BACKGROUND: The wildlife trade is an important arena for intervention in the prevention of emerging zoonoses, and leading organisations have advocated for more collaborative, multi-sectoral approaches to governance in this area. The aim of this study is to characterise the structure and function of the network of transnational organisations that interact around the governance of wildlife trade for the prevention of emerging zoonoses, and to assess these network characteristics in terms of how they might support or undermine progress on these issues.
METHODS: This study used a mixed methods social network analysis of transnational organisations. Data were collected between May 2021 and September 2022. Participants were representatives of transnational organisations involved in the governance of wildlife trade and the prevention of emerging zoonoses. An initial seed sample of participants was purposively recruited through professional networks, and snowball sampling was used to identify additional participants. Quantitative data were collected through an online network survey. Measures of centrality (degree, closeness, and betweenness) were calculated and the network\'s largest clique was identified and characterised. To understand the extent to which organisations were connected across sectors, homophily by sector was assessed using exponential random graph modelling. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews. The findings from the quantitative analysis informed the focus of the qualitative analysis. Qualitative data were explored using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants completed the network survey and 17 key informants participated in semi-structured interviews. A total of 69 organisations were identified as belonging to this network. Organisations spanned the animal, human, and environmental health sectors, among others including trade, food and agriculture, and crime. Organisation types included inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, treaty secretariats, research institutions, and network organisations. Participants emphasised the highly inter-sectoral nature of this topic and the importance of inter-sectoral work, and connections were present across existing sectors. However, there were many barriers to effective interaction, particularly conflicting goals and agendas. Power dynamics also shaped relationships between actors, with the human health sector seen as better resourced and more influential, despite having historically lower engagement than the environmental and animal health sectors around the wildlife trade and its role in emerging zoonoses.
CONCLUSIONS: The network of transnational organisations focused on the governance of wildlife trade and the prevention of emerging zoonoses is highly multi-sectoral, but despite progress catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic, barriers still exist for inter-sectoral interaction and coordination. A One Health approach to governance at this level, which has gained traction throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, was shared as a promising mechanism to support a balancing of roles and agendas in this space. However, this must involve agreement around equity, priorities, and clear goal setting to support effective action.

BACKGROUND: There are only two major statements which define alcohol policy development at the global level. There has not been any comparative analysis of the details of these key texts, published in 2010 and 2022 respectively, including how far they constitute similar or evolving approaches to alcohol harm.
METHODS: Preparatory data collection involved examination of documents associated with the final policy statements. A thematic analysis across the two policy documents was performed to generate understanding of continuity and change based on comparative study. Study findings are interpreted in the contexts of the evolving conceptual and empirical literatures.
RESULTS: Both documents exhibit shared guiding principles and identify similar governance challenges, albeit with varying priority levels. There is more emphasis on the high-impact interventions on price, availability and marketing in 2022, and more stringent targets have been set for 2030 in declaring alcohol as a public health priority therein, reflecting the action-oriented nature of the Plan. The identified roles of policy actors have largely remained unchanged, albeit with greater specificity in the more recent statement, appropriately so because it is concerned with implementation. The major exception, and the key difference in the documents, regards the alcohol industry, which is perceived primarily as a threat to public health in 2022 due to commercial activities harmful to health and because policy interference has slowed progress.
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30 potentially marks a pivotal moment in global alcohol policy development, though it is unclear how fully it may be implemented. Perhaps, the key advances lie in advancing the ambitions of alcohol policy and clearly identifying that the alcohol industry should not be seen as any kind of partner in public health policymaking, which will permit progress to the extent that this influences what actually happens in alcohol policy at the national level.

