The Experts below are selected from a list of 73239 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Oliver Hensengerth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Governing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus Related to Hydropower on Shared Rivers—The Role of Regional Organizations
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2018Co-Authors: Ines Dombrowsky, Oliver HensengerthAbstract:An evolving literature on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus argues that there is a need to better understand the conditions under which nexus coordination may occur. A case in point are hydropower investments on shared rivers which might impact the provision of energy, water and food security across borders. In international basins, governing the WEF nexus impacts of hydropower relies on voluntary negotiations between the respective countries involved. It has been argued that such negotiations may be facilitated by Regional Organizations, such as international river basin Organizations (IRBOs), but this claim has hardly been investigated systematically. Drawing on regime theory in international relations and the literature on benefit sharing, this paper asks what role Regional Organizations may play in governing hydropower-related WEF nexus impacts. It compares three cases of hydropower planning on shared rivers. The Rusumo Falls and the Ruzizi III hydropower projects (HPPs) are joint investments in Africa's Great Lakes region facilitated by an IRBO and a Regional energy organization, respectively. On the Mekong, Laos is constructing the Xayaburi dam despite reservations by the Mekong River Commission and downstream riparians. The paper finds IRBOs and Regional energy Organizations may play a role in facilitating cross-border nexus governance by supporting benefit-sharing arrangements and by fostering the application of environmental and social safeguards and international law principles. However, it also shows that the influence of Regional Organizations varies, and how successfully they support nexus governance also depends on whether the HPP is planned unilaterally or jointly; the availability and consensus on data on nexus impacts; and the presence or absence of donors and private sector capital and investors.
-
governing the water energy food nexus related to hydropower on shared rivers the role of Regional Organizations
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2018Co-Authors: Ines Dombrowsky, Oliver HensengerthAbstract:An evolving literature on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus argues that there is a need to better understand the conditions under which nexus coordination may occur. A case in point are hydropower investments on shared rivers which might impact the provision of energy, water and food security across borders. In international basins, governing the WEF nexus impacts of hydropower relies on voluntary negotiations between the respective countries involved. It has been argued that such negotiations may be facilitated by Regional Organizations, such as international river basin Organizations (IRBOs), but this claim has hardly been investigated systematically. Drawing on regime theory in international relations and the literature on benefit sharing, this paper asks what role Regional Organizations may play in governing hydropower-related WEF nexus impacts. It compares three cases of hydropower planning on shared rivers. The Rusumo Falls and the Ruzizi III hydropower projects (HPPs) are joint investments in Africa's Great Lakes region facilitated by an IRBO and a Regional energy organization, respectively. On the Mekong, Laos is constructing the Xayaburi dam despite reservations by the Mekong River Commission and downstream riparians. The paper finds IRBOs and Regional energy Organizations may play a role in facilitating cross-border nexus governance by supporting benefit-sharing arrangements and by fostering the application of environmental and social safeguards and international law principles. However, it also shows that the influence of Regional Organizations varies, and how successfully they support nexus governance also depends on whether the HPP is planned unilaterally or jointly; the availability and consensus on data on nexus impacts; and the presence or absence of donors and private sector capital and investors.
Liisa Laakso - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Beyond the Notion of Security Community: What Role for the African Regional Organizations in Peace and Security?
The Round Table, 2005Co-Authors: Liisa LaaksoAbstract:African Regional Organizations' increasing activity in security policy is usually approached through the concept of ‘security community’, which can only partially clarify their difficult situation. A multi-level governance model is suggested as a more useful approach in a situation where economic cooperation is weak, member states' principles of governance diverge, and they themselves might be part of security problems. A security community is not a necessary condition for a Regional organization to play a role in the field of security. Through new intra-Regional and cross-level relationships with the international community and civil society, Regional Organizations can become important security actors in Africa.
-
What Role for the African Regional Organizations in Peace and Security
2005Co-Authors: Liisa LaaksoAbstract:African Regional Organizations’ increasing activity in security policy is usually approached through the concept of a ‘security community’, which can only partially clarify their difficult situation. A multilevel governance model is suggested as a more useful approach in a situation where economic cooperation is weak, member states’ principles of governance diverge, and they themselves might be part of security problems. Security community is not a necessary condition for a Regional organization to play a role in the field of security. By new intra-Regional and cross-level relationships with the international community and civil society, Regional Organizations can become important security actors in Africa.
-
Beyond the Notion of Security Community: What Role for the African Regional Organizations in Peace and Security?
2005Co-Authors: Liisa LaaksoAbstract:African Regional Organizations' increasing activity in security policy is usually approached through the concept of a 'security community', which can only partially clarify their difficult situation. A multilevel governance model is suggested as a more useful approach in a situation where economic cooperation is weak, member states' principles of governance diverge, and they themselves might be part of security problems. Security community is not a necessary condition for a Regional organization to play a role in the field of security.
