Glyphosate-tolerant soybean agriculture expanded rapidly in Argentina, creating large territorial exposure to glyphosate-intensive production systems. We conducted a longitudinal small-area ecological study of soybean-cultivated area and cancer mortality across Argentine departments/counties from 2012 to 2022. Higher soybean exposure was consistently associated with mortality from pooled oncohaematological malignancies and solid tumours, while a negative comparator outcome did not show a comparable pattern. The findings do not establish individual-level causation, because exposure and outcomes were analyzed at territorial scale. They identify a national ecological signal that warrants coordinated epidemiological follow-up in major soybean-producing regions.
In the age of war, armed conflict coincides with a governing order marked by the selective enforcement of international law, the declining authority of multilateral institutions, and the normalization of impunity among powerful states. This article shows how African applications before the International Court of Justice seek to make that order a site of legal and political contestation. Two cases - South Africa’s genocide application against Israel concerning Gaza (2023–present) and The Gambia’s application against Myanmar over the Rohingya (2019–present) - demonstrate that African states use treaty-based legal procedures to contest selective enforcement amid the paralysis of the United Nations Security Council. Three patterns emerge: (i) African International Court of Justice litigation challenges the selective application of the Genocide Convention by invoking shared universal obligations; (ii) provisional measures orders transform political deadlock into sustained diplomatic pressure; and (iii) this litigation strategy maintains normative accountability amid declining multilateral commitment. Selective enforcement operates through veto politics and the political economy of arms transfers and donor conditionality, in which states profess universal legal obligations while underwriting the conduct they are pledged to prevent.
Somalia’s prolonged state fragility is often portrayed as an exceptional failure rooted in clan fragmentation, weak institutions, and chronic external intervention. This article reframes the problem by asking a different question: under what political, institutional, and human capital conditions can a post-conflict state reconstruct authority and pursue sustainable development in the twenty-first century? Using Türkiye’s early-2000s transformation as a comparative reference, not a model, the article advances a developmental sequencing framework centered on five interdependent pillars: central authority, security sovereignty, productive transformation, infrastructural integration, and strategic autonomy—within which education functions as a cross-cutting mechanism of elite formation and state capacity. Drawing on Somali scholarship, particularly Ibrahim Farah’s critique of fragmented authority and elite competition, the analysis argues that Somalia’s fragility reflects inverted sequencing rather than an absence of social order or capacity. Education is conceptualized not as a post-conflict social sector but as a foundational instrument of authority, ideological integration, and bureaucratic reproduction. If strategically restructured, Somalia’s fragmented governance can evolve into a functional developmental state, demonstrating that fragility is not destiny but a political condition subject to change.
This article critically examines India’s expanding Indo-Pacific role, challenging geopolitical narratives that frame ‘securitization of development’ as justified state policy. The shift toward militarism and manufactured consent has replaced broader post-COVID social horizons, reflecting global trends where nationalism substitutes for genuine dialogue. The article analyzes this through economic imperialism and neoliberal frameworks. Three dimensions emerge: First, the political economy of coercion—how states deploy economic tools like trade sanctions and investment restrictions as strategic instruments, with the QUAD reinforcing a militarized security architecture. Second, sovereignty’s masculinization complicates domestic politics, as ‘strongman’ rhetoric legitimizes militancy while obscuring how external enemies justify internal repression. Third, the article examines gaps in international law’s rules-based order, arguing India’s ‘strategic autonomy’ is constrained by selective enforcement serving geopolitical interests. Humanitarian crises are instrumentalized to maintain military readiness. The article concludes by proposing re-politicization beyond great-power competition, advocating a multilateral framework using India’s ‘Strategic Autonomy’ as a blueprint for multipolar, rules-based international systems. Ultimately, it challenges the ‘Warfare Agenda’ narrative, questioning whether development can remain genuinely autonomous amid securitization pressures.
The global political economy can potentially explain the dynamics of the currently prevalent global economic system of the wealth-driven Hot and Cold Warfare. There has evovled secular capitalistic and communistic politico-economic frameworks of ownership of wealth as a direct outcome of a divisive tensions-cum-conflicts-based secular, and amoral geopolitics, which has culminated in wealth’s potentially thoughtless, irresponsible, and wrongful blind pursuit, accumulation, management, consumption, investment, production, and distribution having the most dangerous pitfalls of exploitation, extraction, tensions, conflicts, clashes, warfare, and slavery through enslavement resulting from feudalism. communism, enclosure movement, exploration as well as colonization campaigns, socialism, Nazism, and colonialism as well as globalization for individuals, societies, nations, dynasties, regions, empires, and civilizations. Historically, relentless unjust and violent pursuit of universal wealth has been culminating in the interpersonal, communal, national, international, global, universal, political, and strategic conflicts and warfare-driven globalization for the unbridled control of universal wealth and, thereby, in the environmental destruction, politico-economic as well as strategic apartheid, and a series cf holocausts on local, regional, national, internatinal, and global levels. Unfortthately numerous ever-worsening patterns of unsustainable development – global warming-driven climate change, widespread extreme poverty, globalization of warfare, contamination of all environmental media, and retarded economic growth – prove the multiple failures of the conventional global political economy to increase the universal wellbeing and happiness of majority of humans in the world as well as authenticate Nassau Senior’s defective and myopic vision and definition of economics – ‘Economics is a science of wealth, not of welfare’. In light of the pertinent literature, this article contributes an objective critique of secular global political economy and economic systems’ socially, economically, environmentally, politically, and strategically unsustainable, disasterous, and defective dynamics of the purely materialistic wealth-war nexus, which minimizes the individual, socioeconomic, and political welfare of the gobal masses by extremely irresponsibly using its international, regional and global geopolitics of mercilessly dividing and ruling the humanity for its enslavement as well as engineering, instituting, fueling, and perpetuating internecine conflicts, clashes, and warfare that killed millions of people as well as socioeconomically destroyed and humiliated their families in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Americas. Here it is pertinent to note the inherentlly self-destructive, limited process of wealth formation based on humans’ relentless unidirectional pursuit of material wealth alone by hook or by crook. In light of both the literature and the theoretical as well as objective politico-economic analysis of the dynamics of the currently prevalent global politico-economic system of the wealth-driven Hot and Cold Wars, it highlights the actual patterns of unsustainable development resulting from the the current global poltical economic system of Hot and Cold wars as well as the pertinent sustaiable developmeental policy implications and recommendations for realizing potential peace-driven universal sustainable development of humanity.
