmental problem of all – global warming. The study of global environmental politics has emerged as a problem-oriented and multidisciplinary field of inquiry that seeks to understand: (a) how and why global ecological problems arise and persist; (b) how ecological risks are distributed through space and time; and (c) how the global community (encompassing states and non-state actors ) has responded, or ought to respond. These three basic questions frame the field of inquiry of global environmental politics. They also signal the enormous political challenges facing international and transnational collective efforts to protect the Earth’s ecosystems and climate in a world of 193 sovereign states with vast disparities in capacity, resource endowments, population, cultures and levels of economic development.

Technology has always played an important role in global politics, economics, security, and culture. It has continuously shaped the structure of the global system, its actors, and the interactions between them and vice versa. However, theories of International Relations (IR), and in particular those of International Political Economy (IPE), have performed little to theoretically conceptualize technology as a powerful factor within explanations of change in global affairs. Although technology often is implicitly present in the theories of IR and IPE, it is often interpreted as an external, passive, apolitical, and residual factor. This essay argues that to develop a better understanding of transformation in global affairs, technology has to be integrated more systematically into the theoretical discussions of IR/IPE. Technology should be understood as a highly political and integral core component of the global system that shapes global affairs and itself is shaped by global economics, politics, and culture. This paper makes the case for an interdisciplinary approach, which systematically incorporates insights of Science and Technology Studies (S&TS) to provide a better understanding of how technology and the global system and politics interact with each other. In so doing, it opens the field to a richer understanding of how global systemic change is impacted by technology and how global politics, economics, and culture impact technological evolution.

Prevailing analyses of globalisation and the Internet posit global politics as the outcome of the Internet's physical-geographical reach. This reach is assumed to compromise the traditional sources of political power associated with the sovereign state by transgressing its territorial boundaries. The shortcoming of this approach is that it fails to acknowledge the degree to which the state and its sovereignty are discursively constituted as normative principles that legitimate a particular type of political order. Thus, in order to locate the transformative potential of globalisation, attention must be directed to globalisation's discursive dimensions. To do this I focus on two metaphors of globalisation global village and global marketplace. In this paper, I outline how these metaphors constitute and legitimate global political order and the impact this has on the global character of the Internet. I specify how each metaphor shapes what the Internet is, who it is for, what kind of global potential it represents according to its understanding of what constitutes legitimate global political order. The structure of global political order cannot, therefore, be easily derived from the Internet's physical reach. We can still study the Internet as emblematic of globalisation and global politics; however, doing so necessitates exploring how the structure and character of the Internet is tied to, and changes with, the production of new systems of global legitimacy and political order.

As questions of technology and world government are returning to the agenda of International Relations (IR), there is a risk that technology is approached in a simple, instrumentalist manner. Beginning from an overview of the overwhelmingly instrumental approaches to technology lodged in the dominant traditions of IR, the article revisits the post-war decades when scholars thought profoundly about the impact of technology on global politics. Combining the history of (international) political thought, IR theory, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) the article examines the relationship between technology and politics, authority, and liberty in the thought of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and John H. Herz (1908–2005), which leads to the unearthing of a sophisticated and complex set of ideas. Particularly during the nuclear revolution, these figures developed global visions in which the interrelations among technology, security, democracy, sustainability, and freedom were critical. Russell and Herz's approaches to technology and (global) politics are insightful and relevant for IR's attempt to re-engage with technology: by anticipating contemporary critical and reflexive approaches to technology, they can help bridge the fields of IR and STS and open new avenues for research. The Large Technical Systems (LTS) approach within STS is used to exemplify this possibility.

This chapter assesses the general concept of security and the way in which issues come to be ‘securitized’. The security of the sovereign state, in a system of states, and existing under conditions of anarchy, has been the traditional focus of studies in global or international politics. Security in this context has therefore been concerned largely with the threats that states pose to each other. Over the last few decades, however, the agenda for security in global politics has expanded, and so too has its conceptualization. The chapter looks at traditional approaches to security and insecurity, revisiting the Hobbesian state of nature and tracing security thinking in global politics through to the end of the Cold War. This is followed by a discussion of ideas about collective security as embodied in the UN, paying particular attention to the role of the Security Council and the issue of intervention in the post-Cold War period. This period has also seen the broadening of the security agenda to encompass concerns such as gender security, environmental security, cyber security, and the diffuse concept of ‘human security’. Finally, the chapter provides an overview of the ‘war on terror’, raising further questions concerning how best to deal with non-conventional security threats.

