Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

This article originally appeared on Journal of Public Policy Blog.

 

Studies of human behavior and psychology have received extensive attention in public policy. Economists, social theorists and philosophers have long analyzed the incentives of human actions, decision making, rationality, motivation, and other cognitive processes. More recently,  the study of happiness  furthered the debate in public policy, as many governments brought up the necessity for new measures of social progress. The discussion was bolstered when the UN passed a critical  resolution  in July 2011 inviting member countries to measure the happiness of their people as a tool to help guide public policies. It was also hoped that discussions about happiness would serve to refine the wider debate about the UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2015-2030 and the standards for measuring and understanding well-being.  The World Happiness Report , a recent initiative, attempts to analyze and rate happiness as an indicator to track social progress.

These recent initiatives serve as reminders that sound public policies must evolve in strong connection with an understanding of human psychology, emotions and the sources of happiness and satisfaction. Nevertheless, there are further invaluable insights from neuroscience that have remained less explored. Contemporary neuroscientific research and an understanding of the predispositions of our neurochemistry challenge classical thought on human nature and inform us of fundamental elements that must accompany good governance.

Nature and Nurture

Are we intrinsically good or bad? Are we born with innate morality or with a blank slate? The question of the original endowments of human beings has intrigued philosophers since at least Plato’s day. The  notion of  anamnesis , or recollection, is foregrounded in several of the  Dialogues , and serves as a kind of digression in a number of others. The notion of innate ideas was subsequently popularized in Western philosophy and reemerged with thinkers as influential as Descartes.

At the other side of the spectrum, John Locke came to be known as the most ardent critic of these concepts, believing that there was no evidence for innate ideas whatsoever. Instead, he advocated a  tabula rasa , or blank slate, image of the mind. The Lockean challenge to innate ideas represented a healthy exercise of philosophical parsimony and an important step forward but, at the same time, it led to another dichotomy between innate and acquired aspects of human nature more generally.

This debate, however, missed some crucial insights. While Locke was right to eschew particular innate ideas, his lack of familiarity with evolutionary theory and neurosciences prevented him from grasping aspects of human nature that are inherited and universal and grounded in  our shared neurochemistry .

Famously, Locke discredited innate ideas by arguing that logical and mathematical truths, which make the best candidates for innate ideas, are by no means universally accepted. If such ideas were innate, there should be no obstacle to all human beings  recognizing their truth  immediately. Though he mostly confines his discussion to “children and idiots,” similar themes have been expressed by those who advocate concepts and paradigms of cultural relativity.

Moral notions, in particular—which in contemporary times have been demonstrated to vary significantly from one culture to another—stand as evidence against the innateness of ideas. More generally, Locke intended to prove that there was no principled way to distinguish between innate ideas and those acquired through the process of reasoning (induction or deduction). Since the means to make such a distinction were missing, the defender of innate ideas will have to demonstrate that certain ideas could not have been acquired by reason.

Modern neurological studies have bolstered Locke’s position, proving the plasticity of the brain and hence its susceptibility to influence. What Locke could not appreciate, however, was that the same neurochemistry that allows significant flexibility and makes human beings malleable to their environment also predisposes them in certain basic ways. Our neurochemistry is our lowest common denominator, and this brings a nuanced counterargument to Locke with an appeal to the universality of emotions: because emotions are neurochemically mediated, they are present across cultures as part of our genetic inheritance. This surely does not suggest that  specific  ideas are universal, too; in that regard, Locke’s thesis remains largely intact.

Contemporary neuroscience does, however, point to an element of human nature that is naturally inherited, overturning the theory of a pure  tabula rasa  or any theory that resorts to explanations of nurture entirely to explain human nature. Moreover, more recent evidence of “ genetic memory ” also demonstrates the presence of readily inherited intuitions that we possess upon birth. The theory of our inborn “ numerosity ” explored by neuropsychologist Brian Butterworth further proves how numerical attributes are encoded in the human genome from our ancestors. Therefore, while distinct notions of right or wrong are largely absent from our genetic endowment, mounting evidence in neurosciences shows that some minimal inborn attributes do exist, and the most common and fundamental manifestation of these is the goal of survival.

Predispositions and Dispositions

Our basic suite of emotions is oriented towards our survival and typically functions at a subconscious level, preempting our idiosyncratic cultural conditioning. At the very minimum, human beings are equipped with a set of basic instincts coded by our genetics , which inevitably and repeatedly guide us toward actions that will ensure our survival (or that we calculate as most beneficial for survival at a specific time).

Emotions have increasingly been studied as important in our decision-making processes and in our construction of principles. Importantly, these emotions are not entirely deterministic with regard to behavior. Rather, the complexity of human behavior results from the interplay between general inherited instincts and factors contingent on our individual existences in certain sociocultural settings.  This is a central insight in my theory of a predisposed  tabula rasa : our nature is highly malleable and readily “written upon” by experience, but it is also and most powerfully predisposed toward self-preservation. Emotions are at the core of this predisposition. This means that there is a certain fundamental emotional commonality in the predisposition with which we begin our lives.

