FBI CIA NSA are not only spying on American citizens but also are illegally unmasking their identities to journalists who support our fascist government Continue reading →

And so that is what I call the birth of this woke industrial complex. It is a new leviathan, a new monster, that is far more powerful than what Thomas Hobbes might have envisioned 400 years ago, and it is the biggest threat to individual liberty today. It is not big government alone. Its conservatives are reciting lines that they memorized in 1980, thinking that big government was the threat to individual liberty. Maybe it was in 1980. It's not today. It is this new hybrid of big government and big business and big government not just in the United States but big government in places like China, co-mingled with big business creating the actual threat to our liberty and our prosperity. Continue reading →

NEWS – Govee Smart Space Heaters are being recalled due to fire and burn risks. We’ve reviewed many Govee products here including the H7135 and the H7134. Govee says the listed models do not pass the UL safety standard and they are voluntarily recalling these smart space heater models. Recall details are at the Govee […]

Federal Government Boosts Australian Cardiovascular Alliance’s Mission to Combat Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke  News Hub

Japanese encephalitis virus activity in the Kimberley  Government of Western Australia Department of Health

1. Germany to hold snap election in February after government's coalition collapse  ABC News
2. The briefcase, the Porsche and the collapse of the German government – podcast  The Guardian
3. Germany set for snap election following collapse of Olaf Scholz’s coalition  The Conversation
4. President calls German early election plan 'realistic'  DW (English)

1. NSW nurses strike heaps wage pressure on Minns government  The Australian Financial Review
2. Hundreds of elective surgeries cancelled as 10,000 nurses and midwives walk off job in NSW  ABC News
3. Nurses took to the streets after ‘insulting’ pay offer. Next stop, court  Sydney Morning Herald
4. Almost 700 surgeries cancelled as 12,000 NSW nurses strike for better pay  9News

1. Donald Trump picks Elon Musk to lead new government department  9News
2. Trump’s picks the clearest path yet to power consolidation  Sydney Morning Herald
3. Donald Trump announces key figures for 2025 administration after election victory  ABC News
4. Trump’s Cabinet: Here Are His Picks And Finalists For Key Roles—Mike Huckabee, Kristi Noem And More  Forbes
5. Trump rolls out his most MAGA picks for new White House term  CNN

1. Legitimacy of two Victorian local government elections in question after duplicate votes detected  ABC News
2. Victorian council election results 2024 LIVE updates: Suspected postal vote tampering in council elections  Sydney Morning Herald
3. VEC investigates potential vote tampering in two Melbourne councils  The Age

In these trying and crazy times, Kentuckians are looking to Governor Andy Beshear for answers. His daily 5pm livestream updates have become popular for their wholesome messages and his amusing call-outs to stubborn bingo halls that just won't close for coronavirus quarantining. He's even earned himself a Facebook meme page, entitled "Andy Beshear Memes for Social Distancing Teens." 

Check some of them out below!  

Dogecoin shot higher on Tuesday night, extending its postelection surge after President-elect Donald Trump formally announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, which he referred to as "DOGE" in his statement. Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, former Republican…

Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy will co-lead a newly created Department of Government Efficiency, an entity Trump indicated will operate outside the confines of government.

Musk and ex-presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to head up Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy will lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, Donald Trump said on Tuesday. Despite the name, the…

Government to order review of rail fare prosecutions The government is set to order an independent review of rail fare prosecutions and enforcement by train companies following reports of disproportionate action against passengers by revenue protection teams. The BBC understands that Transport…

Why the government's flood insurance program is underwater Major flooding events are increasingly common across the U.S., but homeowners looking for flood insurance will find few choices. The main providers of flood insurance is the U.S. government through the National Flood Insurance Program, or…

President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the new Department of Government Efficiency, which aims to 'dismantle government bureaucracy.'

Prissydent-elect Donald Trump has picked South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who penned the book 'No Going Back' that detailed her murdering a puppy, horses, and at least one goat, as his next secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Hey, at least he didn't pick Ted Nugent, Kid Rock, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Catturd, or Steve Bannon for the role, all of whom allegedly have not shot a dog in the face -- yet.

CNN reports:

Noem will be tapped to take over the agency as two key immigration hardliners — Stephen Miller and Tom Homan — are slated to serve in senior roles, signaling Trump is serious about his promise to crack down on his immigration pledges. With his selection of Noem, Trump is ensuring a loyalist will head an agency he prioritizes and that is key to his domestic agenda.

The department saw an immense amount of turmoil the last time Trump was in office. Then, DHS had five different leaders, only two of whom were Senate-confirmed. The agency has a $60 billion budget and hundreds of thousands of employees.

Noem, who previously was a South Dakota representative, will now be tasked with overseeing a sprawling agency that oversees everything from US Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the US Secret Service.

read more

Full Article

Plato, through the character of Socrates, advances a now classic argument against democracy. When it comes to a matter that requires knowledge and skill, such as a medical issue, it would be foolish to decide by having the ignorant vote …Read more »

A vitória de Donald Trump foi bem recebida em Israel, mas a mudança que ele traz pode não ser do agrado do país.