Journal Article Emerging powers, North–South relations and global climate politics Get access ANDREW HURRELL, ANDREW HURRELL 1Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar SANDEEP SENGUPTA SANDEEP SENGUPTA 2Doctoral candidate in International Relations at Oxford University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Affairs, Volume 88, Issue 3, May 2012, Pages 463–484, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01084.x Published: 23 March 2012

Accessible and student-friendly, Global Gender Politics analyzes the gendered divisions of power, labor, and resources that contribute to the global crises of representation, violence, and sustainability. The author emphasizes how hard-won attention to gender and other related inequalities in world aff airs is simultaneously being jeopardized by new and old authoritarianisms and depoliticized through reducing gender to a binary and a problem-solving tool in global governance. The author examines gendered insecurities produced by the pursuit of international security and gendered injustices in the global political economy and sees promise in transnational struggles for global justice. In this new re-titled edition of a foundational contribution to the fi eld of feminist International Relations, Anne Sisson Runyan continues to examine the challenges of placing inequalities andresisting injustices at the center of global politics scholarship and practice through intersectional and transnational feminist lenses. This more streamlined approach includes more illustrations and discussions have been updated to refl ect current issues. To provide more support to instructors and readers, Global Gender Politics is accompanied by an e-resource, which includes web resources, suggested topics for discussion, and suggested research activities also found in the book.

We call for a research program focused on the dynamics of global power politics. Rather than link realpolitik to structural-realist theoretical frameworks or the putatively anarchical character of world politics, the program treats power politics as an object of analysis in its own right. It embraces debate over the nature of global power politics among scholars working with distinctive approaches. It sees the structural contexts of power politics as highly variable and often hierarchical in character. It attenuates ex ante commitments to the centrality of states in global politics. And it takes for granted that actors deploy multiple resources and modalities of power in their pursuit of influence. What binds this diverse research program together is its focus on realpolitik as the politics of collective mobilization in the context of the struggle for influence among political communities, broadly understood. Thus, the study of the dynamics of collective mobilization—the causal and constitutive pathways linking efforts at mobilization with enhanced power—brings together approaches to security studies in a shared study of power politics.

1. Between Governmentality and Global Politics 2. Globalization, Externalities, and Regulation 3. Creating a Stark Utopia? Self-Regulating Markets and the Disappearance of Politics 4. Doing Well by Doing It? Social Regulation and the Transnational 5. Paper or Plastic? The Privatization of Global Forestry Regulation 6. Corporate Social Responsibility as Business Strategy 7. Morals, Markets, and Members: Privatizing Human Rights in the Name 8. Bringing Politics Back In