At the same time, the malleability of our nature ensures that our dispositions will also be profoundly influenced by familial, social, and cultural exposure.  This understanding has immediate political implications: given that human beings significantly become what they are as a  consequence of their environment and their social contexts , creating conditions of good governance, support and fairness is critical.  As I have written before, human beings are not born intrinsically good or bad but rather amoral: their moral compasses will vary and shift (to a large extent) in response to external conditions. In the same vein, the emotions that form part of our inheritance can be appealed for both good and ill throughout the course of our lives. The demagogue who would rally people toward violence or radical social destabilization is counting precisely on such emotional instincts to override rational thinking. Being cognizant of such vulnerabilities should make us both more vigilant against those who would use our emotional responses and more sympathetic to those acting predominately and unknowingly out of fear.

Emotionality, Rationality, and Morality

The longstanding dichotomy between innate ideas and a blank slate parallels a related dichotomy between emotions and rationality. From what has already been hinted above, this dichotomy often leads to a distortion and oversimplification of emotions and their role. But, as we acquire a more nuanced appreciation of an inherited set of  emotions  as neurochemistrically mediated and material and instinct-oriented, it becomes clear that the strict division between emotions and rationality  is equally misleading. This is in part because even “basic” emotions—long maligned as obstacles to clear rational thought—have more recently been  demonstrated  to be significantly inferential. Emotions need to be recognized as significant guides to our behavior, and this is also valid for those minimal emotions associated with survival.

The role conventionally given to rationality, on the other hand, has frequently been overestimated both in terms of its ubiquity and power. A strong tradition to glorify rationality has almost vilified anything pertaining to emotions as something precarious and menacing. Nevertheless, once emotions and their neurochemical underpinning are reevaluated properly a new picture emerges. Emotions have been our constant companions and, as evidenced by scientific research, rational reasoning is in fact less common than usually assumed. Many of our  cognitive biases  remain controversial, and modern psychology still has limited means to unlock all the unknowns of our brain. However, it is clear that emotions are critical, and the priority of emotions to reason in typical decision-making is increasingly considered a commonplace of psychology.

The theory of predisposed  tabula rasa  accommodates these results while providing grounds to understand morality as a higher reflective achievement, not inherent to our nature, and in clear correlation to the highly specific circumstances in which the individual lives. As already suggested, our common emotional background is best understood as amoral and capable of being developed for positive ends or manipulated for negative ones. We can thus arrive at a theory of human nature that both explains our inherited aspects in terms of natural selection and leaves sufficient scope for the agency of human beings to develop in relation to their circumstances.

Considering all these insights is also critical for public policy. An understanding of our minimal predispositions provides a guide for ensuring the basic conditions under which humans are most likely to acquire the interest in social cooperation and morality. The understanding of human nature as a predisposed  tabula rasa informs us that survival is the most fundamental human instinct coded in our genetics and that, when imperiled, it is likely to trump everything else. Furthermore, the malleability of our neurochemistry is a powerful reminder that public policies must work towards preventing injustice, humiliation and insecurity, and more generally, any conditions that are likely to exacerbate our egoistic and survival-oriented behavior.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications

This article originally appeared in Georgetown Journal of International Affairs Blog.

 

Emerging technologies and their possible implications for ethics, security, and even human existence have increasingly gained ground in the past two decades. Some innovations have resulted in obvious security and existential threats: a world with nuclear arms, for example. The potential of other technological shifts, however, has been more mixed. Biotechnologies, genetic engineering, and stems cells have given rise to controversial debates in which advocacy groups on both sides have convincingly put forward pros and cons. The Internet has revolutionized everything from markets to family communication in ways both beneficial and harmful. The age of artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown itself to be similarly Janus-like in its potential to alter our lives both positively and negatively. On the one hand, AI has demonstrated its usefulness in predictive speech and typing software, robotics, and unmanned aircraft technology. On the other, these and many other AI-enabled platforms raise profound concerns about oversight.

AI is also unique among emergent technologies because it can learn and evolve without human input. This fact alone demands a policy approach that recognizes not only the immediate implications of AI itself but also what might happen because of the potential range of resultant technologies. In short, AI poses challenges for security and policymaking not merely of magnitude but of precedent. Further, AI forces us to consider our relationship with technology in ways that were never previously relevant—including the possibility of entering into competition with, and even being superseded by, our own creations.

The advent of AI brings with it numerous implications for the futures of global security, conflicts, and human dignity. The extensive use of drones, both for military and commercial purposes, is a rightly controversial current debate. But the uses of AI in unmanned aircraft are mere glimmers of what is to come. In the later stages of the industrial revolution, industrialization in factories rendered some jobs previously performed by human beings obsolete. AI appears to portend the inevitable complete removal of human beings from combat scenarios in numerous military-strategic areas.

