 Your new post is loading...
Vol. 1, Issue 3, October 2010 The October 2010 issue of Global Policy covers topics ranging from intellectual property to international climate policy and resource management in the Arctic, and features authors such as Joe Stiglitz, Pascal Lamy and Justin Lin. Research Articles Claude Henry and Joseph E. Stiglitz - Intellectual Property, Dissemination of Innovation and Sustainable Development Robert Falkner, Hannes Stephan and John Vogler - International Climate Policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘Building Blocks’ Approach Luk Van Langenhove - The Transformation of Multilateralism Mode 1.0 to Mode 2.0 Mary Kaldor - Inconclusive Wars: Is Clausewitz Still Relevant in these Global Times? Eric Helleiner - What Role for the New Financial Stability Board? The Politics of International Standards after the Crisis Charles D. Raab - Information Privacy: Networks of Regulation at the Subglobal Level Survey Articles Klaus Dodds - A Polar Mediterranean? Accessibility, Resources and Sovereignty in the Arctic Ocean Practitioner Commentaries Pascal Lamy - Global Governance: Getting Us Where We All Want to Go and Getting Us There Together Marco Boggero - Clinical Field Research in a Post-conflict Setting Sanmit Ahuja - Intellectual Property Crime: The Urgent Need for Global Attention Dorothy Attwood - Keeping the Internet’s Promise: Universal, Open and Safe Emmanuel Yujuico and Mona D. Valisno - Exploring Links between Education, Migration and Remittances: The Philippine Case Tara Acharya, Daniel W. Bena, Beth C. Sauerhaft and Derek Yach - The Role of the Food Industry in Strengthening Links between Agriculture, Nutrition and Environmental Sustainability Responses to Articles Justin Yifu Lin - Six Steps for Strategic Government Intervention Hal S. Scott - The Next Step in Global Financial Regulation: Global Regulation of Interconnectedness Eric A. Posner - Evaluating the Effects of International Law: Next Steps Review Essays Michael Mason - Tackling Dangerous Climate Change: Slow-Ramp or Springboard? Reviews Book Reviews Release Date 13 October 2010
Vol. 1, Issue 1, January 2010 Release Date 28 January 2009
The Implications of Inconsistent Content Moderation: Reflections on Ukraine and Yemen Conflicts
The Middle East and Global Review The Middle East and Global Review showcases the research output of the Center for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG) and of other scholars and practitioners working on transformations underway in the Middle East and the world order. Please find more information here. Post Archive 06 August 2024 Following Pezeshkian's victory, CMEG economist Mahdi Ghodsi explores replicating reformist-era economic growth, the challenges of international sanctions and domestic structures,… 10 July 2024 Fawaz A. Gerges argues that now, more than ever, it is in the long-term interests of the US to uphold the rules-based international order, not only in words but in deeds. In… 26 June 2024 Almut Wieland-Karimi, member of the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Peacebuilding, argues that the West should apprehend the global power shift towards countries in Asia… 25 June 2024 Lukas Märtin argues that an EU terror listing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would be legally possible. The public debate within the EU of whether to take this… 03 June 2024 Amin Naeni explores what a second term for Trump may mean for Iran. There’s been much talk in recent months about what a possible second Donald Trump presidency in the… 28 March 2024 Ali Fathollah-Nejad and Amin Naeni argue that there is a stark disconnect between diplomatic gestures and tangible outcomes between Tehran and Riyadh. This stagnation raises… 14 March 2024 Shahram Akbarzadeh, Amin Naeni, Ihsan Yilmaz and Galib Bashirov detail new research on digital authoritarianism and the role of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in Iran. The… 06 July 2023 Shirin Hakim argues that water issues have the potential to mobilize a new wave of activism in the Republic. Water has long shaped landscapes and civilizations. In the face of… 22 June 2023 Amin Naeni and Ali Fathollah-Nejad explore the tensions inherent in Iran's relationships with Saudi Arabia and China. The March 2023 agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia,… 16 June 2023 Rebekka Rexhausen argues that the West must adhere to human rights-centered foreign policy to address authoritarianism in Syria. When on May 7 the Arab League announced it would… Global Policy Journal
The Global Governance 2022 program (known as GG2022) is a series of dialogues focusing on the possible futures of global governance and how the international institutions can prepare for challenges and risks in an uncertain future. Over the course of almost nine months in 2012-2013, the program comprises three dialogue sessions in Berlin (26-30 August 2012), Beijing (7-11 January 2013) and Washington, DC (5-9 May 2013). It brings together 24 young leaders from China, Germany and the United States – the GG2022 fellows. Over the course of the program, the fellows will forge cross-cultural networks and, using the intellectual instruments in the field of future research, devise scenarios for the future of international institutions in the three areas of cyber security, development and energy governance. They will be encouraged to combine their insights on possible future developments with their normative convictions about the shape and role of global governance in order to create a shared vision of the future system of global governance. The GG2022 program is jointly organized by the Global Public Policy Institute, the Hertie School of Governance, Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, Tsinghua University and Fudan University. GG2022 is generously supported by Robert Bosch Stiftung and the Transatlantic Program of the German government (ERP Grant administered by the German Ministry for Economics and Technology). G2022 Fellows' Columns and Reports
The following reports and columns represent the opinions of the 24 young GG2022 fellows from China, Germany and the United States. The fellows’ contributions focus on various topics from the core policy areas of the program - energy, cyber security and development governance as well as global governance more broadly: Introduction:
New Thinking for Global Governance Needed by Johannes Gabriel and Joel Sandhu Cyber Security: A Chain is Just as Strong as its Weakest Link - A Call for Better Education in Cyber Security by Puja Abbassi Homecoming of the Internet by Martin Kaul All Quiet on the Cyber Front? The Twisted Logic of Cyber Security...by Mark T. Fliegauf Global Cyber (Security) Governance – Facing a Decisive by Joachim Knodt Energy: Connecting Systems: EU’s Internal Energy Market and Future Cooperation with MENA by Fabian Wigand Development Governance: Diplomatic Business: Engaging Corporations in Global Policy by Whitney Haring-Smith ‘Fragile States’ and ‘Failed Policies’: Two Global Public Policy Challenges at Eye Level by Dominik Balthasar Think Different Development by Eliot Pence Key Ingredients for the Post-2015 Development Agenda by Clara Brandi Energy Governance Outlook: Global Scenarios and Implications This report summarizes the work of the GG2022 working group on global energy governance. To explore possible futures in global energy governance, the working group used a scenario planning methodology with techniques developed extensively in the field of future studies. The diverse nationalities, backgrounds, and expertise of working group members contributed crucial assets for devising national strategies and solutions.
Securing the Net: Global Governance in the Digital Domain This report summarizes the work of the GG2022 working group on global cyber security governance. To explore possible futures in global cyber security governance, the working group used a scenario planning methodology with techniques developed extensively in the field of future studies. The diverse nationalities, backgrounds, and expertise of working group members contributed crucial assets for devising national strategies and solutions.
Envisioning New Partnerships For Africa’s Future: Making Global Governance Work in a Post-2015 World
This report summarizes the work of the GG2022 working group on global development governance. To explore possible futures in global development, the working group used a scenario planning methodology with techniques developed extensively in the field of future studies. The diverse nationalities, backgrounds, and expertise of working group members contributed crucial assets for devising national strategies and solutions.