Junto com o empresário Vivek Ramaswamy, Musk vai liderar o novo Departamento de Eficiência Governamental, segundo anunciou Donald Trump nesta terça-feira (12/11).

(Nov. 9, to kick off Veterans Day weekend)  MOBILE, Alabama — On this Veterans Day, Alabama is roiled by a doozy of a veterans-related controversy. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey last month invoked […]

The post Gov. Ivey’s treatment of Bama veterans is a scandal appeared first on Quin Hillyer.

NHS experts report unprecedented demand for the new generation of obesity treatments.

Navin Ramgoolam, 77, is appointed prime minister and begins his third stint in the job.

People are angry at the authorities' handling of floods which killed more than 200 people.

Communications and Digital Technology Minister Solly Malatsi will issue a policy direction on equity alternatives to the 30% equity employment rule in the communications industry.

The following article, GOP Rep. Luna Says ‘Criminal Prosecutions Necessary’ For Anti-Trump Lawfare Schemers In Government (Video), was first published on Conservative Firing Line.

As President Donald Trump prepares to re-enter the White House after his landslide victory in Tuesday’s election, a U.S. congresswoman says “criminal prosecutions” are “necessary” for the government officials who have been promoting the massive lawfare campaign against the president-elect. On “Sunday Morning Futures” on the Fox News Channel, host Maria Bartiromo asked U.S. Rep. …

Continue reading GOP Rep. Luna Says ‘Criminal Prosecutions Necessary’ For Anti-Trump Lawfare Schemers In Government (Video) ...

Cairo, Egypt Oct. 28, 2022 On Egyptian TV show, “Headlines,” Dr. Hossam Farouk dedicated an episode to discussing national and international coverage of the Secret Apparatus: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Industry of Death. It was a great honor having the book featured on this great show.

The break-up of Scholz’s coalition government signals the end of Germany’s old economic model Expert comment jon.wallace 12 November 2024

The coalition could not agree how to fund new support for Ukraine and failed to fully implement the ‘Zeitenwende’. A new government must push through reform.

As Europeans were still processing Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 US presidential election, an acrimonious break up occurred 4000 miles east of Washington DC.

Reports had been circulating for weeks about the fragile state of Germany’s ‘traffic light’ coalition government led by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, consisting of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Green Party, and liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP).

The expectation had been that the coalition would hold on for a few more weeks and might even be given a new lease of life by Trump’s re-election. Instead, it collapsed on the day Trump’s win was confirmed. An unusually angry Scholtz announced in a live address that he had fired FDP Finance Minister Christian Lindner, effectively breaking up the coalition.

At the heart of the dispute was the so-called ‘debt brake’ – a constitutional mechanism which restricts Germany’s annual public deficit to 0.35 per cent of GDP. Lindner proposed a set of reforms which were unpalatable to the SPD and the Greens. 

In response, Scholz suggested declaring an emergency, which would have suspended the debt brake. That in turn was unacceptable to Lindner, leading to his sacking by the Chancellor.

Practically, this means the SPD and the Greens are now in a minority coalition, without agreement on the 2025 budget or the votes in parliament to pass it. They also still face the challenge of the debt brake.

A vote of confidence will take place in December, with elections to be held before the end of February 2025 latest.

The end of Germany’s economic model

At the root of Germany’s political crisis is the country’s economic model. For decades, Germany relied on a system that depended on cheap Russian gas, cheap imports of consumer goods from China, high-value exports – particularly in the automotive sector – and the US security umbrella.

With Russian energy no longer viable, the global economic landscape shifting, and Donald Trump on his way back to the White House, that model is no longer workable. And Germany’s economy is expected to contract by 0.2 per cent in 2024 – a contraction for the second year running.

The ‘Zeitenwende’, announced by Scholz in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, should have signalled a turnaround of both foreign and economic policy, given how much the two are interconnected. Yet on both fronts, too little changed.

Germany’s reliance on Russian gas did come to an abrupt end in 2022. And Germany is Ukraine’s second largest military aid donor after the US, while accepting the most Ukrainian refugees.

But the ‘Zeitenwende’ turnaround ended there. Scholz’s coalition government failed to prepare for long-term investment in defence at the levels required by creating an off-budget defence spending fund which would have run out in 2027. The draft budget for 2025 showed defence spending would have been cut, as would support for Ukraine.

Germany has also struggled to turn around its economic woes, with the car industry particularly affected. Cheap Chinese EVs and new energy technologies are competing with Germany’s most powerful companies. Volkswagen, the country’s largest car manufacturer, has announced plant closures and layoffs due to shrinking profit margins.  

To the west, Trump’s threat to impose 10 to 20 per cent tariffs on all EU imports meant share prices of Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedez-Benz and Porsche all dropped between 4 to 7 per cent following news of his re-election.