AI applications facilitate real-time adaptation to contingencies without requiring the presence of people on the ground. Unmanned drones, for instance, are used to provide continuous surveillance and small robots are deployed in missions to counter improvised explosive devices.  U.S. Army researchers  are now working to develop intelligent robots that can successfully navigate in different environments by following voice commands and instructions by a human. Furthermore, the  U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency  (DARPA) launched an AI program in 2013 to help integrate machine-learning capacity in a wide variety of military weapons. Other teams of scientists are now exploring ways to create robots with a moral compasses and in-built  senses of right or wrong  that have the ability to pick the ethical course of action on the battlefield.

Two immediate consequences of this transition to battlefield AI are especially noteworthy. The first reflects the relative ease of convincing the public or another decision-making body to engage in violent conflict in cases where the use of AI technology assures minimal human casualties. Given that President Obama’s  strategy  to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), for example, attempted to explicitly avoid committing further on-the-ground American troops, wars that do not involve risk of bodily harm to soldiers continue to be much easier sells to both the public and to government bodies. These assurances are potentially problematic not only because they tend to work against even the most circumspect evaluation of a war’s justness, but also because they encourage a point of view that underestimates the destabilizing effect of all military engagements, regardless of battlefield casualties. This point of view often overlooks warfare’s terrible track record of noncombatant casualties and harm to nonmilitary parties. The history of recorded warfare demonstrates that far more civilians than soldiers have died as a result of military engagements, a trend that has significantly worsened in the era of modern technology. This fact alone should evidence a need for additional reflection about the part AI will play in the future of warfare.

A related area of concern is the role of judgment regarding entry into and conduct during interstate conflict ( jus ad bellum and jus in bello ). Any AI machine expected to make decisions in war should pass some variation of the  Turing test , which was devised by British mathematician Alan Turing in 1950 to assess whether a particular machine exhibits intelligence equivalent to or beyond that of a human. But the worry is that a robotic soldier or a sufficiently sophisticated AI drone could easily pass a version of the Turing test and yet utterly fail to uphold  jus in bello ’s fundamental commitment to non-combatant immunity, or  jus ad bellum ’s supposed principal of non-aggression. Therefore, if AI is to play a role in military engagement, this potential must be closely monitored and constrained by international norms.

Second, as I have  previously argued , a heavy reliance on AI machines would create further inequalities in war because of the unequal availability of such technologies to certain countries. This will make the outcome of interstate conflict far more directly a matter of superior technology and which nations or peoples have the resources to attain it. This availability gap could serve to exacerbate and reinforce preexisting global inequalities. This could also conceivably result in asymmetric battlefield casualties where countries that have access to AI technology will suffer fewer human losses compared to those countries that do not. Other questions about AI’s use and application are relevant too. Could conscious machines be sensitive to human welfare? Could they replicate the human motivation to cooperate in order to avoid  the “state of nature ,” which Hobbes defined as a state of a perpetual war and lack of effective higher authority to arbitrate disputes? How can we expect robots to understand, relate to, and execute the basic norms of social cooperation and political order?

Beyond its potential military applications, the nature and use of AI should also be monitored and regulated in non-combat settings. AI has achieved an almost ubiquitous presence in our everyday lives in the machines and applications we use in the workplace, at home, and beyond. Learning software, like the popular “Swipe” texting key—an app that learns user’s tendency to use particular words and phrases and becomes predictive of what a user is trying to say or is about to say next—is an example of the sort of AI that is coming to play a significant role in everyday life. A similar technology, developed by Intel, is responsible for the speech-assistance software used by British physicist Stephen Hawking, whose degenerative ALS rendered him unable to speak unassisted by machinery in 1985. Nevertheless, while acknowledging the benefit he receives from AI, Hawking has vocalized concerns that complete AI could bring about  the end of the human race . With the capacity to learn and improve at near-limitless rates, full AIs would quickly become superior to human beings, constrained as we are by long and slow evolutionary processes.

While the dystopian vision of runaway or out-of-control AI still appears like something out of science fiction, today’s rate of technological innovation serves as a reminder that we may be headed in that direction. The collective of hackers and activists known as Anonymous has demonstrated the fearsome capacity of AI programs even at their current stage of development: at the outset of the Arab Spring in 2011, leading members of the group clogged the networks of Tunisia’s governing regime. Within 24 hours,  the websites  of the president, prime minister, and that of the Tunisian stock exchange had been brought down. Simple AI can learn to avoid spam filters, avoid fraud detection, and disguise itself as various different forms of online protocol. And these features are minimal compared to the more advanced capabilities to which AI might lead—the ability of a fully AI machine to make strategic decisions about which governments to isolate or which weapons systems to activate, for instance.

