Suchergebnisse

Climate change makes fossil fuels unburnable, yet global coal production has almost doubled over the last 20 years. This book explores how the world can stop mining coal - the most prolific source of greenhouse gas emissions. It documents efforts at halting coal production, focusing specifically on how campaigners are trying to stop coal mining in India, Germany, and Australia. Through in-depth comparative ethnography, it shows how local people are fighting to save their homes, livelihoods, and environments, creating new constituencies and alliances for the transition from fossil fuels. The book relates these struggles to conflicts between global climate policy and the national coal-industrial complex. With coal's meaning transformed from an important asset to a threat, and the coal industry declining, it charts reasons for continuing coal dependence, and how this can be overcome. It will provide a source of inspiration for energy transition for researchers in environment, sustainability, and politics, as well as policymakers.

In 2017 the Australian Government announced a raft of measures designed to combat 'foreign interference' in the Australian political system. The measures propose new constraints on civil society advocacy and threaten to seriously curtail democratic rights. They form part of global trend towards the increased regulation of International Non-Government Organisations (INGOs), driven by fears of 'foreign' political influence. In response to the shrinking 'civic space', NGOs are defining new agendas. Recently in Australia and elsewhere NGO advocates have gained some traction in extending the legitimacy and scope for political advocacy. The new rhetoric of countering 'foreign interference' threatens NGO advocacy, but also creates new political possibilities. This article surveys the international trends and Australian contexts; it analyses recent legislative proposals in Australia to combat 'foreign interference', and outlines the public debate. The double standard for INGOs and multinational corporations is highlighted as a key theme, and the article ends with a concluding discussion about emerging possibilities for new political obligations for corporations in Australia

In 2017 the Australian Government announced a raft of measures designed to combat 'foreign interference' in the Australian political system. The measures propose new constraints on civil society advocacy and threaten to seriously curtail democratic rights. They form part of global trend towards the increased regulation of International Non-Government Organisations (INGOs), driven by fears of 'foreign' political influence. In response to the shrinking 'civic space', NGOs are defining new agendas. Recently in Australia and elsewhere NGO advocates have gained some traction in extending the legitimacy and scope for political advocacy. The new rhetoric of countering 'foreign interference' threatens NGO advocacy, but also creates new political possibilities. This article surveys the international trends and Australian contexts; it analyses recent legislative proposals in Australia to combat 'foreign interference', and outlines the public debate. The double standard for INGOs and multinational corporations is highlighted as a key theme, and the article ends with a concluding discussion about emerging possibilities for new political obligations for corporations in Australia

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v6i1.3924

AbstractIn 2005, the United Nations reinterpreted its charter to facilitate humanitarian intervention, defining military action to prevent serious human rights abuses as a legitimate means of maintaining international peace and security. Under circumstances of 'genocide, ethnic cleansing and other such crimes against humanity', states have a 'responsibility to protect' the victims and, if required, to use military means to do so. This new state responsibility is a response to new asymmetries in the exercise of sovereign power worldwide. In theory, it imposes new conditions on the exercise of state sovereignty that extend the principle of collective security beyond states to include all people. In practice, it gives those with the capacity to intervene, namely the dominant powers, the responsibility to intervene in the affairs of weaker 'failing' states. In this article, I use official texts to explore this new humanitarian collective security. Drawing on a range of accounts, including the Australian experience of intervention in East Timor, I argue that the grounds for humanitarian intervention lie as much in the defence of order as in the pursuit of justice. Dominant states assert their shared vulnerability and justify intervention as pre‐empting presumed threats; they thus recruit humanitarianism for state security. Humanitarianism, however, is not so easily contained. As military practice collides with normative rhetoric, deep contradictions emerge between order and justice. Normative claims implode and spill over, feeding alternative humanitarianisms founded on mutuality and solidarity. The disordering order–justice dialectic can thereby prefigure reorderings beyond hegemonism.

The article explores the interaction between legal and political strategy in producing social change. It centres on a long-running dispute in Australia over whether charities can have a dominant political purpose. The focus is on the strategising of the small activist charity that successfully pursued the case over a five-year period. As an 'insider' account, the article charts the in-practice process of translating activisms across legal and political fields. With a stress on contingency and agency, the account affirms a 'politics of rights' approach to legal activism. It shows how the case opened-up new grounds for political contestation, and as such offered prospects for 'non-reformist reform'. It also demonstrates how this occurred more by strategic engagement with unintended effects, than necessarily by design.

Theorisations of global governance invariably conceive of it as bringing order to disorder, whether by increasing the 'density' of interstate society, or by expressing the leverage of global civil society. This paper seeks to invert the frame, and to take seriously the active disordering of governance, as a generative challenge, that creates new justice claims, and opens-up new fields of public deliberation. Global climate governance is a particularly powerful context in which to track these dynamics. Climate change imposes its own pace of policy reform, forcing new imperatives; it also imposes its own remarkable scope, in terms of global reach and all-encompassing depth. The paper seeks-out generative disjunctures, where existing justice principles that underpin climate governance are challenged, disestablished, and reordered. The paper explores these themes as a way of mapping contending and conflicting trajectories in the development of climate justice as a principle of governance. The disordering effects of climate governance, the social and political forces that arise out of them and their roles in producing contender principles and practices are highlighted. We may then arrive at a conceptualization of climate governance as a necessarily disorderly process, which addresses cumulative and unanticipated challenges of climate change through successive reorientations in its modus operandi. As such, climate governance may be enabled to proceed through and beyond immediate accommodations, to offer new possibilities grounded in new rules of the game that widen realms of engagement and more effectively apprehend the challenges posed.