How we choose to respond to uncertainty matters for robust and responsible science. New laws and consensus reports are popular instruments for global governance of emerging technology and attendant uncertainty. However, the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu noted that \"[t]he judicial situation operates like a neutral space that neutralizes the stakes in any conflict through the de-realization and distancing implicit in the conversion of a direct struggle between parties into a dialogue between mediators.\" Put in other words, while law and legal modes of reasoning are certainly useful for conflict resolution and closure, their overprivileging in emerging technology and uncertainty governance can potentially bring about depoliticization by transforming the struggles and dissent necessary for democratic governance into a \"dialogue between mediators.\" Hence, the critical sociological gaze offered by Bourdieu is particularly relevant for democratization of global governance of multiomics technologies and timely with the current uptake of personalized medicine. For example, in May 2023, the Romanian government introduced a law to give patients the right to personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is related to the larger umbrella concept and field of theranostics, the fusion of therapeutics and diagnostics. It is therefore timely to reflect on a \"right for theranostics in planetary health,\" considering the potential for future pandemics and ecological crises in the 21st century. Rather than forcing consensus or convergence in an innovation ecosystem, dissent grounded in rigorous political theory, sociology of law and critical legal studies can strengthen democratization and global governance for personalized medicine and multiomics technologies.

The liberal international economic order has been facing high-profile legitimacy challenges in recent years. This article puts these challenges in historical context through a systematic analysis of rhetorical challenges towards both the order per se and specific global economic institutions. Drawing on Albert Hirschman\'s classic typology of exit, voice and loyalty, we coded leaders\' speeches in the General Debate at the UN General Assembly between 1970 and 2018 as articulating intentions to abandon elements of the order, challenges or calls for reform, unequivocal support, or factual mentions of cooperation. Surprisingly, we find that explicit criticisms towards the liberal order are at an all-time low and that exit threats remain rare. An analysis of the historical evolution of criticisms to global economic institutions reveals a move away from the Cold War insider-outsider conflict towards insider contestation. For example, we find that as countries\' economies become more open, their leaders expressed more support for global economic institutions during the Cold War but less support since. Finally, we demonstrate consistency between the public policy positions leaders announce in UNGA General Debate speeches and their government positions on consequential reform debates on debt relief.

Science diplomacy is coming to the fore as a formidable dimension of interstate power relations. As the challenges of the world increasingly transcend borders, so too have researchers and innovators forged international coalitions to resolve global pathologies. In doing so, new channels of influence and opportunity have opened up for states alongside the \'traditional\' modes of foreign diplomacy. Understanding how these channels influence global socio-economic outcomes is thereby crucial for scholars interested in the still-ambiguous structure and processes of global governance. This article advances understanding of the domains of science diplomacy by drawing attention to the \'political intercostalities\' of state actors, scientific communities and other transnational actors within the new architectures of global governance. Here we trace the growing array of informal international associations alongside transgovernmental policy networks and \'global public-policy partnerships\' that deal with highly specialised and technical matters of international policy and how they are drawn into science diplomacy. This article thus presents a research agenda for a particular mode of \'impact\' in politics and international studies.

The equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines is one of the most important tests of global cooperation that the world has faced in recent decades. Collectively, global leaders failed that crucible abysmally, creating a \'vaccine apartheid\' that divided the world according to income into countries with widespread access and those without. Why, given that leaders were fully aware of the risks and injustice of vaccine inequity, did governments of wealthy countries hoard doses, impede the expansion of vaccine manufacturing and otherwise prevent equitable access to vaccines? We argue that their decisions to act selfishly are best explained by governments\' accountability to domestic constituencies, their lack of leadership and commitment to multilateralism and their adoption of short-term perspectives, as well as their unwillingness to curb the influence of profit-oriented global pharmaceutical companies and, to a certain extent, of an additional private actor, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The COVID-19 pandemic put the life science sector to the test. Vaccines were developed at unprecedented speed, benefiting from decades of fundamental research and now honoured by a Nobel Prize. However, we saw that the fruits of science were inequitably distributed. Most low- and middle-income countries were left behind, deepening the inequalities that the Sustainable Development Goals were set to reduce. We argue that the life science sector must reinvent itself to be better and more equitably prepared for the next health crisis and to ensure fair access to health across current and future generations. Our recommendations include global governance, national strategies and the role of universities and corporations. Improved and more equitable health care should be centre stage for global health action and a core mission of a reframed Life Science sector - what we call Life Science 2.0.Paper ContextMain findings: During the COVID-19 pandemic the Life Science sector stepped up to the challenge, but vaccines and medicines were not equitably distributed.Added knowledge: Obstacles were identified that hindered global access to medical innovations.Global health impact for policy and action: Global and national governance, universities and the private sector should join forces to create a Life Science sector (Life Science 2.0) that affords equitable access to medical advances across geographical and generational boundaries and socio-economic strata.