The politics of natural resource access, control and exploitation assume fundamental relations of social power; they imply them and consolidate them. Environmental issues reflect broader patterns of domination and social exclusion at work in global politics which enable us to understand who benefits from the current distribution of environmental benefits and which social groups shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden of pollution. The task, however, is not merely to identify those global structures that produce environmental inequities and injustices, but to show how, in some cases, those structures are supported and entrenched by the institutional configurations that we continue to assume are generating the solutions to environmental degradation. Towards this end, I connect debates about the global managerial class and critiques of the prevailing sustainable development historical bloc with more localized studies of the consequences of organized inequality and the strategies adopted by marginalized groups to contest their fate as victims of environmental injustice. Such an approach builds upon the project which Marian Miller began with her enquiries into the Third World in global environmental politics, emphasizing the importance of the global political economy in shaping those political relations. Political and social cleavages of race, class and gender are shown to be key to understanding the global organization of environmental inequality and justice, though it is the neglect of the first two dimensions, in particular, that forms the core concern of this paper. Their importance in understanding patterns of causation (distribution of benefit), process (access, voice, representation) and distribution (of harm) is highlighted through reference to a range of contemporary case studies in the global North and South.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States (US) continue to compete for power and influence in various places, particularly in Asia. Southeast Asia is also unifying ASEAN countries under the ASEAN Community Accord. It is vital to recognize the impact of pressure on Indonesia's geostrategic development. Failure to anticipate this can have harmful implications and risk the nation's interests in accomplishing its goals and ideals. However, development strategy research has yet to be adequately reviewed, considered, and integrated within Indonesia's geostrategic setting. This is particularly essential considering the dynamic character of developments within the current strategic environment. Thus, the government must vigorously defend Indonesia's geostrategic position in global and regional politics. These efforts should be a significant input and consideration in national and state issues, ensuring Indonesia's national interests are safeguarded. Therefore, the government can effectively pursue its national goals and aspirations. The preservation and seamless continuance of Indonesia's national ideals can be maintained. A comprehensive literature assessment was undertaken in the past decade utilizing the hazing publish or perish (PoP) application, which involved the utilization of various databases, including "PupMed," "ABIInform," "EBSO Host," "Emerald," "Google Scholar," "Science Direct," "ProQuest," "Web of Science," and "ERIC." This study incorporates the employment of concepts such as "global politics," "ASEAN Community," "political developments," "political dynamics," and "geostrategic conditions." Insufficient infrastructure and limited accessibility. This study provides a complete survey of the extant literature on global and regional political development processes. A comprehensive examination of long-term effects and comparing distribution tactics and research methods are needed. This research explores the requirement of predicting distinct vulnerabilities within each National Resilience Gatra in light of global and regional political development dynamics. In light of the input and optimistic outlook surrounding endeavours to execute primary national responsibilities, safeguard national interests, and actualize national objectives in pursuit of Indonesia's national aspirations, further investigation is warranted into global and regional political development dynamics. Additional work is necessary to address this gap.

There are multiple consequences of growing turbulence for the study and practice of global environmental politics (GEP). Marginalized groups experience global crises earlier and more acutely than dominant groups. Feminist lenses, along with others that focus on how power works within global politics, illustrate the processes that make this so. Reflecting on gender allows us to connect global crises to the social, political, and economic factors that influence them. It necessitates putting equity and justice at the heart of our effort to study and address those phenomena and processes that come to be named “crisis.” This chapter explores various opportunities as well as obstacles to using gender lenses to evaluate crisis in GEP. It is essential that we both critically reflect on how we recognize and study crisis and turbulence, as well as evaluate ways that global turbulence is gendered, raced, and classed, and work towards building justice into our paths forward.

There are several considerations of the papacy’s vision of what global politics should be like. There are, however, few mappings of the papacy’s actual concept of global politics, of how it evaluates the current state of global politics, understood as global political, social, and economic trends, patterns, actors and their relationships. This article delineates Pope Francis’ conception of global politics and contextualises it within the papacy’s trajectory of participating in global politics. Attending to a particular concept, of how the pope thinks about global politics, helps to better understand and place the papacy in the study of global politics. The article shows how Francis conceptualises global politics from below, from the periphery of society and politics, which leads him to unmask global inequalities. In particular, the article illustrates that Francis contests widespread assumptions of central hierarchic interstate relations and individualism, dominating the conceptual discourse about global politics.

The title of this textbook can be read in two ways. It is ambiguous, and deliberately so, as it seeks to draw attention not only to the subject matter of the book – ‘gender matters’ in global politics – but also to an epistemological belief espoused by its contributors: that gender matters in global politics.1 As Jindy Pettman argues, ‘it should be possible to write the body into a discipline that tracks power relations and practices which impact so directly and often so devastatingly on actual bodies’ (1997: 105). If this is the case, and in this book various contributors argue that it is, then it behoves us to delve deep into the meaning of the body and explore the implications of studying gender in a global political context. This chapter, then, explores why and how gender matters, and interrogates various conceptions of the body in global politics through the discussion of some key gendered narratives of international relations (and International Relations as an academic discipline). In the second section, I present two accounts of bodies in global politics: bodies in social movements and bodies as scientists. I conclude with a summary of Judith Butler’s work on the performativity of gender and the implications of such theory for the study and practices of global politics.