Regardless of how close to or far from the realization of such capabilities we are, the fact that the possibility exists in principle should motivate dialogue and careful control over the development of AI. Alongside environmental degradation and large-scale human rights violations, artificial intelligence represents yet another critical challenge that requires interstate collaboration and the shoring up of international law to preserve the safety and dignity of human beings in both our contemporary and future world.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications

Bonn, 13.04.2015. Flucht und Vertreibung bleiben ein dominierendes Thema der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung und des politischen Diskurses in Deutschland und Europa. Das äußert sich unter anderem im andauernden Streit zwischen Bund und Ländern über vermeintlich unrealistische Flüchtlingszahl-Prognosen, der Fremdenhass-Debatte nach dem Brandanschlag auf eine designierte Flüchtlingsunterkunft in Sachsen-Anhalt oder in der Drohung des griechischen Verteidigungsministers, Flüchtlinge nach Deutschland „weiterzuleiten“. Auf den ersten Blick hat dies nur wenig mit den Bemühungen der Europäischen Union (EU) zu tun, die Finanzmärkte neu zu regulieren. Aktuell berät der Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss über eine Neufassung und Erweiterung der Richtlinie zu Zahlungsdiensten und der Verordnung über grenzüberschreitende Zahlungen (Payment Settlements Directive II). Diese betrifft auch Rücküberweisungen, also Bargeldtransfers von Migranten und Flüchtlingen an ihre Familien in den jeweiligen Herkunftsländern. Eine Neufassung dieser Richtlinie, welche die teilweise sehr hohen Gebühren für Rücküberweisungen senken würde, könnte einen großen entwicklungspolitischen Beitrag leisten. Gerade Deutschland sollte hier eine Schlüsselrolle einnehmen. Das Volumen von Rücküberweisungen in Entwicklungsländer wird 2015 geschätzte 450 Mrd. USD erreichen und übertrifft damit bei Weitem die internationale Entwicklungshilfe. Auch Flüchtlinge selbst tragen zu diesen Geldflüssen bei, indem sie Rücküberweisungen tätigen und ihre Verwandten sowohl in den Herkunftsländern als auch in Asyl gewährenden Nachbarländern unterstützen. Der Libanon, Jordanien und auch Syrien selbst weisen seit 2011 stark gestiegene Rücküberweisungen aufgrund des Bürgerkrieges in Syrien auf. Rücküberweisungen werden dabei nicht nur für den Erwerb von Lebensmitteln verwendet. Sie werden auch für Gesundheits- und Bildungsausgaben sowie für die Kompensation von Schäden und Verlusten, die durch Konflikte aber auch Wirtschaftskrisen oder Umweltkatastrophen entstanden sind, genutzt. Rücküberweisungen sind in der Regel antizyklisch: Sie steigen in Zeiten politischer und wirtschaftlicher Krisen, da Migranten gerade dann ihre Familien in den Herkunftsländern verstärkt unterstützen. In dauerhaft instabilen Ländern sind Rücküberweisungen geradezu überlebenswichtig. Wenn die rechtliche Situation oder die Arbeits- und Lebensbedingungen von Migranten und Flüchtlingen prekär sind, fällt es ihnen allerdings schwer, die Entwicklung in ihren Herkunftsländern mithilfe von Rücküberweisungen zu unterstützen. Die positiven Effekte von Rücküberweisungen werden aber auch sehr durch hohe Transaktionskosten beeinträchtigt. In Deutschland liegen diese Kosten im Durchschnitt bei 9 %, was nur leicht über dem Mittelwert aller G20-Länder von etwa 8 % liegt. Allerdings sind die Gebühren für den Geldtransfer in bestimmte Länder deutlich höher. Für den Transfer von 140 € von Deutschland in den Libanon mussten beispielsweise Ende 2014 im Schnitt – gemessen an den Angeboten der verschiedenen Finanzdienstleister –rund 23 € an Gebühren ausgeben werden. Die oft ohnehin schon relativ niedrigen Bargeldtransfers werden so stark geschmälert. Ein Großteil der Rücküberweisungen wird von Anbietern von Bargeldtransfers wie zum Beispiel Western Union durchgeführt. Zur Abwicklung der Zahlung müssen diese Institutionen Zugang zum inländischen Zahlungssystem haben. Dieser erfolgt entweder direkt oder indirekt über ein Konto bei einer Bank, die dem Zahlungssystem angehört. Daher könnten ein verbesserter Zugang der Anbieter von Bargeldtransfers zu den Zahlungssystemen, eine konsistente Regulierung aller Zahlungsdienstleister und ein damit verbundener stärkerer Wettbewerb zu einer weiteren Reduzierung der Kosten für Rücküberweisungen führen. Eine entsprechende Neufassung der ‚Zahlungsdiensterichtlinie‘ hätte hier enormes Potential und auch eine weltweite Signalwirkung. Deutschland sollte dabei mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen. Denn Deutschland steht in der Liste der Länder, aus denen laut Angaben der Weltbank weltweit die meisten Gelder von Migranten in ihre Herkunftsländer fließen, auf einem beachtlichen fünften Platz mit über 20 Mrd. USD. Das beantwortet – ein weiteres Mal – die seit Jahren diskutierte Frage, ob Deutschland denn ein Einwanderungsland sei, mit einem eindeutigen „ja“. Es zeigt aber auch, dass Zuwanderung ebenfalls eine enorme Bedeutung für die Herkunftsländer der Migranten und Flüchtlinge hat. Leider neigen gerade die Deutschen dazu, die Auswirkungen von Migration und Flucht auf die eigene Gesellschaft und Volkswirtschaft zu reduzieren. Die Transaktionskosten für Rücküberweisungen zu senken, wäre ein wichtiges entwicklungspolitisches Signal. Es würde unterstreichen, dass Deutschland sein Streben nach mehr globaler Verantwortung nicht nur militärisch interpretieren möchte. Und für Europa wäre es ein Schritt, der wegführt von einer Flüchtlingspolitik, die nur auf Abschreckung setzt.

