Abstract Health systems worldwide are in crisis, facing financial sustainability challenges, workforce shortages and shifting demands due to demographic change. Limited or decreasing public resources, aid cuts, population ageing and health workforce shortages affect countries in different but serious ways, leading to a sense of ongoing crisis. This article investigates the politics of health system crisis and its contentious interpretation in Colombia, where this issue is highly politicized. I analyse how proponents and opponents of a major health system reform proposal have mobilized evidence in favour and against the reform bill put forward by the leftist government elected in 2022. This analysis yields that the politics of slow, gradual health system crises is also one of sense-making, in which evidence is assembled within larger and changing narratives about development. Colombia's international status as a recent OECD member, the idea of progress and modernity amid social inequality, and the political legitimacy of state and private actors are all renegotiated through evidence about health system performance and crisis. I draw on in-depth qualitative research conducted in 2024 and 2025. The article invites cross-fertilization between analyses of gradual, ‘slow-burning’ crises and of changing notions of international development.

Abstract The international community faces a conundrum. Without more ambitious action to curtail fossil fuel production, climate goals are impossible to realize. To date, an emerging array of minilateral international governance initiatives has promoted cooperation to reduce support to fossil fuels, through export finance and subsidies and through voluntary commitments to forgo fossil fuel reserves. However, a just transition away from fossil fuels will require more multilateral responses to address challenges such as uneven capacity to diversify economies, differential obligations to move away from fossil fuels based on historical patterns of consumption and the financial constraints which inhibit many states from reducing their fossil fuel dependence. Such a move will be fiercely resisted by fossil fuel-dependent powers. This article explores the tensions between the need for an orderly and just transition but one that is simultaneously able to disrupt incumbent forms of power currently resisting measures to cut the supply of fossil fuels, before assessing potential pathways forward. A growing number of states now recognize the need for global oversight and regulation of fossil fuel production, and they are starting to articulate what form a response might take. This article takes stock of such efforts and explores future political and institutional pathways towards a more orderly and just exit from fossil fuels. It argues that, while minilateral ‘club’ responses create important momentum, ultimately a multilateral agreement will be necessary to address the competing goals, diverse interests and different dimensions of a just transition.

Abstract Debates between International Relations (IR) and Area Studies (AS) have a long history. With the rise of non-western/global International Relations (global IR) theory since the early 21st century, there have been increasing calls for dialogue and knowledge exchange between the two disciplines. This article uses Japan/Japanese Studies as a case to explore its contributions to IR theory and to examine how mainstream IR theory addresses Japan and Japanese Studies. Meso-level theories originating from Japan, such as the ‘developmental state’ theory, the ‘trading state’ theory and the ‘flying geese paradigm’, have significantly enriched the IR research agenda. Prominent IR scholars also regard Japan as a unique and important case to enhance their theoretical work. Beyond external perspectives, this article, based on interviews with Japanese scholars and Japanese-language literature, examines how the Japanese academic community understands the debate between IR and AS and how Japanese Studies is positioned between the two disciplines. Finally, using Japan's pacifism and defence debates as examples, the article highlights how localized knowledge can serve as a bridge between IR and AS, particularly in the context of Japanese Studies.

Abstract Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion, Ukraine has imposed a travel ban on men aged between 18 and 60; additionally, in May 2024, it implemented a mobilization law which significantly increases the punishment for draft evasion. In spite of these measures, draft evasion has emerged as a growing problem, with hundreds of thousands of men fleeing the country. While this is widely framed as a polarizing issue, little is known about how these men are perceived in Ukrainian society, which norms and power structures these perceptions reinforce and challenge, or their impact on social cohesion and evolving gender dynamics during the full-scale war. Drawing on extensive fieldwork, survey data and in-depth interviews with Ukrainian citizens residing in Ukraine and abroad, this article examines societal perceptions of men who flee, unpacking ambiguous narratives of stigma and sympathy. It reveals a profound ambivalence between perceptions of men's collectivist duty to defend the state and their individual right to freedom of choice. As existential warfare reshapes normative frameworks of masculinity in Ukraine, new social hierarchies are emerging, positioning men who flee abroad at the bottom of the masculine order. The article problematizes how such stratification and the militarization of masculinity may have deep impacts on social cohesion, reconstruction efforts and the reintegration of men who flee in both current and postwar Ukraine.