To the east, trade tensions between the EU and China are intensifying. Yet rather than choosing to diversify, German companies have doubled down on their bets in China, with German investment in the country rising from €6.5bn for the whole of 2023 to €7.3bn in the first half of 2024 alone – only exposing carmakers further.

Germany’s support for Ukraine

Like French President Emmanuel Macron, Scholz had already been weakened by the results of the European Parliamentary elections in June. With the collapse of his traffic light coalition, the EU’s Franco-German ‘engine’ is now well and truly stalled – until new leadership can be found. This weakness comes at a perilous moment when clear, united European leadership, and much increased funding, is needed to shore up support for Ukraine.

Implications of post-COVID-19 Restructuring of Supply Chains for Global Investment Governance 14 July 2020 — 9:00AM TO 10:30AM Anonymous (not verified) 9 February 2021 Online

As companies rethink and diversify their supply chains in order to enhance resilience, what will this mean for current and future global investment governance?

What are the risks of negative effects on inclusivity and transparency? Does this shift create an opportunity to advance good governance of cross-border investment practices?

This event is part of the Inclusive Governance Initiative, which is examining how to build more inclusive models and mechanisms of global governance fit for purpose in today’s world.

Insights from Climate Policy: Engaging Subnational Governments in Global Platforms 10 June 2020 — 2:45PM TO 6:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 9 February 2021 Online

How have subnational governments shaped the global agenda and created momentum on climate change where national and international governance processes could not?

Can these advances be converted into meaningful collaboration channels for policy development? What works, or does not, when it comes to engagement with multilateral negotiation processes? What ingredients are necessary for success? What are the broader implications of these trends for inclusivity and innovation in international governance?

This event is part of the Inclusive Governance Initiative, which is examining how to build more inclusive models and mechanisms of global governance fit for purpose in today’s world.

Innovating Governance: Examples from the Digital Arena 25 February 2020 TO 26 February 2020 — 10:00AM TO 11:30AM Anonymous (not verified) 9 February 2021 Chatham House

The Inclusive Governance Initiative is launched with this roundtable on digital governance.

The Inclusive Governance Initiative, a centenary project which is examining how to build more inclusive models and mechanisms of global governance fit for purpose in today’s world, is launched with this roundtable on digital governance.

The event brings together a diverse and multidisciplinary group of leading experts to consider where and how early initiatives around governance of the digital sphere have succeeded – or not – and how they are evolving today.

The conversation will include the debate between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches, the opportunities and challenges of collective non-binding commitments, and converting civil society collaboration into policy contribution.

A seat at the table – why inclusivity matters in global governance 10 May 2021 — 1:30PM TO 3:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 22 April 2021 Online

Exploring the changing dynamics of global cooperation and the role inclusivity can play in building collaborative action.

Please click on the below link to confirm your participation and receive your individual joining details from Zoom for this event. You will receive a confirmation email from Zoom, which contains the option to add the event to your calendar if you so wish.

The scale of today’s global challenges demand collaborative and coordinated action. But deepening geopolitical competition is threatening multilateralism while growing inequality and social tensions continue to undermine public confidence in the ability of international institutions to deliver.

Into this challenging environment, add the complexity and sheer pace of many global challenges such as the climate crisis and the proliferation of new technologies – issues that cannot be addressed effectively by governments alone.

• How do global institutions and mechanisms need to adapt to address the demands for a fairer distribution of power between states and to engage the diverse set of actors essential today for effective solutions?
• What can be learnt from existing initiatives that bring together governments, civil society, private sector, cities, next generation leaders and other stakeholders?
• And what are the political obstacles to greater inclusivity?

This event supports the launch of a synthesis paper from Chatham House’s Inclusive Governance Initiative.

Can global technology governance anticipate the future? Expert comment NCapeling 27 April 2021

Trying to govern disruption is perilous as complex technology is increasingly embedded in societies and omnipresent in economic, social, and political activity.

Technology governance is beset by the challenges of how regulation can keep pace with rapid digital transformation, how governments can regulate in a context of deep knowledge asymmetry, and how policymakers can address the transnational nature of technology.

Keeping pace with, much less understanding, the implications of digital platforms and artificial intelligence for societies is increasingly challenging as technology becomes more sophisticated and yet more ubiquitous.

To overcome these obstacles, there is an urgent need to move towards a more anticipatory and inclusive model of technology governance. There are some signs of this in recent proposals by the European Union (EU) and the UK on the regulation of online harms.

Regulation failing to keep up

The speed of the digital revolution, further accelerated by the pandemic, has largely outstripped policymakers’ ability to provide appropriate frameworks to regulate and direct technology transformations.

Governments around the world face a ‘pacing problem’, a phenomenon described by Gary Marchant in 2011 as ‘the growing gap between the pace of science and technology and the lagging responsiveness of legal and ethical oversight that society relies on to govern emerging technologies’.