At the UN climate negotiations, developed countries pledged to mobilise US$ 100 billion of climate finance per year from 2020 onwards to support developing countries in dealing with climate change. Since this money is supposed to come from private sources too – some of which is to be spent on climate change adaptation – this briefing paper explores the potential of the international tourism industry to contribute to adaptation finance, with a focus on Small Island Development States (SIDS). The SIDS is a group of low-lying coastal countries that are particularly susceptible to natural disasters and climate change impacts. Tourism is the main economic sector for most of them. Given the sector’s vulnerability to climate change (e.g. rising sea levels or extreme weather events), high levels of investment in adaptation will be needed to maintain the high number of visitors.
A diverse landscape of modalities for funding adaptation through the tourism sector is available, with corresponding limitations and challenges in their implementation. The tourism sector represents a diverse array of businesses. The adaptive capacities of these businesses, their operational scales and customer demands are key determining factors behind the potential to contribute to, or finance, adaptation.
Different options are available on various scales. For example, on a local scale, hotels and resorts can contribute to adaptation by investing in sea walls, or in water- and energy-efficiency measures. Governments can endorse this through, for instance, building codes and policies for sustainable water and energy use.
On a sub-national or national scale, adaptation funds (i.e. financed by public and private sources) or adaptation taxes could be suitable instruments for involving a range of private actors operating in tourism and generating financial resources. Insurance schemes could help to share in and deal with risks.
Tourism enterprises can contribute to and invest in adaptation in SIDS. Regardless of whether such investments would count as part of the US$ 100 billion, we recommend governments in SIDS to endorse this. However, in developing such mechanisms to mobilise pri¬vate financial contributions, it must be considered that tourists and multinational tourism corporations have the highest adaptive capacities. They can simply change destinations if climate impacts are too extreme or if the costs of adaptation make a destination relatively more expensive. The price sensitivities of the industry thus need to be factored in, and taxes or levies should theoretically be applied as uniformly as possible across tourist destinations in different countries in order to prevent travellers from substituting more expensive destinations (where adaptation taxes are adopted) for cheaper ones.

4, 5 et 6 juin 2015 à Chamonix – Mont-Blanc ...

en lire plus

Nach dem eindeutigen Ergebnis der Wahlen vom 12. Oktober 2014, bei denen Präsident Evo Morales mit über 60 Prozent wiedergewählt worden war und seine Partei Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS)) in beiden Kammern die Zweidrittelmehrheit erreicht hat, versprachen die Regional- und Munizipalwahlen vom 29. März 2015 weitaus mehr Spannung.

Public Discussion: "Disputes in the South China Sea"

Public Discussion: "Strategic Trends 2015"

Public Discussion: "Addressing South Sudan’s Crisis"

L’histoire de la sécurité-défense européenne est complexe et souvent faite de renoncements à propos de l’autonomie stratégique, qu’il s’agisse de l’Union occidentale (UEO) face aux États-Unis, de la Communauté européenne de défense (CED) et des plans Fouchet face aux intérêts nationaux ou idéologiques, de la revitalisation en partie manqué de l’Union de l’Europe occidentale (UEO) […]

L’année 2015 sera une année importante pour l’avenir des forces armées belges face à un défi majeur : la rédaction d’un plan dit stratégique à dix ans dont les lignes de forces générales seront présentées par le nouveau ministre de la Défense, Stephen Vandeput (NVA, parti nationaliste flamand) fin avril. Cette ébauche de la future configuration […]

