Search

"Es gibt wissenschaftlich keine begründeten Hindernisse, die Biodiversität in ihrer Schönheit und Vielfalt zu schützen. Es bleiben nur noch sechs Jahre, um die Biodiversitätsziele bis 2030 zu erreichen. Dafür müssen wir jetzt gemeinsam anpacken."In den 10 Must-Knows aus der Biodiversitätsforschung 2024 haben 64 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler ihre fundierten und vielseitigen Erkenntnisse und Empfehlungen aus den 10MustKnows22 weiterentwickelt. Die zehn ausgewählten Schlüsselbereiche des Erde-Mensch-Systems werden inhaltlich durch relevante Publikationen von 2022 und 2023 ergänzt und mit den im Dezember 2022 verabschiedeten 23 globalen Zielen des Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) verknüpft. Den Autorinnen und Autoren ist bewusst, dass die kommenden sechs Jahre bis 2030 wesentlich sind, um mittel- und langfristig ein ökologisch nachhaltiges und sozial gerechtes Leben auf unserer Erde zu erreichen. Mit den 10MustKnows24 möchten sie durch wissenschaftlich gesicherte Empfehlungen für Politik und Gesellschaft ihren aktiven Beitrag leisten, um die sozial-ökologische Transformation zu beschleunigen.Das sind die 10MustKnows24: 1. Klima- und Biodiversitätsschutz gemeinsam verwirklichen 2. Ein gesundes Leben auf einem gesunden Planeten ermöglichen 3. Unentdeckte Biodiversität beachten 4. Sprachliche, kulturelle und biologische Vielfalt verknüpfen 5. Vielfältige Nutzung von Waldökosystemen und Biodiversitätsschutz in Einklang bringen 6. Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme transformieren 7. Land und Ressourcen schützen 8. Transformativen Wandel durch internationale Zusammenarbeit und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung bewirken 9. Freien Zugang und offene Nutzung von biodiversitätsbezogenen Daten sicherstellen 10. Auswirkungen des Lebensmittelkonsums auf die Biodiversität verringern

In contrast to the United States' unilateral China policy under President Donald Trump, the Joe Biden administration has renewed its ties with European and Asian allies. In its struggle with China for supremacy, the US strives to build a "united front" based on similar values. Although European countries share many values with the US, the China policies of the European Union and some of its member states substantially differ, not least due to diverging threat perceptions and economic interests. Against all expectations, the Biden administration continued Trump's policy of containing China's development through tariffs, exports controls, investment blockades, and visa restrictions. With the US CHIPS and Science Act and new export controls, the US government seeks to slow down China's further technological rise. Security issues have become more important in both the US and EU approach. European countries are, however, still reluctant to apply the same threat assessment for China as for Russia and to disengage from China. Europe's dependency on China as a key market and production base is still high, and most EU member states are not yet prepared for an economic decoupling. Although governments and research institutes in Europe have become more aware of the risks of science and technology cooperation with China, to discontinue it is not seen as an option. Despite the US and EU attempting to coordinate their China policies, the new US export controls on semiconductors were criticised by many European companies as unilateral decisions. The US and EU struggle to align their diverging interests on important topics such as the use of subsidies to support their economies. Therefore, the chances of them developing a unified China policy remain limited. The relationship between the US and China has turned into a new Cold War in which the coexistence of different economic and political systems does not seem possible. For European countries, decoupling from China would undermine

International cooperation in dealing with epidemics and pandemics was developed significantly during the 20th century. In 1921, following the Spanish influenza pandemic, the League of Nations Health Organization (LNHO) was created, a precursor to the World Health Organization (WHO) which was subsequently established in 1948. The purpose of these international efforts was to coordinate actions in order to improve citizens’ health as well as to prevent and constrain the transmission of dangerous diseases. Their contribution has been particularly important in preventing and protecting against pandemic crises through specific interventions-regulations which set limits and rules. This paper focuses on the contribution of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the League of Nations Health Organization (LNHO) in preventing and responding to major epidemic and pandemic crises over the last hundred years. A focus will be placed on the management of pandemic crises or risks, specifically HIV, cholera (in Yugoslavia in the 1970s), SARS-CoV, H1N1, Ebola, Zika and SARS-CoV2. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the contribution of the WHO and the LNHO in responding to pandemics and dangerous epidemics, by focusing on the political-organizational framework they adopted in terms of international health cooperation and of individual responses-policy measures.

