Month: October 2025

A trade agreement is a set of rules that outlines how countries and businesses can trade with one another. The rules are designed to reduce or eliminate tariffs, create a more predictable trading environment for investors and traders, resolve behind-the-border barriers that impede the flow of goods and services, and set rules on issues like intellectual property protection, e-commerce and government procurement.

A number of different types of trade agreements exist, with the most significant ones being free trade agreements (FTAs). FTAs enable your company to compete in international markets by providing zero or reduced tariffs on qualified products. They also help improve the rules that affect issues such as product standards, labor standards and a country’s ability to sell into government procurements.

Trade agreements discipline how governments collect tariffs by requiring that they abide by the rules laid out in the agreement when they determine the origin of an import shipment, its customs category and value. In addition, these agreements establish the principles of reciprocity, most-favored nation status and national treatment of nontariff restrictions. In combination, these provisions have dramatically reduced protectionism in recent decades and helped expand world trade.

Nevertheless, critics complain that the thousands of pages of these trade agreements often contain “hidden special-interest favors” and are too complex to achieve their goals. This criticism is misguided. Despite their flaws, these agreements are helping shift national trade policies toward freer trade and are checking corporate demands for government protection from competition.

Global democracy is the idea that, as decision-making moves beyond the state, so should democracy. Proponents of this approach see the global political arena as an opportune moment to reshape the international ecosystem for democracy support, with new constellations of think tanks, universities, philanthropic organizations, and practitioners joining forces to help reimagine democracy worldwide.

This agenda is not without controversy. The most persistent criticism is that a focus on global democracy risks overlooking the unique nature of world politics. For most IR theorists, world politics is fundamentally power politics; and while cooperative and mutually-beneficial forms of international governance can occur, states’ insatiable appetite for power ensures that they will always strive to maximize their relative material capabilities vis-à-vis other nations. This inescapable fact directly undercuts the cosmopolitan foundation upon which most global democracy advocates base their views (see, for example, Erman 2012; Held 1995; Bohman 2007).

Some scholars also question whether the pursuit of democratic freedoms outside of national borders can be seen as ethically justified on intrinsic grounds. In particular, they argue that the value of equality, autonomy, and non-domination constitute additional moral reasons to promote global democracy independent of any benefits it might generate. This argument is most common among liberal democrats and neo-Roman republicans. Yet, as a number of authors have pointed out, these intrinsic arguments are essentially the same as those used to justify democracy within national borders and thus should be treated with the same critical eye as any other claims for the legitimacy of democracy at the global level.

Economic sanctions are an expression of conflict, and they’re a common tool to apply pressure to troublesome regions or countries. The goal is to ratchet up pressure on a targeted country or region without plunging them into a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Striking that delicate balance requires a deep understanding of a targeted nation’s vulnerabilities and dependencies. For example, sanctions that impact oil exports, as well as a targeted country’s primary source of income, require a precise assessment of the economy’s interconnectivity and vulnerability to trade partner withdrawals.

Embargoes, export restrictions, capital controls (to block access to international capital markets), and visa bans on officials, private citizens, and their immediate families all fall into the category of economic sanctions. Each has a different effect on trade, and these effects accumulate over time.

The research literature has employed a variety of methodologies to measure the economic consequences of sanctions. Some regression models use total bilateral trade, or a subset of it, as the dependent variable; others use only exports, or a subset of those. A few studies have used dummy variables that distinguish between target and sender. The dummy variables take on values ranging from 0 to 1 for both targets and senders, reflecting the severity of each country’s sanction status.

But while evidence points to the negative impacts of sanctions, they may also have political benefits for those imposing them. Sanctions may help consolidate power within a regime, or make the target government more willing to engage in policy change.

A country in financial crisis typically seeks assistance from international official organizations such as the IMF and World Bank. These organizations often issue special loans that are accompanied by corrective policy actions known as structural adjustment programs. The purpose of these policies is to reduce the debt burden of a country and promote sustainable economic growth. However, the effectiveness of bailouts is disputed by a variety of factors.