Juxtapose is a multi-faceted project aiming to create new approaches to comparative works on India and China, incorporating diverse perspectives to stimulate fresh contributions to the academy and beyond. In recent years, the fascinating tension created by the similarities and differences between China and India has attracted an expanding multi-disciplinary scholarship of Sino-Indian comparative work. These approaches however, are neither consistent nor cohesive, and given that the global reality is also diverse, it is surprising that we should expect them to be so. Juxtapose asks how these theoretical problems are to be overcome? Could we form a better comparative framework to understand India and China in our changing world? And if so, then how? How is this challenge being tackled in different disciplines and industries, and what can we learn from different approaches to collaboration and comparison in use today? At present, the Juxtapose Project is comprised of three parts: Firstly, there is an ongoing inter- and multi-disciplinary conference series focused on creating and exploring new comparative paradigms for study of and work with India and China. The second part of the Juxtapose Project is a bilingual blog. By sharing the latest publications of China-India studies contributed by professionals from the Juxtapose network and beyond in a more approachable way to the general public, this blog aims at bridging the gap between scholarly research and public readings of multi-disciplinary China-India comparison. Apart from our own website, the blog will be simultaneously hosted on our media partners in China, UK and beyond, including China Daily, Caixin Media and Global Policy. The third part of Juxtapose is our monthly podcast In Context, which will be launched towards the end of 2014. This public-facing extension of our work will bring together a varied network of senior academics to respond to current events in India and/or China by contextualising them in time and space. More information on our diverse, multi-faceted approach can be found here or a selection of our outputs can be found below: Blog Posts and Artices:
Sumit Roy - China and India, the “Rising Powers” and their Role in African development: Challenges and Opportunities, Juxtapose blog. Ma, Yuge, Making Sense of China and India’s Low-carbon Pathways, Global Policy. Ma, Yuge, de Feo-Giet, D K, Avoiding a Simplistic Comparison of China and India, China Outlook. Sahni, Varun, When Xi met Modi: Juxtaposing China and India, India and the Word, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. Ma, Yuge, A Common Dream between India, China, and the World, Avantha International Fellowship Publication.
Podcasts:
Coming soon. Events:
Coming soon. Contact: Yuge Ma
yuge.ma@wolfson.ox.ac.uk or project@gmail.com Juxtapose is supported by The Oxford Research Centre for the Humanities (TORCH), the Davis Foundation for Chinese Studies, The South Asia Research Cluster (SARC) of Wolfson College, Oxford, Center for the East Asia Studies (CEAS) and School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and to be a selected project of Global Policy.
Research Programmes showcases complete and ongoing initiatives aimed at understanding global collective action problems, including competing and converging discourses about global risks and policy responses. - Projects
- Research Programmes
Research Programmes Research Programmes showcases complete and ongoing initiatives aimed at understanding global collective action problems, including competing and converging discourses about global risks and policy responses.
Over the course of one year (2018-2019), the Global Governance Futures programme, or GGF, brings together young professionals to look ahead 10 years and recommend ways to address global challenges. At the heart of the GGF philosophy, we believe that the greatest asset of the programme lies in the diversity of our fellows and the collective energy they develop when they come together, discuss, debate and engage with one another during the four intense working sessions. This is why the fellows squarely occupy the center stage, setting GGF apart from many other young professionals’ programmes. The fellows play an active role in shaping the agenda of their respective working groups. The working process draws on the GGF method and brings together the unique strengths, experiences and perspectives of each fellow in working towards a common goal. The GGF team works closely with the fellows to help them achieve these goals and, in the process, cultivates a community that will last well beyond the duration of the programme through a growing and active alumni network. Building on four successful rounds of the programme – GGF 2020, GGF 2022, GGF 2025 and GGF 2027 – the next round, GGF 2030, will assemble 27 individuals from Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, and the United States (three from each country). The GGF fellows form three working groups that explore a particular issue area of global governance. In GGF 2030 they will focus on the futures of global order, of global migration and refugee challenge, and of the role of cities in global governance until the year 2030. Using instruments from the field of futures research, the working groups will explore and produce scenarios for their respective issue areas. Based on their findings, the fellows will put together a range of publications, including reports and commentaries, and podcasts that present their findings on how to foster effective, accountable governance now and in the years ahead. Op-Eds Indonesia: Move Away from Business-As-Usual, Don’t Move the Capital Aidy Halimanjaya argues that Jokowi’s focus should be on pushing forward Indonesia’s energy sector reforms. Japan Runs the Risk of Repeating the Migration Mistakes Made by the “West” Global Governance Futures 2030 fellow Naoko Hashimoto outlines three critical shortcomings in Japan's latest immigration reform. Aging Gracefully: Japanese Cities Lead the Way Global Governance Futures 2030 fellow Ryo Ishida on why Japan's cities are fit for its aging population. Hong Kong Should Use Its Financial Might to Fight Human Trafficking Tze-wei Ng argues that Hong Kong is witnessing a growth in responsible investing that takes into consideration environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. Can it leverage its financial hub status to become a regional leader in the fight against human trafficking? A Call for Smart Commercial Diplomacy Carolina Costa on Bolsonaro's opportunity to restore investor confidence and Brazil’s positioning in global markets. South Africa: Driving the BRICS Agenda Pretoria’s commitment to inclusive and sustainable development – internationally, in Africa, and domestically – will drive the BRICS agenda for this year and mark its contribution. Our Global Future Will Require Inclusive Ideas - Joel Sandhu Joel Sandhu introduces the Global Governance Futures 2030 – Robert Bosch Foundation Multilateral Dialogues and outlines its approach. India’s Thinking Global. It Should Act Regional First Aryaman Bhatnagar and Joel Sandhu argue that India’s claim as a player on the global stage will be judged against its ability to manage security and stability in its own backyard. Interviews Future Cities: Private, Tech-Enabled, and Inclusive? – a Conversation with Ambre Eyoum Climate & Energy Industry: Beyond the Blind Spots – a Conversation with Ambre Eyoum Cities Are the Last Line of Defense of Globalization – a Conversation with Ana Ramic A Pragmatic and Humanist Approach to Refugees and Migrants – A conversation with Helidah Ogude Think Local and Act Global - A Conversation with GGF 2030 fellow Cara Stauß Will Indonesia Emerge as Asia’s Third Giant? - A conversation with GGF 2030 fellow Liana Lim Hinch Connecting Locals with Newcomers: A conversation with GGF 2030 fellow Cédric Bischetti Japan’s Tussle Over Immigration: An interview with GGF 2030 fellow Naoko Hashimoto Podcasts The State of Human Rights in Brazil - A Conversation with Maria Laura Canineu Where is Hong Kong’s Lion Rock Spirit? - A Conversation with Tze-wei Ng South Africa: Taking Stock of Ramaphosa’s First Year in Office - A Conversation with Cyril Prinsloo Brazil: Breaking an Addiction to Bad Governance - A Conversation with Matias Spektor Media, the Internet and Censorship in China - A Conversation with David Bandurski How Does the EU Work with African Countries on Migration? - A Conversation with Matthieu Tardis Finding the Story of Us - A Conversation with Mathieu Lefèvre Refugees and Internally Displaced People in India - A Conversation with Aarti Tikoo Singh Mapping Possible Futures - A Conversation with Johannes Gabriel The Migration and Refugee Challenge in the European Union - A Conversation with Julian Lehmann The Politics and Financing of Water - A Conversation with Scott Moore A New Era of Geopolitical Competition - A Conversation with Thomas Wright Beyond the Beltway: Talking to Americans About US Foreign Policy - a conversation with Julie Smith Brazil Unraveling: the Country of the Future in Crisis - A Conversation with Matias Spektor France: A Balancing Power on the Global Stage? - A Conversation with Thomas Gomart Europe and the Future of Liberal Democracies - A Conversation with Wolfgang Reinicke How Can We Plan For an Uncertain Future? - A Conversation with Johannes Gabriel How Will India Shape Regional and Global Issues in the Coming Years? - A Conversation with Tanvi Madan Cities: How Urban Life and Global Politics Come Together - A Conversation with Michele Acuto The Ramaphosa Era: Challenges at Home and Abroad for South Africa - A Conversation with Elizabeth Sidiropoulos
The Emerging Global Governance (EGG) Project is a collaborative research initiative led by Gregory Chin at York University (Canada) and Eva-Maria Nag at Global Policy journal, Durham University, as the principal partners, and the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Foreign Policy Institute as a legacy partner. The Project brings together leading scholars, early-career scholars, and policy practitioners to profile leading-edge research on key emerging issues and emerging actors in global governance, global collective action, global public goods provision, and global risk management across the range of relevant sectors and issue-areas, including global economy and development; the biosphere, environment, and climate change; global security; global health; digitalization, artificial intelligence, big data; global indigenous rights; international migration. The EGG Project highlights innovative global policy research findings, and international governance solutions that are arising from the emerging world, or at the interface between the emerging powers and the established actors in the system, or new initiatives led by non-state actors. The goal is to bridge the ongoing gap in knowledge-sharing and critical exchange between the scholarly and policy communities. Through its online e-footprint, the EGG Project features cumulative research results, sustained research partnerships and networks, and mobilizes knowledge with broader societal relevancy. The outputs, collaborative research partnerships, and networks emerging from the EGG Project will be used to leverage further and larger sustained, multi-year collaborative research initiatives. Research Outputs The EGG project profiles new evidence-based research and analysis of distinguished thinkers and practitioners. Their work is presented in a range of project outputs including: - Online blog-commentary collections covering “core issues”, “new trends and patterns”, and “emerging hot issues” (briefing memo-length pieces for decision-makers)
