Some things never change: Exploring the most persistent SOA Governance challenges.

The most common SOA Governance mistakes and why organizations make them.

Cloud, mobile, IoT - what new challenges face SOA Governance in the rapid evolution of enterprise IT?

A memorandum of understanding signed on 19 May 2016 by the OSCE Office in Yerevan, the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Development, and the Union of Government Employees NGO aims to enhance the transparency and accountability of the community civil service of Armenia’s municipalities, local self-government bodies, and to improve relevant legislation, bringing it in line with international standards to reduce corruption in public administration.

Initiatives will include professional and regular training on principles and international standards of integrity in civil service, corruption risks, detection and prevention of corruption, reforms to training and recruitment of community servants in the regions, identifying legislation containing corruption risks, and recommendations for systemic reform.

“We hope this joint endeavour will contribute to the government’s efforts in implementing the anti-corruption strategy and in promoting efficient and accountable governance in Armenia,” said the Head of the OSCE Office in Yerevan Ambassador Argo Avakov.

David Lokyan, Armenia’s Minister of Territorial Administration and Development underlined the importance of co-operation in promoting better civil and community service, integrity and accountability among the local authorities, legislation reform in ensuring high-quality public administration in line with international standards throughout the regions in Armenia.

The initiative builds on Office-supported activities to train civil servants; improve the civil and community service system, including recruitment, monitoring and attestation; and to mainstream integrity in the public administration. A series of training courses for civil servants were held by the Union of Armenia's Government Employees NGO with the support of the OSCE Office and in partnership with the Civil Service Council of Armenia.

Vache Kalashyan, Chairperson of the Union of Government Employees, said: "We enjoy continuous co-operation with the civil and community services sector and are happy to enhance knowledge of corruption risks, conflict of interest, integrity and strengthen civil servants’ impact in delivering accountable and high-quality services on behalf of the State.”

Between 2009 and 2015 more than 300 civil servants representing 35 different state services were trained with the OSCE Office’s support on integrity, anti-corruption and ethics. 

Related Stories

• Corruption issues in private sector discussed with support of the OSCE Office in Yerevan
• OSCE enhances legal and human rights education in Armenia
• OSCE Office in Yerevan presents awards to best women entrepreneurs in Armenia

Some 70 representatives of akimats (municipalities) in villages of Kazakhstan’s Tselinograd District’s met on 27 May 2016 in Akmol, Akmola region, to discuss the ongoing local self-governance reform and brainstormed on how to further develop the legal and institutional framework.

The event participants reviewed economic and financial aspects of local self-governance, administrative offences proceedings, public procurement, state property management as well as community involvement in the decision-making process at the local level.

The training seminar was supported by the OSCE Programme Office in Astana in co-operation with the National Economy Ministry. The event is part of the Programme Office’s long-standing efforts to promote good governance and democratization in Kazakhstan. 

Related Stories

• OSCE promotes ‘green’ women’s entrepreneurship in rural areas of Kazakhstan
• OSCE supports water co-operation in southern Kazakhstan
• OSCE launches series of anti-trafficking seminars for law-enforcement officers and social workers across Kazakhstan

BISHKEK, 22 June 2016 – The OSCE Centre in Bishkek supported a two-day Internet Governance Forum in Central Asia, the first of its kind, which concluded today in the Kyrgyz capital.

Some 100 specialists in the field of internet governance and development, including representatives of the Central Asian state authorities, telecommunication experts, internet service providers, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations from Europe and Central Asia, discussed issues related to cyber security and regulations, the development of the Domain Name System (DNS) industry, as well as global and national approaches to accessing the internet.

“Kyrgyzstan ceased to be a ‘dead-end’ country in terms of the Internet in 2015 and has opened connections to countries in South-East and South Asia,” said Ernis Mamyrkanov, Kyrgyz Deputy Minister of Transport and Communication. “This enhances the role of Kyrgyzstan in the issue of regional transit. Now we need a platform where all participants can discuss relevant issues and this Forum is intended to take that place.”