Bonn, 07.04.2015. Drei zukunftsweisende Gipfel der Vereinten Nationen (UN) in diesem Jahr sollen die globale Agenda bis zum Ende des kommenden Jahrzehnts prägen. Der erste Gipfel findet im Juli in Addis Abeba statt und beschließt, wie die globale Entwicklungsagenda von der internationalen Gemeinschaft finanziert und durch Technologietransfer und andere Mittel umgesetzt werden soll. Während der UN-Generalversammlung im September in New York wird die globale Post-2015-Agenda mit voraussichtlich 17 Zielen für nachhaltige Entwicklung (Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs) konkretisiert, die für alle Länder bis 2030 gelten sollen. Im Dezember steht in Paris schließlich die UN-Klimakonferenz an, auf der die Staaten einen neuen, allgemein gültigen Klimavertrag verabschieden wollen.
Da diese multilateralen Großereignisse die ganze Welt betreffen, müssen die G7 ihren Teil zum Gelingen beitragen. Die deutsche Präsidentschaft des G7-Gipfels im Juni auf Schloss Elmau muss dazu genutzt werden, die neue globale Agenda und die vorgesehenen Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung auf drei Ebenen zu unterstützen – in den G7-Staaten selbst, in Entwicklungsländern und auf globaler Ebene. Vor der eigenen Haustür kehren
Erstens sollten die G7 Veränderungen anregen, die bedeutende globale Auswirkungen haben. Während die Millenniumsentwicklungsziele (Millennium Development Goals, MDGs) nahezu ausschließlich Veränderungen in Ländern geringen und mittleren Einkommens betrafen, sollen die neuen Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung eine globale Transformation bewirken. Das bedeutet, alle Regierungen, auch die der G7, müssen zu Hause handeln und ihre nationale Politik auf die neue globale Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung abstimmen. Deshalb sind nationale SDG-Umsetzungspläne notwendig, um über den Stand der Umsetzung Rechenschaft abzulegen. Gerade die wohlhabenden Industrienationen müssen im Rahmen der G7 stärkere Verantwortung für nachhaltige Konsum- und Produktionsmuster übernehmen, indem sie beispielsweise Unternehmen für die Einhaltung von Sozial- und Umweltstandards zur Rechenschaft ziehen und die Ressourceneffizienz deutlich verbessern. Außerdem sind die G7-Staaten aufgefordert, ihre nationalen Beiträge zur Eindämmung der Erderwärmung auf maximal 2°C zeitlich und inhaltlich zu konkretisieren. In armen Ländern: Entwicklung fördern
Zweitens muss die G7 ihre Bereitschaft erklären, nachhaltige Entwicklung in Entwicklungsländern stärker zu fördern. Die G7-Länder sollten sich dazu bekennen, ihre Beiträge zu öffentlichen Entwicklungsleistungen (Official Development Assistance, ODA) substantiell zu erhöhen. Wie vom deutschen Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN Germany) vorgeschlagen, sollte insbesondere die jährliche ODA der G7-Staaten an die ärmsten Länder bis 2020 verdoppelt werden und auf mehr als 50 Mrd. USD ansteigen. Gleichermaßen müssen die G7 ihre finanziellen Versprechen zur Klimafinanzierung einhalten und mit Leben füllen. SDSN Germany schlägt vor, dass die G7 von 2020 an zunächst für fünf Jahre je 50 Mrd. USD zusätzlich für Länder mit niedrigem und mittlerem Einkommen zur Verfügung stellen, damit der Klimawandel gemindert und seine Auswirkungen abgefedert werden können. Die G7 sollten zudem den Technologietransfer in ärmere Länder vorantreiben. In diesem Zusammenhang sollten sich die G7 für die geplante UN-Technologiebank einsetzen, die beispielsweise den Zugang der Entwicklungsländer zu neuen Technologien unterstützen soll. Angesichts der Ebola-Krise in Westafrika, auf die die internationale Gemeinschaft nicht schnell und schlagkräftig genug geantwortet hat, gilt es außerdem, nationale Gesundheitssysteme in ärmeren Ländern zu stärken und Vorsorge für weitere Krisen zu fördern. Dafür sollten die G7 substantielle Zusagen an die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) und für den neu geplanten Gesundheitsnotfallfonds machen. Auf globaler Ebene: Gerechte Global Governance fördern
Drittens müssen die G7-Staaten auf globaler Ebene ihre Unterstützung für effektivere und legitimere Institutionen bekennen. Hierzu zählt die Umsetzung der vereinbarten Governance-Reformen bei den multilateralen Institutionen, wie zum Beispiel die Reform der Stimmrechte beim Internationalen Währungsfonds (IWF), die die aktuelle ökonomische Bedeutung des Südens besser widerspiegelt. Die Bereitschaft, sich für ein fair ausgestaltetes internationales Handels- und Investitionssystem einzusetzen, wäre ein weiteres starkes Signal. Konkret dürfen Abkommen zwischen den Industrieländern, wie zum Beispiel die Transatlantische Handels- und Investiti-onspartnerschaft (TTIP), Entwicklungsländer nicht marginalisieren. Das 21. Jahrhundert ist das Zeitalter der globalen Güter und globaler Systemrisiken – ebenso wie das beispielloser globaler Entwicklungschancen. Die Einbindung der G7-Staaten in die Umsetzung der globalen Entwicklungsagenda ist daher eine sine qua non für die weltweite Sicherung des Wohlstandes im Rahmen der planetarischen Leitplanken.

Ende März 2015 fand in Hangzhou, der Hauptstadt der chinesischen Provinz Zhejiang, in Kooperation mit der Zhejiang International Studies University (ZISU) und der Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (HSS) ein deutsch-chinesisches Symposium zur Umwelt- und Bildungsforschung statt. In

Date de publication: Jeudi 02 Avril 2015Couverture: Type de publication: RapportSous la direction de (complément): Gilles Babinet et Robert VassoyanPrésidents du groupe de travailRésumé long: La révolution du Big data et des objets connectés crée d’immenses perspectives de création de valeur mais suscite également des interrogations nouvelles sur la protection des droits des individus. Pour renforcer la confiance entre les acteurs et soutenir le développement de modèles économiques innovants, les différentes parties prenantes doivent saisir les opportunités offertes et travailler en confiance.