- Journal article length pieces and journal special featured sections in Global Policy or other leading journals
- Free to access e-Books on feature themes (Global Policy will e-publish the collections of commentaries in an e-book format)
- Select book reviews of key new books
- Interviews with key thinkers (posted to Youtube)
Global Policy and contributing authors and participating organizations (partner research institutes) will post the outputs on their social media platforms. Related project activities include workshops, and e-workshops, e-presentations, press briefings and media interviews; briefings for policymakers and decisionmakers. Eva-Maria Nag (Co-Director) Gregory Chin (Co-Director) Aligning Global Threats and Opportunities via AI Governance: A Commentary Series This is the first post in a new EGG commentary series exploring how AI’s development is affecting economic, social and political decision-making around the world. Browse the full series here.
What We Are Reading The new Great Game - As China and the US compete for power and resources, Europe is left a bystander. Writing in The New Statesman, Helen Thompson argues that as China and the US compete for power and resources, Europe is left a bystander. To read the full piece click here.
Observer Research Foundation (ORF) is a not-for-profit, multidisciplinary public policy think tank engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide-range of issues of national and international significance. Some of ORF's key areas of research include international relations, security affairs, politics and governance, resources management and economy and development. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India in a globalised world. The quality of our site and associated products depends significantly on financial contributions from our supporters and partners. If you would like to make a donation or discuss a partnership, please contact the Executive Editor, Dr Eva-Maria Nag, at evamaria.nag@global-policy.com
Global Policy is a prestigious peer-reviewed academic journal based at the Global Policy Institute, School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University and focusing on the "point where ideas and policy meet", published in association with Wiley-Blackwell. Indexed in the SSCI, the journal was launched at the 4th Global Public Policy Network conference at the London School of Economics and Political Science on Monday 22 March 2010, with near simultaneous launch events held in Beijing and Brussels. The theme of the one-day conference was "Global Challenges: Global Impact".The General Editors are David Held, Eva-Maria Nag and Dani Rodrik. Its first issue included articles by UK Development Secretary Douglas Alexander, General David Petraeus, Head of US Central Command, Mary Kaldor and Ian Goldin and Tiffany Vogel of Oxford University.[3] The journal's first edition defines its six main foci - Globally relevant risks and collective action problems
- International policy coordination
- Normative theories of global governance
- The change from national-level to 'bloc'-level policy making
- The transition from single-polar to multipolar governance
- Innovations in global governance[4]
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2014 impact factor of 0.603, ranking it 95th out of 161 journals in the category "Political Science" and 49th out of 85 journals in the category "International Relations".[5] Notable academic contributors include Barry Eichengreen, Michele Acuto, Thomas Hale, and Chad Bown, among others. External links
The United Nations Convention against Corruption is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument. The Convention's far-reaching approach and the mandatory character of many of its provisions make it a unique tool for developing a comprehensive response to a global problem. The vast majority of United Nations Member States are parties to the Convention. The text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption was negotiated during seven sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Negotiation of the Convention against Corruption, held between 21 January 2002 and 1 October 2003. The Convention covers five main areas: preventive measures, criminalization and law enforcement, international cooperation, asset recovery, and technical assistance and information exchange. The Convention covers many different forms of corruption, such as bribery, trading in influence, abuse of functions, and various acts of corruption in the private sector. PREVENTIVE MEASURES An entire chapter of the Convention is dedicated to prevention, with measures directed at both the public and private sectors. Convention highlights CRIMINALIZATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MEASURES The Convention requires countries to establish criminal and other offences to cover a wide range of acts of corruption, if these are not already crimes under domestic law. Convention highlights INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Countries are bound by the Convention to render specific forms of mutual legal assistance in gathering and transferring evidence for use in court, to extradite offenders. Convention highlights ASSET RECOVERY A highlight of the Convention is the inclusion of a specific chapter on asset recovery, aimed at returning assets to their rightful owners, including countries from which they had been taken illicitly. Convention highlights Country Profiles The documents produced by the Implementation Review Mechanism, including all executive summaries of country review reports, as well as national legal texts and information about relevant authorities can be accessed from the Country Profiles Database.
The Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM) is a peer review process that assists States parties to effectively implement the Convention. In accordance with the terms of reference, each State party is reviewed by two peers - one from the same regional group - which are selected by a drawing of lots at the beginning of each year of the review cycle. The functioning and the performance of the IRM is guided and overseen by the Implementation Review Group, an open-ended intergovernmental group of States parties which is a subsidiary body of the CoSP and was created together with the IRM in Resolution 3/1. Guiding principles of the Mechanism - Transparent, efficient, non-intrusive, inclusive and impartial;
- Non-adversarial and non-punitive, without any form of ranking;
- Opportunities to share good practices and challenges;
- Technical, promoting constructive collaboration; and
- Complements existing international and regional review mechanisms.
The first cycle of the Review Mechanism started in 2010 and covers the chapters of the Convention on Criminalization and Law Enforcement and International cooperation. The second cycle, which was launched in November 2015, covers the chapters on Preventive measures and Asset recovery. UNODC is the secretariat of the Review Mechanism. Purpose of the Implementation Review Mechanism The purpose of the Implementation Review Mechanism is to assist States parties in their implementation of the Convention. The Mechanism promotes the purposes of the Convention, provides the Conference of the States Parties with information on measures taken by States parties in implementing the Convention and the difficulties encountered by them in doing so, and helps States parties to identify and substantiate specific needs for technical assistance and to promote and facilitate the provision of such assistance. In addition, the Mechanism promotes and facilitates international cooperation, provides the Conference with information on successes, good practices and challenges of States parties in implementing and using the Convention, and promotes and facilitates the exchange of information, practices and experiences gained in the implementation of the Convention. For an overview of the different steps of a country review, please refer to the model schedule of a country review: Model schedule of a country review GOVERNMENTAL EXPERTS Each State party is to nominate up to 15 governmental experts for the purpose of the review process. These experts then carry out the reviews on behalf of their countries. Guidelines on updating the Governmental Experts List
English - French The list of governmental experts - by country - is available here. SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST The Conference of the States parties decided that a comprehensive self-assessment checklist should be used as a tool to facilitate the provision of information on the implementation of the Convention (resolution 3/1). Rather than using paper-based questionnaires, UNODC has developed a user-friendly computer-based application to allow States to provide information on the implementation of the Convention, the Omnibus Survey Software. COUNTRY PAIRINGS FOR EACH REVIEW CYCLE In each review cycle, each State party must undergo review once, and must perform between one and three reviews of other States. The timing of when each State is undergoing review, or acting as reviewing State, is determined by drawing of lots. The schedule of country reviews and the list of reviewing and reviewed countries for a given year are laid out in the country pairing tables for each review cycle: Country Pairings for the First Review Cycle Country Pairings for the Second Review Cycle COUNTRY PROFILE PAGES The country profile pages contain: - Final Executive Summaries for each completed review;
- Country review reports and self-assessments published by the States parties under review;
- Details of the review process for a given country;
- Ratification information; and
- National legislation (available in the TRACK portal).