This ever-growing rift, Marchant argues, has been exacerbated by the increasing public appetite for and adoption of new technologies, as well as political inertia. As a result, legislation on emerging technologies risks being ineffective or out-of-date by the time it is implemented.

Effective regulation requires a thorough understanding of both the underlying technology design, processes and business model, and how current or new policy tools can be used to promote principles of good governance.

Artificial intelligence, for example, is penetrating all sectors of society and spanning multiple regulatory regimes without any regard for jurisdictional boundaries. As technology is increasingly developed and applied by the private sector rather than the state, officials often lack the technical expertise to adequately comprehend and act on emerging issues. This increases the risk of superficial regulation which fails to address the underlying structural causes of societal harms.

The significant lack of knowledge from those who aim to regulate compared to those who design, develop and market technology is prevalent in most technology-related domains, including powerful online platforms and providers such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube.

For example, the ability for governments and researchers to access the algorithms used in the business model of social media companies to promote online content – harmful or otherwise – remains opaque so, to a crucial extent, the regulator is operating in the dark.

The transnational nature of technology also poses additional problems for effective governance. Digital technologies intensify the gathering, harvesting, and transfer of data across borders, challenging administrative boundaries both domestically and internationally.

While there have been some efforts at the international level to coordinate approaches to the regulation of – for example – artificial intelligence (AI) and online content governance, more work is needed to promote global regulatory alignment, including on cross-border data flows and antitrust.

Reactive national legislative approaches are often based on targeted interventions in specific policy areas, and so risk failing to address the scale, complexity, and transnational nature of socio-technological challenges. Greater attention needs to be placed on how regulatory functions and policy tools should evolve to effectively govern technology, requiring a shift from a reactionary and rigid framework to a more anticipatory and adaptive model of governance.

Holistic and systemic versus mechanistic and linear

Some recent proposals for technology governance may offer potential solutions. The EU publication of a series of interlinked regulatory proposals – the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act and European Democracy Action Plan – integrates several novel and anticipatory features.

The EU package recognizes that the solutions to online harms such as disinformation, hate speech, and extremism lie in a holistic approach which draws on a range of disciplines, such as international human rights law, competition law, e-commerce, and behavioural science.

It consists of a combination of light touch regulation – such as codes of conduct – and hard law requirements such as transparency obligations. Codes of conduct provide flexibility as to how requirements are achieved by digital platforms, and can be updated and tweaked relatively easily enabling regulations to keep pace as technology evolves.

As with the EU Digital Services Act, the UK’s recent proposals for an online safety bill are innovative in adopting a ‘systems-based’ approach which broadly focuses on the procedures and policies of technology companies rather than the substance of online content.

This means the proposals can be adapted to different types of content, and differentiated according to the size and reach of the technology company concerned. This ‘co-regulatory’ model recognizes the evolving nature of digital ecosystems and the ongoing responsibilities of the companies concerned. The forthcoming UK draft legislation will also be complemented by a ‘Safety by Design’ framework, which is forward-looking in focusing on responsible product design.

By tackling the complexity and unpredictability of technology governance through holistic and systemic approaches rather than mechanistic and linear ones, the UK and EU proposals represent an important pivot from reactive to anticipatory digital governance.

Both sets of proposals were also the result of extensive multistakeholder engagement, including between policy officials and technology actors. This engagement broke down silos within the technical and policy/legal communities and helped bridge the knowledge gap between dominant technology companies and policymakers, facilitating a more agile, inclusive, and pragmatic regulatory approach.

Coherence rather than fragmentation

Anticipatory governance also recognizes the need for new coalitions to promote regulatory coherence rather than fragmentation at the international level. The EU has been pushing for greater transatlantic engagement on regulation of the digital space, and the UK – as chair of the G7 presidency in 2021 – aims to work with democratic allies to forge a coherent response to online harms.

Meanwhile the OECD’s AI Policy Observatory enables member states to share best practice on the regulation of AI, and an increasing number of states such as France, Norway, and the UK are using ‘regulatory sandboxes’ to test and build AI or personal data systems that meet privacy standards.

Not all states currently have the organizational capacity and institutional depth to design and deliver regulatory schemes of this nature, as well as the resource-intensive consultation processes which often accompany them.

So, as an increasing number of states ponder how to ‘futureproof’ their regulation of tomorrow’s technology – whether 6G, quantum computing or biotechnology – there is a need for capacity building in governments both on the theory of anticipatory governance and on how it can be applied in practice to global technology regulation.

Digital governance must not marginalize smaller states Expert comment LToremark 19 May 2021

For effective and inclusive digital governance, multi-stakeholderism must raise its game.

Last month, the G7 announced it is to work towards a trusted, values-driven digital ecosystem. While this is commendable, the G7 must recognize that key international digital governance decisions should involve all states whose populations will be affected. Not doing so is to deny the legitimate interests of those populations and may cause a lack of trust in international digital governance that embeds longer-term instability.

