This special issue is the first collection of papers written in Japanese on the SDGs in the discipline of international relations. It is published in a timely manner at the half way of the SDGs. Agreed by consensus by all the UN member states in 2015, the SDGs are now recognized by around 80% of population in Japan. As compared to this remarkable number of recognition, only little number of population “understand” what SDGs are. The same seems to be applied to academic community. This special issue is hoping to serve for deeper understanding of the SDGs.

We have covered a wide range of issues in this collection. Maeda focuses on non-human perspective and propose bringing such perspective into the study of the SDGs, which could help overcoming shortcomings of the traditional and human-centered international relations. Miyoshiro and Katada bring their attention to business sector. Ways that business practices could contribute to the SDGs, as well as business and human rights issues are addressed. Mashima deals with gender issue, where she focuses on norm that functions for reaching the goals. Hayashi identifies some of the issues that needs more attention in the implementation process of the SDGs by focusing on the SDGs’ impact on NGOs.

As the governance through goals is a new methodology and concept for global governance, we need to explore various dimensions of this novel global governance strategy. With serious problems that hinder attainment of the SDGs, such as COVID 19 pandemic, climate crisis and the war in Ukraine, practical demand is also mounting. I hope this special issue paves the way for further study of the SDGs and governance through goal setting in Japan and beyond, and that more transdisciplinary and problem oriented research are employed in the community.

“Transforming” is the keyword for goal-based governance under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which began in 2015. Underlying the word, there is a sense of crisis that human beings will destroy the Earth and the human race will become extinct if current conditions continue as they are. However, there have been criticisms of the SDGs, such as (1) “society is not monolithic” and (2) it is impossible to achieve the goals while preserving capitalism itself.

In this regard, stances on the SDGs are diverse between those who aim to achieve the goals while revising the current capitalist system and those who advocate a decisive break from it. Regardless of which position one takes, however, “the environment” has been black-boxed as a passive entity to be destroyed by economic development, and the subjectivity of the environment itself has not been examined.

This paper argues that while each of the goals of the SDGs is worth pursuing, this black-boxed of the non-human attributes to three “cognitive biases” that lie on the human side of the SDG drivers, and as a result, it is difficult to cultivate a sense of wonder, leading the SDGs unachievable. To overcome this situation and deepen the SDGs, it will redefine the word “partnership,” adding the existence of non-humans, identify the lack of awareness that “life is in the flow, and confirm the significance of Lovelock’s Gaia theory, which promotes understanding of the self-regulating system of the Earth. This paper focuses on the Gaia theory because non-humans will play a significant role in understanding the relationship between Earth and humans lives, contributing to achieving the SDGs. First, it clarifies the origin of air and water on Earth. Second and third, it identifies why the Earth does not become an extreme cold zone for life, and why the Earth does not turn into a scorching hot zone for life. It also reminds emergent properties and dynamic equilibrium in Gaia theory to overcome cognitive bias by the separated understanding of goals and targets.

Finally, it will close by confirming that the SDGs need to be updated in a way that enables us to be aware of both the destruction of the Earth due to the de facto “state of war” between humankind and the Earth and the “cycle of life” that includes non-humans.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) initiatives by companies have gained high expectations from various stakeholders given the increasing role of companies around the globe. However, there are two major obstacles for companies to implement such initiatives; (i) the nonbinding nature of SDGs and (ii) the perception that such SDGs initiatives do not leads to corporate profit.

As a solution to these obstacles, this paper focuses on ESG investment and its mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. ESG investment refers to the investment in companies that address environmental (E), social (S), and corporate governance (G) issues, which are referred to as “ESG issues”.

The first section compares SDGs and ESG investment. SDGs are fixed issues that various governments agreed in 2015 to resolve by 2030. ESG, in contrast, is a framework in which investors and companies will apply to address environment/social issues in priority determined by investors/companies. The specifics of E-S-G have changed over the years to reflect the social and environmental issues of the time and the environment surrounding investors and companies. Therefore, an increase in the amount of ESG investment does not necessarily mean that all the goals of SDGs will be achieved. On the other hand, companies are increasingly aligning their ESG focuses with SDGs. Given the overlap between ESG and SDGs, ESG investment contributes in achieving SDGs.

