jochostacos-News About the Latest and Most Complete International News

Authoritarian rule has never been confined to remote lands or historical anecdotes, and it can take many forms. Regardless of how democracy is threatened, however, the defense of democratic norms and processes must be at the forefront of each democracy’s foreign policy, national security strategy, domestic reform agenda, and civic engagement. Democracies must recognize that the attack on judicial independence, the erosion of institutional checks, and other subtle attacks can lead to backsliding into authoritarianism.

The authoritarian playbook contains seven key tactics: scapegoating marginalized groups, fomenting mistrust and fear in the public, politicizing independent institutions, limiting civil liberties, attacking the press, spreading lies and conspiracies, stoking violence, and delegitimizing democratic processes to bolster coercive measures. Whether they are seeking to consolidate power, win support abroad, or avoid the political process, all authoritarians employ these tools to destabilize the nation and undermine international norms that underpin democracy.

Many authoritarians seek to justify their grab for absolute power by claiming the world is in such peril that a country must abandon normal constitutional protections and freedoms. Others use the threat of a natural disaster to seize sweeping powers. Either way, such a narrative gives the regime legitimacy at home and abroad.

While psychological research has found that personality traits make some people more vulnerable to authoritarian rule, even those who do not fit the profile can become caught up in a wave of irrational fear and hate. The best way to resist tyranny is to build a stronger, more resilient society. Help support independent media, teachers, unions, lawyers, judges, and election workers, and don’t be afraid to speak out when you see threats.

Armed conflict involves the use of force between organized armed groups, whether they are government or non-governmental. Civilian casualties, human rights abuses, and a lack of access to essential services are among the consequences of these conflicts. These escalating occurrences can result in immense suffering for the population affected, as well as for the region and the global economy.

A range of reasons can motivate the emergence of a war, but economic motivations are a common factor. Indeed, there is a growing concern that armed conflicts are largely financed by the extraction of natural resources such as minerals or oil. A classic example was the war in Sierra Leone that started as a conflict over the control of diamond-rich territories. Both the rebels and the government sold the future exploitation of the resources to finance their military operations.

The complexities of contemporary armed conflicts often defy formal legal criteria and call into question the distinction between State and non-State actors. Moreover, many States do not participate directly in a conflict, and the presence of international armed forces can change the character of the situation.

These factors render it crucial to understand the underlying dynamics of armed conflict in order to address the challenges they represent. This requires a multifaceted approach that includes addressing the root causes and seeking long-term solutions that foster stability and peace. The article is based on the Geneva Academy’s Rule of Law in Armed Conflict Online Portal, which monitors 110 situations of armed conflict and provides information on the parties and applicable international humanitarian law.

A currency devaluation is a government policy tool that involves intentionally making the country’s money less valuable. The aim is to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive so that domestic goods gain competitive advantage in foreign markets. This can boost a nation’s economic growth and help with its trade balance. However, it can also lead to unchecked inflation and damage the economy over time.

14-18 year olds (9-12 graders, US) studying Social Studies and Economics

A nation’s currency is often a reflection of the economic health of the country. When a currency is weak, it usually comes from a cocktail of economic troubles – rampant inflation, political chaos, mountainous debts, and persistent trade deficits that make other countries lose faith in the country’s financial stability. The government may then resort to various monetary policies – including currency devaluation – to address these issues.

Devaluation lowers the value of a country’s currency in relation to major strong currencies such as the US dollar, euro, and British pound. When a currency is weak, it becomes easier for the country to compete in global markets and reduce its sovereign debt burdens by making its exports cheaper and its imported products more expensive. However, this can harm a country’s consumers by increasing inflation and reducing the real income of the population. It can also encourage other nations to engage in a race-to-the-bottom by devaluing their own currency, causing tit-for-tat currency wars that are harmful to the global economy.

For the past half-century, Global summit has been the premier gathering of people who lead community philanthropy, whether as practitioners, funders or researchers. Participants share ideas, discuss emerging issues and connect with peers from around the world.

