Feed aggregator

Entwicklungszusammenarbeit braucht Technik. Wissen und Toolkits werden noch oft als PDFs und Downloads veröffentlicht. Aber wo sind Sprachassistenten, interaktive Modelle und intelligente Frühwarnsysteme? Semuhi Sinanoglu vom German Institute of Development and Sustainability fordert ein Technologie-Upgrade.

Entwicklungszusammenarbeit braucht Technik. Wissen und Toolkits werden noch oft als PDFs und Downloads veröffentlicht. Aber wo sind Sprachassistenten, interaktive Modelle und intelligente Frühwarnsysteme? Semuhi Sinanoglu vom German Institute of Development and Sustainability fordert ein Technologie-Upgrade.

Stefan Küng wird die Tour de France 2025 verpassen. Der Thurgauer Radprofi erwartet während der Rundfahrt das zweite gemeinsame Kind mit seiner Frau Céline. Zudem erlitt er kürzlich einen Trainingsunfall, der seine Vorbereitung beeinträchtigt.

Man spürt ihre Lebensfreude förmlich in ihrem freizügigen Tanz im Park Hotel Vitznau in Luzern. Der Vierwaldstättersee bleibt Kulisse, die Musik ihres Freundes Soundtrack. Kurzzeitig zieht US-Schauspielerin Halle Berry sogar die Unterwäsche aus.

By Naïma Abdellaoui
GENEVA, Jun 27 2025 (IPS)

In an era defined by the gig economy and pervasive job insecurity, advocating for permanent contracts within the United Nations might seem anachronistic, even counterintuitive.

Yet, clinging to a culture of short-term, precarious contracts is not just detrimental to staff well-being; it’s a strategic and financial misstep that undermines the UN’s core mission.

Simultaneously, while internal restructuring under the banner of “UN 2.0” or “UN80” absorbs significant energy, the world burns with geopolitical fires demanding urgent, credible multilateral action. It’s time to re-focus: prioritize quality hires with stability AND make multilateralism genuinely effective, starting where it matters most – preventing mass atrocities.

The False Economy of Job Insecurity

The argument for limiting permanent contracts often hinges on perceived flexibility and cost savings. However, the reality is starkly different:

1. The High Cost of Turnover: Constantly recruiting, onboarding, and training staff for short-term roles is immensely expensive. Studies consistently show replacing an employee can cost 50-200% of their annual salary. For complex UN roles requiring deep institutional knowledge, context-specific understanding, and intricate diplomatic networks, these costs are amplified exponentially. Permanent staff represent a long-term investment whose value compounds over time.

2. Loss of Institutional Memory & Expertise: The UN tackles the world’s most complex challenges – climate change, pandemics, conflict resolution. Success requires deep historical understanding, nuanced relationships, and specialized expertise. A revolving door of staff erodes this vital institutional memory. Permanent contracts foster the accumulation and retention of irreplaceable knowledge critical for navigating protracted crises.

3. Diminished Loyalty & Engagement: Job insecurity breeds anxiety and disengagement. Staff on short-term contracts, constantly worried about renewal, are less likely to invest fully in long-term projects, challenge inefficient practices, or build the deep cross-departmental collaborations essential for UN effectiveness. Permanent status fosters commitment, psychological safety, and the courage to speak truth to power – vital assets for any organization, especially this one.

4. Quality Over Contract Length: The focus should shift decisively from “how long”someone is hired to “how well” they are selected and perform. Rigorous recruitment processes aimed at securing the best talent, coupled with robust performance management and accountability mechanisms, are the true guarantors of efficiency and effectiveness.

Permanent contracts for highly qualified, competitively selected, high-performing staff provide the stability needed for excellence, not complacency. It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish to sacrifice long-term capability for illusory short-term budget flexibility.

UN80 Reforms: A Distraction from Existential Challenges?

While streamlining processes and modernizing tools under initiatives like UN80 has merit, it risks becoming a consuming internal exercise that diverts attention from the UN’s fundamental crisis: the erosion of effective multilateralism in the face of escalating global turmoil.

The world confronts a resurgence of conflict, climate catastrophe accelerating faster than responses, democratic backsliding, and a fragmenting international order. Yet, the UN Security Council, the body charged with maintaining peace and security, remains paralyzed by the very tool meant to ensure great power buy-in: the veto.

The ghost of the League of Nations haunts us – an institution fatally weakened by its inability to act decisively against aggression because powerful members could simply block consensus.