The second section illustrates the mechanism of ESG investment in addressing environmental and social issues surrounding companies. ESG investment differs from ordinal investment mechanism in two new ways. First, it provides indicators and data on a company’s efforts to address ESG issues, which forms part of “non-financial information” that has not been measured in the past. Second, investors now utilize this indexed and databased information when incorporating ESG and actively engaging with companies.

In the third section, this paper introduces case studies of the Government Pension Investment Fund of Japan (“GPIF”) and BlackRock, Inc. to demonstrate how ESG investment has actually contributed in achieving SDGs. When GPIF announced the introduction of an ESG index in 2017, listed companies widely recognized ESG investment. Since then, Japanese companies have increasingly promoted SDGs, such as climate change and gender diversity. BlackRock has drastically changed its investment policy towards ESG in 2020, and since then it has voted in favor of a significant number of pro-climate change related shareholder resolutions. In the ExxonMobil’s case, investors including BlackRock appointed three environmentalist directors to ExxonMobil’s board. Then half a year from such appointment, ExxonMobil declared its intention to become net zero by 2050.

Commitment to SDGs by large institutional investors is having a significant impact on companies. As a consequence, more and more companies are connecting their issues to SDGs.

Business for Peace (B4P) is a platform to strengthen the private sector’s role in peace, and along with B4P development, how business can contribute to peace has become a notable research topic. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have two relevant features not included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One is the inclusion of peace (Goal 16), and another is the emphasis given to the private sector’s participation in development included as “partnership” (Goal 17). B4P development is also aligned with the Business and Human Rights (BHR) norms, which oblige the private sector to respect human rights. Furthermore, the development of B4P studies is based on the Peace through Commerce research, which identified five main areas of business contribution to peace: economic growth, the rule of law and external valuation principles, community formation, track-two diplomacy, and conflict-sensitive practice and risk assessment.

Against this backdrop, this study aims to enhance ongoing theorization efforts in the B4P field by discussing the relevance of BHR and the SDGs for businesses to contribute to peace. In this study, five recent B4P case studies (Iraq, Colombia, Nepal, the Philippines, and Bosnia and Herzegovina), including an original study, were reviewed to draw a new perspective on additional ways businesses contribute to peace. The five cases vary in terms of the context and the length of the peacebuilding process. However, a strong theme emerging from all five cases is the importance of the relationship between businesses and the community. Businesses can contribute to peace by increasing the community’s ability to progress towards SDGs. One way to do so is employment, and in some cases, even combatants are employed. Another way is the capacity building of the community. Also, businesses can create a network that may become a community across the politically created divisions which enhances peace. In terms of the SDGs, the businesses can approach peace directly through Goals 16, 17 and 8 (economic growth, employment and decent work) while at the same time supporting other goals.

Further case studies covering various conflict contexts will enhance the B4P theorization. One of the questions to be addressed in future studies is the relationship between businesses trying to contribute to peace and the state authorities where peacebuilding is taking place. Particularly, what businesses should do in case of an abrupt regime change is a challenging issue to which BHR due diligence cannot provide a sufficient answer.

Sex trafficking is a major threat to women in achieving gender equality, one of the development goals of the SDGs. This article addresses the issue of “buying sex” with emphasis on the targets of the SDGs: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere” and “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.” Previous studies on sex trafficking often focus on victims, with a little research on buyers. The concept of “women’s security” was developed by the theory of gender international relations, which explored the theory of human security through feminism and constantly sought what threats are to women.

Based on these, the research question in this article is: “Does buying sex threaten women?” This article points out men’s responsibility as buyers and explains its harmfulness. First, buying sex is a demand for sex trafficking. The specific motivations and preferences of sex buyers are driving demand for the illegal supply of women. Second, buying sex is associated with violence against women. Sex buyers are not able to distinguish between trafficking victims and voluntary sex workers. Third, buying sex is an indication of disregard for women’s safety. A society that tolerates buying sex neglects the various risks imposed on women. Some countries have legalized or decriminalized prostitution to counter sex trafficking. However, these systems have not effectively controlled sex buyers and have not led to elimination of discrimination against women.