Read more »
|
Vol. 1, Issue 2, May 2010
Observer Research Foundation (ORF) is an independent global think tank based in Delhi, India. The foundation has three centres in Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. ORF provides potentially viable inputs for policy and decision-makers in the Indian Government and to the political and business communities of India. ORF started out with an objective of dealing with internal issues of the economy in the wake of the 1990s reforms. However, today its mandate extends to security and strategy, governance, environment, energy and resources, economy and growth. Origins ORF was founded in part by the Dhirubhai Ambani family; it claims to operate independently, though. According to some reports, until 2009, 95% of the foundation's budget was provided by Reliance Industries, however, it is now estimated to be around 65% as the foundation diversified its source of finance to government, foreign foundations, and others. Objectives ORF has wide-ranging objectives pertaining to the aid and formulation of government policies; enabling representation of a broad section of opinions from all walks of life to strengthen India's democracy; providing a coherent, well-thought out policy formulations and recommendations to improve governance; improving economic development and consequently bettering the quality of life for Indian citizens and giving directions to India's foreign policy objectives. Activities As an organisation that aims to encourage voices from all corners of the world, ORF holds multiple international conferences including a flagship multilateral conference called Raisina Dialogue in collaboration with the Ministry of External Affairs. Speakers and participants at the annual conference have included renowned journalists, business leaders, civil society organizers as well as domestic and foreign delegates including Prime Ministers and other foreign ministers and officials. Ranking ORF was ranked 20th in the list of top think tanks worldwide in the 2020 edition of the Global Go Think Tank Index Report published by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the University of Pennsylvania. It was ranked 2nd among think tanks in China, India, Japan and South Korea.
Global Policy Learning showcases a series of accessible teaching tools and materials for students and teachers of global politics and global policy making.
Contents:
1. Global Policy Snapshots
2. Global Policy Brief Lectures
3. Policy and Practitioner Conversations
4.Global Policy Audit Global Policy Learning showcases a series of accessible teaching tools and materials for students and teachers of global politics and global policy making. Global Policy Snapshots are visual representations of some of the key issues addressed in Global Policy, much of which is groundbreaking research. They are short, easily accessible collection of info-graphics, tables and statistics highlighting the state of global policymaking in various areas such as environment, financial regulation, nuclear proliferation or international trade.
The Oval Observer Foundation has partnered with the Global Policy to launch a food security campaign aimed at exploring the challenges faced by emerging economies in addressing malnourishment and undernourishment. The campaign intends to increase awareness on these issues through a broad range of mediums such as research papers, short movies, thematic dialogues and info graphics. The first output of this collaboration is four new Snapshots: In a series of brief lectures, Global Policy introduces some of the most important challenges faced by the world today. Leading academics provide insights into these global collective action problems: what these issues are, what attempts have been made to remedy them, and where we should turn next to find solutions.
A series of short videos with leading academics and practitioners in the newly emerging field of global policy. Each video is between 5-10 minutes long, and discusses a key global policy issue area.
The growing significance of global interdependence is well understood, as is the inherent difficulty of managing global problems through voluntary and ad hoc cooperation of nation-states. The field of global governance has produced a number of breakthroughs, as well as failures, and may benefit at this point from a global and inclusive audit. With this goal in mind, the editors of the Global Audit invited senior students and young scholars from universities and think-tanks around the world to write short essays on the following three questions: - What do you think are the notable achievements in global governance and global cooperation, and why?
- Name three major breakthroughs in global governance arrangements that you would like to see achieved in the next 5-10 years, and explain why.
- What are the key obstacles to the development of global governance, global cooperation and solidarity, and explain why?
C. J. Polychroniou explores how Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa plan to counter the unipolar power of the US and Europe. The recently concluded 2024 BRICS (an acronym for the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kazan and attended by scores of Global South leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, was the largest diplomatic forum in Russia since Putin ordered troops into Ukraine in 2022. With 36 countries attending, and more than 20 of them represented by heads of state, the three-day BRICS bloc of developing economies summit showed that Russia is anything but isolated on the global stage. The meeting highlighted the current geopolitical situation, the sanctions imposed by the United States on China, Russia and Iran, which all participants condemned as “unlawful,” and the need for an alternative payment system. The promotion and development of alternative financial instruments to gain greater independence from the dollar is perhaps the most important concern of the BRICS grouping. Yet no concrete resolutions were made at the 2024 BRICS summit. Still, there is much more to be read into the 2024 BRICS summit than a big diplomatic win for Putin over Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, which is how most of the mainstream corporate media opted to frame the summit. First, since Putin’s rise to power, multipolarity has been a central focus of Russia’s foreign policy agenda, as it is seen as a counterweight to the global hegemony of the U.S. and its allies. Beijing’s emphasis under the leadership of Xi Jinping is also on building a multipolar world. And more and more countries in the Global South are looking to geopolitical alliances to escape influence and economic dependence on the United States and Europe. BRICS countries say they seek to provide an alternative to the Western-led world order as they believe it is unfair, inequitable and exploitative. And the grouping has been gaining in strength, size and significance. It is estimated that BRICS countries account for 35 percent of the world economy and 45 percent of the population. In fact, not only have the BRICS countries’ share in world GDP overtaken that of G7, but the world economy relies increasingly on the emerging economies to drive expansion, according to the IMF. At the present time, the BRICS includes 10 countries — Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates — but more than 30 countries have expressed interest in joining, including NATO-member Turkey. This development speaks volumes of the rising Global South discontent with the U.S.-dominated international order and of the increasing realization on the part of so many people across the non-Western world that Washington has no interest in peace, fairness and justice, and that the U.S. is in fact edging back toward a unipolar world. That said, we need however to distinguish the discontent of the Global South population with the dominance of the United States from the grievances that the ruling classes of these nations express about the current world order, as their own self-preservation is what is of paramount importance to them. There is little doubt that the Biden administration’s hawkish line on Russia, waging a proxy war in Ukraine, seeking NATO’s expansion, pursuing the strategic encirclement of China with the building of defense alliances in the Indo-Pacific (Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand) and backing Israel’s constant use of brute force in the Middle East while “shielding Netanyahu against the reach of international justice,” as historian Adam Tooze aptly put it in a recent op-ed in the Guardian, are all part of a U.S. bid to reassert unipolar global hegemony. The U.S. is on decline, but it won’t go down without a fight. Too much has been invested in a Western-dominated world order, and the U.S. still possesses the world’s top military. Revealing the mindset of political leaders in Washington D.C., from both parties, to be sure, Kamala Harris said during her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that “as commander-in-chief, I will ensure that America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” The question here is whether BRICS can usurp the U.S.