jochostacos-News About the Latest and Most Complete International News

Even after high-profile failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, some in the policy community still call for supplanting illiberal regimes using military force. Such arguments typically assert that regime change will achieve security or humanitarian goals more cheaply and quickly than sustained diplomatic pressure and engagement. But a growing scholarly consensus shows that foreign-imposed regime change rarely succeeds and often creates more problems than it solves.

While a more democratic world may improve American security and human rights, the use of armed force to push for these political outcomes undermines nonmilitary tools that are more effective at these goals. It also empowers peer competitors who have incentives to counter US attempts at regime change. The United States should rethink its strategic objectives and seek other ways to promote democracy, security, and human rights around the globe.

A key reason why regime-change operations fail is that citizens observe heterogeneous signals, creating endogenous differences in beliefs about the likelihood of regime change. Leaders attempt to induce higher anti-regime efforts by increasing the reward for a given level of effort but that raises the cost of failure. Leaders therefore struggle to find an optimal reward scheme for each citizen.

The resulting heterogeneity makes it more difficult for outside forces to create a coherent, cohesive revolution with a clear end goal in mind. Instead, they are more likely to create a failed state or civil war and draw the foreign intervener into lengthy nation-building projects. To improve policy outcomes, American officials must shift two common mindsets: First, they must understand that a toppled foreign regime is only the beginning of a long process of building democracy and establishing institutions and norms that provide stability.

Recession fears are on the rise.

Recessions may seem scary, but they don’t always last as long as we think and they usually give us a chance to get our finances in order before things really start to shake up. That’s why it’s important to take the time to consider your options and make sure you’re prepared for whatever comes your way. Having an emergency savings cushion can help you weather any economic storms, so it’s worth beefing up yours before the next recession hits. It’s also a good idea to diversify your investments, so you’re not as exposed to any one particular market.

As the stock market slides and consumer confidence tumbles, Americans’ pessimism is rising. More than half of adults now say they’re pessimistic or afraid about the economy, according to a new CNN/SSRS poll. And the percentage who believe a recession is coming in the next year is near its highest level since the Covid pandemic.

While a recession hasn’t officially been declared (the National Bureau of Economic Research makes that call), many experts have raised their recession probabilities in recent days. For example, Goldman Sachs recently upped its chances of a recession to 45% in the next 12 months and JP Morgan has upped its risk of a global recession to 60%.

While these concerns aren’t necessarily valid, it’s important to understand what a recession actually means and how it could impact your financial life. That’s why we’re working on a new measure of recession fears, which will be updated more frequently and provide real-time insight into how these anxieties are evolving.

Proxy war has reemerged as an important policy option as global power competition intensifies. This form of indirect conflict involves states sponsoring local proxies in pursuit of their own interests, often in the context of international conflicts and regional instability. The sponsors’ motivations are usually security and diplomatic concerns, but ideological factors can also play a role. As these proxies evolve into fighting forces, their own goals and ambitions may become entangled with the sponsor’s objectives.

One of the primary advantages of proxy war is its ability to avoid direct military intervention by a major power. This is particularly true when the conflict in question does not clearly and overtly threaten a major state’s security, or is otherwise unjustifiable, prohibitively costly (politically, financially, and/or materially), avoidable, illegitimate, or impractical to respond to directly.

The main disadvantages of proxy war are its cost and its repercussions for regional stability and international cooperation. Indirect war can easily spiral into full-scale war between great powers, and it can exacerbate regional tensions and global insecurity. It can also create entrenched rivalries and resentment against foreign powers in local populations, making it harder to resolve future conflict. Finally, it can leave behind failed states or regions that become breeding grounds for terrorism and other violence. Moreover, sustaining a coherent proxy strategy requires significant resources and an intervening state to manage its leaders’ changing expectations, deal with emerging conditions (both self-inflicted and beyond control) that hinder policy coherence, and ensure the integrity of its strategic assets.

After weeks of intense diplomacy, Israeli and Palestinian officials announced an agreement on a framework for a ceasefire on Saturday. It’s a significant step forward, but it does not address the underlying issues that will determine the conflict’s outcome.