Reform Must Prioritize Action, Especially Against Genocide

True UN reform cannot be confined to internal restructuring. It must courageously address the structural flaws that prevent the organization from fulfilling its primary mandate:

1. Veto Restraint on Atrocity Crimes: The most urgent starting point is suspending the use of the veto in Security Council resolutions aimed at preventing or stopping genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

When a permanent member wields its veto to shield perpetrators of these most heinous crimes, it betrays the UN’s foundational purpose and renders collective security a mockery. This specific, targeted reform is not about abolishing the veto wholesale but about preventing its most morally indefensible application. It is a litmus test for the credibility of UN reform.

2. Effectiveness Over Bureaucracy: Reforms must demonstrably enhance the UN’s ability to deliver tangible results on the ground – mediating conflicts effectively, delivering humanitarian aid unhindered, holding human rights abusers accountable, and implementing climate agreements with urgency. This requires empowering agencies, improving coordination, and ensuring mandates are matched with resources and political backing.

3. Reinvigorating Multilateralism: The UN must become a platform that fosters genuine dialogue and compromise, not just a stage for grandstanding. Reform should seek ways to better integrate emerging powers, strengthen the role of the General Assembly where feasible, and rebuild trust among member states around shared principles of the Charter.

Conclusion

Advocating for permanent contracts is not a retreat into comfort; it’s a strategic investment in the UN’s human capital – the bedrock of its effectiveness. It fosters the expertise, loyalty, and long-term perspective needed to tackle generational challenges.

Simultaneously, obsessing over internal restructuring while the mechanisms for global peace and security remain fundamentally broken is a dangerous distraction.

The UN was born from the ashes of catastrophic failure. Its reformers must have the courage to confront the structural impediments – including the unchecked veto enabling atrocity and the erosion of staff stability – that threaten to lead it down the same path.

Let’s prioritize permanent expertise and permanent purpose. The world, beset by crisis, demands nothing less than a United Nations capable of fulfilling its promise.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Excerpt:

Naïma Abdellaoui, Concerned International Civil Servant and Staff Representative. Member of the Executive Bureau of UNOG Staff Union

Tempo 50 als Regelfall? Bundesrat Albert Rösti will das Tempolimit einschränken. Die Städte toben, Grüne sprechen gar von einem «Angriff auf die Demokratie».

In Japan wurde erstmals seit fast drei Jahren die Todesstrafe vollstreckt. Ein als «Twitter»-Killer bekannter 34-jähriger Serienmörder wurde in Tokio hingerichtet, nachdem er 2020 für den Mord an neun jungen Menschen verurteilt worden war.

Bei gleichem Beschäftigungsgrad werden Frauen in der Schweiz nach wie vor deutlich schlechter bezahlt als ihre männlichen Arbeitskollegen. Die Unterschiede liegen je nach Berufsgruppe bei rund 15 Prozent.

Swissmem gibt grünes Licht für die Bilateralen III und unterstreicht deren Wichtigkeit für den EU-Marktzugang. Trotzdem äussert der Verband gewisse Vorbehalte.

Coop führt neue Regeln für Self-Checkout-Kassen ein. Grosseinkäufe mit Einkaufswagen sind an den autonomen Kassen künftig nicht mehr erlaubt – ausser man benutzt das Self-Scanning-System Passabene.

By CIVICUS
Jun 27 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses autonomous weapons systems and the campaign for regulation with Nicole van Rooijen, Executive Director of Stop Killer Robots, a global civil society coalition of over 270 organisations that campaigns for a new international treaty on autonomous weapons systems.

Nicole van Rooijen

In May, United Nations (UN) member states convened in New York for the first time to confront the challenge of regulating autonomous weapons systems, which can select and engage targets without human intervention. These ‘killer robots’ pose unprecedented ethical, humanitarian and legal risks, and civil society warns they could trigger a global arms race while undermining international law. With weapons that have some autonomy already deployed in conflicts from Gaza to Ukraine, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has set a 2026 deadline for a legally binding treaty.

What are autonomous weapons systems and why do they pose unprecedented challenges?

Autonomous weapons systems, or ‘killer robots’, are weapons that, once activated by a human, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. These systems make independent decisions – without the intervention of a human operator – about when, how, where and against whom to use force, processing sensor data or following pre-programmed ‘target profiles’. Rather than using the term ‘lethal autonomous weapons systems’, our campaign refers to ‘autonomous weapons systems’ to emphasise that any such system, lethal or not, can inflict serious harm.