The first question concerns whether a financially troubled country is willing to request the assistance of international official bodies and, in turn, whether these institutions agree to offer funding. This decision is primarily driven by the level of risk involved in borrowing from the markets, and a government’s perception of its ability to restore market confidence.

Despite the importance of this decision, relatively few scholars have studied it in depth. In particular, scholars have focused on the role of IMF-imposed conditionality in bailouts. It has been argued that, for example, the design of conditionality can significantly influence its effectiveness and that the enforcement of conditionality may be problematic.

In addition, it has been argued that the effectiveness of IMF-imposed conditionality depends on the political and economic relationship between a country and the major members of international official bodies. For instance, Stone (2004) and Kilby (2009) argue that it is difficult for the IMF to enforce strict conditionality on political allies of the US. Accordingly, it has been argued that the IMF’s lending decisions are politically motivated and that moral hazard is an important problem in the process of bailouts.

Supply chain disruption is any event that interrupts the normal flow of goods, exposing companies to risk and impacting customers. It can result in materials scarcity, delayed deliveries and a range of other issues that affect the bottom line. These events can be caused by a wide range of factors including natural disasters, global political tensions, transportation infrastructure problems, changing laws and regulations, workforce issues and more.

Regardless of the cause, the effects are always the same: production lines pause, inventory levels drop and demand drops. This results in missed delivery windows, lost sales and customer dissatisfaction. Fortunately, strong planning, greater visibility and the use of best practices in risk assessment and management can mitigate these effects.

One issue often overlooked is that supply chains are interconnected across multiple companies and regions. This creates complicated and sensitive relationships with suppliers, and even local events can have ripple impacts. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how a single disease outbreak can affect everything from manufacturing to transportation.

While some of these risks can be predicted and planned for, others are not. This is why it’s important to keep a finger on the pulse of your supplier relationships, consider on- or near-shoring options and invest in talent development. It’s also a good idea to diversify your supplier base and use technology tools to improve visibility. This will help you react faster and more effectively to sudden changes. Ultimately, it’s about building resilience for the long run so that you can survive whatever comes your way.

Defense alliance is an organisation of companies and individuals committed to the development of the Defense industry in Minnesota. It is a not-for-profit organisation which provides a platform for networking, knowledge transfer and advocacy in the national and international arena.

The Alliance’s fundamental purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its Allies in a world where peace and security can no longer be taken for granted. NATO’s collective defence is based on the principle that any attack against one of its members must be considered an attack against all of them and should trigger a joint response.

NATO continues to adapt to the challenges of our changing security environment. Allies are strengthening their defence budgets, reversing decades of cuts and moving towards the NATO-agreed guideline of investing 2% of GDP in defence. This will enable the Alliance to strengthen its capabilities and respond quickly to new threats and challenges.

Allies are working together to address the growing risk of Russia’s malign influence and aggression, including its use of hybrid warfare and destabilising activities in Europe. They are enhancing NATO’s readiness to counter cyber threats and addressing new areas of defence, including a whole-of-nation approach to resilience and the Alliance’s ability to deter and defend against complex threats in all domains.

NATO is also improving the effectiveness and interoperability of its Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD). In 2024, NATO Leaders will implement the 5% commitment to increase the Alliance’s defence spending by upgrading existing capabilities, investing in new equipment and increasing readiness and preparedness.

Rebel forces around the world have challenged empires and reshaped notions of power, freedom, and justice. These movements have inspired both hope and fear, and have left behind legacies that still shape our global politics today.

The most powerful of these rebel groups in Syria is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), also known as the Organization for the Liberation of the Levant. Its founder, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, was a commander for Al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, before publicly breaking with the global terror network to form HTS in 2016. The United States and others have designated HTS a foreign terrorist organization, and placed a $10 million bounty on Jolani’s head.

HTS has surprised many with its rapid progress in Syria, sweeping down from its northwest strongholds to seize Aleppo and then push deeper into a swath of the country. As it moves toward Homs, a key Assad regime target, residents of the city are fleeing. The group’s leader, however, has a message for them: “Your time is up,” he wrote in a Telegram post.