The agreement includes terms that would end fighting on land, air and at sea. It would also include rehabilitating Gaza’s devastated infrastructure and allowing access to the supplies needed to accommodate and shelter displaced families.

But most significantly, the deal would set up a process whereby Hamas would release 33 hostages in a phase that would last 42 days. The first batch would consist of women, the elderly and those categorized as severe humanitarian cases. It would also include the two very young children of the family of the Israeli Prime Minister. In exchange, Israel would free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including a number of prisoners sentenced to life in prison for murdering Israelis.

A number of observers have been skeptical about the timing of the agreement, noting that it was announced on a day when Israel’s Prime Minister would normally avoid meetings that are not urgent. However, it was a clear signal that the Israeli hard right wanted to begin its relations with the new administration with a success story on this issue.

The US is hoping that this can become the first step in a larger movement toward peace. But this will require Netanyahu to agree to a path toward a future Palestinian state and the Trump administration to press the Israeli government to do so.

Central bank policy is the set of decisions made by a central bank with regard to interest rates, and often other types of policies as well. These decisions aim to influence dimensions of macroeconomic activity like prices and inflation, output, employment and sometimes designated monetary aggregates. Central banks normally exert whatever influences they have over these magnitudes through their setting of short-term interest rates.

For example, by supplying money markets with ample liquidity during times of stress (like after the stock market and housing busts in recent years) or by allowing its bank reserves to rise and fall on a regular basis (called “repo operations”). The traditional story is that changes in the central bank’s policy rate are transmitted to other interest rates through a mechanism that involves banks increasing their loans and investments when reserves are plentiful/less costly and cutting back on them when they become scarce/more costly. However, there is no empirical evidence that this transmission mechanism actually works in practice.

Moreover, the more central banks are focused on their inflation target the more they have to trade off between stabilizing the economy in the short run and achieving the target in the long run. For this reason many central banks use a flexible inflation target.

Ideally, the broad objectives of financial agencies should be specified in legislation and the broad modalities of accountability for these agencies should also be publicly disclosed. For example, the procedures for appointment, terms of office and any general criteria for removal of the heads and members of their governing bodies should be publicized.

From food, electronics and critical medical supplies to automobiles, oil and gas, the global economy depends on a resilient supply chain. Yet, threats that impede or even interrupt the flow of goods and materials are multiplying. The era of exponential risk is changing how organizations and governments view and manage geopolitical risks.

As tensions continue to escalate in key regions of the world, trade routes are becoming more and more dangerous. Conflicts arising from territorial disputes, ideological differences and regional power struggles have the ability to transcend borders and impact neighbouring economies as well. Escalating tensions can disrupt cross-border investments and capital flows, foreign exchange rates, financial stability and impose heightened economic uncertainty. These negative effects are especially pronounced in border and neighbour countries, where they can have profound impacts on sovereign risk.

With so much of the world’s economy dependent on globalization, business leaders are more and more concerned about the growing impact of geopolitical risks. Whether it’s an increase in sanctions, regulatory changes or political unrest, geopolitical instability can lead to lower revenue opportunities and higher compliance costs for companies operating across geographies.

And when conflict escalates, it can cause severe supply chain disruption. For example, if an invasion of a country in the Middle East impacted oil production and led to price spikes, this would affect businesses that depend on refined fuels, like airlines and manufacturers of cars or electronics. Other industries would also be affected, depending on the availability of rare and strategic minerals. For instance, a lack of these materials could impact semiconductors and automotive technology, while food shortages would threaten the health and well-being of people in vulnerable states.

Military coup is the sudden overthrow of a government by the armed forces. A successful coup usually requires a small group of officers to control all or part of the armed forces, police, and other security elements of the state. Coups rarely alter a nation’s fundamental social and economic policies, or redistribute power between competing political groups. Rather, they replace one leader with another and may briefly shift the balance of power in favor of the military or other powerful interest groups.

A recent putsch in Myanmar, for example, exemplifies this pattern. After an election that gave Aung San Suu Kyi’s party a supermajority in parliament, the ruling military junta froze democracy and expanded its own powers. The army’s impulsive actions reveal that its leaders have an insatiable appetite for more power.