Fredrik Soderbaum - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Swedish Development Cooperation and Ownership of African Regional Organizations
Forum for Development Studies, 2017Co-Authors: Fredrik SoderbaumAbstract:This article deals with the ownership of African Regional Organizations (ROs) in the context of an overreliance on foreign funding. It focuses specifically on whether and how Swedish development co...
-
"With a Little Help From My Friends": How Regional Organizations in Africa Sustain Clientelism, Corruption and Discrimination
2010Co-Authors: Fredrik SoderbaumAbstract:This paper explains how Regional Organizations in Africa sustain clientelism, corruption and discrimination. The study deals with the agencies of political leaders and government officials within some of the main Regional organisations in Africa, particularly AU, SADC, ECOWAS, EAC and COMESA. According to one influential strand of research in the field, Regional Organizations play important roles in the transition and consolidation of democracy. This scholarship claims that domestic elites can, “with a little help from their friends in Regional Organizations”, advance the cause of democracy. This paper turns such argument on its head, instead showing how political leaders and state representatives are able to manipulate Regional Organizations in order to further their narrow political and economic regime interests and selfinterests. We emphasise two main strategies: Regime-boosting, which implies a vivid game of rhetorical and symbolic Regionalism, but without implementation. Shadow Regionalism occurs behind a facade of formal Regionalism and formal diplomacy. It is driven by particular officials in the state bureaucracy, who come together with illegal businesspeople in order to either bolster patronage networks and weaken political challengers, or serve as instruments for self-enrichment through informal market activities.
-
Regional Organizations and African Security: Moving the Debate Forward
African Security, 2009Co-Authors: James J. Hentz, Fredrik Soderbaum, Rodrigo TavaresAbstract:ABSTRACT This special volume addressed four issues concerning African Security (1) what are the advantages and disadvantages of African Regional and sub-Regional Organizations vis-a-vis other security mechanisms, in particular UN peace operations?; (2) what are the official and unofficial reasons to intervene?; and (3) whose security is actually protected by the peace activities carried out by the Regional Organizations? The authors share some common conclusions. The relationship between Regional agencies and multilateral agencies (including that between international and African Organizations) is in flux, however in Africa the former are growing in importance. The reasons for intervening are often ambiguous, although likely to have both narrow national self interests and humanitarian catalysts. Less ambiguous, is the conclusion that Africa's Regional and sub-Regional security Organizations have been more about “sovereign boosting” than about the “responsibility to protect.” Finally, by addressing the thr...
-
problematizing Regional Organizations in african security
2009Co-Authors: Fredrik Soderbaum, Rodrigo TavaresAbstract:The African continent is plagued by some of the most brutal and violent conflicts in the world. At the same time that warfare is changing, so has the state's capacity to provide security and political stability to its citizens. In this context, what is the role of new conflict management actors, in particular Regional Organizations?This article starts out by situating conflicts and peace operations on the African continent. It then moves on to problematize the role of Regional Organizations in African security with emphasis on three key topics: (1) the advantages and disadvantages of African Regional and subRegional Organizations vis-a-vis other security mechanisms, in particular UN peace operations; (2) the official and unofficial reasons to intervene; and (3) whether security is actually protected by the peace activities carried out by the Regional Organizations.
-
the un and Regional Organizations in global security competing or complementary logics
Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 2006Co-Authors: Bjorn Hettne, Fredrik SoderbaumAbstract:What is the optimal relationship between global bodies and Regional agencies in international security? This question has been intensively discussed at various junctures during the last century, including at the establishment of the United Nations in the 1940s. Indeed, the Regional approach was the loser at this juncture, when "the Charter made provision for a dimly conceived and vaguely apprehended Regionalism." (1) Today the debate between the UN and Regional Organizations has resurfaced--among policymakers as well as the research community--as one of the most important issues in the global security architecture, including reform of the UN Security Council. The long-standing prevailing view of the global-Regional relationship in security matters has posited that a dominant UN would delegate tasks to subordinate Regional institutions. In this conception, the region is simply an intermediate actor that undertakes tasks determined at the multilateral level. The main purpose of Regional agencies, according to this perspective, is to contribute to a multilateral system controlled by the UN Security Council. Even if it is important to improve the relationship between UN and Regional Organizations, the dominant approach neglects the degree to which the UN-led approach and Regional security governance tend to follow different logics and as a result are potentially competing structures. The UN model is based on a Westphalian nation-state logic, whereas the Regional approach, at least in the longer term, is more consistent with a post-Westphalian world order. With the rise of so-called new Regionalism in recent decades, Regional Organizations have become actors in their own right. A number of them--including the European Union (EU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)--have acquired some kind of institutionalized mechanism for conflict management. Regions, through their Regional agencies, have transformed from objects into subjects, making their relationship to the UN much more complex than current policy and academic debates tend to recognize. This complexity is not likely to decrease in the future. The greater "actor-ness" of Regional bodies needs to be recognized. It is more realistic to think of the relationship between multilateralism and Regionalism in more horizontal and reciprocal terms, compared to the orthodox approach where Regional agencies are subordinated to the UN Security Council. Orthodoxy: The UN Delegating Mandates The UN Charter was made compatible with so-called Regional arrangements or agencies. What