On the other hand, Sweden was the first country to introduce the prostitution law in 1999, which regards the purchase of sex as a form of male violence against women and prohibits it. Since the adoption of this law, the number of the purchaser has been decreased, the market for the sex industry has shrunk, and criminal organizations have been disappointed with the Swedish market. This is an effective way to combat sex trafficking. While this law only engages sex purchasers and does not penalize selling sex, the Swedish government ignores the stigma against prostitutes. It also discriminates against foreign prostitutes by not providing them with the necessary services and expelling them. These attitudes have been condemned as “punitive humanitarian” and have turned out to be new threats to women, particularly foreigners.

While many countries consider sex trafficking to be a serious problem, the efforts to combat it vary from country to country. I believe it is time to establish international norms because sex trafficking is international crime that requires regional and international cooperation.

While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are generally discussed in light of “governance through goals,” this article deals with the SDGs as an international norm and treats them as soft law—a set of the norm consisting of goals, targets, and indicators. In particular, this article focuses on SDG 11, which is concerned with sustainable cities and communities. However, when SDG 11 came out in 2015, there was already an existing norm for sustainable urban development—a norm of smart cities. Currently, smart cities attract attention as a potential solution for global issues, such as climate change, energy consumption, and population growth.

The aim of this article is to assess norm pathways for sustainable urban development by exploring the relationship between SDG 11 and the norm of smart cities (although this is not to deny that there are other urban-related SDGs, such as SDG 3 (health), SDG 4 (education), SDG 6 (water), SDG 7 (energy), and SDG 9 (innovation) among others).

Drawing upon the literature of smart cities, this article first looks at how the norm of smart cities has been developed. In the initial smart city debate, being “smart” typically referred to the utilization of information communication technologies (ICT); however, such an ICT-led vision was criticized because it failed to take into account the multiple dimensions of smart cities, including quality of life, environment, and citizen participation among others. This article investigates how a more “integrated” and “sustainable” approach for smart cities has been promoted, especially after the adoption of the SDGs.

This article argues that SDG11 transformed the smart city norm to an “international” norm, while the smart city norm was originally developed as a norm for global ICT corporations and local governments. Moreover, such transformation was accelerated by digitalization. Current smart city projects entail collecting, processing, and analyzing big data using artificial intelligence. Consequently, due to the recent debate on the governance of data, the smart city norm is now concerned with emerging issues, such as information security, privacy, and transparency within smart city projects. Such an interface between data governance and smart cities has pushed the smart city norm increasingly toward international concerns against the backdrop of the incompatible national positions of governing data. The article concludes by highlighting an institutional complexity for smart cities, as the number of international regimes and bodies addressing smart cities has increased in the era of the SDGs and data governance.

The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 marked a significant shift in global environmental governance since the SDGs placed the environment as one of the three pillars along with social and economic dimensions and implemented the integration of the three pillars and its 17 goals. From this background, the integration of several international environmental issues through the SDGs has become one of the crucial topics for the progress of global environmental governance.

Previous literature has revealed mixed opinions on this research agenda. While one study argues that the SDGs function as a benchmark that enhances cross-sectional integration, another states that the SDGs are merely a reflection of the fragmentation of global governance. However, the previous studies do not fully examine the operation of the SDGs in the discussion process of global environmental problems. Examining how the SDGs are used in consultative frameworks of international environmental issues and how such operation of SDGs contributes to the enhancement of cross-sectional integration of international environmental issues would augment the research on the SDGs and international environmental governance.

Based on this context, this article conducts a case study that examines how the SDGs are used in a global discussion of a certain international environmental issue and what effect the SDGs can exert on cooperation among international consultative frameworks related to the issue. Specifically, this research focuses on marine plastic litter, which is an international environmental issue that experienced global progress after the adoption of the SDGs. The article analyses the discussions of the issue held in the United Nations Environmental Assembly, which placed this issue as a problem related to SDG14 and the Basel Convention Framework, which determined its conventional agenda related to SDG12.

