Search results

Why use an artificial intelligence (AI) system to determine crucial, major changes in a post-COVID-19 world? Globalisation is both a system and a process characterised by complexity, that is, a referential in which heterogeneous agents are constantly interacting. It therefore requires an integral and dynamic approach, and even more so a tool in tune with complexity. That is the case of the AI system Mileva, specifically designed for tackling complexity, highlighting the fabric of its reality, its core issues, and to forecast the probabilities of the different possible evolutions. In this chapter, the authors first briefly describe globalisation with regard to complexity, at the crossroads of computational complexity theory and sociological complexity theory (Edgar Morin). The authors then present the AI system Mileva, its key principles and the main lines of its architecture. Finally, the aforementioned points will be illustrated by two examples of analyses provided by Mileva on the issue of major changes in a post-COVID-19 world: the situation of the international organisations and that of the world of work in relation to health, environment, development, and democracy.

This chapter gives an overall description of how Japan has coped with COVID-19 pandemics. Under COVID-19 pandemics, many smaller communities tended to suffer less, or even survive better with small and modest adaptive approaches to transform themselves, than most larger cities and metropolitan regions. The cases of Tottori Prefecture and the town of Chizu are highlighted, and illustrations are made to explain how small and modest adaptive approaches have worked relatively well here. Some reasons have been examined such as good political leadership based on the former lessons learned from the previous coronavirus threats which Tottori Prefecture scarcely avoided in 2009 when South Korea suffered from them. The Town of Chizu has demonstrated well how the previous efforts to adaptively enhance community’s coping capacity called SMART Governance have worked effectively under the new persistent disruptive stressor (PDS), i.e. COVID-10 pandemics.

One can always blame that the pandemic has again revealed the weaknesses of our international governance. One can also blame governments for not being able to more quickly draw lessons from the Covid-19 crisis. Nevertheless, despite very different and uncoordinated agendas from various stakeholders involved across the world, we see a first convergence around corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental social and governance (ESG) agendas in the context of increasing climate change and ecological transition global awareness.

Even if their interests are very different by design, global stakeholders share at least the fact that our planet has now reached its limits in terms of resources and their exploitation. Even if some consider that humanity, not to say Humanism, is slow to happen on the global scale, we see the early stages of stronger corporate responsibility of all stakeholders, including and starting with the business sector. Corporate business has positively moved from a ‘greenwashing’ attitude at the end of twentieth century and beginning of the new one, to a more integrated and risks-related corporate responsibility awareness that now appears to be a must have.

The objective of this chapter is to discuss how different techniques in Regional Science and Peace Science and the emerging techniques in Management Science can be used in analysing Disaster Management and Global pandemic with special reference to developing countries. It is necessary for me to first discuss the subjects of Disaster Management, Regional Science, Peace Science and Management Science. The objective of this chapter is to emphasise that the studies of Disaster Management should be more integrated with socioeconomic and geographical factors. The greatest disaster facing the world is the possibility of war, particularly nuclear war, and the preparation of the means of destruction through military spending.

This chapter aims to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the inequality in countries, define it as a new conflict for sustainable development, and determine the prospects of conflict management. This chapter is based on the Theory of Conflicts and such methods as analysis of variations, trend and regression analysis, and simplex method. It is found that the variation of the COVID-19 case rate in the developed (by the example of G7) and developing (by the example of BRICS) countries was very high (140.99%). The variation of the COVID-19 death rate is lower, but it remains rather high (63.29%). The economic growth rate for the whole sample of countries under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced by 404.16% in 2021, while the quality of life reduced by 1.86% on average. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the inequality in countries, thus creating a new conflict of sustainable development. The perspectives of conflict management of sustainable development are connected to the improvement of the practice of using digital technologies, which helps to reduce the inequality in countries. By the example of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the offered recommendations would have allowed reducing the decline of economic growth rate by 95.01% and preventing the decline in quality of life.

The world is in a cold peace which is peace without being secure. At the heart of the cold peace is the competition between China and the USA. The cold war will not return because the old and new great powers simply are not as powerful as the old duellers at the start of the cold war. Other important powers, like the EU, Japan, and Russia, have significant roles in determining the outcome.

However, the intense competition between China and the USA has dire consequences for the future of humanity. It fuels nationalism and xenophobia and makes them less capable of addressing domestic issues, such as inequality, misinformation, ageing, etc. It also dims the hope for meaningfully tackling global issues like global warming, which requires a global innovation and mass production system to change the fundamental calculation of economic development and climate policies.

Cultural heritage destruction, acts that are carried out by both state and non-state actors, have accompanied violence towards people in all types of wars throughout human history. Used as a means to cause terror and to directly perpetuate harm on a particular group of people, heritage destruction ultimately erases the history of the people and denies them a future at the same time. Heritage destruction, as such, is a topic that is directly relevant for conflict and peace economics. Yet, economics literature on heritage destruction, especially during epochs of violence is scant at best. Presenting some examples of heritage destruction during mass atrocities, this chapter discusses how heritage destruction is related to causes, conduct, and consequences of violence. Doing so illustrates how heritage destruction could be incorporated in extant conflict and peace economics studies and their relevance for post-conflict reconstruction and violence prevention.

The crisis of globalisation and the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic pose new threats to the national security of all countries. States have been increasingly challenged on their role, particularly in the economic order. Their actions concerning pandemic, ecology, climate or air pollution have been strongly inspired by the decisions of specialised international organisations, too often advised by dominant commercial and financial interests. In this context, states have no longer been able to assume the full range of national security components. Mercantilists considered that dependence on a State’s foreign trade led to an unacceptable reduction to the power of the Prince. Today, all countries are dependent on others, and then economic wars are becoming more and more likely. Armed warfare between states remains a potential response to these possible disruptions of essential intermediate consumption or to the search for power. Moreover, the lack of solidarity perceived during the pandemic testifies to the maintenance of political and economic power relations between States and the priority given to national interests to the detriment of international public goods. The pandemic highlights the inability of states to find common solutions to today’s global problems, thus developing a strong sense of insecurity among citizens.