Author: admin

Military coup is the sudden overthrow of a government by the armed forces. A successful coup usually requires a small group of officers to control all or part of the armed forces, police, and other security elements of the state. Coups rarely alter a nation’s fundamental social and economic policies, or redistribute power between competing political groups. Rather, they replace one leader with another and may briefly shift the balance of power in favor of the military or other powerful interest groups.

A recent putsch in Myanmar, for example, exemplifies this pattern. After an election that gave Aung San Suu Kyi’s party a supermajority in parliament, the ruling military junta froze democracy and expanded its own powers. The army’s impulsive actions reveal that its leaders have an insatiable appetite for more power.

While many fear that praetorian politics is making a comeback, the 2021 putsch in Tunisia and the similar ones in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger are more evidence of military leaders’ deep frustration with their own inability to govern effectively than an awakening nostalgia for old dictatorships. The recent putches also point to a crisis in democratic norms that are being rapidly eroded.

Much of the latest research pinpoints factors—such as coup proofing or “political legacy effects”—that reduce the likelihood of a military takeover. But these findings may be misleadingly simple: Most coups are not caused by any particular factor; instead, they are the result of a combination of multiple factors. A new generation of scholars needs to develop complementary methods that will allow us to understand more fully why and when a military coup occurs.

It is a common observation that human beings everywhere require the realization of diverse values or capabilities to ensure their individual and collective well-being. It is also a widely shared view that this demand, whether conceived or expressed as a moral or a legal requirement, is frequently frustrated by social and natural forces, resulting in exploitation, oppression, persecution and deprivation. These twin observations form the basis of human rights and the national and international legal processes associated with them.

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. They are inherent to each and every person born on this earth, unless prohibited by law or denounced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. This is a unique document that marks out 30 fundamental rights to all people in the world, regardless of their political, economic or cultural systems.

The UDHR was developed through a process that involved participants from all regions, giving the document a broad and inclusive perspective. It is one of the only global documents that recognises the fact that human rights are indivisible, interdependent and inalienable.

Human rights are based on the belief that there are some things that all people need in order to live with dignity, and that those needs cannot be met without certain limits on state power. That is why human rights enjoy support from every culture in the world and almost all civilised governments and religions. It is why they are recognised as a set of international legal norms in the UDHR and in two related treaties, which are binding on Governments when they ratify them.

Global security looks beyond traditional notions of security focused on the state and its international system. Coursework examines the complex web of forces that generate insecurity at the international, global, and societal levels, as well as how security concerns have been addressed over time, across cultures, and by individuals and groups.

The world today is in a state of unprecedented global threat and instability. Instability arises from a wide range of issues: regional coercion and meddling, terrorism, transnational crime, health insecurity, environmental degradation, WMD proliferation, mass migration, and overwhelming humanitarian crises. As these dangers continue to threaten the foundational elements that contribute to peace and prosperity, they challenge policymakers to rethink their approaches to security.

Security professionals and business leaders increasingly recognize the need to be a step ahead of these unseen threats. They need to anticipate how broader geopolitical developments might impact their supply chain vulnerabilities, organizational stability and decision-making. They must shape cybersecurity strategies that align with business objectives and enable innovation without increasing risk.

Despite the fact that a few years ago, it seemed as if the world was on autopilot and headed toward universal democracy and peace, we now live in a dangerous age of shifting dangers and escalating conflict. As such, tackling these challenges is the new face of national security. And to do so, the United States and Europe must work together, for if they don’t, their own security could be at risk.

Founded in 1945, the United Nations is a global system of interrelated organizations and programs. Its six principal organs—the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice—are tasked with maintaining international peace and security, developing economic, social, cultural, and educational opportunities for all people, and solving problems of common interest. A vast Secretariat, with international staff in duty stations around the world, carries out the diverse day-to-day work of the Organization’s organs.

The United Nations Charter set out three fundamental objectives: respect for the equal rights of all peoples and their self-determination; international cooperation in solving global problems; and a global forum for reflection, debate and innovative thinking. Its founding countries gathered in San Francisco in 1945 to draft the Charter, with China, France, India and Russia taking the lead. The United States and the Soviet Union later signed, and the Charter came into effect once it had been ratified by a majority of member governments.

In addition to the six principal organs, the United Nations family includes a variety of independent “specialized agencies” linked to the UN through cooperative agreements and maintaining broad international responsibilities in their fields. The governing bodies of the specialized agencies, which include many regional and national offices, report to the Secretary-General or to the Economic and Social Council. The UN also maintains a global network of peacekeeping operations. Throughout its history, the United Nations has faced challenges to its integrity and impartiality. Among the most notable were the bombing of its headquarters in the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, which killed hundreds of staff members, and Moammar Gadhafi’s rambling 90-minute speech at the General Assembly, which went far beyond his allotted 15 minutes.

Global sanctions can be a powerful policy tool when the right mix of conditions is met. They can weaken the economic and military capacities of rogue states, and deter military aggression and other violations of international law. But they can also have serious and unintended consequences. This article examines the interwar experience and argues that more research is needed on the costs and risks of this policy instrument, particularly its effects on innovation and trade diversion and evasion.

Sanctions grew in importance in the interwar period. They were used in an era of growing autarky, as governments sought to limit the revenue of countries they considered threats to peace. This meant that, unlike today, the global economy was far less integrated, and it was hard to find alternative markets for goods produced by sanctioned countries. As a result, sanctions diminished world exports and caused price deflation that weakened currency blocs.

Today, the world is far more connected, and globalization has lowered risks of military escalation. But this has also increased the ability of rogue states and their financial elites to evade sanctions through trading partners. Sanctions impose costs that are far greater than the cost of a war and can have broad ripple effects on innovation, which is why the development of better tools for estimating the impact of sanctions should be a priority for researchers.

