Research and Publications

The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.

Peace governance and the rights-based politics of refugee returns are inseparable, yet in practice they unfold in isolation. Even when peace agreements include return provisions, peace transitions and dignified returns rarely align. This paper draws on the Syrian war as a foundational case to show how these processes, each central to the remaking of political order, have moved along discordant tracks. It distils three lessons from the Syrian war. First, refugee return evolved during the war into a marketplace for transactional conflict management. Second, a stark misalignment has persisted between top-down initiatives and the bottom-up practices through which grassroots communities have negotiated political voice. Third, refugees have remained excluded as peace actors despite their centrality to any post-war order. The Syrian case highlights the need for research on anticipatory peacebuilding defined here as an approach to peace governance that works on the conditions needed for future peace by integrating grassroots communities and refugees as peace actors long before hostilities end.

Commercialising human milk-based products (HMBPs) poses complex public health, ethical, and regulatory challenges for governments around the world. This study investigates the corporate strategies of the HMBP industry through a qualitative analysis of industry documents obtained from the University of California, San Francisco's Industry Documents Library. The analysis identifies how HMBP companies construct markets by positioning their products as essential to neonatal care and leveraging scientific narratives and professional networks to expand market dominance. These practices include embedding corporate interests in public health messaging and knowingly competing with non-profit milk donation systems. The findings reveal tensions between profit-driven innovation and equitable access to healthcare. The study highlights parallels with other health-related industries, where intellectual property (IP) and market control can deepen inequity. To address these issues, the study emphasises the need for stronger regulatory oversight, enhanced transparency in corporate practices, and support for public milk banking systems. By situating HMBPs within the Commercial Determinants of Health framework, this research provides policymakers and public health advocates with critical insights to safeguard equity in maternal-infant healthcare.

In December 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Assembly (WHA) authorised the creation of an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) to draft and finalise a new international treaty to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR). Early in the negotiations, a loosely formed coalition of World Health Organization (WHO) Member States formed the ‘Group of Friends of One Health’ to promote the integration of One Health as a core guiding principle. The concept of One Health, which emphasises how human, animal and environmental health are closely intertwined and interdependent, proved contentious during the negotiations because of concerns that it might lead to new obligations which low- and middle-income countries would struggle to fulfil. In April 2025, the INB concluded its work and the following month the 78th WHA adopted the Pandemic Agreement under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution. This article considers the significance of the Pandemic Agreement’s inclusion of the One Health approach to PPPR and the subsequent legal and practical implications for States Parties. The central claim of the article is that while the Pandemic Agreement ultimately encourages a One Health approach, the various caveats and qualifications inserted during the intergovernmental negotiations permit those governments that want to circumvent their obligations to do so, at least until and unless moral and political pressure is brought to bear during the Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings. The article’s findings have implications for future treaty negotiations given the importance of COP mechanisms for encouraging compliance.

The present article examines a tremendous, yet hidden, transition in Türkiye's roadmap from “Neo-Ottomanism” to “the Century of Türkiye,” a shift marked by a reorientation of the long-term objectives in its foreign policy. What are the key drivers behind Türkiye's transition from Neo-Ottomanism to the Century of Türkiye? How has this shift impacted Türkiye's domestic, regional, and international politics? These are the central questions that guide the analytical narrative of the research. By employing a process-tracing method and novel readings of geopolitics to analyze this strategic transformation, our findings suggest that Türkiye's failed policies in the Middle East in the 2010s and internal power shifts have led to a new era of Turkish nationalism and Eurasianism. We also argue that at the regional level, Türkiye seeks to establish itself as a transit hub and energy corridor, while globally it adopts a hedging strategy to reduce risks and tensions.

Wedge strategies - negotiation strategies that seek to prevent or weaken adversarial alignments - are increasingly used in contemporary power competition. Scholars often examine how China and Russia challenge U.S. interests, and how the United States seeks to prevent unfavorable outcomes and shape power dynamics. However, the U.S. use of wedge strategies in this context, and the design of wedge strategies more broadly, have been largely overlooked. To address this gap, we develop an analytical framework to examine the choice of wedge strategies. We apply it to investigate the U.S. choice of wedge strategies in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and in the Indo-Pacific. Our analysis outlines the challenges of designing wedge strategies and the need to rethink factors that make them effective, particularly as the United States encounters alignments like brics. It stresses the importance of broadening wedging options and mapping their strategic and operational aspects.

Tacit coercion involves covert, plausibly deniable attacks below the threshold of war that signal an adversary to discreetly adjust its behaviour. Unlike traditional deterrence, which is based on clear red lines and explicit threats, tacit coercion leverages ambiguity and the implied risk of escalation. Examples including Russia’s sabotage of Baltic undersea cables and covert cyber operations illustrate how Russia communicates coercive intent yet maintains official deniability. This allows Moscow to issue warnings without triggering direct conflict, offering targets an off-ramp of inconspicuous compliance. But Western policymakers face a dilemma: they may publicly downplay such incidents while privately recognising the pattern. Over-reliance on ambiguity and off-ramps risks normalising sub-threshold aggression and emboldening it further.