Seit dem Koreakrieg 1950-53 basierte die Sicherheitsarchitektur der lange Zeit als "Asien-Pazifik" bezeichneten Region auf einem US-geführten System bilateraler Allianzen, dem sogenannten Nabe-und-Speichen-System. Ein multilaterales System kollektiver Verteidigung, ähnlich der Nato in Europa, gab es in der Region bislang nicht. 2014 begann die Volksrepublik China unter Xi Jinping, eigene Ideen zur Neugestaltung des regionalen Sicherheitssystems zu entwickeln. Xi nannte das Nabe-und-Speichen-System ein Relikt des Kalten Krieges und forderte eine regionale Sicherheitsarchitektur "von Asiaten für Asiaten". Das Konzept "Indo-Pazifik" gilt weithin als strategischer Gegenentwurf zu einer sinozentristischen Neustrukturierung der Region. Dabei wird die Sicherheitsarchitektur mehrheitlich als antagonistische Ordnung verstanden, in der Sicherheit gegen und nicht mit China hergestellt wird. Diese Architektur ist stärker als bisher »asianisiert«: Nicht nur wächst die Bedeutung der US-Alliierten in der Region im Verhältnis zu Washington. Immer wichtiger werden auch bi- und minilaterale Partnerschaften außerhalb des Nabe-und-Speichen-Systems, etwa diejenigen mit Beteiligung von Staaten wie Indien oder Indonesien. Strukturell dominieren bilaterale Allianzen und Partnerschaften, die zunehmend um minilaterale Formate wie AUKUS oder Quad ergänzt werden. Für die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten bedeutet all dies, dass die Verwirk­lichung der Idee eines inklusiv ausgerichteten Indo-Pazifik in weite Ferne gerückt ist. Auch der effektive Multilateralismus, den die EU propagiert, gerät zusehends ins Hintertreffen, da die regionale Sicherheitsarchitektur sich mehr und mehr zu einem Nebeneinander bi- und minilateraler Kooperationsformate wandelt. (Autorenreferat)

The implementation of the European Union's (EU) Green Deal to reduce emissions by 2030 and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 will have an impact on the EU's trade policy and on its trade relations with its non-EU partners. With the ongoing decarbonisation process of European economic sectors, the EU's climate policy will be in­creasingly integrated into its trade policy through measures such as the Carbon Bor­der Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and by strengthening the environment chapters of its trade agreements. Therefore, the debate on the future of Turkey-EU trade rela­tions should focus on future prospects for decarbonisation and trade if both sides are keen to maintain or deepen their trade relations. In the current context, which is rife with geopolitical and energy security considerations, a long-term vision and a holistic approach are needed now more than ever. (author's abstract)

In a press conference in Buenos Aires in October 2022, Josep Borrell, the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, declared that 2023 must be the year of Latin America in Europe and of Europe in Latin America. There is renewed European interest in Latin America as a strategic partner, but many Latin American governments prefer an active non-alignment in international politics. The Spanish EU Council Presidency in the second half of 2023 will open a window of opportunity for deepening EU-Latin American and the Caribbean relations. A summit between the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the first since 2015, is planned to be held from 17-18 July 2023 in Brussels. As the EU is pursuing open strategic autonomy, Latin America is perceived as a possible strategic partner supportive of its agenda in international politics. Strategically important raw materials are imported from Latin America, and the latter's countries have the potential to become important producers and exporters of green hydrogen. While Europe has lost ground as a trading partner with Latin America to China, European companies are still a leading investor in the region, and Europe has still soft power or power of attraction in Latin America. The results of the recent elections in Latin America, especially the victory of Lula da Silva in Brazil, open new possibilities for EU cooperation with the region. It will be easier to find common positions on climate change and the protection of the Amazon rainforest. But Latin American governments will demand more protection for their domestic industries in free trade agreements and expect more European funding for measures against climate change and for environmental protection, and they will not automatically support European positions in international politics. If the EU wants to win over Latin America as a strategic partner, it must also act strategically. The signing of the association agreem

US-Präsident Donald Trump verkündete am Nachmittag des 1. Juni 2017 im Rosengarten des Weißen Hauses, dass er das Pariser Klimaabkommen aus dem Jahr 2015 kündigen wolle. Was bedeutet dieser Schritt der USA für den globalen Klimaschutz? Dieser in brief zeigt, in welcher Weise die an Klimaschutz interessierten Staaten sich am besten organisieren, um das Pariser Klimaabkommen und die globale Klimapolitik erfolgreich weiterzuführen.