While there was global recognition that environmentally sound waste management on land is crucial against marine plastic litter problems before the adoption of the SDGs, discussions on the issue remained in the field of the marine environment. However, after the adoption of the SDGs, UN organizations published reports that examined the relationship between marine plastic litter and the SDGs, especially concerning SDG14. In addition, with the inputs from the secretariats, both frameworks repeatedly mentioned that marine plastic litter is an issue related to both SDG12 and 14 in their discussion documents, which enhanced recognition of the significance of cooperation among both frameworks. Consequently, the Basel Convention Framework, which was originally a framework for environmentally sound waste management, altered its regulation as a measure against marine plastic litter. This case illustrates that repeated specification of related SDGs in the documents of a consultative framework of international environmental issues would visualize sectional relationships of the problem and enhance recognition of the significance of cooperation among associated frameworks. As such efforts were conducted by the UN secretariats, the case implies that effective use of the SDGs in multilateral coordination processes can comprise a potential tool for international organizations to exert influence.

In 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were set up by the United Nations. Development NGOs are considered as a key player in achieving the 17 goals of the SDGs and, therefore, there are an increasing number of NGOs actively involved in this. This paper analyses the changing role of development NGOs in the era of SDGs.

Development NGOs evolved with an expectation of proposing alternative ways in development in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then, NGOs have gained influence in service provision and policy formulation processes. After MDGs were created by the UN in 2000, donor countries expanded support to NGOs to achieve the goals of MDGs and, as a result, NGOs came under scrutiny because they were too close to donors and their autonomy was questioned.

This paper analyses how the introduction of the SDGs, which replaced MDGs, has influenced the roles and functions of development NGOs from three perspectives: donor support to NGOs, civic space, and new actors in development. In concluding, this paper argues that NGOs have experienced a changing environment in the era of SDGs where the NGOs’ role has been confined to service provision and their advocacy function has been minimized.

Firstly, development NGOs have been getting closer to donor countries under the SDGs governance, as donors see NGOs as service providers to achieve the goals and provide more funds to service delivery NGOs. Secondly, the shrinking of civic space has accelerated after 2015. As indicators on civic space have deteriorated, more countries have intensified efforts to crack down on civil society organizations, especially advocacy NGOs. Thirdly, under the SDGs governance, new actors such as the private sector and philanthropy organizations have increased their presence and pursued a neoliberal approach to development. Although the approach is contradictory to the NGOs’ approach, NGOs are expected to work closely with the new actors and achieve the goals as service providers.

While NGOs have gained mainstream acceptance as one of the main actors in achieving the SDGs’ goals, they have come under pressure from governments and new actors to confine their role to service provision and to retreat from advocacy work seeking alternative ways in development. Further advocacy work is required by NGOs at the global level to restore the roles and functions that they were originally expected to play.

The 1980s is regarded by numerous scholars as a golden age of the Anglo-American ‘Special Relationship’ which developed during the Second World War. Neoliberalism which Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan upheld became a driving force to the end of the Cold War, and constituted a fundamental part of the international order after the Cold War.

However, since the UK’s economic situation at the beginning of the 1980s had been at its nadir, the Thatcher Government’s prospects for survival were depressing. In this circumstance, the Falklands Conflict began on 2 April 1982. Thatcher’s political life and the fate of the ‘the age of neoliberalism’ came to depend on whether the UK could retake the islands or not.

Although the UK needed support from the US in order to retake the islands, the Reagan Government maintained neutrality because Argentina was a strategic partner of the anti-communist policy of the US. Nevertheless, the Reagan Government decided to side with the UK at the end of April. As a result, the UK accomplished retaking the islands due to the support from the US.

Most previous studies focus on the relations between Thatcher and Reagan, and argue mutual trust between them was the main factor of the American support to the UK. However, there were serious disagreements between the leaders as Richard Aldous calls it ‘the difficult relationship’. Therefore, this study focuses on the role of Sir Nicholas Henderson, the British Ambassador to the US during the Falklands Conflict. British Ambassadors to the US have been a vital means to preserve a healthy transatlantic relationship. Thatcher regards Henderson’s ability during the conflict highly in her memoir.

Henderson sought the support from the American public and Congress while he was engaging in negotiations with the US government. His efforts can be divided into two phases. First, he tried to persuade the American public and Congress to support the UK, aiming to make the Reagan Government switch its neutrality. Second, he tried to sustain US support to the UK while fending off criticism which had arisen since the battle began on 1 May. In addition, this study proclaims that Henderson’s ambassadorial diplomacy during the conflict was supported by the well-organised Embassy and his personal connections in Washington D.C.