Daniele Rumolo, acting Deputy Head of the OSCE Centre in Bishkek, said that governments have a role to play when it comes to regulating the Internet. “This responsibility extends to the protection from harmful content, and fighting cybercrime. However, governments must ensure that all stakeholders, including civil society, business actors, and internet-users, are consulted and continuously involved in these efforts.”

The Forum was co-organized by the Ministry of Transportation and Communication and the Civil Initiative on Internet Policy Public Foundation, supported by the SecDev Foundation (Canada), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Society, the United Nations Development Programme in Kyrgyzstan and the OSCE Centre in Bishkek.

The Forum is part of the OSCE Centre’s project on promoting national dialogue and capacity building on the information security needs of the Kyrgyz Republic. 

Related Stories

• To mark World Day against Trafficking in Persons OSCE Centre in Bishkek supports public awareness raising campaign
• OSCE Centre in Bishkek supports summer school on topical issues of police reform
• OSCE Centre in Bishkek trains defence lawyers and prosecutors on right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention

BISHKEK, 28 June 2016 – The OSCE’s role and activities in Security Sector Governance and Reform in Central Asia, and the challenges and opportunities in the field, are the focus of a three-day regional seminar hosted by the OSCE Centre in Bishkek, which began today in the Kyrgyz capital.

Taking part are some 50 representatives of OSCE field operations in Central Asia and regional partners, government officials from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, as well as civil society and academia. As well as providing a platform for regional networking among national and international partners, the discussion will explore challenges within police reform, border management and security, counter-terrorism, anti-corruption, justice sector reform among others.

“By reviewing the government’s budget and reports on its execution, adopting laws, establishing a working group to monitor enforcement of the laws and parliamentary decisions, we can make the reforms possible,” said Ainuru Altybaeva,  Kyrgyz member of parliament and member of the parliamentary Committee for International Relations, Defence and Security.

Security Sector Governance and Reform is increasingly recognized by OSCE participating States as an essential element in conflict prevention, early warning, crisis management and peace-building.

Daniele Rumolo, Acting Head of the OSCE Centre in Bishkek, said: “Effective security sector reform processes have to be carried out in full consultation with all affected sides, including civil society and independent experts, as well as with the support of international organizations. The new OSCE guidelines on Security Sector Governance and Reform are designed to lead us and all other stakeholders and partners, in upholding these principles.”

Professor Erica Marat of the National Defense University in Washington D.C. said that while there are challenges for reform processes in the region, there are also tremendous opportunities which can be supported by a well-educated population, empowered women, ethnic and religious diversity, and a vibrant civil society.

The regional seminar is part of an extra-budgetary project that aims to support, build capacity and raise awareness on Security Sector Governance and Reform within the OSCE. The project is supported by Germany’s 2016 OSCE Chairmanship, as well as Switzerland, Slovakia, Serbia and Austria. A similar regional event is planned for later this year in South-East Europe. 

Related Stories

• OSCE Centre in Bishkek supports summer school on topical issues of police reform
• OSCE Centre in Bishkek trains defence lawyers and prosecutors on right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention
• OSCE Centre in Bishkek enhances police investigators’ skills in crime investigation techniques

ITU-T X.1054 - Supplement on best practice for governance of information security - Case of Burkina Faso

[Paris Peace Forum] The election of Donald Trump changed the world - for a second time. Just days after U.S. vote, and as COP29 opens in Baku in a world more divided than ever, world leaders came together at the 7th edition of the Paris Peace Forum at the historic Palais de Chaillot and other locations across Paris. Under the theme Wanted: A Functioning Global Order the Forum once again convened leaders, decision-makers, and civil society representatives from around the world to discuss and find solutions to some

[Daily Maverick] Next week, residents of Klawer will go to the polls in a by-election in the Matzikama Municipality. While campaigning is in full swing, the area is now gripped by an ongoing water supply issue as well as an embarrassing forensic investigation which showed the irregular appointment of the DA deputy mayor's son.