International institutions strive to achieve their own objectives while operating within a complex network of interdependencies. These interdependencies create an extensive web of relationships that serve as potential pathways for broader institutional impacts. The actions taken by individual institutions, their mutual influences, and the pattern of connectivity collectively shape the overall performance of institutional complexes. Understanding the performance of these complexes is crucial, yet we currently lack a methodology to assess it. To address this gap, we have developed a conceptual framework that integrates three distinct areas of study on three different scales: institutional effectiveness, institutional interlinkages, and institutional networks. This framework enables us to consider what we call the latent net effectiveness, or collective problem-solving potential, of a group of interconnected institutions. To put this framework into practice, we have devised a heuristic model, drawing from the extensive literature on international environmental institutions. As an illustrative example, we have applied this model to a network of 378 multilateral environmental agreements with 810 known issue linkages. Our work underscores the relevance of considering the system-level properties of institutional complexes and emphasizes the need for timely network-based governance and policy interventions to enhance the overall effectiveness of institutional complexes. This article is part of the theme issue \'A complexity science approach to law and governance\'.

Transnational public-private governance initiatives (TGIs) have become key elements in global governance, especially in the governance of sustainability. Pertinent research has concentrated on why TGIs have emerged as well as on their impacts on political outcomes and questions related to their legitimacy. This instructive literature has predominantly focused on TGIs as entities in their own right. This explorative study contributes to the literature by advocating a complementary analytical perspective that pays attention to domestic-level patterns of participation in TGIs and national factors that determine which types of organizations (public, business, or civil society) participate in TGIs. It is shown for six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) that there exists cross-country variation in the composition patterns in 29 TGIs on sustainability, suggesting that national conditions matter for how organizations participate in them. By improving the knowledge of the national conditions, a more complete analysis of participation and the effectiveness of TGIs can be provided in global sustainability governance. In this spirit, in a last step, an agenda is developed for guiding future research on this topic.

In 2020, the Secretariat of the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an open consultation, with public submissions, for the purpose of developing an Alcohol Action Plan to \"strengthen implementation\" of the WHO\'s 2010 Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol. The consultation process and public submissions provided an opportunity to critically examine alcohol industry perspectives and arguments in relation to the global governance of alcohol.
48 alcohol industry submissions to the WHO\'s 2020 consultation were included for analysis. Directed content analysis was used to examine the policy positions and arguments made by industry actors. Thematic analysis was employed to further explore the framing of industry arguments.
In framing their arguments, alcohol industry actors positioned themselves as important stakeholders in policy debates; differentiated \"normal\" drinking from consumption that merits intervention; argued that alcohol policy should be made at the national, rather than global, level; and supported industry self-regulation or co-regulation rather than cost-effective public health measures to prevent harms from alcohol.
The alcohol industry\'s submissions to the WHO\'s 2020 consultation could be seen as efforts to stymie improvements in the global governance of alcohol, and repeats several framing strategies that the industry has used in other forums, both national and global. However, their arguments appear to have had little traction in the creation of the Alcohol Action Plan. Changes from the Working Document to the adopted Action Plan show little acceptance by WHO of industry arguments.