Investment trend is the term used to describe points or areas where resources should be allocated to maximize returns. These trends illustrate points in time when investing in particular industries or types of assets can provide outsize gains.

Seasoned investors use short- and medium-term volatility to buy into investment themes they believe will profit over many years. But, amid all the noise around the latest investment trend, it can be difficult to distinguish which trends have real merit.

For example, there’s been a lot of talk about “meme stocks,” but what do they actually represent? And, how do you determine if they are worth your time or money?

Despite a volatile first quarter, earnings season has generally been a positive one, with companies largely beating expectations. But with a hazy outlook for the economy and US trade policy, some investors are nervous about future growth prospects.

Against this backdrop, some investors are also rethinking geographic asset allocation as relative valuations in Europe and Asia look cheaper than the US. But will this shift be temporary, or is it the beginning of a sustained pass of capital?

It seems almost inarguable that governments of any political character that provide strong socioeconomic results for their citizens will, on average, be more stable and long lasting than those that do not. Yet it remains unclear whether that is a major cause of the wave of global democratic backsliding that has washed over multiple regions in recent years.

In 2022, more countries saw declines in at least one of the six indicators of democracy than gains, and more countries experienced declines in the key factors of Representation and Rule of Law than in Civil Society and Freedom of Association and Assembly. The declines were broad and occurred across all regions of the world.

The causes of backsliding were diverse. In some countries, corruption drove declines. In others, leaders used the courts to interfere with investigations of malfeasance by senior politicians or sought to undermine judicial independence. And still in other countries, a growing sense of dissatisfaction with existing democracies contributed to support for populist leaders who reject pluralism and demand unchecked power to advance their narrow interests at the expense of minorities or perceived foes.

These findings underscore the importance of reviving international efforts to help new and struggling democracies deliver better socioeconomic results, as well as strengthening domestic sources and structures that can constrain politically predatory elected leaders. However, these efforts should not serve as a substitute for, or overshadow, a primary strategy of supporting and enhancing the resilience of democracy globally.

Economic sanctions are a tool governments use to pressure their opponents or protect themselves from attacks. These restrictions on trade, investment, and foreign aid can take many forms and vary in their cost and impact. They can be broad, such as an embargo, or narrowly targeted, such as the freeze of assets at a central bank or a boycott of a country’s products. They can also involve a reduction in military assistance or denial of debt relief. In addition, their effects are influenced by the quality of political institutions in the sanctioned country.

Sanctions have a long history of use. Historically, they were used to complement military action and as a way to punish the enemy economically while avoiding full-scale war. More recently, world leaders have chosen to rely on them when they feel that military options are too massive or diplomatic protest is too meager. Studies suggest that sanctions are effective on average at 31% of the time, and that their success rate is much higher when they target a country’s main export resources.

But little is known about the processes that generate sanctions and how they work. Economists have focused on establishing the causal link between policy and economic outcomes, but often without considering the political goals that drove those policies or the political effects that were expected. The papers in this issue – the result of a conference that brought together economists and political scientists who study sanctions – have helped to shed light on these issues, but there are still many avenues for future research.

The IMF is a global safety net for struggling economies. But it has been accused of imposing harsh conditions that may harm countries’ economic growth, especially in poorer nations. Critics like Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University argue that IMF programs introduce moral hazard and encourage overly-rapid policy adjustments. Others, including Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, argue that the Fund is necessary for preventing financial panics.

IMF lending helps restore investor confidence in troubled countries and facilitates a gradual adjustment of policies that address the underlying causes of crisis, such as high expenditure slippages or weak governance. The IMF also provides financing to help countries cope with shocks and promotes sustainable recovery by encouraging a country to diversify its export markets.

When a country seeks an IMF bailout, it typically faces severe macroeconomic risks, such as domestic price inflation and a plunge in the value of its currency against the U.S. dollar. In these circumstances, the IMF can play a critical role by providing temporary funding that alleviates pressure on a country’s current account balance and reduces the risk of depreciation of its currency.

Many people believe that the IMF’s commitment does not cost American taxpayers a dime, despite the fact that the United States borrows funds at one rate (Treasury bonds) and invests them in special drawing rights, or SDRs, at another (IMF loans). The difference in rates translates into a real-world loss for the United States, which should be reflected in CBO’s estimates of budget deficits and debt.

A well-functioning supply chain is a vital part of a successful business. A disruption can disrupt production, shipment and inventory levels, ultimately impacting sales and customer satisfaction. Disruptions can be caused by many factors, such as natural disasters, pandemics and economic fluctuations.

Regardless of the cause, supply chain disruptions can lead to transportation delays, higher costs and shortages of raw materials and finished goods. Whether the result of an unavoidable external event or internal factors, businesses need to develop robust risk assessments and contingency plans to mitigate the effects of these disruptions.

Supply chains are intricate, with different parts of the chain relying on various other suppliers and operations. Therefore, companies must diversify their supplier base and invest in flexible logistics solutions that support multiple modes of transport and storage.

Raw material shortages are one of the most common causes of supply chain disruption, resulting in production delays and higher prices for customers. This is especially true for specialized, high-demand products.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how health crises can wreak havoc on global supply chains, closing international borders, trade restrictions, factory shutdowns and labor shortages. The resulting economic ripples impacted everything from restaurants to airlines, as consumers bought different food and other products.

In the future, business leaders must be prepared for more frequent and severe supply chain disruptions, with the potential for lasting impacts on consumer confidence, revenue and reputation. As such, it’s crucial that directors understand the risks and actively work to create resilient supply chains, by monitoring and requiring regular reports of management on how their companies are responding to supply chain disruptions.