Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines the legal challenges faced by communities regarding land and resource rights, specifically the lack of recognition for customary laws and state ownership of sub-soil resources. It provides a comprehensive directory of international instruments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169, as well as business and finance guidelines (e.g., UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, IFC Performance Standards) that can be used to empower communities. The guide suggests including customary laws, governance structures, and specific national/international legal references in community protocols to define terms for external engagement and protect cultural and environmental heritage.

The author argues that while globalisation drives unprecedented economic growth through comparative advantage and market efficiency, it creates a 'race to the bottom' where nations compete for volatile capital by slashing corporate taxes and deregulation. This process potentially erodes public funding for welfare, labour protections, and environmental standards. While the author finds evidence of a downward trend in global corporate tax rates, they note that reputational risks and NGO watchdogs may moderate the degradation of labour and environmental standards. The document concludes that managing these negative effects requires stronger, more democratic global governance, including the potential creation of a World Tax Authority and an International Financial Stability and Harmonisation Authority.

The research argues that ethnic terrorism declines when governments implement accommodation strategies, such as granting political power or regional autonomy to marginalized groups. Using a dataset linking the Global Terrorism Database to the Ethnic Power Relations project, the authors find that moves away from active discrimination significantly reduce the expected number of terrorist attacks. While transitions to democracy generally reduce ethnic terrorism, the effect is heterogeneous, with some Asian countries showing increased activity. The study also notes that while overall terrorism declines after accommodation, attacks by splinter groups may increase as hardliners reject settlements.

The research examines the determinants of external state support for rebel groups using a new dataset of 403 organizations. It argues that support is not merely a function of the civil war's general characteristics but depends on the specific attributes of the rebel group and the international relations of the target state. The findings indicate that moderately strong groups with transnational constituencies are most likely to receive aid, particularly when the target state is involved in an international rivalry or receives its own external support. Conversely, very strong or very weak groups, and those in democratic states, are less likely to be supported.

The paper argues that while digital technologies offer opportunities for efficiency in crisis response, they are not neutral and can compromise fundamental humanitarian principles. It identifies key analytical prisms—humanitarian space, public-private partnerships, resource distribution (e.g., digital food/cash), human relations, and data-driven vulnerabilities—to guide future academic inquiry into the 'technological turn' of humanitarian action.

The authors argue that non-violent direct action is more effective at undermining autocracies and significantly more likely to lead to democratic transitions than violent conflict. Using a multinomial logit model for the period 1900-2004, the study finds that non-violent campaigns substantially increase the probability of democratization, particularly when the state has a high proportion of democratic neighbors. Conversely, violent direct action is less effective at destabilizing regimes overall and makes transitions to new autocracies relatively more likely. The research suggests that non-violence promotes power dispersion and elite defection, whereas violence tends to centralize power and justify further repression.

The Handbook on Governance Statistics, developed by the Praia Group, establishes a framework for measuring governance through eight dimensions: non-discrimination and equality, participation, openness, access to and quality of justice, responsiveness, absence of corruption, trust, and safety and security. It emphasizes a Human Rights-Based Approach to Data (HRBAD) and advocates for the use of triangulated data sources, including administrative records, household surveys, and expert assessments. The document provides specific recommended indicators, many aligned with SDG 16, and offers technical guidance on mitigating biases in subjective measurements of trust, responsiveness, and corruption.

The document analyzes the 'East Asian Peace', a significant reduction in battle deaths in East Asia between 1980 and 2005 compared to the 1946–1979 period. The author argues that this peace was not the result of a single event but a series of staggered political transitions across the region. Key drivers identified include a shift in leadership priorities toward export-driven economic growth and a strategic alignment with the United States. The paper contrasts this with the 'European Peace', noting that the East Asian case does not fit the liberal peace model due to a lack of widespread democratization and political integration.

The authors argue that while digital technologies offer opportunities for efficiency in crisis response, they are not neutral and can compromise core humanitarian principles. The paper identifies five analytical prisms for future research: the politics of humanitarian space, the rise of public-private partnerships, new methods of aid distribution (such as e-transfers), the reorganization of relationships between aid providers and recipients, and the emergence of new data-driven vulnerabilities. It concludes that the 'do no harm' imperative requires a more reflective approach to technology to ensure that digital divides do not marginalize the most vulnerable and that data collection does not create new security risks.

The author examines the 'quantitative-qualitative mismatch' in conflict studies, where large-N statistical analyses often find no link between income inequality and violence, while case studies suggest a strong connection. The paper posits that political violence is a group phenomenon and therefore driven by horizontal inequalities (HIs)—systematic disparities between ethnic, religious, or regional groups—rather than vertical inequalities (VI) between individuals. The author proposes a theoretical framework where HIs create both motives (grievances) and opportunities (resources and cohesion) for mobilization. The review concludes that while measuring HIs is challenging, evidence from survey-based data and disaggregated studies supports the link between HIs and various forms of political violence, including civil war and urban disorder.