This article originally appeared in YaleGlobal Online.

 

Blogs continue to wield influence; governments and bloggers could coordinate on regulations to increase the potential.

The internet and global interconnectivity, while often taken for granted, has changed the face of social reality. Weblogs, more commonly known as blogs, have emerged and in many ways manifest both extremes of positive and negative potential.

Because blogs have tremendous potential to be used either for good or ill, they could be dubbed  a new avatar of a power group supplementing the old. The modern expression of the separation of powers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches became known as the three estates, later to be followed by a “fourth estate” in the form of the media. The designation has often been contested simply because the media does not implement policy or mandate particular activity, yet these criticisms miss the larger point. The essence of “estates” as used here refers to sources of power.

When the term “fourth estate” was coined by Edmund Burke and referred to by Thomas Carlyle, their astute observation was that the press had come to wield an equal or occasionally greater power to influence policy than the original three state powers.

The internet multiplied this power, providing the possibility for previously unheard voices to gain an audience as well as provide another check on the power of the other estates. This led me in 2007 to designate blogs as  the fifth estate .

The revelations of Edward Snowden via WikiLeaks are a resounding example. The evidence he provided about the extent and mechanisms of US state surveillance have sparked overdue global  discussions about the limits of privacy in the age of the Internet, as well as closer investigations into the legal and technical aspects of spying and surveillance.  Blogs  have emerged almost imperceptibly, especially as so much content is non-political. Still, blogs nonetheless represent a tremendous capacity for the masses to disseminate information, encouraging public participation and interest in politics, and opinions, which in many countries can be openly expressed without censorship, barriers or editorial boards. This realization has started to cause anxiety in some countries that have a poor record of civil liberties. In China, for instance, blogs like  “China Change”  have emerged as sources of news and commentaries on human rights and civil society issues in the country.

Blogs have been bolstered by more frequent contributions from experts and shown themselves to be the least constrained forum. Examples  come from established journalists, members of parliaments, and political parties from different ends of the political spectrum or key figures in global politics such as  John Kerry .

In a hyper-capitalist environment dominated by media giants, the means available to independent journalism have narrowed considerably. The advent of blogs has reinvigorated such possibilities of independence, giving not only journalists but anyone with access to the internet the capacity to express views and disseminate information. At the same time, some adverse effects have been recorded as so-called netizens and  bloggers  covering political events or revolutions in real time later became targets of backlash. Recently Avijit Roy, an influential Bangladeshi-born American blogger, was hacked to death in Dhaka. He was a persistent critic of the Islamist radicals.

As a mechanism of positive policy reform, blogs continue to face challenges:

How the blogosphere tends to be perceived: Despite general acknowledgment that freedom from influence or constraint of major media channels or ideological bias is a favorable quality, blogs often suffer from the concern that their authors lack journalistic experience or other relevant credentials.

bsence of oversight: Questions are raised about blogs’ lack of editorial review and insufficient fact-checking mechanisms. Such shortcomings leave readers in a dilemma. Yet well-researched and reviewed information from dominant media outlets can be prone to biases, too. Doubts can also emerge by the perception of the blogosphere as a source of entertainment and “light” information, rather than contributor of serious content. Further issues of credibility arise also as some bloggers joined programs like the  “paid blogger program”  where they commit to endorse companies or products in exchange for money.

A source of polarized views: Without oversight and checks, blogs can serve morally dubious intentions by those who aim to spread propaganda, radicalize readers or exacerbate antagonisms. For readers who deliberately seek out only blogs that reinforce their views without checks, such content ceases to become a source of understanding.

Sensitive or dangerous information: Blogs can disrupt society, business and government activities, such as by  disclosures of secret information . Apple Computers, for instance, reportedly filed a lawsuit against bloggers who communicated confidential company information on their blogs. Other blogs  disseminate information or blueprints for constructing weapons of mass destruction or propagate  anarchist messages . All of these concerns would be ruled out in more traditional media sources by journalistic integrity and institutional checks.

A primary countermeasure to these negative implications is education. The ways in which readers encounter and relate to information is dramatically influenced by their education as well as their awareness of the pitfalls relating to the information source.

Furthermore, serious bloggers should welcome expert guest commentary, critical feedback and open dialogue in their blogs. Only through education and critical engagement can readers become more demanding and circumspect, which in turn improves the quality of blogs.  

The question of oversight-free authorship remains the prevailing concern, and people must become critical readers with a heightened sensitivity to unjustified positions or unsubstantiated claims.

Other regulatory steps are also necessary to limit the extreme abuses of blogs. The question of absolute anonymity has a downside from the viewpoint of global security. Anonymity can protect activists working in the world’s most brutal areas, but can also allow rogues or criminals to spread ideas without being easily tracked.