While a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance is important, it must be structured in a way that allows for meaningful representation of states’ interests and ensures their representatives have the opportunity and capacity to take part. As the internet becomes fundamental to life in every country of the world, international digital governance is increasingly important to all governments and excluding some states’ perspectives may engender wider risks to international security and governance.

The ‘glitter ball’ of digital governance

International digital governance is playing catch-up with the digital sphere it needs to govern. Its starting point is a ‘glitter ball’ of governance initiatives: a large number of complex facets with overlapping impacts – and an almost impenetrable core. Governance initiatives (see infographic) include governance of the internet itself and its uses, international cybersecurity, international human rights, data management, as well as the impact of digital developments in areas such as armed conflict, trade and health.

Many of the bodies involved – such as the Internet Governance Forum, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and technical standards bodies – include a wide range of stakeholders, yet there is no one accessible, central body. Furthermore, certain key issues, such as the role and responsibilities of tech platforms, are barely touched upon by international governance mechanisms. There is also currently only a limited role for traditional UN multilateral decision-making, a process which builds in a role for smaller states.

The sheer number of forums involved, each with a different set of working methods and rules on participation, makes it difficult to fully grasp what digital governance looks like as a whole. The UN secretary-general’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation recognized the complexity of digital cooperation arrangements and the barriers to inclusion facing small and developing countries as well as under-represented groups. In response, the June 2020 UN Roadmap on Digital Cooperation accepts the need to streamline digital governance while ensuring marginalized voices are heard.

The UN is considering potential models for future governance, each of which would – reassuringly – involve multi-stakeholder participation, dedicated funds to boost participation, consolidation of discussions currently split between different forums and a minor coordinating role for the UN.  

Building in roles for smaller states

As the UN designs new digital governance architecture, it is particularly important to build in roles for small and medium states. Core constituencies affected by decisions should be at the centre and governments – as guardians of public interest – should have a key say in the decision-making process. The distrust generated by built-in power imbalances needs to be addressed, as does the dominance of voices from the Global North in bodies such as ICANN.   

There has been some progress made to increase participation. For example, the Freedom Online Coalition includes a number of developing countries and the 2020 Internet Governance Forum included input from 175 states.

However, participation is not only a matter of having a seat at the table. As discussed at the March 2021 UN Open-ended Working Group on ICTs in the context of international security, capacity-building is vital. The group’s conclusions include the suggested development of a global cyber capacity-building agenda with information sharing and norms guidance under the auspices of the UN. Representatives of small and medium states need a roadmap to understand in which forums they can defend and pursue their interests, and the financial help to do so if necessary.

Managing multi-stakeholder participation

A multi-stakeholder approach has been fundamental to digital governance from the start and has played a vital role in helping to secure the openness and universality of the internet. This approach is rightly seen as essential to effective governance because it introduces diverse expertise, allows the interests of all impacted sectors to be taken into account and helps ensure decisions are accepted by those affected.

However, as identified in a Chatham House report on inclusive global governance, multi-stakeholderism needs to raise its game. One of its downsides is that in the cacophony some important voices may not be heard because they lack resource or capacity to speak up. There is a perennial risk of debate and decision-making being captured by the wealthiest companies or the most powerful states. At present, small and medium states are under-represented in multi-stakeholder forums and it is important that those managing such forums seek to identify and include previously excluded voices.

Multi-stakeholderism should not come at the expense of efficiency. While it does not have to mean huge, inefficient meetings or endless discussion, it should also not mean that smaller, less well-funded voices are not heard. Instead, such processes should enable representation of appropriate interest groups, complemented by wider meetings (such as regional meetings, or sector-specific meetings) as needed. While inclusivity and transparency are key, synergies between regional and global forums can work well –  for example, some countries have adopted national versions of the Internet Governance Forum –  and so too can hybrid models such as the Freedom Online Coalition, which meets both as government members and for regular multi-stakeholder dialogue.

A multi-stakeholder approach should also not lose sight of the key role of states – and where mandated, sub-state entities – in making public policy decisions.

An important role for the UN

For 75 years, the UN has acted as a bulwark of international security and shared values, and a promoter of economic and social development. If misused, technology has the potential to undermine this bulwark, to facilitate conflict, erode rights and undermine development. The UN must encourage the harnessing of technology for society’s benefit, while leading a collective effort to guard against the risks through the retention and growth of a universal, open internet – particularly in the face of growing digital authoritarianism exacerbated by COVID-19.

The UN can also help protect against a commercial culture that threatens to trample fundamental freedoms of privacy and autonomy in its pursuit of wealth and to widen economic and social gulfs by leaving large swathes of the world behind. If the UN is to play this role effectively – and for the benefit of all its members ­– it requires the active participation of all states, large and small.

Influence of soft law grows in international governance Expert comment NCapeling 17 June 2021

Soft law is increasingly being used by policymakers to enable greater cooperation and inclusivity, and its role is here to stay in creating effective regimes.

As the UK government’s recent Integrated Review points out, international law-making in a fragmented international order is becoming increasingly difficult.

