Samuel M. Makinda

The international solidarity principle is a crucial legal norm of international society. It helps guide state conduct and facilitate cooperation among international actors to respond to global challenges and uphold human rights. The European Union (EU) and its Member States have argued that their bilateral agreements with non-EU countries to prevent irregular migration to Europe is a demonstration of international solidarity that fulfils their obligations to asylum seekers and refugees. However, the EU’s interpretation of international solidarity in these arrangements has been contested. This article argues that the EU has strategically interpreted the international solidarity principle to fit in with, and complement, its migration deterrence policy framework. It posits that the EU’s interpretation abuses the international solidarity principle as it aims to separate the solidarity principle from the realisation of human rights, thereby hurting, instead of benefitting, asylum seekers and refugees. This article makes an important contribution to understanding how the solidarity principle is interpreted between EU and non-EU partners, and the intimate connection between solidarity and the realisation of human rights. More importantly, it demonstrates how the interpretation and evasion of the international solidarity principle has been shaped by, and shaped to fit, the EU’s migration externalisation policy framework.

This article argues that claims by some international relations (IR) critics that IR rejects ideas, concepts, and theories from Africa and the Global South are ahistorical, exaggerated, and amount to the de-legitimation of non-Western contributions to the discipline. Employing the concept of the social construction of knowledge and an internal discursive method, we suggest that while scholars from the Global North are numerically preponderant and have dominated IR for many years, those from the Global South, including Africans, have also made an impact on its growth. We argue that eclecticism, a key IR approach that focuses on problem-solving, has roots in both the South and North. Therefore, we claim that it is the failure of some scholars both in the North and South to appropriately acknowledge Global South contributions that have helped to enhance the perception of Western-centrism in IR. Accordingly, we conclude that there is a need for IR scholars to acknowledge that ideas and concepts from Africa and the non-Western world have been shared and utilized within the discipline.

When Australia reneged on a AUD$90 billion submarine contract with France in 2021 as it joined AUKUS, a new trilateral military partnership between Australia, the UK and the US, it was accused of lying and breaching France's trust. This perceived act of betrayal not only led to a deterioration in the diplomatic relationship between Australia and France, but it also drew attention to the consequences of violating the norm of pacta sunt servanda-agreements must be kept. Although it is recognized that breaches of trust undermine relationships, what has been underexplored is how a violation of norms can also undermine the presumption of trust in international society more broadly. Focusing on how Australia broke its contract with France after it joined AUKUS, this article argues that Australia's conduct not only harmed its relationship with France, but it also led the European Union (EU) to raise questions about how much to trust AUKUS partners as it engages in the Indo-Pacific region. It posits that adherence to international norms is important for developing trust between states in international society and has the potential to facilitate cooperation and enhance security in the complex Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
When Australia breached its submarine contract with France in 2021 as it joined AUKUS, diplomatic relations quickly deteriorated. This article shows that the impact of this perceived act of betrayal went beyond bilateral relations to undermine trust in international society more broadly.

People from all walks of life often discuss or seek meanings of global phenomena such as security, sovereignty and globalization. While some contest their meanings, others take them for granted and never ask how they came about. This article examines how global phenomena acquire their meanings. My argument is based on three assumptions. The first is that people and other purposive agents have a need to understand global phenomena, while the second is that there is an interpretive community, which seeks to satisfy this need. The third assumption is that the global interpretive community often reflects the perspectives of hegemonic actors…

The outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 provided cover for some states to take strict and hostile measures against refugees and asylum seekers, thereby privileging self-regarding over other-regarding or cosmopolitan-oriented policies. The hostile measures, which have included detentions, pushbacks and other refugee deterrence actions not only appeared to shake the refugee system, but they increased the vulnerability of asylum seekers and refugees who continued to be exposed to torture, drownings at sea, trafficking and sexual violence. This development, which included a fine-tuning of some measures that had been hatched before the emergence of COVID-19, appeared to set back efforts to nurture the bonds of global human solidarity and expand moral and ethical boundaries beyond state borders. However, the international refugee regime continues and is supported by many states and other international actors that seek to emphasise cosmopolitan and other-regarding policies. The resilience of the refugee system underlines the fact that international society has a practical and moral basis to challenge exclusionist policies towards asylum seekers and refugees, prevent future harm that might result from asylum deterrence policies and develop more humane forms of international refugee governance.

This forum is about race and racism in critical security studies, as well as the latter’s reparative possibilities. Racism is a ubiquitous ailment in many societies and manifests itself differently under varying circumstances (Clair and Denis, 2015; McWhorter, 2019). It is a complex phenomenon that is sometimes hard to define or dismiss. In most cases, racism may be invisible, systemic or structural. For the purposes of this article, racism includes bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against people on the basis of identity, usually race, ethnicity or culture. The above terms are problematic and require explanations, but these cannot be provided in such a short article. Racism may be directed against people who are in a majority, as was the case in South Africa for over a century until the 1990s. It may also be directed against a minority, as is the case in the USA with regard to blacks, in China with regard to Uighurs, and in Myanmar in relation to the Rohingya. This definition of racism is minimalist and may not cover racism in some circumstances...

The continuing political crisis in South Sudan has been explained almost exclusively in terms of internal power dynamics. This article goes beyond the domestic focus and examines the manner in which the imbroglio has exposed weaknesses in South Sudan's sovereign statehood. It argues that it was the failure to uphold empirical and popular sovereignty that, in part, precipitated the problem. Therefore, it suggests that a resolution ought to involve a re-examination of the relationship between popular, empirical and juridical sovereignty. This article posits that a renegotiation of South Sudan's sovereignty, involving co-governance, would deliver good governance, strengthen economic management, facilitate state-building, and enhance regional security.

In their book, Gridlock: why global cooperation is failing when we need it most, Hale, Held, and Young argue persuasively why post-World War II institutions delivered the global cooperation anticipated but ended up creating other serious problems for international society. They explain how the successes of earlier cooperation efforts produced greater multipolarity, institutional inertia, institutional fragmentation, and some difficult problems that, in turn, paved the pathways through which the governance gap between the multilateral system and global needs became wide. However, their book, whose thesis revolves around the nature and functions of global institutions, fails to define the term ‘institution’. This essay argues that had the authors elaborated institutions, their argument would have been much stronger.

Australia's engagement with Africa during the Rudd and Gillard governments was primarily driven by the national interest, which revolved around three issues: humanitarianism, support for mining corporations, and the United Nations Security Council seat. This article argues that there is a need for the Abbott government to retain the same depth and breadth of relationships with Africa. It is in the interest of both Australia and African states for the Australian government to remain committed to humanitarian objectives and to help African countries meet some of their Millennium Development Goal targets. Moreover, the continued support of Australian mining corporations operating in Africa, especially through the training of African policy makers in mining governance, is good for both Africa and Australia. Finally, Australia's continued success in multilateral diplomacy will depend on support from all parts of the world, including Africa. Australia's success at the multilateral level will, in turn, result in bilateral benefits in other regions, including the Asia-Pacific.