The implications are staggering. These weapons could operate across all domains – air, land, sea and space – during armed conflicts and law enforcement or border control operations. They raise numerous ethical, humanitarian, legal and security concerns.

The most troubling variant involves anti-personnel systems triggered by human presence or individuals or groups who meet pre-programmed target profiles. By reducing people to data points for algorithmic targeting, these weapons are dehumanising. They strip away our inherent rights and dignity, dramatically increasing the risk of unjust harm or death. No machine, computer or algorithm can recognise a human as a human being, nor respect humans as inherent bearers of rights and dignity. Autonomous weapons cannot comprehend what it means to be in a state of war, much less what it means to have – or to end – a human life. Enabling machines to make life and death decisions is morally unjustifiable.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted it is ‘difficult to envisage’ scenarios where autonomous weapons wouldn’t pose significant risks of violating international humanitarian law, given the inevitable presence of civilians and non-combatants in conflict zones.

Currently, no international law governs these weapons’ development or use. As the technology advances rapidly, this legal vacuum creates a dangerous environment where autonomous weapons could be deployed in ways that violate existing international law while escalating conflicts, enabling unaccountable violence and harming civilians. This is what prompted the UN Secretary-General and the ICRC president to jointly call for urgent negotiations on a legally binding international instrument on autonomous weapons systems by 2026.

How have recent consultations advanced the regulatory agenda?

The informal consultations held in New York in May, mandated by UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 79/62, focused on issues raised in the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 report on autonomous weapons systems. They sought to broaden awareness among the diplomatic community and complement the work around the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), emphasising risks that extend far beyond international humanitarian law.

The UNGA offers a crucial advantage: universal participation. Unlike the CCW process in Geneva, it includes all states. This is particularly important for global south states, many of which are not a party to the CCW.

Over two days, states and civil society explored human rights implications, humanitarian consequences, ethical dilemmas, technological risks and security threats. Rich discussions emerged around regional dynamics and practical scenarios, examining how these weapons might be used in policing, border control and by non-state actors or criminal groups. While time constraints prevented exhaustive exploration of all issues, the breadth of engagement was unprecedented.

The Stop Killer Robots campaign found these consultations energising and strategically valuable. They demonstrated how UN processes in Geneva and New York can reinforce each other: while one forum provides detailed technical groundwork, particularly in developing treaty language, the other fosters inclusive political leadership and momentum. Both forums should work in tandem to maximise global efforts to achieve an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.

What explains the global divide on regulation?

The vast majority of states support a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons systems, favouring a two-tier approach that combines prohibitions with positive obligations.

However, roughly a dozen states oppose any form of regulation. Among them are some of the world’s most heavily militarised states and the primary developers, producers and likely users of autonomous weapons systems. Their resistance likely stems from the desire to preserve military superiority and protect economic interests, and the belief in inflated claims about these weapons’ supposed benefits promoted by big tech and arms industries. Or perhaps they simply favour force over diplomacy.

Whatever their motivations, this opposition underscores the urgent need for the international community to reinforce a rules-based global order that prioritises dialogue, multilateralism and responsible governance over unchecked technological ambition.

How do geopolitical tensions and corporate influence complicate international regulation efforts?

It is undeniable that geopolitical tensions and corporate influence are challenging the development of regulations for emerging technologies.

A handful of powerful states are prioritising narrow military and economic advantages over collective security, undermining the multilateral cooperation that has traditionally governed arms control. Equally troubling is the expanding influence of the private sector, particularly large tech companies that operate largely outside established accountability frameworks while wielding significant sway over political leaders.

This dual pressure is undermining the international rules-based order precisely when we most need stronger multilateral governance. Without robust regulatory frameworks that can withstand these pressures, development of autonomous weapons risks accelerating unchecked, with profound implications for global security and human rights.

How is civil society shaping this debate and advocating for regulation?

Anticipating the challenges autonomous weapons systems would pose, leading human rights organisations and humanitarian disarmament experts founded the Stop Killer Robots campaign in 2012. Today, our coalition spans over 270 organisations across more than 70 countries, working at national, regional and global levels to build political support for legally binding regulation.

We’ve played a leading role in shaping global discourse by highlighting the wide-ranging risks these technologies pose and producing timely research on weapons systems evolution and shifting state positions.