Geopolitical tensions, and the length of time required to agree multilateral treaties – typically decades – make it challenging to reach binding agreements in complex and fast-evolving policy areas such as climate change and technology governance.

As a result, the regulation of international behaviour through soft law – meaning non-binding instruments such as principles, codes of conduct or declarations – is starting to assume greater significance. And states increasingly find soft law-making attractive because there are relatively fewer decision costs involved.

Soft law also lays the ground for the possibility of transforming into hard law if, over time, its principles become widely accepted and it is evident states are treating them as legal obligations. And the emergence of a hybrid of both soft and hard law components in treaties has started to develop in recent years, such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Opening access to global governance

A major attraction of soft law-making is that it provides for non-traditional, non-state actors to take part in the process of global governance. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social movements, corporate sector, and individuals are more easily drawn into soft law-making compared to treaties, to which only states can be party.

This holds out the promise for greater inclusiveness in global rulemaking and governance, but soft law processes also pose many challenges. Soft law provides an avenue for states to avoid legal obligations on important subjects and developing rules in such an informal manner can lead to fragmentation and a lack of coherence in the international system.

As noted in dialogues held under Chatham House’s Inclusive Governance Initiative, some areas of international interaction require hard law, such as economic competition, certain international security issues, and aspects of the global commons. In these areas, soft law is just not appropriate or enough.

Soft law measures such as codes of conduct may be useful in rapidly developing areas such as technology, as they are more flexible and adaptable than hard law. And they may be particularly effective if used in conjunction with binding regulation, and subject to monitoring and enforcement by a regulator, as in recent proposals by the European Union (EU) for a Digital Services Act.

The Chatham House Inclusive Governance Initiative report highlights that the proliferation of soft law does not necessarily have to compete with the existing system of hard law, so long as soft law solutions do not conflict with, or undermine, hard law such as existing treaty provisions.

Case study: Business and human rights

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) are an interesting example of both the promise of soft law-making, and its challenges. Officially adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2011, the UNGPs set out the global standard of what is expected of companies as regards human rights due diligence (HRDD) to prevent and address business-related human rights harms.

The sections on HRDD in the UNGPs have been constructed as a non-binding ‘social’ standard of conduct, though with the expectation that this would eventually be reinforced through a “smart mix” of both soft law and hard law initiatives. Arguments in favour of the predominantly soft law approach at the time – subsequently borne out in practice – were that this would encourage a higher level of participation, by states and businesses in particular, and better foster creativity and innovation in a still-developing field.

The UNGPs recognize and reinforce the importance of meaningful and inclusive stakeholder engagement for both the credibility and legitimacy of processes, and for the quality of substantive outcomes. The Ruggie process which led to the UNGPs, drew extensively from a wide range of stakeholder engagement processes covering many different jurisdictions and all UN regional groupings. The importance of deep and inclusive stakeholder engagement is also recognized in the mandate of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights.

The annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights is one of the largest and most vibrant multi-stakeholder events in the UN calendar. Now in its tenth year, the forum provides an opportunity for an annual review by stakeholders – government, business and civil society – of past achievements in implementing the UNGPs and knowledge sharing on ways to address more persistent, underlying challenges.

Its relatively informal approach to agenda setting has, year on year, enabled an increasingly diverse array of stakeholder-organized sessions, supporting a ‘bottom up’ approach which raises awareness of under-reported issues and undervalued solutions.

In addition, while the UNGPs provide the substantive framework for discussion, flexible governance arrangements allow for rapid reorientation to respond to present and emerging crises, such as COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.

However, the sluggish responses of many companies, coupled with revulsion at reports of serious abuses in the value chains of many well-known brands, have prompted some governments to seek ways of translating some aspects of HRDD methodologies into binding legal standards. France passed a Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law in 2017 and Germany adopted a new law on supply chain due diligence in June 2021 which is to enter into effect on 1 January 2023. The European Commission is also working up proposals for an EU-wide regime to be unveiled in mid-2021.

Soft law versus hard law

At the international level, there are signs of divergence between those states which see value in persevering with the soft law route towards better regulation and corporate standards, and those which want to move as rapidly as possible to a hard law framework for business and human rights, enshrined in treaty, to improve domestic-level regulation and access to effective remedies.

Those supporting the hard law route – largely less industrialized states – received a boost in 2016 when the UN Human Rights Council mandated an Intergovernmental Working Group to explore options for a new treaty on business and human rights.

This initiative, known as the ‘treaty process’, has completed six rounds of negotiations. Despite the necessarily greater formality, these treaty negotiation sessions continue to emphasize the importance of stakeholder consultation. NGOs with ECOSOC status are invited to contribute views on the framing and content of draft treaty provisions immediately following the interventions by states, intergovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in that order.