Despite growing interest and enthusiasm for  Generative AI (GenAI), significant challenges are emerging that threaten the success of GenAI projects, according to a co-sponsored research report from Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) and Hitachi Vantara, the data storage, infrastructure, and hybrid cloud management subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. (TSE: 6501).

As the United Nations' Global Digital Compact (GDC) approaches its expected adoption, a growing chorus of critics warns that it threatens the very foundations of multistakeholderism in Internet governance. While the GDC aims to foster global cooperation and advance shared objectives for digital transformation, it not only centralizes power within the UN but also sidelines the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) - a platform that has, for years, been instrumental in amplifying diverse voices, especially from marginalized communities and the private sector.

Location: Law Library- TL787.Y43 2016

On Tuesday, we will learn what kind of state we want to live in, and about who we are…

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.

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.

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

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.

Zimbabwe’s Economic Governance and Regional Integration 17 November 2020 — 12:00PM TO 1:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 6 November 2020 Online

Panellists discuss policy and governance for long-term economic prosperity in Zimbabwe, reflecting on the role of institutional change and regional integration in the context of the shocks caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

At this virtual event, panellists and participants will discuss policy and governance for long-term economic prosperity in Zimbabwe, reflecting on the role of institutional change and regional integration.

The government of Zimbabwe has emphasized its commitment to economic reform and its ambition to achieve upper-middle-income status by 2030, but there are considerable challenges to overcome.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing economic fragility. Improving the business climate to attract international private-sector investment will be contingent on clear, consistent and coherent policy and implementation, including targeting abuse and corruption.

Zimbabwe has, in recent years, successfully strengthened its regional trade integration, although some trade frictions remain. This is an important factor not only for catalysing economic growth in Zimbabwe, but for supporting regional prosperity and post-COVID recovery.

This webinar is the second in a series of events held in partnership with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung on Zimbabwe’s economic reform and recovery.

Read a meeting summary

This event will also be broadcast live on the Africa Programme Facebook page.

Attorney General Kathy Jennings announced today that the Department of Justice has settled its lawsuit against a developer for allegedly having misled residents at Noble’s Pond, a 55+ community outside Dover, Delaware and will begin making payments to residents.  The Department’s complaint, filed in 2019, included charges that Regal Builders, LLC, its president, and related entities, violated Delaware law by […]

The Warming Arctic: How Thawing Permafrost Challenges Environmental Governance The Warming Arctic: How Thawing Permafrost Challenges Environmental Governance

Project Governance Graduate Fellowship Application

ADB has a vacancy for the position of Associate IT Officer (Technology Operations Governance and Service Management) in the Information Technology Department . The deadline for submitting applications is on 19-NOV-2024.

Different governance dimensions in Bangladesh are significantly and positively related to its economic development, however, the quality of governance has remained low.

This paper discusses several selected topics concerning governance in Indonesia, September 2005.

This paper is part of a cross-country study on corporate governance in Asia. A consensus has yet to be reached about exactly what factors were behind the crisis of 1998 and how these factors interacted in bringing about the crisis.

The dashboard will support policy makers with timely climate adaptation interventions.

The post IWMI launches the Climate Smart Governance dashboard in Sri Lanka first appeared on International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

IWMI Pakistan, with UKaid support, leads the WRAP program to address Pakistan's water challenges, improve management, and data collection.

The post IWMI’s WRAP program to improve water governance in Pakistan first appeared on International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

Manchester : Manchester University Press, [2018]

Manchester : Manchester University Press, [2018]

Northampton : Edward Elgar Publishing, [2023]

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2023.

Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Manchester : Manchester University Press, [2020]

Manchester : Manchester University Press, [2018]

Arctic Geopolitics and Governance: An Indian Perspective Arctic Geopolitics and Governance: An Indian Perspective