Suchergebnisse

For more than a century and a half, the most powerful national governments have created institutions of multilateral governance that promise to make a more inclusive world, a world serving women, working people, the colonized, the 'backward', the destitute, and the despised. This groundbreaking book is a study of that promise, and of the real impact of this world government. It discusses what systems global institutions have, and have not done to keep their promise, and examines whether the system will serve the world's least-advantaged, or marginalize them further. This book focuses on whether it is the 'economists and political philosophers of the rich', or the social movements of the disadvantaged that are most likely to influence the world's lawmakers, and the processes by which they will complete the next generation of multilateral institutions. An innovative study, this book is important reading for anyone with an interest in international political economy, global governance, development and the politics of north-south relations

Cover -- Contents -- Notes on the Contributors -- List of Abbreviations -- Introduction: Globalization and the Double-Movement Hypothesis -- 1 Class, Gender and the Politics of Neoliberal Globalization in the USA -- 2 Egalitarian Social Movements in Western Europe: Can They Survive Globalization and the Economic and Monetary Union? -- 3 Latin America in an Age of Inequality: Confronting the New 'Utopia' -- 4 Engendering Change through Egalitarian Movements: The African Experience -- 5 Egalitarian Responses in Postcommunist Russia -- 6 Nonsocial Movements and Social Nonmovements in China -- 7 Capital, Crisis and Chaos: Indonesia and Malaysia in a Globalizing Era -- 8 Migrant Workers' Movements in Japan and South Korea -- 9 Conclusion: Pinpointing the Significance of Women's Empowerment, Recognizing Political Opportunities, Anticipating Transnational Coalitions -- References -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- X -- Y -- Z.

ABSTRACTCurrently on the rise in archaeology, ontological approaches promise new ways of engaging with alterity of various kinds—different people, different times, different forms, even different worlds. This work promises to aid in critical reflections on the arbitrary nature of the Western gaze and to recognize and incorporate non‐Western knowledge in new manners. There are, however, several challenges to address. First, as noted by several leading thinkers in this area, the present range of ontological approaches include contrasting theoretical underpinnings. Second, these approaches are rarely considered in relation to the practical challenges of specific archaeological cases, particularly contexts of settler colonialism in which practitioners are attuned to the potential colonial nature of their work. I divide ontologically engaged archaeologies into three related but distinct groups and use a small museum assemblage of seventeenth‐century Wendat materials from Ontario to help think through these three theories. In comparing approaches, I outline their respective strengths, weaknesses, and points in need of further clarification. I conclude that the ontological turns offer new and valuable angles of articulation with archaeological materials but that archaeologists must adopt them cautiously if they are to avoid repeating or continuing some of the darkest parts of our (colonial) disciplinary history. [ontology, archaeology, new materialism, archaeological theory, effigies, colonialism, Iroquoian archaeology, Ontario]

This essay is about the drivers and consequences of changes in the voluntary consensus standard-setting (VCSS) system, the part of the contemporary global governance system that most of us encounter the most frequently, but that we rarely even notice. The VCSS system is made up of thousands of "technical committees" in which hundreds of thousands of experts (most of them engineers) create standards that constantly affect our lives—from the unique number that identifies this journal, to the electronic codes that translated my keystrokes into the words you are reading at the moment, to the rules governing the supply chain for the "fair trade" coffee you may have in a mug by your side. Historian Mark Mazower calls the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the organization that stands at the apex of the largest network of groups that sponsor these technical committees, "perhaps the most influential private organization in the contemporary world, with a vast and largely invisible influence over most aspects of how we live, from the shape of our household appliances to the colors and smells that surround us."

In recent essays, Thomas Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson argue that analysis of systems of global governance going back to the beginnings of the earliest state systems could provide fundamental insight into the problems that trouble the scholarly field of international relations today. While no social scientist or historian is yet able to give a credible account of global governance over those many millennia, it is possible to begin to recount the history of global governance far back beyond the events with which scholars of international relations begin, 1945, the end of World War II and the founding of the postwar UN system - as Thomas Weiss and Dan Plesch do in their essay in this issue of Global Governance - to provide valuable insights for contemporary global governance. An even more reasonable date for the beginning of the contemporary system of global governance would be 1815. The associated events were the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna and the beginning of a system of governance of Europe and its empires that eventually led to the global system that we now have. The conservative governments that held the congress created many of the institutions that still characterize global governance and gave new life to older institutions and practices whose sources and consequences were central to the nineteenth-century interimperial organizations out of which the United Nations grew. Many of the goals of the interimperial system - the economic goals as well as the goal of universalizing and perfecting the state system - also are still with us. Moreover, the constitutional dynamics of the nineteenth-century system - the forces that led to change within international governance - remain the same. Attention to those dynamics can, as Weiss and Wilkinson would suggest, help us understand the prospects for ameliorating current global problems, including problems that could not have been anticipated two centuries ago. Adapted from the source document.