Global Policy最新文献

This study investigates how fragmented governance shapes the Belt and Road Initiative's (BRI) contributions to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 and 9. Although the BRI's stated objectives align with the SDG agenda, empirical evidence from EU countries reveals that institutional fragmentation and policy misalignment can significantly hinder sustainable development outcomes. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study applies Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to a corpus of 321 BRI-related policy documents to extract thematic patterns and assess their semantic alignment with SDG 8 and 9 keyword frameworks. It then analyzes governance fragmentation at the domestic level, EU-member states level, and China-EU level, complemented by case studies of Italy, Poland, Croatia, and Slovenia to explore how different levels of fragmentation impede BRI project implementation and weaken SDG progress. The findings reveal three key insights: (1) BRI-related discourse demonstrates moderate alignment with SDGs 8 and 9 in terms of policy narratives; (2) governance fragmentation in EU countries is multi-dimensional and structurally embedded; and (3) fragmentation undermines BRI project continuity and its developmental impact. This research proposes a three-pronged policy framework comprising politically neutral commitment mechanisms, EU-compatible regulatory alignment guidelines, and adaptive pathways for SDG compliance—designed to strengthen institutional coherence and enhance the sustainability of cross-border BRI cooperation.

Nuclear deterrence and climate inaction wrong future generations by imposing potential existential harm through climate-related disasters and nuclear winter. While increasingly explored in tandem, key differences in their intergenerational justice dimensions are overlooked. First, the timelines for imposing harm differ. Climate risks cumulate and intensify across generations. In contrast, the longer nuclear weapons are retained, the greater the probability of nuclear war at some point, without it necessarily becoming more probable at any particular point. Nuclear risks are transient, meaning that risks from past choices resolve if catastrophe is avoided. Yet if elevated risk levels persist, the probability of some future generation facing the aftermath of nuclear war cumulates. While the long-term trajectory is grim, the threat appears manageable at each point in time. Second, incentives for immediate versus delayed action to tackle underlying challenges vary. The appeal of fossil fuels is expected to wane, whereas the perceived benefits of nuclear deterrence are likely to endure. Third, the salience of intergenerational implications of nuclear weapons is diminishing, while climate impacts grow tangible. Despite shared moral dilemmas, nuclear-related intergenerational injustice is particularly difficult to recognize and address. Acknowledging this discrepancy matters for how we approach our obligations to posterity.

Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) policies seem to represent a pathbreaking shift from voluntary measures to binding rules for global supply chains. Yet these policies endorse a “smart-mix” of voluntary and mandatory measures, and risk over-reliance on questionable private-sector assurances. In this paper, we ask how businesses framed these private/voluntary efforts in the face of looming regulation, focusing on the EU's new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Through a systematic coding of policy positions, we find businesses (1) using voluntary initiatives to delegitimize mandatory measures, (2) seeking to institutionalize voluntary norms, (3) pushing for private assurances to signify legal compliance, or (4) endorsing mandatory measures to protect the competitive advantage of sustainability leaders. While frames (1) and (4) shaped the debate, we argue that frames (2) and (3) are more fully reflected in the final text of the Directive. We explore both theoretical and practical implications.

The recent US disengagement from global governance has revived concerns—first theorized in the 1970s and 1980s—about the vulnerability of international institutions to hegemonic decline. While these concerns appear valid in many issue areas, the global environmental regime complex presents a notable exception. Unlike more centralized global governance structures, it has a high degree of complexity and this characteristic enhances its capacity to absorb shocks, including the withdrawal of US leadership. In hindsight, it may be fortunate that proposals to centralize global environmental governance, such as the creation of a World Environmental Organization, never materialized. Complexity, once viewed as a weakness of global environmental governance, may now prove to be its greatest strength in an era of geopolitical turbulence.

This study examines the critical role of trade facilitation in enhancing food security in Jordan, a country where 90% of essential food items are imported. Despite being a regional leader in implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), Jordan faces persistent challenges due to logistical inefficiencies, institutional fragmentation, and high agricultural trade costs. Using Causal Process Tracing (CPT), the research evaluates how trade facilitation measures impact food security, while identifying systemic bottlenecks that undermine their effectiveness. The findings reveal that while Jordan has made significant progress in digitalization and procedural reforms, structural barriers—such as protracted clearance times for perishable goods, underdeveloped cold chain infrastructure, and maritime connectivity deficits—limit the TFA's potential. Non-tariff measures (NTMs) further exacerbate delays and costs. The “Hoop test” confirms that trade facilitation is necessary but insufficient alone in Jordan; complementary policies, such as institutional consolidation through a Single Window system, logistics modernisation, and regional cooperation on Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs), are essential to strengthen resilience. The study concludes with targeted recommendations: (1) accelerating digital integration and NTM reform to streamline agricultural trade; (2) expanding port capacity and cold chain infrastructure to reduce spoilage; and (3) diversifying trade routes to mitigate geopolitical risks.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a Regional Development Bank established in 2015 and promoted by China, aims to support sustainable economic development in Asia through infrastructure investments. Surprisingly, a considerable number of European countries joined as founding members despite the Bank's initial focus being strictly regional. Their primary goals were not only to increase financial flows towards Asian infrastructure but also to ensure that the AIIB adhered to internationally recognised financial, environmental and social standards. This paper analyses the European states’ ability to impact specific institutional policies concerning the energy sector. It unpacks the Bank's decision-making processes by analysing statements made at the Board of Governors level through a qualitative discourse analysis methodology and triangulating results with the analysis of Annual Reports, official documents approved by the AIIB and its operations. The analysis revealed that the primary influence of European countries can be found in the alignment of the AIIB Energy Sector Strategy with the Paris Agreement and its increase in green finance. However, the resistance of certain developing countries and members of the Bank also led to an ambiguous approach of the AIIB towards sustainable finance.

As countries increasingly adopt due diligence legislation to promote human rights, labor standards, and environmental sustainability in global value chains, a complex dilemma arises. While these laws commendably aim to address moral and political issues in international trade, they may also impose significant costs on companies, potentially disincentivizing investment and trade. This study examines the impact of due diligence laws on international trade and business, analyzing some 60 cases. We explore their unintended consequences, including the potential withdrawal of investors from partner countries, reduced trade, including strategic commodities, and increased costs of compliance leading to competitiveness concerns. Our research categorizes different forms of legislation, investigating whether current due diligence laws are well-designed to achieve their goals without producing unwanted side effects. We end with a brief set of suggestions for a future research agenda.

EXPRESSION OF CONCERN: B. Ayodele, “Russia's Invasion of Ukraine: Nigeria's Value-Driven and Pragmatic Indifferent Stance,” Global Policy 15, no. 4 (2024): 768-772, https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13447.

This Expression of Concern is for the above article, published online on 27 September 2024 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been issued by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Eva-Maria Nag; Durham University; and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Expression of Concern has been agreed due to concerns raised by a third party. Some references were either inaccurately cited (Brill, 2022; Okafor, 2022, pp. 2–5) or could not be found (Oloruntoba, 2022; Eze, 2015; Nigerian Foreign Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2022), resulting in multiple claims lacking proper support from the literature. As the identified issues do not compromise the overall validity of the study, the journal has decided to issue an Expression of Concern to inform and alert the readers.