Back in 2004 a gathering in Berlin marked a turning point for the community foundation movement. At that time, Central and Eastern Europe was a hot-bed for new development, reflecting the dramatic political, social and economic changes that had taken place.

In the run up to a summit, senior officials – like sherpas in the mountains – thrash out the issues for discussion and do the diplomatic legwork. It’s a similar story when it comes to global meetings such as the G20, where leaders meet every year to recommit their countries to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.

As a result, discussions are often driven by the latest global risks and opportunities. This was certainly the case when members met in January at Davos to explore how emerging technologies can help build a more inclusive global economy, better adapt to geoeconomic shifts, develop human capital, drive greener economies and strengthen the global system.

At this year’s event, attendees heard from a wide range of powerful speakers including the 68th U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, conservationist and TV host Robert Irwin and the renowned author and journalist Fareed Zakaria. They spoke about a new axis that is emerging, where those who favour international cooperation and connection find themselves up against those who are embracing protectionism, nationalism and isolation.

As we enter a new year, global economic growth seems to be stabilizing, inflation is receding and interest rates seem to have peaked. But these positive signs alone are unlikely to solve a debt crisis that has been more than a decade in the making. Over 3.4 billion people live in countries that spend more on debt payments than on health and education, which means that they are losing out on opportunities for prosperity.

The underlying cause of the crisis is that low-income countries borrowed too much at extortionate interest rates during and after the financial crash of 2008. This was often driven by fiscal imprudence, but also by the fact that private lenders (including hedge funds, banks and traders) saw an opportunity to make vast profits.

These unsustainable debt levels are now leaving countries unable to finance essential services or take actions to tackle climate change. In 2023, 54 low-income countries devoted at least 10% of their budgets to debt interest payments, a figure that has doubled over the last ten years.

But, unlike the debt crises that have plagued individuals and businesses, there is no procedure for countries to declare bankruptcy when they can’t pay their debts over time. Instead, the world’s creditors decide whether and when to demand repayment. And the landscape is even more crowded today, with an increasing number of bilateral and multilateral lenders, including China, India and petrostates. This crowded architecture makes tackling the global debt crisis simultaneously more urgent and more complex than in the 1980s.

The modern world is complex and fast-paced, with many forces and relations that transcend national boundaries. This complexity demands professionals with a global outlook and an understanding of the impact of decisions made at the international level. International relations is the field that studies those interactions, from the development of cooperation between nations to addressing issues such as world hunger or climate change.

As an international relations major, you will dive into the dynamics that shape global events and explore the political theories behind them. A bachelor’s degree typically covers topics like comparative politics, political theory, history, and security studies. Many programs also offer a concentration in a particular region like the Middle East or global politics, allowing you to tailor your studies towards areas of interest.

One of the defining principles of this discipline is the concept of sovereignty. This principle, originally described in Jean Bodin’s Six Books of Commonwealth in 1576, states that sovereign nations have control over their territory, and that they have certain obligations to other sovereign nations and individuals.

Another major consideration is how cooperation between nations benefits everyone involved. A key point in this is the fact that countries with similar interests can work together to achieve objectives that are beneficial to all, such as through regional organizations like NATO or the European Union. This kind of cooperation can have a big impact on the world at large, especially when it comes to humanitarian projects that help people around the globe.

International alliance refers to the agreement between a group of states to form an international organization, which is governed by treaties. This agreement usually includes a mutual defense clause, where members pledge to assist each other in the event of a threat. This arrangement is usually based on common interests, such as national security or economic prosperity. This agreement can be multilateral or bilateral.

The most well-known explanation for the formation of alliances is the aggregation of power model. This theory argues that states pursue alliances for the purpose of strengthening their effective military capabilities through combination with others. This is why countries with similar military power, resources and security interests ally together. Domestic factors, such as political stability or internal conflicts, do not play a significant role in alliance decisions.

