Browse

This chapter examines the UN’s role in promoting and encouraging democracy and good governance. The world organizations is in a pivotal position to help promote and strengthen the global norm that posits that democracy validates the quality of governance today. In order to be considered ‘democratic,’ governments should not only hold periodic free and fair elections and demonstrate the ability to govern inclusively and humanely. In addition, they should also respect human rights and the rule of law. Concurrently, the chapter argues that the UN should practice what it preaches and address its own democratic deficit, even as it helps to strengthen democracy at the national level.

Is ecological democracy possible? If so, what would it entail? This chapter first reviews the literature based in deliberative democracy that proposes to extend communicative competence to non-humans, and then traces an alternative constructivist line of environmental political thinking from its beginnings in the strand of science and technology studies pioneered by Bruno Latour and others known as actor-network theory, through two actor-network theory-inspired approaches to political theory, “object-oriented democracy” and “material politics/participation.” Whereas this alternative approach solves some of the conundrums to which the communicative model gives rise, it is neither as radical a departure from politics as it is “normally understood,” nor as political as its proponents claim.

In recent public and activist debates, threats to the sustainability of the global ecosystem, such as climate change, have increasingly been posed in terms that link the impact on human well-being to questions of rights. Environmental human rights are emerging in national and international legal practice and have been invoked by environmental political theorists seeking to explicate and justify obligations to protect and sustain the environment and to secure justice for both contemporary communities and future generations. This chapter addresses three key questions in order to unpack the concept of environmental human rights: (1) Why adopt a human rights approach? (2) How have environmental human rights been conceived? and (3) What does an account of environmental human rights entail for rights holders and duty bearers?

This chapter reviews the aid effectiveness literature to assess whether foreign aid given to areas of limited statehood (ALS) can be expected to promote economic and social outcomes in the recipient country. It distinguishes between different types of aid, motives for granting it, recipient country policies and characteristics, and the modalities by which aid is delivered, as these factors have been argued to influence its effectiveness. This chapter then compares these properties between recipients most affected by limited statehood and those least affected. This allows us to assess the relative effectiveness of aid in countries with ALS. We conclude that on average aid given there is less likely to be effective than elsewhere. As countries with ALS, however, constitute a heterogeneous group, the specifics of individual countries and the types of aid given matter.

Framing and nudging are both ways of designing the contexts that influence people’s interpretations and choices. Both have recently garnered significant attention as potential methods for effecting environmental change. Toward this goal, both attempt to work with certain human characteristics and tendencies in order to encourage rather than force people to live more sustainably. Critics rightly worry that government, “experts,” or other leaders may frame and nudge in manipulative, paternalistic, individualizing, and superficial ways, treating people as objects to be swayed or managed within existing value-systems and institutions. Yet the context design accomplished by framing and nudging cannot be avoided in communal life. The question, then, is not whether to engage in these activities, but how. This chapter argues that context design can be a democratic tool for a greener future, promoting deliberation about environmental issues and encouraging communal self-nudging toward more ecologically balanced forms of living.

This chapter examines the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy by external actors in areas of limited statehood. It begins with the definition of key terms and a brief overview of the historical trajectory in which contemporary interventions by external actors unfold. We then discuss cross-cutting issues and introduce the key actors involved in the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. Analysing each of these issue areas in turn, we make three overarching arguments. Firstly, we highlight the multiplicity of outcomes that result from external interventions, whose impacts prove highly unevenly and spatially dispersed. Secondly, we emphasize the crucial influence of local actors and pre-existing institutions in shaping the outcomes of any governance intervention. Finally, we note that external actors have tended to rely on state-centric conceptualizations of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

This chapter analyses two groups of non-profit external non-state governance actors that are active in areas of limited statehood (ALS): international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs). After some examples of the collective goods these actors provide in contexts of limited statehood, their effectiveness is assessed in terms of output, outcome, and impact. It is found that in ALS, the activities of MSPs and INGOs can become part of the solution, but may also exacerbate existing problems. Empirical research shows that it is already demanding for INGOs and MSPs to produce good output in ALS, let alone broader impact. The analysis provides insights on the conditions under which INGOs and MSPs can—and cannot—successfully provide governance in ALS and how their activities impact limited statehood itself. Finally, the findings are discussed against the background of recent trends affecting governance by external state and non-state actors in ALS.