Governments must combat bloggers engaging in deliberately radicalizing rhetoric, employing hate speech, or engaging in criminal activity including human trafficking or pornography.

These recommendations might raise concerns about censorship and rights to free speech, but  just as there are reasonable limits to free speech in public life, the same logic and amount of regulation should be applied in the digital domain. There are inherent difficulties about establishing such limits in an even-handed way yet this should not mean that these limits should not be sought and imposed.

The blogosphere must function as an extension of the public space, where people can be held accountable and liable for their actions as well as potentially investigated for threats of violence or criminal activity.  Nevertheless, the plurality of legal systems and  many interpretations  of freedom of speech or hate speech remains a persistent challenge in the blogosphere. Conundrums are bound to arise as the internet is a global medium and the removal of some content will be problematic especially if the servers are located in countries where those messages are not illegal. As an information stream that reveals public opinion largely free from outside influence, the capacity of blogs for shaping attitudes positively is tremendous. Governments must ensure that the power of blogs is cultivated and implemented in collaborative ways, with a view to preserve peace and human dignity. Contributors, too, must become more proactive and committed to integrity and responsible content. The idea of a  bloggers’ code of ethics , proposed a few years ago, deserves renewed consideration.

Undoubtedly, the future of information holds high potential for blogs. Their political relevance is only expected to expand.

The question is not whether or not the influence of the fifth estate will increase, but what form this influence will take and what regulatory mechanisms are necessary to implement to cultivate blogs’ positive potential.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications 

Date de publication: Mercredi 01 Avril 2015Couverture: Type de publication: EtudeAuteurRésumé long: Si des progrès ont pu être réalisés ces dernières années, les universités souffrent encore d’un déficit de pluridisciplinarité, d’internationalisation et de professionnalisation et notre système reste l’un des plus inégalitaires. Dans un contexte français marqué par de multiples fractures et segmentations, des gains d'efficacité importants sont possibles, à moyens budgétaires constants. Il en va du développement économique, social et intellectuel de notre pays.

Comité de parrainage
Joachim Bitterlich / Gabriel de Broglie / Jean-Pierre Cot / Michel Foucher / John Groom / Jean-Marie Guéhenno / François Heisbourg / Christian Huet / François de La Gorce / Bertrand de La Presle / Thierry de Montbrial / Jean-Bernard Raimond / Pierre de Senarclens / Stefano Silvestri / Georges-Henri Soutou / Bernard Teyssié / Hubert Thierry / Louis Vogel

Conseil d'administration
Michel Mathien, Président - Guillaume Parmentier, Vice-Président - Yves Boyer, Trésorier - Daniel Colard - Emmanuel Decaux - Renaud Dehousse - Anne Dulphy - Jacques Fontanel - Jean-François Guilhaudis - Nicolas Haupais - Alexandra Novosseloff - Xavier Pasco - Fabrice Picod - Bernard Sitt - Serge Sur, membres

Comité de rédaction et de lecture
Gilles Andréani / Stéphane Aykut / Célia Belin / Yves Boyer / Frédéric Bozo / Grégory Chauzal /Jean-Pierre Colin / Emmanuel Decaux / Renaud Dehousse / Anne Dulphy / Julian Fernandez / Jacques Fontanel / Nicolas Haupais / Chantal de Jonge Oudraat / Pascal Lorot / Michel Mathien / Françoise Nicolas / Alexandra Novosseloff / Xavier Pacreau / Xavier Pasco / Fabrice Picod / Leah Pisar / Simon Serfaty / Bernard Sitt / Serge Sur

Direction
Serge Sur, Directeur / Anne Dulphy et Nicolas Haupais, Directeurs adjoints

Secrétariat de rédaction
Sophie Enos-Attali

L'AFRI est publié par le Centre Thucydide – Analyse et recherche en relations internationales (Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), en association avec :

Le Center for Transatlantic Relations, SAIS (Johns Hopkins University, Washington), le Centre sur l'Amérique et les relations transatlantiques (CART), le Centre d'études européennes de Sciences-Po (Institut d'études politiques de Paris), le Centre d'études et de recherches interdisciplinaires sur les médias en Europe (CERIME, Université Robert Schuman de Strasbourg), le Centre d'études de sécurité internationale et de maîtrise des armements (CESIM), le Centre d'histoire de Sciences-Po (Institut d'études politiques de Paris), le Centre de recherche sur les droits de l'homme et le droit humanitaire (Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), Espace Europe Grenoble (Université Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble), l'Institut Choiseul pour la politique internationale et la géoéconomie, l'Unité mixte de recherche Identités, Relations internationales et Civilisations de l'Europe (IRICE, CNRS/Université Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne/ Université Paris IV – Sorbonne).

L'AFRI est publié avec le concours du Centre d'analyse, de prévision et de stratégie (CAPS) du ministère des Affaires étrangères, de l'Université Panthéon-Assas et de son Pôle international et européen

Centre Thucydide, Université Panthéon-Assas,
bureau 219, 12, place du Panthéon, 75005 Paris Site Internet : http://www.afri-ct.org dd