-led world order. To do so, the BRICS nations would have to overcome the challenges of economic integration and deepen financial cooperation. Undoubtedly, greater collaboration and stronger coordination among BRICS countries are both possible and have in fact seen significant progress over the years. The share of global trade among the group’s current members more than doubled, to 40 percent, from 2002 through 2022. However, becoming a global economic integration project, with a common currency, which is the kind of necessary step BRICS would have to take to truly go toe-to-toe with the U.S., is simply not in the cards at the present juncture or even in the foreseeable future. Indicative of the difficulties surrounding the vision of a global economic integration project, so far only Brazilian President Lula has come out in open support for the creation of a common currency for trade and investment between BRICS economies. Putin, for example, is in favor of switching trade between member states away from the dollar to national currencies. But even if a common BRICS currency was to be created, there is no guarantee that it would replace the U.S. dollar. Even the euro has not succeeded in supplanting the dollar although a common BRICS currency would surely weaken the power of U.S. sanctions, which, interestingly enough, have gained more prominence as a tool of U.S. foreign policy during the last couple of decades. Finally, given the huge differences in the form of governance that exists among BRICS member states (China is a one-party state with a mixed economy; India is a competitive-authoritarian hybrid; Iran is a theocracy; United Arab Emirates is a monarchy) there is no realistic prospect of BRICS turning into a political and security alliance against a U.S.-led NATO. Perhaps this explains the position of leaders like India’s Modi, who stated at the recently held summit of emerging economies that BRICS must not be seen as anti-West or even as an alternative to global organizations. A few days ahead of the summit, even Putin himself asserted that the BRICS grouping is not “anti-West,” but just “non-West.” Be that as it may, Chinese President Xi Jinping is absolutely spot-on when he said at the 2024 BRICS summit that “the world is undergoing a major change that has not been seen in a century and the international situation is changing and chaotic.” Both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin seem to be firm in their convictions that the world must shift toward multipolarity, although the belief that multipolarity in a capitalist universe will deliver a fairer and safer world is simply not true, as history has shown. At the same time, they appear to be fully aware of the ugly fact that the U.S. will try to remain at the top of the global power hierarchy by any means necessary. Indeed, to take one very recent example, how could international law and justice prevail when the U.S. labels the charges of the International Criminal Court against Israeli leaders “shameful” and “outrageous” but justifies similar charges against Putin? It is such hypocrisy and the plundering of international order by Western states, with the U.S. at the helm, that have led many leaders in the Global South calling for a new form of multilateral cooperation. For many of those nations, creating an alternative world order may indeed be a necessary step for their very survival. Whether such a vision will materialize or not, only time will tell. C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author, and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has published scores of books and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of different languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017); Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021). This first appeared on TruthOut. Photo by Michael Telitsyn FacebookTwitterShare From the Journal Latest Issue This special issue aims to contribute to ongoing endeavours to expand practices and theories of governance by bringing in perspectives and case studies from the Global South at a time of great turbulence and uncertainty. GP Columnists
The Global Governance Futures programme, or GGF, brings together young professionals to look ahead 10 years and recommend ways to address global challenges. At the heart of the GGF philosophy, we believe that the greatest asset of the programme lies in the diversity of our fellows and the collective energy they develop when they come together, discuss, debate and engage with one another during the four intense working sessions. This is why the fellows squarely occupy the center stage, setting GGF apart from many other young professionals’ programmes. The fellows play an active role in shaping the agenda of their respective working groups. The working process draws on the GGF method and brings together the unique strengths, experiences and perspectives of each fellow in working towards a common goal. The GGF team works closely with the fellows to help them achieve their goals and, in the process, cultivates a community that will last well beyond the duration of the programme through a growing and active alumni network. Building on the success of the first two rounds of the programme – GGF 2020 and GGF 2022 – the next round, GGF 2025, will assemble 25 individuals from Germany, China, Japan, India and the United States (five from each country). The selected GGF fellows form three working groups that explore a particular issue area of global governance. In GGF 2025 they will focus on internet governance, geoengineering governance and global arms control up until the year 2025. Using instruments from the field of futures research, the working groups will produce scenarios for their respective issue areas. Based on their findings, the fellows will put together a range of publications, including reports and commentaries, that present concrete recommendations on how to foster effective, accountable governance. Over the course of the programme the fellows' outputs, including reports, blogs and interviews, will be published on Global Policy and collated here:
Opinon and Analysis
Susanne Salz - United Nations to Retire at 70: Youthful United Actors to take over
Aasim Khan - Internet Governance Reform the Indian Way
Swati Malik - Autonomous Weapon Systems: The Urgent Need for Regulation
Julia Pohle - Multistakeholderism unmasked: How the NetMundial Initiative shifts battlegrounds in internet governance Abdul El-Sayed - The Hidden Casualties of Drone Warfare
Jonah Force Hill - No Guarantees on the ICANN Transition
Mudit Sharma - Climate Engineering: The need for Science, Governance and Better Understanding Interviews E-Governance and the Provision of Public Goods in India - Parminder Pal Singh Sandhu
Geoengineering Governance – Akiko Suzuki Global Arms Control - Takaaki Asano Global Arms Control – Conrad Hässler Geoengineering Governance – Susan Chan Shifflet Geoengineering Governance – Rongkun Liu Global Arms Control – Kevin Körner Global Internet Governance – Taejun Shin The GGF relies on the advice and guidance provided by the GGF steering committee, made up of senior policymakers and academics. The programme is generously funded by the Robert Bosch Stiftung. More information about the GGF can be found here.
The Global Leadership Initiative was led by a group of academic researchers and students who attend, monitor and conduct real time policy analysis at major global summits such as the Group of Seven (G7), the Group of Twenty (G20), the International Labour Organisation’s Governing Body meeting (ILO), the International Land Coalition’s Biennial Global Forum, The Architecture Sans Frontières’s International General Assembly meeting (ASF) and others. The GLI published small articles and blogs that offered credible academic analysis of global summits and their implications for global politics. In particular, the GLI focused on the furtherance of needed leadership (or lack thereof), holding world leaders to account, but also stressing new opportunities and past successes. The GLI was based within the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Sheffield and was first initiated by academics from the Department of Politics and the School of East Asian Studies who attended the 2013 G20 summit in St Petersburg and discovered that there was a significant gap in informed analysis of the topics under discussion. Academic experts and student policy analysts were therefore sought out to provide media briefs and to clarify policy issues. To fill this gap, the GLI sought to fulfil two aims. First, the GLI provided up-to-date and real-time policy analysis of global decision-making at the highest level, holding global leaders to account. Second, the GLI offered an exciting opportunity for high-achieving students (undergraduates and taught postgraduates) from the Faculty to attend summits and to collaborate with academic researchers. This was an opportunity for students to gain first-hand experience in international policy debates, to attend press conferences and to produce outputs visible to an international audience thereby enhancing their research skills and employability. On these page you will find examples of the analysis they produced. 44th G7 Summit, Canada, 2018 The 44th G7 is taking place in Charlevoix, Canada. It focuses on: 1) investing in growth that works for everyone; 2) preparing for jobs of the future; 3) advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment; 4) working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy; and 5) building a more peaceful and secure world. This year's GLI team will be reporting from the International Media Centre in Quebec City throughout the summit. Global Land Forum, Indonesia, 2018 We will also be sending a team to the Global Land Forum in Bandung in September. Please check back for more details in the coming months...