The key question is whether this dynamism and inclusivity can be preserved as the transition is made from soft law to more binding approaches. Translating soft law standards into binding regimes inevitably means making hard choices, and different stakeholder groups have different views as to where legal lines should be drawn, how key concepts should be defined, and where the balance between legal certainty and flexibility should be struck.

The negotiations needed to strike an effective balance between competing objectives and needs can be challenging and time-consuming, as experiences with the treaty process have shown. But stakeholder demand for inclusive processes to help shape the law remains strong. Stakeholder groups clearly want a say in how the new EU-wide regime for ‘mandatory human rights due diligence’ will work in practice. A recent online ‘stakeholder survey’ garnered more than 400,000 responses.

Ultimately, the most effective domestic regimes are likely to be a mix of hard law standards supported by more flexible standards and guidance. Civil society organizations and trade unions will continue to have a multi-faceted role to play. Not only are they vital sources of expertise on human rights challenges connected to business activities, at home and abroad, they can also act as private enforcers of standards and advocates for affected people and communities.

How can governance be more inclusive? Explainer Video NCapeling 28 June 2021

Short animation exploring how global governance can be reshaped to meet the challenges of today’s world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the urgent need for change in the structures and mechanisms of international cooperation.

This animation supports the release of a major synthesis paper as part of the Inclusive Governance Initiative, which was launched in 2020 to mark Chatham House’s centenary.

Read the synthesis paper Reflections on building more inclusive global governance.

Cyberspace governance at the United Nations 18 January 2023 — 3:00PM TO 4:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 30 November 2022 Online

How can member states achieve lasting, adaptable, and meaningful success in cyberspace governance at the United Nations?

Now in its second iteration, the Open-ended Working Group on Information and Communications Technologies (OEWG) has been a space for United Nations member states to discuss the use, regulation and governance of cyberspace since 2019.

The progress of this forum in shaping cyberspace and its governance is evidenced by two consensus reports including a framework for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace and, more recently, plans for a Programme of Action. 
 
However, the true impact of these UN processes in limiting the threats of ICTs to international peace and security is contingent upon operationalizing the consensus at the international level and reflecting it in national policies and practices.

Pervasive challenges continue to hamper operationalization efforts, including differences in national capacities and capabilities, and divergences in national perspectives regarding the application of international law to cyberspace.

So, how can member states overcome these challenges and set this vital forum up for lasting, adaptable and meaningful success? What role does ‘multi-stakeholderism’ play in realizing responsible state behaviour in cyberspace?

With a dual focus on cyber capacity building and international law, this event considers how these two elements interact and intersect, how discussions on them could progress in the UN space and outside it and how the two contribute to a safer and more secure cyberspace for all. 
 
This event is organized jointly by the International Security and International Law Programmes at Chatham House to launch Phase 2 of the project ‘Cyberspace4All: Towards an inclusive approach to cyber governance’ which is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Expert

Expert

Gle1 is a conserved, essential regulator of DEAD-box RNA helicases, with critical roles defined in mRNA export, translation initiation, translation termination, and stress granule formation. Mechanisms that specify which, where, and when DDXs are targeted by Gle1 are critical to understand. In addition to roles for stress-induced phosphorylation and inositol hexakisphosphate binding in specifying Gle1 function, Gle1 oligomerizes via its N-terminal domain in a phosphorylation-dependent manner. However, a thorough analysis of the role for Gle1 self-association is lacking. Here, we find that Gle1 self-association is driven by two distinct regions: a coiled-coil domain and a novel 10-amino acid aggregation-prone region, both of which are necessary for proper Gle1 oligomerization. By exogenous expression in HeLa cells, we tested the function of a series of mutations that impact the oligomerization domains of the Gle1A and Gle1B isoforms. Gle1 oligomerization is necessary for many, but not all aspects of Gle1A and Gle1B function, and the requirements for each interaction domain differ. Whereas the coiled-coil domain and aggregation-prone region additively contribute to competent mRNA export and stress granule formation, both self-association domains are independently required for regulation of translation under cellular stress. In contrast, Gle1 self-association is dispensable for phosphorylation and nonstressed translation initiation. Collectively, we reveal self-association functions as an additional mode of Gle1 regulation to ensure proper mRNA export and translation. This work also provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying human gle1 disease mutants found in prenatally lethal forms of arthrogryposis.

When you log on to the SAS Risk Governance Framework and choose a solution, the web application might fail to load the solution content. When the problem occurs, you continue to see "Loading..." on the screen, an

Angiopoietin-like protein (ANGPTL)3 regulates plasma lipids by inhibiting LPL and endothelial lipase (EL). ANGPTL3 inactivation lowers LDL-C independently of the classical LDLR-mediated pathway and represents a promising therapeutic approach for individuals with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia due to LDLR mutations. Yet, how ANGPTL3 regulates LDL-C levels is unknown. Here, we demonstrate in hyperlipidemic humans and mice that ANGPTL3 controls VLDL catabolism upstream of LDL. Using kinetic, lipidomic, and biophysical studies, we show that ANGPTL3 inhibition reduces VLDL-lipid content and size, generating remnant particles that are efficiently removed from the circulation. This suggests that ANGPTL3 inhibition lowers LDL-C by limiting LDL particle production. Mechanistically, we discovered that EL is a key mediator of ANGPTL3’s novel pathway. Our experiments revealed that, although dispensable in the presence of LDLR, EL-mediated processing of VLDL becomes critical for LDLR-independent particle clearance. In the absence of EL and LDLR, ANGPTL3 inhibition perturbed VLDL catabolism, promoted accumulation of atypical remnants, and failed to reduce LDL-C. Taken together, we uncover ANGPTL3 at the helm of a novel EL-dependent pathway that lowers LDL-C in the absence of LDLR.