This article traces the origins, evolution, and effects of LGBT advocacy by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global forums. In particular, the article focuses on LGBT advocacy in intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations. The first section provides a historical overview and traces the rise of LGBT NGOs—as well as the transnational networks linking them—from the interwar period to the present day. In doing so, this section discusses the strategies that such organizations have leveraged to gain clout and highlights how LGBT issues have gained salience and have generated contestation within UN human rights bodies and mechanisms. The second section provides a conceptual overview of how advocates have advanced LGBT issues and discusses how the frames of sexual and reproductive health rights, public health and HIV/AIDS, and, increasingly, LGBT human rights have been leveraged by NGOs to legitimize and to further propel LGBT advocacy. Finally, the third section discusses some of the challenges facing global LGBT advocacy. In particular, this section highlights North–South power inequalities in shaping and driving a global advocacy agenda and the tensions arising from limited emphasis on non-Western notions of sexual and gender diversity. This section concludes with a discussion of new directions in LGBT advocacy, highlighting in particular the increased efforts to combine human rights advocacy with inclusive development policy.

John Rawls’ Political Liberalism is much more than just an effort to correct what Rawls saw as an error in his masterwork, A Theory of Justice. The political liberalism of Political Liberalism stands on its own. It is liberal in a new way, and political in the right way. By examing what makes the theory liberal and what makes it political, the chapter brings out a feature of the theory that has not been sufficiently emphasized—its dynamic character. Rawls’ political liberalism invites citizens to revise even their liberal views as they seek agreement while continuing to disagree.

This chapter examines how prominent theories capture the various ways that the UN affects world politics. Different theories of international relations (IR) cast the UN in distinctive roles, which logically lead scholars to identify distinctive kinds of effects. We identify five roles that the UN might have: as an agent of great powers doing their bidding; as a mechanism for interstate cooperation; as a governor of an international society of states; as a constructor of the social world; and as a legitimation forum. Each role has roots in a well-known theory of international politics. In many, perhaps most, real-world political situations, the UN plays more than one of these roles, but these stylized theoretical arguments about the world body’s influence help discipline our thinking. They force us to be explicit about which effects of the world organization we think are important, what is causing them, and why.

This article discusses areas that involve political issues, which contain ‘preferred freedoms’ or ‘suspect classifications’ that attract higher standards of review. The economic and property interests that are subject to some key exceptions are also discussed. The article traces the pattern of judicial review as it applies to political, moral, and social issues, and moves on to the parallel discussions for matters of economic liberty and private property.

This article addresses the various questions about a paradox, and focuses on personal reflections about contributions to social choice theory and related themes. It considers and provides answers to questions regarding the impossibility theorems, economics, political economy, and methodology. Other miscellaneous questions and their answers are included in this article.

This chapter examines Robert Paul Wolff’s arguments in In Defense of Anarchism about state authority and individual autonomy, and how plausible they are for philosophical anarchism. According to Wolff, the authority of the modern state cannot be justified because it conflicts with the autonomy of the individual. The presumptive clash between state authority and individual autonomy that Wolff highlights remains central to the philosophical anarchist critique of the state, a position that has gained prominence—and widespread acceptance—in contemporary political philosophy. The rest of this chapter comments on Wolff’s views in more detail, including those concerning compliance with the state, a state’s right to rule, unanimous direct democracy, and majority rule. It also discusses Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s assertion that persons must remain free in obeying the state.

This chapter reviews Steven Lukes’ 1974 book Power: A Radical View (PRV). It begins by addressing the debate that erupted in the 1950s and 1960s between those who believed that power was concentrated in the hands of a few and those who argued that power was distributed “pluralistically.” It then considers a set of deeper philosophical/theoretical debates that supported Lukes’ own position, citing Antonio Gramsci’s claim that hegemony could be secured through ideology in which the ideas of the ruling class became the ruling ideas. It also examines Lukes’ approach to conceptual analysis and his distinction between the concept and conception of power, focusing specifically on his view that binding together power, agency, and responsibility was dependent on an understanding of responsibility. Finally, the chapter assesses the impact of PRV on debates over concepts such as authority, interests, and domination, and on issues surrounding agency, intentionality, responsibility, and structure.