Since the Korean War of 1950-53, the security architecture of the region previously referred to as the "Asia-Pacific" has been based on a US-led sys­tem of bilateral alliances known as the "hub-and-spokes" system. A multi­lateral system of collective defence, similar to NATO in Europe, has not existed in the region. In 2014, the People's Republic of China under Xi Jinping began to develop its own ideas for reshaping the regional security system. Xi called the hub-and-spokes system a relic of the Cold War and called for a regional security architecture "by Asians for Asians". The "Indo-Pacific" is widely regarded as a strategy to counter a Sinocentric restructuring of the region. The majority of actors involved conceives its security architecture as an antagonistic order in which security is estab­lished against, and not with, China. This architecture is more "Asianised" than before. The region's US allies are gaining significance in relation to Washington. What's more, bilateral and minilateral partnerships outside the hub-and-spokes system are becoming increasingly important, for example those involving states such as India or Indonesia. Structurally, bilateral alliances and partnerships dominate. They are in­creasingly supplemented by minilateral formats such as AUKUS or the Quad. For the EU and its member states, all this means that realising the idea of an inclusive Indo-Pacific has become a distant prospect. The effective multi­lateralism propagated by the EU is also gradually falling behind as the regional security architecture is increasingly being transformed into a web of bilateral and minilateral cooperation formats.

Die internationale Klimapolitik tritt in ein neues Zeitalter unter teils widersprüchlichen Vorzeichen ein: Während das US-Wahlergebnis auf erschwerte Rahmenbedingungen für die Bekämpfung des Klimawandels hindeutet, konnten auf der UN-Ebene bei der COP22 in Marrakech einige Fortschritte erzielt werden. Die Autoren zeigen die verschiedenen Szenarien auf, die sich damit für eine ambitionierte internationale Klimapolitik ergeben.

While the world's attention is focused on Russia’s war against Ukraine and the inten­sifying conflict between the US and China, the security situation on the Korean Pen­insula has continued to deteriorate. North Korea is steadily advancing the expansion of its military capabilities and recently undertook significant changes in its nuclear doctrine. At the same time, the rapidly changing geopolitical context makes a reso­lution of the North Korean nuclear conflict even less likely. North Korea’s unilateral change of the status quo on the Korean Peninsula poses a serious challenge to the international community, which has few options to counter this threat that is far too dangerous to ignore. (author's abstract)

Gesetzliche Maßnahmen im Bereich der Auslandsfinanzierung von zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen werden inzwischen als zentraler Bestandteil von schrumpfenden zivilgesellschaftlichen Räumen angesehen. Allerdings existiert in der Literatur bisher kein Konsens über die Angemessenheit eines expliziten staatlichen Eingriffs in diesem Bereich. Der Artikel entwickelt deswegen einen konzeptionellen Rahmen, um den einschränkenden Charakter von staatlichen Eingriffen empirisch präziser als bisher bestimmen zu können. Wir plausibilisieren unser konzeptionelles Argument anhand von sechs kurzen Fallstudien zu Deutschland, Österreich, der Türkei, Ungarn, Uruguay und Venezuela. Damit tragen wir in dreifacher Art und Weise zur Debatte über schrumpfende zivilgesellschaftliche Räume bei. Wir zeigen erstens, dass gesetzliche Maßnahmen in Bezug auf die ausländische Finanzierung von Zivilgesellschaft nicht zwangsläufig als Teil eines weltweiten repressiven Trends anzusehen sind. Zweitens schlagen wir eine neue analytische Einordnung vor, die über das bisher dominante binäre Verständnis hinausgeht, welches gerade im Global Süden jeglicher Anpassung gesetzlicher Maßnahmen in diesem Bereich repressive Tendenzen unterstellt. Drittens versuchen wir eine Sicht der internationalen Menschenrechte zur Vereinigungsfreiheit mit einer auf nationalen verfassungsrechtlichen Normen fokussierten Perspektive in Verbindung zu bringen, um damit empirisch-analytisch präziser auf die in vielen Ländern existierenden rechtsnormativen Unterschiede zwischen diesen beiden Ebenen aufmerksam zu machen.