The research argues that civil war dynamics are best understood as dyadic interactions between governments and specific rebel groups rather than through aggregate national characteristics. Using new data on non-state actors, the authors find that militarily strong rebels tend to fight shorter wars and are more likely to achieve decisive victories or concessions. Conversely, conflicts are prolonged when rebels are militarily weak but maintain territorial control in the periphery, as they can evade government repression without being strong enough to force a settlement. The study also indicates that the availability of legal political wings for rebels shortens conflict duration, and that the likelihood of government victory decreases significantly as a conflict persists.

The author examines the challenges of gathering data on sexual violence in war, noting that it is often used as a political tool to demoralize enemies and reinforce masculinity. The text highlights historical examples from Nanking, Berlin, Rwanda, and Bosnia to illustrate the systemic nature of these crimes. It argues that current data collection is hindered by victim stigma, lack of uniform definitions, and poor baseline data. To move from 'overview to insight,' the author suggests that researchers must analyze how sexual violence interacts with national and gender identities, noting that victims who view themselves as 'ethnic victims' often find more social support than those who view themselves as 'female victims.'

The document examines migrant transnationalism—the ties and practices migrants maintain across borders—across economic, sociocultural, and political dimensions. It advocates for a 'transnational lens' to move beyond 'methodological nationalism,' which assumes the nation-state is the only relevant unit of analysis. Key areas of focus include the role of remittances, the impact of digital technologies on 'co-presence,' the dynamics of transnational families, and the interaction between transnational engagement and integration into host societies. The authors argue that transnationalism is not a zero-sum game with integration and can provide significant 'mobility capital' and resources for migrants.

The authors present the Non-State Actors (NSA) in Civil Wars dataset, covering internal armed conflicts from 1945 to 2011. The dataset shifts the unit of analysis from country-years to state-rebel group dyad spells, allowing researchers to examine the specific characteristics of opposition forces rather than just macro-level state variables. Key indicators include rebel strength relative to the government, territorial control, organizational structure (such as the presence of political wings), and external support from states or non-state actors. Descriptive statistics from the dataset show that while over 85% of rebel groups are weaker than their governments, nearly half are at least equal in their specific capacities to mobilize support, procure arms, and fight. The dataset is designed to be compatible with the Uppsala Conflict Data Project (UCDP) Dyadic Dataset to facilitate data aggregation across different research projects.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of global conflict trends from 1989 to 2019, noting a record high of 54 state-based conflicts in 2019. It highlights the significant role of the Islamic State (IS) in driving recent conflict increases and the prevalence of internationalized civil conflicts. While battle-related deaths have generally decreased over the last 20 years, specific hotspots in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia remain deadly. The paper also analyzes the decline in peace agreements since 2015 and the persistence of non-state conflicts, particularly violent drug cartel activity in Latin America and communal violence in Africa.

The document analyzes conflict dynamics in Asia from 1989 to 2019 using UCDP data. It finds that while state-based conflicts are generally declining and often low-intensity, Afghanistan remains a critical exception and the most violent setting in the region and the world. Asia recorded the highest absolute number of ceasefires globally between 1989 and 2018, but peace agreements have declined since 2006. Non-state conflicts in Asia are declining, contrary to global trends, while one-sided violence is generally decreasing but saw a recent increase in 2019 driven by Afghanistan.

The research examines the intersection of Norway's national identity as a gender-equal and peace-promoting nation with its diplomatic practices. Through interviews with ten diplomats, the authors analyze how 'state feminism' has transitioned from domestic policy to foreign policy, specifically within the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. The findings highlight a strategic tension: while Norway promotes gender equality to enhance its international branding and credibility as a neutral facilitator, it avoids the explicit label of 'feminist foreign policy' to prevent being perceived as too value-driven or Western, which could jeopardize its role as a benign peace facilitator. The document notes a shift from early, male-dominated peace efforts to more professionalized, gender-balanced teams in recent processes like those in Colombia and the Philippines.

The document argues that rebel groups provide a unique 'laboratory' for understanding governance because they operate outside the Westphalian state system. It examines how rebels implement rule-making, enforcement, and service provision, and how these activities relate to their legitimacy and capacity. The authors propose a multi-dimensional framework for rebel capacity—military, economic, personnel, administrative, and social—and argue that territorial control is not always a prerequisite for governance. By comparing rebel and state behaviors, the paper suggests that governance is often multi-layered and that the relationship between territorial control and legitimacy is complex and non-linear.

The paper finds that while low Human Development Index (HDI) levels predict aid for excluded group-majority provinces, overall aid distribution is significantly biased in favour of the politically dominant Christian lowlanders. Previous exposure to armed conflict increases the likelihood of new projects only in Christian-majority provinces, and previous disaster exposure is a weak, sometimes negative, predictor of aid across all provinces.

The author critiques the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which determined that high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are 'rocks' incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life and thus cannot generate an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. The author contends that the Tribunal overlooked significant State practice where countries like Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States claim 200-nm EEZs for similarly remote, uninhabited features. The paper suggests that if the Tribunal had comprehensively examined these practices and bilateral agreements, it might have reached a different conclusion. Furthermore, it highlights a 'double standard' where these five nations urge China and the Philippines to abide by the Award while continuing their own inconsistent claims.