A minority of scholars offer alternative explanations for the formation of alliances. One theory is based on the concept of an international ‘narrative’, which views alliances as part of a political narrative defining the prevailing world order. Another approach, rooted in realism, sees alliances as tools for constraining the behavior of states. Finally, a few studies have explored the influence of social, cultural and political similarities on alliance formation. Moreover, recent research has examined the impact of a firm’s networks on its ability to expand internationally. The study finds that firms’ decision to either cooperate or compete for new markets is moderated by network centrality, resource ownership and market attractiveness.

A peace agreement is a written arrangement between warring parties, usually States but increasingly involving non-State organized armed groups, to end a protracted armed conflict. The objective is to establish durable peace and the resumption of normal social and political life. Peace agreements may include a number of provisions, ranging from the termination of hostilities (Article 1) to the creation of transitional bodies such as truth and reconciliation commissions (Articles XIII-XVI Lome Agreement).

The success of peace agreements depends on their design and implementation. In addition to including effective mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes, they should also address the root causes of the underlying conflict and promote inclusive governance. Peace agreements that incorporate these socio-political reforms tend to be more stable than those that do not, even if they involve a cessation of violence. However, many studies have highlighted the challenges of implementing peace agreements.

In particular, implementation difficulties stem from the design and structure of the peace agreements themselves. In addition, they can be hindered by implementation difficulties related to the political participation of former combatants and the organization of elections. In these cases, scholars have proposed a variety of strategies for overcoming these obstacles and achieving sustainable peace.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the role of third parties in the implementation and monitoring of peace agreements. Their involvement can range from active mediation, as in the case of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, to simply providing a platform for the parties to meet.

Diplomatic talks are negotiations between states to advance mutual interests, resolve conflict and prevent war. In many cases these conversations result in a diplomatic agreement, the most formal of which is a treaty. But even when successful, diplomatic talks are often a difficult balancing act. Attempting to bring peace and stability to places of tension requires intense, complex and often long-lasting engagement.

Diplomats need to know everything they can about their interlocutors, including their domestic politics, who influences them inside and outside of their government, how they see their national interests, and what challenges and opportunities they face. They must develop rapport and trust, and avoid sarcasm or condescension, which may be misinterpreted as hostile or defensive, while addressing sensitive topics carefully. They must also fully listen to their interlocutors, and empathetically understand their perspectives even when they disagree. Finally, their facial expressions and body language should align with their words to prevent offence or misunderstanding.

The most common obstacles to successful diplomacy include a lack of preparation, misreading the situation and poor communication skills. High emotions can derail calm, thoughtful dialogue and exacerbate conflicts. Cultural differences and inability to adapt to diverse communication norms can also create misunderstandings and alienation. Diplomats must learn to recognize and handle “hot buttons” – those sensitive topics or triggers that could escalate an already-frozen conflict if not handled carefully.

In some cases, diplomatic talks are mediated by trusted non-state actors to help facilitate more frank discussion and explore ideas that might not emerge through official channels. This type of informal diplomacy is often called Track 2 diplomacy. In the case of Iran, it was a key part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which established a channel for dialogue between the United States and Iran despite their lack of normal diplomatic ties.

Political exile refers to a state of residence outside the territory of a nation. Often people are displaced for political reasons, such as a coup d’état or a foreign occupation. In these situations, a government-in-exile may be established abroad to command the country’s armed forces. Such governments-in-exile have also formed in the wake of popular uprisings or to challenge the legitimacy of a regime. The most famous example of this is the Tibetan government-in-exile, headed by the Dalai Lama.

The practice of exile has long been a part of the international politics of conflict and change. In recent years, the anthropological study of exile has become increasingly important, given the growing interest in topics such as transnationalism and diaspora, conflict and violence, and nationalism and social memory. The study of refugees and refugee societies in particular draws attention to the relation between space, place, and identity, as well as challenging notions in anthropology of community and culture as bounded and territorial entities.

People who are displaced for political reasons can be adrift in their new homes, lacking a firm sense of identity and feeling disconnected from a home that is no longer accessible. This adriftness can lead to the formation of group solidarity, based on shared suffering, that is reinforced by rhetorical and symbolic references to homelands. This group solidarity can, in turn, produce hostile attitudes toward outsiders – especially those who are not from the same linguistic or ethnic background as those displaced.