Despite the rapid military gains by HTS, a number of challenges threaten its long-term stability. One is the lack of substantial support from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, which have historically been Assad’s most important supporters in Syria. Another is internal discontent among the group’s fighters, who complain about low pay and corruption. And a third, the threat of attacks by Turkey and its Kurdish proxies.

Territorial dispute refers to an international conflict over the ownership of land, sea, or airspace between states. Such disputes can impact regional stability, and they typically involve high levels of diplomatic tension and occasionally military action. The proliferation of territorial disputes is particularly worrisome given the dominance of nuclear weapons in the world’s most powerful states and the fact that they have a tendency to escalate into full-blown international wars.

There is a broad literature on territorial disputes, but scholars have largely taken them for granted and focused more on the conditions that lead to their transformation from latent to active stages of conflict. For example, while most studies of territorial acquisitions emphasize a preference to take territory peacefully, it is far less clear how this preference arises. A key determinant seems to be the condition that territory is perceived as being valuable and therefore worth the effort to acquire.

Another factor is the degree to which a state’s political entitlement to territory is strengthened by its actions. This can be done by taking administrative measures that integrate contested territory into domestic jurisdiction, developing infrastructure projects in the region, or holding makeshift elections to increase the legitimacy of the claim.

Finally, a state’s economic interests may also be influential in its willingness to compromise in a territorial dispute. Derrick Frazier argues that the relative economic dependence of disputing states (with particular importance to major powers and those with significant trade links) is a major factor in mediation-initiation.

As ICNL’s Protest crackdown tracker shows, state lawmakers in Republican-controlled states have been quick to respond to the rise of new social movements with laws to suppress protests. In 2021, the worst year on record, 92 anti-protest bills were introduced, compared with just 52 in 2017, when we started our tracker. Yet these bills often fail to become law, and the majority of protests are not even subject to any laws aimed at them.

But that’s not stopping some politicians from trying to tamp down protests by calling them “hate America rallies” or warning that they will bring in foreign nationals to disrupt public order. Trump has specifically targeted Democratic-controlled cities in his efforts to send in the National Guard, though his attempts in Chicago, Portland, and New York City have been blocked by legal challenges.

Protesters across the country are heeding the call to come out this weekend for what is being billed as “No Kings” day of demonstrations. The group behind the event has emphasized that the marches are not about immigration or race, but are about fighting back against what they say is the encroaching authoritarianism of the Trump administration. It’s a movement they hope will spread.

Some demonstrators are taking precautions against the potential escalation of federal law enforcement action, including staying with groups and setting up meetup locations in case they get separated from their friends. Others are using encrypted communication apps to protect their privacy and prevent their calls or texts from being tracked.

The term Authoritarian rule refers to a form of government in which one person possesses unchecked power. It typically occurs when democratic institutions become ossified, citizens feel their voices are no longer heard through established parties and that elites are too removed from society. Individuals may then seek out authoritarian alternatives that promise to solve their problems directly.

Authoritarian projects cannot succeed without the cooperation or acquiescence of legislatures, courts, and other institutions designed to provide checks and balances. To that end, they often rewrite the rules or stack these competing institutions with lackeys and compliant allies. They also frequently justify their expansion of executive power with cults of personality and aggrandizement of the trappings of office while demonizing checks and balances as corrupt obstacles to the popular will.

In addition, these regimes often engage in what is known as “constitutional hardball.” This includes remaking electoral laws to favor their partisans or declaring national emergencies to seize broad powers. They may even scapegoat specific groups to create an “us versus them” dynamic that energizes their base and reinforces social solidarity.

Psychological studies have tried to make sense of why some people are amenable to authoritarian forms of leadership. One classic paper, The Authoritarian Personality, argued that some people have personality traits—such as a general willingness to submit to authority, a rigid cognitive style and conventional moral values—that can predispose them to supporting authoritarian forms of rule. However, this theory has since been called into question by other research.