Our multi-level strategy targets all decision-makers who can influence this agenda, at local, regional and global levels. It’s crucial that political leaders understand how autonomous weapons might be used in warfare and other contexts, enabling them to advocate effectively within their spheres of influence for the treaty we urgently need.

Public pressure is key to our approach. Recent years have seen growing weapons systems autonomy and military applications, particularly in ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, alongside rising use of technologies such as facial recognition in civilian contexts. Public concern about the dehumanising nature of these technologies and the lack of regulation has grown online and offline. We frame these concerns along the whole spectrum of automated harm, with autonomous weapons representing the extreme, and highlight the critical need to close the gap between innovation and regulation.

We also collaborate with experts from arms, military and technology sectors to bring real-world knowledge and credibility to our treaty advocacy. It is crucial to involve those who develop and deploy autonomous weapons to demonstrate the gravity of current circumstances and the urgent need for regulation.

We encourage people to take action by signing our petition, asking their local political representatives to sign our Parliamentary Pledge or just spreading the word about our campaign on social media. This ultimately puts pressure on diplomats and other decision-makers to advance the legal safeguards we desperately need.

GET IN TOUCH
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Nicole/Bluesky
Nicole/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Facial recognition: the latest weapon against civil society CIVICUS Lens 23.May.2025
Weaponised surveillance: how spyware targets civil society CIVICUS Lens 24. Apr.2025
Technology: Human perils of digital power CIVICUS | 2025 State of Civil Society Report

 

Credit: United Nations

By Stephanie Hodge
NEW YORK, Jun 27 2025 (IPS)

I’ve spent much of my life in the machinery of international development, navigating acronyms, crises, and committee rooms with stale coffee. Through it all—amid war zones, climate summits, and remote island consultations—one institution has remained constant: the United Nations.

Revered, ridiculed, relied upon.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: the UN, in its current form, is not fit for purpose.

That’s not a call to abandon it. It’s a call to fix the house the world built before the roof collapses entirely. Because while the UN remains the only institution with near-universal legitimacy, its structures are badly outdated.

The world it was built for in 1945 no longer exists. Today’s threats—climate collapse, mass displacement, AI-driven inequality—demand a smarter, leaner, more inclusive United Nations. Reform is no longer a luxury. It’s an obligation.

So, how do we get there?

Start with Governance.

The Security Council is the UN’s most glaring anachronism. It reflects post-WWII power, not today’s multipolar reality. But full-scale reform has failed for decades. So let’s be pragmatic. Expand the Council to include regional permanent seats without veto, allowing Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and SIDS a permanent voice.

Introduce term-based rotation for new seats, and bind permanent members to veto restraint in the face of mass atrocities. These reforms won’t fix everything, but they’ll chip away at the legitimacy deficit.

Follow the Money.

One of the UN’s biggest problems isn’t policy—it’s how it’s funded. Over 70% of UN development work is paid for by earmarked, donor-driven funds, creating a patchwork of pet projects and weakened country ownership. The solution? Cap earmarked funding. Reinvest in core funding mechanisms.

Introduce a Global Solidarity Contribution—a small levy on air travel or financial transactions—to create independent funding for global public goods. Because right now, the people who suffer most from climate collapse or pandemics have the least say in how UN funds are spent.

Empower the Country Level.

Ask any government where the UN matters most, and the answer is the country office—not New York. Yet the UN Development System remains fragmented and turf-driven.

It’s time to give Resident Coordinators real authority across agencies, consolidate back-office functions, and scrap duplicative structures. One-UN should mean one plan, one budget, one voice. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.

Reclaim Technical Integrity.

The UN’s comparative advantage was never its bureaucracy. It was its expertise. But too often, technical roles are politicized or handed to parachuted consultants with little country context. We need a Global Technical Corps—a pool of deployable UN experts drawn from all regions, especially the Global South.

We need to enforce merit-based hiring and ensure at least 30% of senior posts go to nationals from least developed countries. Diversity shouldn’t be window dressing—it should drive decisions.

Make It Democratic.

The UN Charter begins with “We the peoples”—not “We the diplomats.” Yet citizens have little say in the institution that governs global rules. We need a UN Parliamentary Assembly—an advisory body elected or nominated by regional blocs.

We need to formally include civil society in decision-making and ensure transparency in how leaders are chosen and money is spent. If the UN doesn’t reflect people’s voices, it risks irrelevance.

These aren’t utopian dreams. They are strategic, staged, and long overdue reforms. Start small. Pilot in willing countries. Build coalitions across the Global South and reform-minded donors. Anchor reform in crisis moments, when political will opens a window for change.