The Global Governance Futures – Robert Bosch Foundation Multilateral Dialogues (GGF) programme brings together exceptional young professionals to look ahead to the year 2035 and think of ways to better address global challenges. At the heart of the GGF philosophy is our belief that the greatest asset of the programme lies in the diversity of our fellows and the collective energy they develop when they discuss, debate and engage with each other during the dialogue sessions. This is why the fellows occupy the center stage, setting GGF apart from other programmes for young professionals. The fellows play an active role in shaping the agenda of their respective working groups. The working process draws on the GGF method and brings together the unique strengths, experiences and perspectives of each fellow as they work toward a common goal. The GGF team at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) works closely with the fellows to help them achieve their goals and, in the process, cultivate a community that will last well beyond the duration of the programme through a growing and active alumni community. GGF 2035 will assemble 27 individuals from Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, and the United States (three from each country).The GGF fellows will form three working groups, each one focusing on one of three key global issues. During the GGF 2035 round of the programme, the fellows will focus on the futures of climate-related conflict, media and information, and of the politics of inequality. Using strategic foresight instruments, including scenario planning and risk assessment, the working groups will craft scenarios for their respective issue areas. Based on their findings, the fellows will produce a range of products – including presentations, essays, commentaries, podcasts, and interviews – that outline their scenarios for the coming decade and ways to address the underlying challenges. The programme is supported by the Robert Bosch Stiftung. Reports A World Divided? Envisioning the Future of Global Inequality By the GGF 2035 Global Futures of the Politics of Inequality Working Group Chaos or Connection? The Global Media and Information Landscape in 2035 By the GGF 2035 Global Futures of Media and Information Working Group The Future of Conflict in an Age of Climate Extremes By the GGF 2035 Global Futures of Climate-Related Conflict Working Group Op-Eds An Unethical, Minimal, and Cruel Welfare State: COVID-19 and the Makings of a Demoralized U.S. Citizenry - Helidah Didi Ogude Interviews Connecting Air, Land and Sea: China’s Belt and Road Initiative – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Keren Zhu Media and Populism: Journalism in Latin America – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow André Duchiade Japan’s Geopolitical Balancing Act – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Kazuhiro Nomoto Biodiversity Affects Us All – A Conversation with GGF 2035 fellow Kathrin Ludwig Green Inclusive Finance – Where Have We Gone So Far? – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Sheila Teta Carina Duel Pandemics: COVID-19 and Disinformation in Indonesia - A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Nurma Fitrianingrum Connecting Locals with Newcomers - A conversation with GGF 2030 fellow Cédric Bischetti Coronavirus Fuels India’s Many Inequalities – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Rithika Nair Between Two Epidemics: Coronavirus and Inequality in Brazil – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Felipe Oriá The Promise of Tech: Trust, Results and Hope for a “Greenshot” – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Zach Beecher Will COVID-19 Push Space Technologies Into the Private Sector? - A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Vivien Croes Global Warning: Climate Justice and the Media - A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fel-low Tori Zheng Cui Beyond ‘Stay Safe’: COVID-19 and Inequality in South Africa - A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Tessa Dooms The Fourth Pillar: the Media and Challenges to Democracy – A Conversation with GGF 2035 Fellow Marie Baléo
Over the course of one year (2016-2017), the Global Governance Futures programme, or GGF, brings together young professionals to look ahead 10 years and recommend ways to address global challenges. At the heart of the GGF philosophy, we believe that the greatest asset of the programme lies in the diversity of our fellows and the collective energy they develop when they come together, discuss, debate and engage with one another during the four intense working sessions. This is why the fellows squarely occupy the center stage, setting GGF apart from many other young professionals’ programmes. The fellows play an active role in shaping the agenda of their respective working groups. The working process draws on the GGF method and brings together the unique strengths, experiences and perspectives of each fellow in working towards a common goal. The GGF team works closely with the fellows to help them achieve these goals and, in the process, cultivates a community that will last well beyond the duration of the programme through a growing and active alumni network. Building on three successful rounds of the programme – GGF 2020, GGF 2022 and GGF 2025 – the next round, GGF 2027, will assemble 25 individuals from Germany, China, Japan, India and the United States (five from each country). The GGF fellows form three working groups that explore a particular issue area of global governance. In GGF 2027 they will focus on data governance, global health and transnational terrorism until the year 2027. Using instruments from the field of futures research, the working groups will explore and produce scenarios for their respective issue areas. Based on their findings, the fellows will put together a range of publications, including reports and commentaries that present their findings on how to foster effective, accountable governance now and in the years ahead. Over the course of the programme the fellows' outputs, including reports, commentaries and interviews, will be published on Global Policy and collated here: An Introduction Global Governance Futures 2027 - Joel Sandhu and Johannes Gabriel Editorials Power in the Digital Age - Cathleen Berger Interviews
Japan can be More Proactive in Creating a Global Consensus on Data Governance: An Interview with GGF 2027 Fellow Shoko Yoshihara - Joel Sandhu China’s Response to Terrorism: An Interview With GGF 2027 Fellow Yuan Ma - Joel Sandhu Challenges and Opportunities for Global Health Governance. An interview with GGF 2027 fellow Mary Pillinger - Joel Sandhu How prepared is India to Tackle Epidemics? An interview with GGF 2027 fellow Chandrakant Lahariya - Joel Sandhu China’s Changing Terrorism Threat Perception. An interview with GGF 2027 fellows Fanglu Sun - Joel Sandhu China’s New Role in Global Health Security - An Interview with GGF 2027 Fellow Kun Tang - Joel Sandhu Commentaries We Need to ‘Fear-guard’ Economies During Health Emergencies - Sulzhan Bali Yolanda Jinxin Ma - Why Open Data Is Good for China
The Islamic State in South Asia: A Growing Threat - Aryaman Bhatnagar and Joel Sandhu
The current moment has seen war and populism strain the foundations of multilateralism. Together with 13 consortium partners, GPPi is launching a new research project to help bolster global governance: ENSURED, or “European Union Support for More Robust, Effective and Democratic Global Governance.” ENSURED addresses five policy areas – trade, climate, health, migration, and digitalization – that by their very nature pose transnational challenges. Collective efforts to address such challenges will require institutions that can survive under duress, achieve the goals for which they were established, and include all their stakeholders through transparent processes. These indicators of robustness, effectiveness and democracy are the starting points for our research. GPPi will take the lead in translating the project’s empirical findings into action points that can inform EU policy. This will involve producing policy reports and research briefs, as well as crafting strategic narratives to help EU officials promote better, more inclusive forms of multilateralism. GPPi will also develop the project’s communications channels, including an online toolkit that visualizes the transformation of global governance to reach active citizens and policymakers alike. Additionally, GPPi will contribute a report on AI regulation for the digitalization policy area. Please read the introductory and regular posts below: From the Coordinators: The ENSURED Vision - Hylke Dijkstra and Clara Weinhardt Outputs Trump 2.0: Trigger Points for Europe? - Stephan Klingebiel and Max-Otto Baumann “Recommit to Multilateralism”: What to Expect from the Summit of the Future - Eugene Chen "Lack of Coverage Makes IOs Vulnerable": International Organisations and Media Visibility in the West - Michal Parizek Navigating Uncertainty: What to Expect from the 2024 NATO Summit - Leonard Schuette “A Rather Sober Experience”: Insights from the WTO's 13th Ministerial Conference - Manfred Elsig Charting a New Course? What’s at Stake in the 2024 EU Elections - Dylan Macchiarini Crosson Visit the ENSURED website.
Global Policy is an innovative and interdisciplinary journal bringing together world class academics and leading practitioners to analyse both public and private solutions to global problems and issues. It focuses on understanding globally relevant risks and collective action problems; policy challenges that have global impact; and competing and converging discourses about global risks and policy responses. It also includes case studies of policy with clear lessons for other countries and regions; how policy responses, politics and institutions interrelate at the global level; and the conceptual, theoretical and methodological innovations needed to explain and develop policy in these areas. Global Policy will be invaluable to those working in economics, global politics, government, international law, international relations, international political economy, and many other disciplines that contribute to developing global policy. The journal is also designed to inform and engage senior policymakers, private and public corporations, non-governmental organisations, and international bodies. The overall objective is to stimulate deep policy learning, relevant for the academy and for governments and key non-governmental players. Global Policy's Editorial Board comprises a distinguished panel of academics who are supported by an International Advisory Board and a Practitioners' Advisory Board of experts from around the world to ensure the focus remains on pressing and relevant global issues. Global Policy is based at Durham University. Read our full Editorial Statement.
