Ross James Gildea’s research while affiliated with Columbia University and other places

This article examines the role of values in multilateral cooperation. We argue that multilateralism possesses core, non-instrumental values – namely, a spirit of collectivity, inclusivity over exclusivity, and negotiated governance – that distinguish it from other forms of international cooperation. These values, embedded within institutional frameworks and practices, may underpin multilateralism’s continued relevance in addressing contemporary foreign policy challenges, including great power competition, illiberal politics, and multipolarity. The article critiques the policy dichotomy between values and interests, identifying points of conceptual overlap and proposing that multilateralism provides a normative context through which divergent state preferences may be shaped and navigated. By distinguishing between formal, superficial, and substantive multilateralism, the article offers an analytical framework to evaluate the quality of multilateral engagement and its implications for global governance. It concludes by reflecting on multilateralism’s potential to address the complexities of contemporary world politics.

Why do human rights INGOs choose to work on some issues and not others? This article contends that, since the 1990s, the proliferation of issues within the remit of human rights INGOs has increased the moral opportunity costs of selection decisions. Growth in the number and diversity of issues has led to a “selection dilemma” where decision-makers face onerous ethical choices among a significant menu of options. To explain how decision-makers deal with this dilemma, the article builds on existing theoretical work on INGOs, primarily by constructivists, proposing that heuristic-led judgment on the part of key decision-makers is a central determinant in the (non-)adoption of issues. This explanation is examined empirically using a within-case paired analysis of decision-making in Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The article’s findings provide preliminary evidence that heuristics shape selection outcomes in INGOs, adding further weight to IR scholarship, which stresses the influence of psychology and leaders in organizational and group decision-making.

How should rapid developments in digital and cyber technology shape our understanding of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? And in operationalising the doctrine, how might insights on the impact of technology be integrated within key tools of R2P implementation, such as the United Nations Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes? Although prior literature has produced rich discussion of R2P as a norm, and of the politics surrounding it, analysts have paid ‘far less attention to what R2P looks like in practice’, especially with regard to advances in new technology. In this article we contend that, whether we look at the future of R2P through a normative/legal lens, or from a policy/operational perspective, grappling with the impact of technology on the practical realities of mass atrocity situations is of critical importance. To explore this argument, we empirically engage with one of the primary tools through which the implementation of R2P has benefited, the UN Framework of Analysis on Atrocity Crimes ( unfaac ).

Theories of decision-making grounded in political psychology have experienced a dramatic rise in the study of International Relations. There is widespread recognition of the benefits of incorporating insights from the behavioural sciences into analyses of political behaviour. However, some scholars have argued that the theoretical and empirical scope of these perspectives remains hampered by an unresolved issue: aggregation. While the fundamental unit of interest in psychology is the individual, most International Relations models concern patterns of collective decision-making in aggregate units such as states, bureaucracies, armed groups, transnational networks and institutions. This article contributes to the aggregation debate by providing a more optimistic portrait of its implications for interdisciplinary work. I argue that aggregation may be an overstated problem in International Relations and that a disciplinary preoccupation with it may hinder rather than pave the way for interdisciplinary theorizing.