The Role of UNEP and UNDP in Multilateral Environmental Agreements

This study examines the role of the UN’s programmes for environment and development (UNEP and UNDP) in the genesis and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). This is set in the wider context of the changing dominant focus of the international agenda, from ‘environment’ at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, to ‘environment and development’ at Rio in 1992, and ‚sustainable development’ in Johannesburg in 2002. UNDP is a development organisation strongly rooted in its country office network. Its role is becoming increasingly normative however, particularly since 2002 when UNDP opted to root most of its activities on the Millennium Development Goals. UNEP, as an environmental organisation has been successful at catalysing MEAs at the global and regional level; but without a significant increase in its budget over 30 years, its capacity has been spread very thinly. Many of the institutional arrangements for MEAs have effectively become independent of UNEP resulting in a very loosely and sometimes poorly coordinated network. Two case studies are used to illustrate the current institutional arrangements: UNEP’s Regional Seas Conventions and Protocols, and the Convention for Biological Diversity. These illustrate the fragmentation of current institutions, the need for strengthened technical and scientific support, the importance of addressing problems at their root causes and the need to increase the devolution of global governance to the regional level. Satisfying the identified needs requires actions within the remit of both UNEP and UNDP. It is argued that current institutional arrangements have not kept pace with the requirements of evolving policy. As part of a reform process, one option may be to merge the two programmes into a single structure that conserves and strengthens vital technical functions but enables a balanced and integrated approach to sustainable development.     

Asian Sexuality or Singapore Exceptionalism?

Is there such a thing as “Asian sexuality”? Do Asians approach sex in particular ways that are uniquely cultural? Some “Eastern” sex manuals published in English cover the “tao” and tantric philosophies of sex, highlighting the pleasures of Asian styles. Yet, any discourse on “Asian sexuality” must be an orientalist one that pits the West versus the East (Asian). In Singapore, there is an official discourse of sexuality that similarly essentializes West versus East (Asian), and this discourse has long served as the rationale or alibi for repressive sexual policies. In particular, these official constructions make “Asians” as sexually conservative. This essay deconstructs the meaning of “Asian sexuality” as used in the Singapore context and shows the contradictions inherent in official policies that adopt Western colonial laws to proscribe certain sexual practices—albeit in the name of “Asian values”.     

The Development of Criminal Style in Adolescence and Young Adulthood: Separating the Lemmings from the Loners

Despite broad consensus that most juvenile crimes are committed with peers, many questions regarding developmental and individual differences in criminal style (i.e., co-offending vs. solo offending) remain unanswered. Using prospective 3-year longitudinal data from 937 14- to 17-year-old serious male offenders, the present study investigates whether youths tend to offend alone, in groups, or a combination of the two; whether these patterns change with age; and whether youths who engage in a particular style share distinguishing characteristics. Trajectory analyses examining criminal styles over age revealed that, while most youth evinced both types of offending, two distinct groups emerged: an increasingly solo offender trajectory (83%); and a mixed style offender trajectory (17%). Alternate analyses revealed (5.5%) exclusively solo offenders (i.e., only committed solo offenses over 3 years). There were no significant differences between groups in individuals?? reported number of friends, quality of friendships, or extraversion. However, the increasingly solo and exclusively solo offenders reported more psychosocial maturity, lower rates of anxiety, fewer psychopathic traits, less gang involvement and less self reported offending than mixed style offenders. Findings suggest that increasingly and exclusively solo offenders are not loners, as they are sometimes portrayed, and that exclusively solo offending during adolescence, while rare and previously misunderstood, may not be a risk factor in and of itself.