In recent years, the content of bilateral investment agreements has changed. Traditional investment agreements detailed provisions to protect investors and their property from expropriation by host countries and the arbitrary operation of domestic laws. Since then, provisions have been added to remove such barriers to entry for foreign investment. Conversely, as economic globalization progresses, an increasing number of countries try to include provisions that strengthen the government’s regulatory authority over foreign investment in investment agreements.

Scholars in international politics have paid little attention to such changes in the provisions of investment agreements; however, Manger and Peinhardt (2017) interprets these changes as legal precision, asserting that the driver of such precision is the fact that home capital-exporting states have recently appeared as respondents in investor-state arbitration. Although the number of cases of capital-exporting states being sued for arbitration is rising, the number is currently minimal, and the articles of model investment agreements in recent years do not appear to be as clear as the previous study claims. While new provisions have been introduced to strengthen government authority, many investment agreements continue to retain provisions to liberalize foreign investments.

This paper investigates the factors that determine the development of such hybrid investment agreements. It analyzes the revision process of the US model investment agreement and the arguments occurring within domestic politics, such as the US government, parliament, companies, and trade unions, over changes to the provisions in the model investment agreement, by reading primary material, such as papers on hearings. Initially, the main forces promoting the revision of the model investment agreement were environmental and human rights groups; their main argument being that the environment and working conditions in developing countries should be subject to provisions to prevent deterioration and attract investment. The issue gradually shifted to how US law governs foreign investment activities. Trade unions argued that the rights of US citizens, particularly regarding employment, should be protected by the US government over companies’ investment activities. However, industry has taken a firm stance against this, asserting that such claims will limit US companies’ liberalized investment activities overseas. The final US model investment agreement demonstrated a compromise between these two sides. Compared with the conventional model agreement, various provisions strengthen governmental regulatory authority, but no amendments to restrict US companies’ overseas investment activities are included. Through the above case analysis, this paper argues that the current investment agreement can be explained by two factors: expansion of inward foreign direct investment and expansion of foreign direct investment.

As the political system of the European Union (EU) is characterised by pluralism, the study of interest representation in the EU has developed since the mid-1980s. While the study of EU lobbying has focused on lobbying aimed at the European Commission as the agenda-setter, lobbying aimed at the European Parliament (EP) has recently become an point of critical focus due to the growing role of the EP in EU policymaking. The role of political groups in lobbying aimed at the EP has made scholars inspired by lobbying studies which focus on the United States Congress. While some argue that interest groups mainly lobby political groups supporting their aims (friendly political groups), it has also been pointed out that groups lobby political groups that work against their aims (unfriendly political groups) as well. The latter argument emphasises the importance of these political groups’ size when lobbies choose to target unfriendly groups. However, an interest group’s incentive for lobbying would naturally be lowered if most members of a large unfriendly political group had different preferences than the interest group. In the reverse, the incentive would become higher if a large unfriendly political group was experiencing internal division and some members of the group shared similar preferences with those of the interest group.

With this point in mind, this article analyses lobbying aimed at political groups in the EP, focusing on how interest groups decide to target unfriendly political groups. When the European Commission’s preference regarding a certain policy issue is divergent from that of the EP, interest groups have more incentive to lobby the EP in order to change or maintain institutional balance among EU institutions. Therefore, to exemplify this situation, this article conducts a pilot case study about interest groups’ lobbying on Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) clauses in free trade agreements (FTAs) of the EU.

It firstly concludes that, according to the author’s interviews of interest groups and political groups in 2018, business associations and NGOs had direct contacts with members not only of friendly political groups but also of unfriendly groups. Additionally, when these groups chose to target unfriendly political groups, they took into account the groups’ ‘cohesiveness’ as well as their size. However, since trade unions did not lobby unfriendly political groups, this hypothesis on the relationship between lobbying and political groups’ ‘cohesiveness’ could be dependent on the type of interest groups. Secondly, the analysis of the EP discussion in the 7th–8th EP clarifies the gap between political groups’ cohesion (coherence of preferences) and interest groups’ perception of their ‘cohesiveness’, specifically in terms of centre-left and centre-right political groups. Finally, this article’s analysis could be more relevant to the 9th EP, where political groups’ configurations have become more fragmented.