The term regional security dialogue brings to mind state-organised conferences and events; however, an under-appreciated subset of such dialogues are organised by non-state actors that have unique formal aspects. These quasi-formal dialogues operate alongside, and sometimes in competition to, state-sanctioned processes. Why do some of these forums appear to be more effective at fostering regional dialogue than strictly formal or informal processes with the same goals? Drawing from heterogenous discourse approaches, we address this question by identifying and expanding the concept of the quality of discursive space, as a key feature for the success of security dialogues. We then apply this concept to two of the most successful so-called Track 1.5 security dialogues: the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Europe and the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) in Asia. We analyse these cases using a mix of interviews with participants and organisers, participant observation, and public outputs with the aim of improving the understanding of the role and impact of Track 1.5 diplomacy in the practice of international security. Our findings highlight that it is what we call the quality of discursive space, as a mix of different components in this space, which differentiates effective dialogues from mere policy 'talk shops'.

A populist surge in Europe is affecting Euro-Mediterranean cooperation 25 years after the Barcelona Process was launched, reinforcing existing trends of de-Europeanization and renationalization of foreign policies. This article analyses the landscape of political contestation of Mediterranean cooperation in Europe in a new age of populism, focusing on France, Italy and Spain as well as the Visegrad 4 states that have turned from bystanders to veto players in Mediterranean affairs. We find that the 'thick' ideologies from which populists are borrowing condition the thrust of their influence. The impact of right-wing populism trumps that of its left-wing counterpart in quantity and quality, while market-liberal populism is in decline and regional populism is mainly an issue only in Spain. Populism has personalized decision-making and shaped political agendas directly and indirectly, most notably on migration. It has whitewashed authoritarian leaders in the southern Mediterranean and fragmented the European Union's position on key issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. National interests and the weight of institutions have, however, formed a counterbalance to the focus on migration emanating from domestic politics. Populism alone cannot be blamed for renationalization trends that have existed before, but it does build on and reinforce them.

Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. won the Philippines' presidential election by a land­slide on 9 May and was officially sworn in on 30 June. During the election cam­paign, Marcos Jr. - the son of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. who was ousted in 1986 - remained extremely vague when it came to describing his foreign and security policies. Some observers initially speculated that Marcos Jr. would con­tinue to pursue the foreign policy shift towards the People's Republic of China that had been estab­lished by his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte. Several weeks into Marcos Jr.'s presidency, however, a much more nuanced picture has emerged. It appears that the newly elected president is likely seeking to balance the Philippines' relations with China and the US to a greater extent than his predecessor. He therefore seems to be follow­ing in his father’s foreign policy footsteps. This could open up new opportunities for coopera­tion between the Philippines and Germany and the EU - provided that such collabo­ration considers the high degree to which Manila's current foreign policy agenda seems to be driven by domestic concerns and objectives. (author's abstract)

Do autocracies cooperate internationally? This working paper investigates whether regime-type explains co-sponsorship patterns at the United Nations General Assembly. Co-sponsorship is a relatively costly signal of international cooperation at the UN, which is analyzed based on a novel dataset, including newly validated issue categories and co-sponsorship behavior on 14.995 draft resolutions. Theoretically, the paper unifies three strands of literature: the recent literature on autocratic regional organizations, the growing literature on foreign policy of autocratic regimes and the traditional analysis of the United Nations. The results suggest that regime-type plays a strong role in co-sponsorship behavior: democracies co-sponsor with their peers, whereas autocracies, in line with existing findings, cooperate overall less at the UN. They do, however, prefer to co-sponsor with one another over partners of other regime-types. This seems to be particularly true in issue areas where autocratic regimes could attempt to counter democratic norm-setting, such as human rights. There is mixed results concerning the effect of autocratic regional organizations on autocratic co-sponsorship. Preliminary results suggest at least some positive effect on autocracies and highlight the need for further research.