Organizations fall into this category is not precisely defined. As a result, a variety of transnational associations (e.g., the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries), continental bodies (e.g., the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]), and subRegional institutions (e.g., the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS]) have been regarded as classifiable under Chapter VIII of the charter. Not surprisingly, the idea of Regional contributions to UN security operations has resurfaced in recent times with the emergence of a new post-Cold War security environment and the multiplication of failed states. In 1992, the UN secretary-general's Agenda for Peace called for involvement of Regional Organizations in such activities as preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, peacemaking, and postconflict reconstruction. Over the next thirteen years the UN head convened six high-level meetings with Regional Organizations from all the continents involved in security matters. In 2005, the secretary-general's In Larger Freedom stated that "the United Nations and Regional Organizations should play complementary roles in facing the challenges to peace and security." (2) Likewise, the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, set up by the secretary-general to reflect on UN reform, acknowledged in its 2004 report that Regional groupings have made "important contributions to the stability and prosperity of their members. …
Tobias Lenz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does Regionalism diffuse a new research agenda for the study of Regional Organizations
Journal of European Public Policy, 2013Co-Authors: Anja Jetschke, Tobias LenzAbstract:In the post-World War Two era, Regional Organizations have proliferated. The accompanying literature focuses on analysing the drivers and effects of Regionalism, but has, to date, largely neglected a series of puzzling macro-phenomena: the marked spatial and temporal clustering of Regional Organizations, as well as similarities in their institutional design. This contribution argues that the existing approaches analyse Regional Organizations primarily as independent phenomena, whose genesis and design are seen as being determined either by dynamics internal to the region itself or by external forces such as powerful hegemons and globalizing pressures. Against this background, this research note argues for the broadening of existing analytical perspectives and sketches a diffusion-oriented research agenda that instead conceives of Regional Organizations as being interdependent.
Ines Dombrowsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Governing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus Related to Hydropower on Shared Rivers—The Role of Regional Organizations
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2018Co-Authors: Ines Dombrowsky, Oliver HensengerthAbstract:An evolving literature on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus argues that there is a need to better understand the conditions under which nexus coordination may occur. A case in point are hydropower investments on shared rivers which might impact the provision of energy, water and food security across borders. In international basins, governing the WEF nexus impacts of hydropower relies on voluntary negotiations between the respective countries involved. It has been argued that such negotiations may be facilitated by Regional Organizations, such as international river basin Organizations (IRBOs), but this claim has hardly been investigated systematically. Drawing on regime theory in international relations and the literature on benefit sharing, this paper asks what role Regional Organizations may play in governing hydropower-related WEF nexus impacts. It compares three cases of hydropower planning on shared rivers. The Rusumo Falls and the Ruzizi III hydropower projects (HPPs) are joint investments in Africa's Great Lakes region facilitated by an IRBO and a Regional energy organization, respectively. On the Mekong, Laos is constructing the Xayaburi dam despite reservations by the Mekong River Commission and downstream riparians. The paper finds IRBOs and Regional energy Organizations may play a role in facilitating cross-border nexus governance by supporting benefit-sharing arrangements and by fostering the application of environmental and social safeguards and international law principles. However, it also shows that the influence of Regional Organizations varies, and how successfully they support nexus governance also depends on whether the HPP is planned unilaterally or jointly; the availability and consensus on data on nexus impacts; and the presence or absence of donors and private sector capital and investors.
-
governing the water energy food nexus related to hydropower on shared rivers the role of Regional Organizations
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2018Co-Authors: Ines Dombrowsky, Oliver HensengerthAbstract:An evolving literature on the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) nexus argues that there is a need to better understand the conditions under which nexus coordination may occur. A case in point are hydropower investments on shared rivers which might impact the provision of energy, water and food security across borders. In international basins, governing the WEF nexus impacts of hydropower relies on voluntary negotiations between the respective countries involved. It has been argued that such negotiations may be facilitated by Regional Organizations, such as international river basin Organizations (IRBOs), but this claim has hardly been investigated systematically. Drawing on regime theory in international relations and the literature on benefit sharing, this paper asks what role Regional Organizations may play in governing hydropower-related WEF nexus impacts. It compares three cases of hydropower planning on shared rivers. The Rusumo Falls and the Ruzizi III hydropower projects (HPPs) are joint investments in Africa's Great Lakes region facilitated by an IRBO and a Regional energy organization, respectively. On the Mekong, Laos is constructing the Xayaburi dam despite reservations by the Mekong River Commission and downstream riparians. The paper finds IRBOs and Regional energy Organizations may play a role in facilitating cross-border nexus governance by supporting benefit-sharing arrangements and by fostering the application of environmental and social safeguards and international law principles. However, it also shows that the influence of Regional Organizations varies, and how successfully they support nexus governance also depends on whether the HPP is planned unilaterally or jointly; the availability and consensus on data on nexus impacts; and the presence or absence of donors and private sector capital and investors.
