India and multilateralism: from the
periphery to the center
Ever since independence, India has continued to underscore its internationalism – its desire to work with other states to fashion mutually advantageous outcomes – particularly within the ambit of international institutions.
Like most other states, India has tried to strike a balance between advancing
its own interests and the collective interest, between unilateral and multilateral approaches. While domestic critics suggest that India is not mindful
of its own interests and that it is ineffective
The United States under Donald Trump has been charting a radically new course in Asia, a region that has long relied on America for stability and maintaining the balance of power. In the first half of his presidential term of 2017–21, the forty-fifth president reversed or sought to reverse many of the long-standing policies and initiatives pursued by Barack Obama and his predecessors, with potential long-term implications. A multilateral and multifaceted engagement strategy in the region is being replaced by a transactional approach to security
to conduct their diplomacy, it is known as multilateral diplomacy . How states conduct human rights and humanitarian diplomacy multilaterally is the focus of this chapter. The next chapter centers on IGO diplomacy where independent IGO officials engage in diplomatic activities to galvanize international attention, carry out their mandates, and liaise with states, NGOs, and other IGOs. 1 These forms of diplomacy are analyzed separately but as a practical matter, their diplomacy is interactive, with each shaping and influencing the other.
T he sharp change in Tokyo’s strategy towards regional security multilateralism well illustrates Japan’s decentring from the US after the Cold War, even while nonetheless serving, at least so far, to support, if not strengthen, the Japan–US alliance. This chapter examines how Japan has used regional multilateralism since 1991 for several purposes: to help keep the US engaged in the region; to reassure Japan’s neighbours that Tokyo would not again threaten their security, even as it began playing a
The international community contributed nearly US$31 billion to humanitarian assistance in 2020, a figure that has steadily risen over the last half decade ( DI, 2021 ). Within bilateral and multilateral funding circles, there has been a strong and growing emphasis on the importance of understanding and responding to gender inequalities in emergency settings. For instance, recognising that conflicts and disasters affect people across various genders, ages and backgrounds differently, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) has been a recipient of international humanitarian aid from international organisations (IOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) since 1995. In recent years, multilateral and unilateral sanctions in response to the DPRK’s nuclear programme have created a new layer of difficulty for humanitarians looking to engage with the authoritarian state. This paper explores how sanctions are affecting humanitarian work in practice, utilising interviews with practitioners. The research first surveys documentation, particularly from IOs, to establish how humanitarians understand contemporary need inside the country. Next, this paper examines the impacts of sanctions on aid efforts, with a particular focus on multilateral United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions and unilateral American measures. Unpacking humanitarian challenges and potential ways to navigate the sanctions regime provides a foundation for academics and humanitarian practitioners to better understand both the DPRK and possible avenues for principled, effective aid.
An Interview with Celso Amorim, Former Brazilian Foreign Minister
Brazil to a position of protagonism in multilateral negotiations. He
is convinced that the country will fulfil its potential as a major global power that can
influence other states with a democratic and egalitarian vision. But he also recognises
A framed photo of Amorim and Lula perched on the top shelf of an eclectic bookcase, both men
smiling widely. The following day, Amorim would travel to the southern Brazilian city of
Curitiba, where he would visit Lula in prison. And he would receive news of a declaration by the
once authored, not
because of his own idiosyncratic way of doing politics but because of the strategic realignment
that his presidency represents.
According to Trump, his administration’s security strategy is guided by
‘principled realism’. The apparent incoherence of his foreign policy is as
indicative of what this entails as his specific interactions with other governments. With every
diplomatic encounter imagined as a stand-alone opportunity to strike a winning
‘deal’, the norms-based, multilateral system of global governance becomes
Digital Work and Fragile Livelihoods of Women Refugees in the Middle East
and North Africa
pandemic. This is particularly true for any future multilateral
initiatives like the Jordan Compact, which failed to dedicate specific and targeted
policies aimed at helping women to overcome gendered barriers to work. For example,
policies promoting the development of safe public transportation infrastructure that
would provide refugee women more freedom of movement, facilitating the start-up of
online businesses through financial support, and providing women with specialised
exercise of its power, through force
and the active division and dispersion of its competitors, boycotting every kind of multilateral
or regional agreement or bloc, from the European Union to UNASUR, from NAFTA to the BRICS.
Can this new American strategy be reversed? It is difficult to tell, but it is important to
understand that it didn’t come from nowhere, nor is it the exclusive work of President
Trump. The polarisation of American society and the internal divisions within the American
establishment will likely increase in the coming years, but it