While many fear that praetorian politics is making a comeback, the 2021 putsch in Tunisia and the similar ones in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger are more evidence of military leaders’ deep frustration with their own inability to govern effectively than an awakening nostalgia for old dictatorships. The recent putches also point to a crisis in democratic norms that are being rapidly eroded.

Much of the latest research pinpoints factors—such as coup proofing or “political legacy effects”—that reduce the likelihood of a military takeover. But these findings may be misleadingly simple: Most coups are not caused by any particular factor; instead, they are the result of a combination of multiple factors. A new generation of scholars needs to develop complementary methods that will allow us to understand more fully why and when a military coup occurs.

It is a common observation that human beings everywhere require the realization of diverse values or capabilities to ensure their individual and collective well-being. It is also a widely shared view that this demand, whether conceived or expressed as a moral or a legal requirement, is frequently frustrated by social and natural forces, resulting in exploitation, oppression, persecution and deprivation. These twin observations form the basis of human rights and the national and international legal processes associated with them.

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. They are inherent to each and every person born on this earth, unless prohibited by law or denounced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. This is a unique document that marks out 30 fundamental rights to all people in the world, regardless of their political, economic or cultural systems.

The UDHR was developed through a process that involved participants from all regions, giving the document a broad and inclusive perspective. It is one of the only global documents that recognises the fact that human rights are indivisible, interdependent and inalienable.

Human rights are based on the belief that there are some things that all people need in order to live with dignity, and that those needs cannot be met without certain limits on state power. That is why human rights enjoy support from every culture in the world and almost all civilised governments and religions. It is why they are recognised as a set of international legal norms in the UDHR and in two related treaties, which are binding on Governments when they ratify them.

Global security looks beyond traditional notions of security focused on the state and its international system. Coursework examines the complex web of forces that generate insecurity at the international, global, and societal levels, as well as how security concerns have been addressed over time, across cultures, and by individuals and groups.

The world today is in a state of unprecedented global threat and instability. Instability arises from a wide range of issues: regional coercion and meddling, terrorism, transnational crime, health insecurity, environmental degradation, WMD proliferation, mass migration, and overwhelming humanitarian crises. As these dangers continue to threaten the foundational elements that contribute to peace and prosperity, they challenge policymakers to rethink their approaches to security.

Security professionals and business leaders increasingly recognize the need to be a step ahead of these unseen threats. They need to anticipate how broader geopolitical developments might impact their supply chain vulnerabilities, organizational stability and decision-making. They must shape cybersecurity strategies that align with business objectives and enable innovation without increasing risk.

Despite the fact that a few years ago, it seemed as if the world was on autopilot and headed toward universal democracy and peace, we now live in a dangerous age of shifting dangers and escalating conflict. As such, tackling these challenges is the new face of national security. And to do so, the United States and Europe must work together, for if they don’t, their own security could be at risk.

Founded in 1945, the United Nations is a global system of interrelated organizations and programs. Its six principal organs—the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice—are tasked with maintaining international peace and security, developing economic, social, cultural, and educational opportunities for all people, and solving problems of common interest. A vast Secretariat, with international staff in duty stations around the world, carries out the diverse day-to-day work of the Organization’s organs.

The United Nations Charter set out three fundamental objectives: respect for the equal rights of all peoples and their self-determination; international cooperation in solving global problems; and a global forum for reflection, debate and innovative thinking. Its founding countries gathered in San Francisco in 1945 to draft the Charter, with China, France, India and Russia taking the lead. The United States and the Soviet Union later signed, and the Charter came into effect once it had been ratified by a majority of member governments.

In addition to the six principal organs, the United Nations family includes a variety of independent “specialized agencies” linked to the UN through cooperative agreements and maintaining broad international responsibilities in their fields. The governing bodies of the specialized agencies, which include many regional and national offices, report to the Secretary-General or to the Economic and Social Council. The UN also maintains a global network of peacekeeping operations. Throughout its history, the United Nations has faced challenges to its integrity and impartiality. Among the most notable were the bombing of its headquarters in the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, which killed hundreds of staff members, and Moammar Gadhafi’s rambling 90-minute speech at the General Assembly, which went far beyond his allotted 15 minutes.