The Implementation Review Group is a subsidiary body of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption. It is responsible for having an overview of the review process and consider technical assistance requirements for the effective implementation of the Convention. In 2016, the Group adopted a multi-year workplan for its analytical work, covering the period from 2017 to 2019. This workplan dedicates each session and resumed session of the Group to a particular topic. The Group holds one session and a maximum of two resumed sessions per year, during which time participants are able to share information on the country reviews and discuss substantive issues related to the reviews and to technical assistance. SESSIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW GROUP Resumed fourteenth session 4 - 8 Sep 2023
Vienna, Austria Fourteenth session 12 - 16 Jun 2023
Vienna, Austria Second resumed thirteenth session 7 - 11 Nov 2022
Vienna, Austria First resumed thirteenth session 8 - 9 Sep 2022
Vienna, Austria Thirteenth session 13 - 17 Jun 2022
Vienna, Austria Resumed twelfth session 6 - 10 Sep 2021
In person and online Twelfth session 14 - 18 Jun 2021
In person and online Second resumed eleventh session 16 - 18 Nov 2020
Online First resumed eleventh session 31 Aug – 2 Sep 2020
In person and online Eleventh session 29 Jun 2020
Online Second resumed tenth session 17 - 18 Dec 2019
Abu Dhabi, UAE First resumed tenth session 2 - 4 Sep 2019
Vienna, Austria Tenth session 27 - 29 May 2019
Vienna, Austria Second resumed ninth session 12 - 14 Nov 2018
Vienna, Austria First resumed ninth session 3 - 5 Sep 2018
Vienna, Austria Ninth session 4 - 6 Jun 2018
Vienna, Austria Resumed eighth session 7 - 8 Nov 2017
Vienna, Austria Eighth session 19 - 23 Jun 2017
Vienna, Austria Resumed seventh session 14 - 16 Nov 2016
Vienna, Austria Seventh session 20 - 24 Jun 2016
Vienna, Austria Resumed sixth session 3 - 4 Nov 2015
St. Petersburg, Russia Sixth session 1 - 5 Jun 2015
Vienna, Austria Resumed fifth session 13 - 15 Oct 2014
Vienna, Austria Fifth session 2 - 6 Jun 2014
Vienna, Austria Resumed fourth session 26 - 27 Nov 2013
Panama City, Panama Fourth session 27 - 31 May 2013
Vienna, Austria Resumed third session 14 - 16 Nov 2012
Vienna, Austria Third session 18 - 22 Jun 2012
Vienna, Austria Continued resumed second session 25 Oct 2011
Marrakech, Morocco Resumed second session 7 - 9 Sep 2011
Vienna, Austria Second session 30 May - 3 Jun 2011
Vienna, Austria Resumed first session 29 Nov - 1 Dec 2010
Vienna, Austria First session 28 Jun - 2 Jul 2010
Vienna, Austria BACKGROUND AND MANDATE Through its resolution 3/1 and the terms of reference for the Mechanism, the Conference established the Implementation Review Group as an open-ended intergovernmental group of States parties, which operates under the authority of and reports to the Conference. The terms of reference set forth that: “[…] 42. The Implementation Review Group shall be an open-ended intergovernmental group of States parties. It shall operate under the authority of and report to the Conference. 43. The Implementation Review Group shall hold meetings at least once a year in Vienna. 44. The functions of the Implementation Review Group shall be to have an overview of the review process in order to identify challenges and good practices and to consider technical assistance requirements in order to ensure effective implementation of the Convention. The thematic implementation report shall serve as the basis for the analytical work of the Implementation Review Group. On the basis of its deliberations, the Implementation Review Group shall submit recommendations and conclusions to the Conference for its consideration and approval. […]"
Signature and Ratification Status Parties: 189
Status as of: 18 November 2021 Entry into force: 14 December 2005, in accordance with article 68 (1) which reads as follows: "1.This Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. For the purpose of this paragraph, any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of such organization. 2. For each State or regional economic integration organization ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Convention after the deposit of the thirtieth instrument of such action, this Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit by such State or organization of the relevant instrument or on the date this Convention enters into force pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article, whichever is later." Text: Doc. A/58/422 Note: The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 31 October 2003 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It was open to all States for signature from 9 to 11 December 2003 in Merida, Mexico, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until 9 December 2005, in accordance with article 67 (1) of the Convention. The Convention shall also be open for signature by regional economic integration organizations provided that at least one member State of such organization has signed this Convention in accordance with its article 67 (2). Country Signature Ratification, Acceptance (A),
Approval (AA), Accession (a),
