Oliver Stuenkel

Rising Powers and the Future of Democracy Promotion: the case of Brazil and India

Abstract The dominant position established powers have traditionally held in global affairs is slowly eroding. One of the issues profoundly affected by this process will be democracy promotion, an area traditionally dominated by the USA and Europe on both the policy and the academic level. While several rising democracies—such as Brazil and India—may seem, from a Western point of view, to be ideal candidates to assist the USA and Europe in promoting democracy in a ‘post-Western World’, emerging powers like these are reluctant to embrace the idea. What does this mean for the future of democracy promotion once the USA’s and Europe’s international influence declines further?

Regulating intervention: Brazil and the responsibility to protect

In the last decade, Brazil has engaged with the idea of an international responsibility to protect (R2P) in a notable fashion. As a frequent member of the Security Council in the post-Cold War era, the country resisted suggestions of a responsibility to intervene in humanitarian crises, fearing it would serve to justify military action outside of the scope of the UN Charter and international law. Following the adoption of R2P in the 2005 World Summit, Brazil engaged with the concept more closely. This culminated in the ‘responsibility while protecting’, a proposed addendum that would ensure clearer criteria and greater accountability of UN-authorised military interventions. This paper describes Brazilian foreign policy perspectives through this period and analyses their contribution to the political and normative development of R2P. It argues that while Brazil has become more vocal and proactive in relation to the norm in recent years, its positions remained driven by some of its most traditional foreign policy arguments: the strengthening of the authority of the UN Security Council and the establishment of a multilateral order in which all states are treated equally.

The BRICS and the Future of R2P

This article assesses the BRICS’ position on the emerging global norm of the Responsibility to Protect, analyses the year 2011, when all the BRICS occupied a seat on the UN Security Council, and asks how the rise of the BRICS will affect R2P’s prospects of turning into a global norm. It argues that while it is generally thought that ‘non-Western’ emerging powers are reluctant to embrace R2P, rising powers’ views on the norm in question are far more nuanced. Common accusations depicting the BRICS as ‘irresponsible stakeholders’ are misguided, as emerging powers have supported R2P in the vast majority of cases. The BRICS are in fundamental agreement about the principle that undergirds R2P, and their support for R2P’s pillar I and II is absolute. Regarding pillar III, the BRICS at times diverge from Western countries not about the existence of the norm, but about when and how to apply it.

“Responsibility while Protecting”: Reforming R2P Implementation

This article explores the political impact of the Brazilian proposal “Responsibility while Protecting” (RwP) on the normative evolution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). For much of the last two decades, public and policy debates about humanitarian intervention have been dominated by the question of whether and in what circumstances these measures were legitimate or acceptable in international society. The 2011 intervention in Libya sparked a different policy debate: a debate on how protection should actually be conducted. This article analyses debates on the “how” of the implementation of R2P by examining the substance and political impacts of the Brazilian proposal. RwP articulated the need for responsible means of protection, particularly when military force is used in the name of collective security and humanitarianism. This article argues that the proposal was able to raise important normative issues and contribute to change the terms of the humanitarian intervention debate. Yet, while RwP was extensively debated, it was never sufficiently developed to materialise into specific proposals that could address the problems of collective security and human protection in practice. As debates about the practical implementation of R2P gain renewed strength, the ideas articulated in the Brazilian proposal provide a useful starting point for advancing reform.

The Impact of the Libya Intervention Debates on Norms of Protection

Resolution 1973, which authorised military intervention in Libya, marked the first time that the United Nations Security Council explicitly mandated the use of force against a functioning state to prevent imminent atrocity crimes. While some hailed the resolution and the subsequent intervention in Libya as a victory for the concept of the international communitys “responsibility to protect” (R2P), others predicted its early death. This article argues for a more nuanced view on the impact of the Libya intervention on the debates on R2P. As we will show, the intervention in Libya demonstrated new areas of agreement and at the same time revealed persisting and new disagreements within the international community on the role of the use of force to protect populations.