New Frontiers in Gender-responsive Governance: Five Years of the W20 Research paper sysadmin 2 November 2018

After five years of the W20, women and gender equality remain at the margin of the G20. There is a real risk of the W20 representing a one-off territorial gain at a frontier that could easily be pushed back again.

Summary

• 2018 marks the fifth anniversary of the first grouping of the W20, the engagement group of the G20 that focuses on gender-inclusive economic growth and advocates for gender equality across the G20 agenda. Formally launched under the Turkish G20 presidency in 2015, the W20 is made up of women from business, international organizations, civil society, think-tanks and academia across the G20 member states.
• This paper takes stock of the critical steps in the development of the W20 over the last five years, examining its background, rationale and foundations, and identifying the areas of economic governance where it has so far contributed the most – and those where more action is needed. The W20 has filled a gap, it but needs to carefully assess its coherence with the UN agencies, the private sector, the G7 and other G20 engagement groups.
• The establishment of the W20 has contributed to defining new frontiers for economic governance and shifting the traditional approach from gender-neutral to gender-responsive. Whereas in 2013 gender in the G20 was considered a marginal issue better dealt with by ministers for equal opportunities, now gender equality and women’s economic empowerment are part of the mainstream economic dialogue. The next step is to ensure more structural and monitored policy reforms at the G20 level.
• Already, the W20 can count among its achievements the ‘25 by 25’ female labour force participation commitment adopted at the G20’s Brisbane summit in 2014, and the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative (We-Fi) and Business Women Leaders’ Taskforce, both agreed at the Hamburg summit in 2017.
• The W20 is constrained in its policy impact by limited engagement with the finance track and a lack of consistent resourcing levels. Addressing these issues would strengthen its role as a credible player in shifting global economic governance while contributing to good gender-responsive domestic policies.
• Progress on gender equality has been too slow and too peripheral to drive change in the relatively short term – over one generation, for example. G20 governments must therefore embrace active, credible policies to bring more women into the labour market, improve access to education and finance, close the pay gap, invest in social infrastructure – especially childcare and assistance for the elderly – and support female entrepreneurs. These domestic policies need to be internationally coordinated so that action and benefits can be widespread.
• A feminist, inclusive agenda at the G20 level should highlight the current empirical evidence of women’s exclusion from the benefit of their economic activity, both in G20 members and beyond. The W20 should also focus on efforts to remedy the lack of women’s representation in G20 processes and in economic governance as a whole.

The Role of Sub-state and Non-state Actors in International Climate Processes: Subnational Governments Research paper sysadmin 23 January 2019

This paper looks at the role of subnational governments in influencing global climate ambition, and makes recommendations for how these actors can increase their influence in the future.

Summary

• ‘Subnational governments’ – including municipal, regional and provincial authorities – lack the formal status of negotiating parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). But they have a vital role to play in informing and helping to shape international climate action, as they are often the key delivery partners for on-the-ground policies.
• Subnational governments are often closer to climate problems than the UNFCCC parties themselves, and have experience, expertise and peer influence that can support the development of progressive policies and increased ambition.
• Many subnational governments have joined or formed various groupings to share information and experience, and to increase their collective profile and voice. Notable initiatives and collaborations include the Under2 Coalition, ICLEI, C40 and the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy.
• Subnational governments are highly diverse. In some cases, politically high-profile administrations – the US state of California being a notable example – have exploited their visibility and policy successes to engage in wider climate debates. Equally, however, subnational agendas can encounter resistance from national governments anxious to ensure the primacy of their negotiating positions in the UNFCCC system.
• One of the advantages that subnational governments enjoy, subject to resources, is their ability to join with peer groups to take a fresh approach to mitigation or adaptation policies. Groups of cities or subnational regions can, through collaborative organizations, explore new approaches that might be less attractive within a national context.
• To maintain and build on their current achievements and influence, subnational governments need, among other things, to: improve the credibility of their experience through evaluation of the success of their climate policies; use membership of appropriate international groups to share experience and boost their leverage; continue to create collaborative relationships with progressive businesses to increase influence at a national level; build on cross-regional relationships in climate adaptation and resilience; and work with other subnational actors to build momentum ahead of the first post-Paris revision of climate commitments in 2020.