Because the next time there’s a war the UN can’t stop, a climate emergency it’s too slow to respond to, or a famine it’s too bureaucratic to prevent—people won’t ask why the system failed. They’ll ask why we didn’t fix it when we had the chance.

The UN doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to work. For everyone.

Let’s get to work.

Stephanie Hodge is an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries. She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Elegant und sichtlich verliebt treffen Lauren Sánchez und Jeff Bezos per Wassertaxi zu ihrem Polterabend ein. Sie im hautengen, goldfarbenen Glitzerfummel mit grünen Applikationen, er im schwarzen Anzug mit weissem Hemd. Nach und nach erscheinen die Gäste.

We respond to the lack of measurable conceptualisations of expertise in development agencies by investigating its focus and appreciation in two national aid administrations as a function of knowledge and experience. We apply this definition of expertise to qualitative data from interviews with 58 randomly selected officials at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). We find that both organisations draw on similar sets of knowledge and experience. However, BMZ and Norad staff show different valuations of substantive knowledge as opposed to administrative knowledge and individual experience, each of which is rooted in distinct organisational objectives and norms. At BMZ, substantive knowledge is expendable, but individual experience is considered non-substitutable, and expertise is focused on navigating political priorities. At Norad, substantive knowledge is a prerequisite for career advancement, and experience is seen to ideally leverage such knowledge. Expertise at Norad is thus focused on thematic rather than political priorities. These findings have broader implications for the ability of development agencies to make autonomous policy decisions, for the potential of specialist careers and internal knowledge management to improve organisational effectiveness, and possibly also for the future of these agencies in the face of existential challenges.

We respond to the lack of measurable conceptualisations of expertise in development agencies by investigating its focus and appreciation in two national aid administrations as a function of knowledge and experience. We apply this definition of expertise to qualitative data from interviews with 58 randomly selected officials at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). We find that both organisations draw on similar sets of knowledge and experience. However, BMZ and Norad staff show different valuations of substantive knowledge as opposed to administrative knowledge and individual experience, each of which is rooted in distinct organisational objectives and norms. At BMZ, substantive knowledge is expendable, but individual experience is considered non-substitutable, and expertise is focused on navigating political priorities. At Norad, substantive knowledge is a prerequisite for career advancement, and experience is seen to ideally leverage such knowledge. Expertise at Norad is thus focused on thematic rather than political priorities. These findings have broader implications for the ability of development agencies to make autonomous policy decisions, for the potential of specialist careers and internal knowledge management to improve organisational effectiveness, and possibly also for the future of these agencies in the face of existential challenges.

We respond to the lack of measurable conceptualisations of expertise in development agencies by investigating its focus and appreciation in two national aid administrations as a function of knowledge and experience. We apply this definition of expertise to qualitative data from interviews with 58 randomly selected officials at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). We find that both organisations draw on similar sets of knowledge and experience. However, BMZ and Norad staff show different valuations of substantive knowledge as opposed to administrative knowledge and individual experience, each of which is rooted in distinct organisational objectives and norms. At BMZ, substantive knowledge is expendable, but individual experience is considered non-substitutable, and expertise is focused on navigating political priorities. At Norad, substantive knowledge is a prerequisite for career advancement, and experience is seen to ideally leverage such knowledge. Expertise at Norad is thus focused on thematic rather than political priorities. These findings have broader implications for the ability of development agencies to make autonomous policy decisions, for the potential of specialist careers and internal knowledge management to improve organisational effectiveness, and possibly also for the future of these agencies in the face of existential challenges.

Vermisstenfall in Konstanz: Franka H. ist seit Mittwoch verschwunden. Sie verliess mit Wanderschuhen das Elternhaus. Die Polizei bittet die Bevölkerung um Mithilfe bei der Suche.

Les dernières images montrent des dégâts supplémentaires suite aux frappes israéliennes sur des installations clés.

Les dernières images montrent des dégâts supplémentaires suite aux frappes israéliennes sur des installations clés.

Alle registrierten Datennutzer*innen können die neueste Datenedition v40 (DOI: 10.5684/soep.core.v40eu) ab sofort über unser Online-Bestellformular bestellen.   Auf Deutsch: http://www.diw.de/SOEPbestellungAuf Englisch: http://www.diw.de/SOEPorder Die wichtigsten Neuigkeiten für die v40: Neue ...