Do the BRICS possess soft power

Has soft power in the emerging world risen commensurately to its hard power? Can the BRICS’ soft power rival that of the West as emerging powers expand their global presence? An analysis of the questions above shows that, despite remarkable economic growth during the first decade of the twenty-first century, BRICS countries’ capacity to enhance their soft power is highly uneven, and they still struggle to rival established Western powers in most of the concept’s dimensions. Still, the BRICS grouping, created on the basis of economic forecasts, is increasingly being used as a platform to enhance soft power, primarily through the creation of the New Development Bank and a series of other institutions.

What is populism?, by Jan-Werner Müller

With Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Rodrigo Duterte and Victor Orban on the rise, a global consensus has emerged that we are witnessing a wave of populism. Yet the term populism remains vague and dif...

Os perigos de fazer negócios cruzando fronteiras

The reestablishment of the world’s economic center to Asia (China was the world’s largest economy until around 1870) has many positives. In addition to lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China and the neighboring region, growth in Asia helped mitigate the effects of the global financial crisis in 2008. Today, China and India are key drivers of the global economy with over a hundred countries listing the middle kingdom as their most important trading partner. Along with the economic revival in Asia, unprecedented global interconnectedness has also raised the level of risk exposure to virtually all businesses around the world. One example is North Korea: while an unpredictable hermit kingdom on the other side of the world would hardly have concerned Brazil’s Embraer and Vale in the early 1990s, Kim Jong Un’s current nuclear overture could have the potential to create geopolitical instability in North-east Asia, including China, an essential market to both companies. Country risk, which analyzes risk when conducting business across borders, also seems to be on the rise in developed countries. The rise of xenophobia and nationalist politics in Europe, Brexit, and the possibility of Donald Trump winning the U.S. presidential election all represent potential and important risks for investors in the global economy. Larry Summers recently wrote,

New Development Banks as Horizontal International Bypasses: Towards a Parallel Order?

Over the past years, the Chinese government (along with other rising powers) has engaged in unprecedented international institution-building, leading to the establishment of, among others, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS-led New Development Bank (NDB). Providing services similar to existing institutions such as the World Bank, these new institutions profoundly alter the landscape of global governance. The existing literature has mostly debated whether such activism shows that China and others are embracing or confronting todays Western-led order. This discussion fails to capture a more complex reality, and the concept of international institutional bypasses (IIB) may help us gain a better understanding of Chinas complex institutional entrepreneurship. As will be explained, decisions by China and other countries to simultaneously support reform processes in existing institutions and also create new ones suggests that they seek alternative ways to overcome perceived dysfunctions in the dominant institutions by creating IIBs. Considering the initiatives in these terms allows for a more nuanced picture that transcends the simplistic dichotomy of integration versus rupture.

The end of power: from boardrooms to battlefields and churches to states, why being in charge isn't what it used to be

minor critiques above. Second, each part includes a brief introduction that places the subject matter in context; these are supplemented by single paragraph introductions to each essay that identify the authors and summarize the approach or argument. These are very helpful for the novice reader, even as they might be obvious to veteran scholars. Third, the selections include a number that are case studies or applications of ideas to various contexts; these will help students make the connection between abstract notions and real-world problems. Supplementing this is the inclusion of reports and documents (e.g. Dayton Peace Accords) that allow the reader to see these concepts in practice. Finally, each part has a ‘Toolbox’ of additional sources to consult, generally websites; this is a good idea, although the long URLs in the text are unlikely to be used and there is always the risk of website relocation and other changes over time. The utility of the book for graduate courses and scholars is more limited. For those new to the field, the collection can provide a quick overview and a hunting license for future reading. The brevity of the articles and the lack of empirical evidence (with a few exceptions) make it unsuitable alone for advanced study of conflict resolution. The hard-copy university textbook and the edited collection are thought to be endangered species in today’s publishing world, but this work swims against the tide and it is a worthy exception to the trend.