Succession (d) Afghanistan 20 Feb 2004 25 Aug 2008 Albania 18 Dec 2003 25 May 2006 Algeria 9 Dec 2003 25 Aug 2004 Angola 10 Dec 2003 29 Aug 2006 Antigua and Barbuda 21 Jun 2006 a Argentina 10 Dec 2003 28 Aug 2006 Armenia 19 May 2005 8 Mar 2007 Australia 9 Dec 2003 7 Dec 2005 Austria 10 Dec 2003 11 Jan 2006 Azerbaijan 27 Feb 2004 1 Nov 2005 Bahamas 10 Jan 2008 a Bahrain 8 Feb 2005 5 Oct 2010 Bangladesh 27 Feb 2007 a Barbados 10 Dec 2003 Belarus 28 Apr 2004 17 Feb 2005 Belize 12 Dec 2016 a Belgium 10 Dec 2003 25 Sep 2008 Benin 10 Dec 2003 14 Oct 2004 Bhutan 15 Sep 2005 21 Sep 2016 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 9 Dec 2003 5 Dec 2005 Bosnia and Herzegovina 16 Sep 2005 26 Oct 2006 Botswana 27 Jun 2011 a Brazil 9 Dec 2003 15 Jun 2005 Brunei Darussalam 11 Dec 2003 2 Dec 2008 Bulgaria 10 Dec 2003 20 Sep 2006 Burkina Faso 10 Dec 2003 10 Oct 2006 Burundi 10 Mar 2006 a Cabo Verde 9 Dec 2003 23 Apr 2008 Cambodia 5 Sep 2007 a Cameroon 10 Dec 2003 6 Feb 2006 Canada 21 May 2004 2 Oct 2007 Central African Republic 11 Feb 2004 6 Oct 2006 Chad 26 June 2018 a Chile 11 Dec 2003 13 Sep 2006 China 1 10 Dec 2003 13 Jan 2006 Colombia 10 Dec 2003 27 Oct 2006 Comoros 10 Dec 2003 11 Oct 2012 Congo 13 Jul 2006 a Cook Islands 17 Oct 2011 Costa Rica 10 Dec 2003 21 Mar 2007 Côte d'Ivoire 10 Dec 2003 25 Oct 2012 Croatia 10 Dec 2003 24 Apr 2005 Cuba 9 Dec 2005 9 Feb 2007 Cyprus 9 Dec 2003 23 Feb 2009 Czechia 22 Apr 2005 29 Nov 2013 Democratic Republic of the Congo 23 Sep 2010 a Denmark 2 10 Dec 2003 26 Dec 2006 Djibouti 17 Jun 2004 20 Apr 2005 Dominica 28 May 2010 a Dominican Republic 10 Dec 2003 26 Oct 2006 Ecuador 10 Dec 2003 15 Sep 2005 Egypt 9 Dec 2003 25 Feb 2005 El Salvador 10 Dec 2003 1 Jul 2004 Equatorial Guinea 30 May 2018 a Estonia 12 Apr 2010 a Eswatini 15 Sep 2005 24 Sep 2012 Ethiopia 10 Dec 2003 26 Nov 2007 European Union 15 Sep 2005 12 Nov 2008 AA Fiji 14 May 2008 a Finland 9 Dec 2003 20 Jun 2006 A France 9 Dec 2003 11 Jul 2005 Gabon 10 Dec 2003 1 Oct 2007 Gambia 8 Jul 2015 a Georgia 4 Nov 2008 a Germany 9 Dec 2003 12 Nov 2014 Ghana 9 Dec 2004 27 Jun 2007 Greece 10 Dec 2003 17 Sep 2008 Grenada 1 Apr 2015 a Guatemala 9 Dec 2003 3 Nov 2006 Guinea 15 Jul 2005 29 May 2013 Guinea-Bissau 10 Sep 2007 a Guyana 16 Apr 2008 a Haiti 10 Dec 2003 14 Sep 2009 Holy See 19 Sep 2016 a Honduras 17 May 2004 23 May 2005 Hungary 10 Dec 2003 19 Apr 2005 Iceland 1 Mar 2011 a India 9 Dec 2005 9 May 2011 Indonesia 18 Dec 2003 19 Sep 2006 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 9 Dec 2003 20 Apr 2009 Iraq 17 Mar 2008 a Ireland 9 Dec 2003 09 Nov 2011 Israel 29 Nov 2005 4 Feb 2009 Italy 9 Dec 2003 5 Oct 2009 Jamaica 16 Sep 2005 5 Mar 2008 Japan 9 Dec 2003 11 Jul 2017 A Jordan 9 Dec 2003 24 Feb 2005 Kazakhstan 18 Jun 2008 a Kenya 9 Dec 2003 9 Dec 2003 Kiribati 27 Sep 2013 a Kuwait 9 Dec 2003 16 Feb 2007 Kyrgyzstan 10 Dec 2003 16 Sep 2005 Lao People's Democratic Republic 10 Dec 2003 25 Sep 2009 Latvia 19 May 2005 4 Jan 2006 Lebanon 22 Apr 2009 a Lesotho 16 Sep 2005 16 Sep 2005 Liberia 16 Sep 2005 a Liechtenstein 10 Dec 2003 8 Jul 2010 Lithuania 10 Dec 2003 21 Dec 2006 Luxembourg 10 Dec 2003 6 Nov 2007 Madagascar 10 Dec 2003 22 Sep 2004 Malawi 21 Sep 2004 4 Dec 2007 Malaysia 9 Dec 2003 24 Sep 2008 Maldives 22 Mar 2007 a Mali 9 Dec 2003 18 Apr 2008 Malta 12 May 2005 11 Apr 2008 Marshall Islands 17 Nov 2011 Mauritania 25 Oct 2006 a Mauritius 9 Dec 2003 15 Dec 2004 Mexico 9 Dec 2003 20 Jul 2004 Micronesia (Federated States of) 21 Mar 2012 a Mongolia 29 Apr 2005 11 Jan 2006 Montenegro 3 23 Oct 2006 d Morocco 9 Dec 2003 9 May 2007 Mozambique 25 May 2004 9 Apr 2008 Myanmar 2 Dec 2005 20 Dec 2012 Namibia 9 Dec 2003 3 Aug 2004 Nauru 12 Jul 2012 a Nepal 10 Dec 2003 31 Mar 2011 Netherlands 4 10 Dec 2003 31 Oct 2006 A New Zealand 10 Dec 2003 1 Dec 2015 Nicaragua 10 Dec 2003 15 Feb 2006 Niger 11 Aug 2008 a Nigeria 9 Dec 2003 14 Dec 2004 Niue 3 Oct 2017 a North Macedonia 18 Aug 2005 13 Apr 2007 Norway 9 Dec 2003 29 Jun 2006 Oman 9 Jan 2014 Pakistan 9 Dec 2003 31 Aug 2007 Palau 24 Mar 2009 a Panama 10 Dec 2003 23 Sep 2005 Papua New Guinea 22 Dec 2004 16 Jul 2007 Paraguay 9 Dec 2003 1 Jun 2005 Peru 10 Dec 2003 16 Nov 2004 Philippines 9 Dec 2003 8 Nov 2006 Poland 10 Dec 2003 15 Sep 2006 Portugal 11 Dec 2003 28 Sep 2007 Qatar 1 Dec 2005 30 Jan 2007 Republic of Korea 10 Dec 2003 27 Mar 2008 Republic of Moldova 28 Sep 2004 1 Oct 2007 Romania 9 Dec 2003 2 Nov 2004 Russian Federation 9 Dec 2003 9 May 2006 Rwanda 30 Nov 2004 4 Oct 2006 Saint Lucia 25 Nov 2011 a Samoa 16 Apr 2018 a Sao Tome and Principe 8 Dec 2005 12 Apr 2006 Saudi Arabia 9 Jan 2004 29 April 2013 Senegal 9 Dec 2003 16 Nov 2005 Serbia 11 Dec 2003 20 Dec 2005 Seychelles 27 Feb 2004 16 Mar 2006 Sierra Leone 9 Dec 2003 30 Sep 2004 Singapore 11 Nov 2005 06 Nov 2009 Slovakia 9 Dec 2003 1 Jun 2006 Slovenia 1 Apr 2008 a Solomon Islands 6 Jan 2012 a Somalia 11 Aug 2021 a South Africa 9 Dec 2003 22 Nov 2004 South Sudan 23 Jan 2015 a Spain 16 Sep 2005 19 Jun 2006 Sri Lanka 15 Mar 2004 31 Mar 2004 State of Libya 23 Dec 2003 7 Jun 2005 State of Palestine 2 Apr 2014 a Sudan 14 Jan 2005 5 Sep 2014 Suriname 18 Nov 2021 a Sweden 9 Dec 2003 25 Sep 2007 Switzerland 10 Dec 2003 24 Sep 2009 Syrian Arab Republic 9 Dec 2003 Tajikistan 25 Sep 2006 a Thailand 9 Dec 2003 1 Mar 2011 Timor-Leste 10 Dec 2003 27 Mar 2009 Togo 10 Dec 2003 6 Jul 2005 Tonga 6 Feb 2020 a Trinidad and Tobago 11 Dec 2003 31 May 2006 Tunisia 30 Mar 2004 23 Sep 2008 Türkiye 10 Dec 2003 9 Nov 2006 Turkmenistan 28 Mar 2005 a Tuvalu 04 Sep 2015 a Uganda 9 Dec 2003 9 Sep 2004 Ukraine 11 Dec 2003 02 Dec 2009 United Arab Emirates 10 Aug 2005 22 Feb 2006 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 5 9 Dec 2003 9 Feb 2006 United Republic of Tanzania 9 Dec 2003 25 May 2005 United States of America 9 Dec 2003 30 Oct 2006 Uruguay 9 Dec 2003 10 Jan 2007 Uzbekistan 29 Jul 2008 a Vanuatu 12 Jul 2011 a Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 10 Dec 2003 2 Feb 2009 Viet Nam 10 Dec 2003 19 Aug 2009 Yemen 11 Dec 2003 7 Nov 2005 Zambia 11 Dec 2003 7 Dec 2007 Zimbabwe 20 Feb 2004 8 Mar 2007 Information on declarations, reservations and territorial applications are available at the United Nations Treaty Collection website and can be accessed through the following address: https://treaties.un.org
|
