Responsibility and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals
Responsibility and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/08039410.2016.1252424
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
Jonsson, Kristina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bexell, Magdalena;Jonsson, Kristina
本文探讨了2015年通过的联合国可持续发展目标（SDG）峰会文件中责任框架的主要问题。我们的概念框架通过区分三种主要的责任感：原因，义务和问责制，使SDG责任的研究更加系统化。该框架构建了我们对两份可持续发展目标峰会文件的分析，即《改造我们的世界：2030年可持续发展议程》和《阿迪斯行动议程》。这篇文章表明，首先，因果责任感隐藏在关于贫穷、债务和环境问题的段落的字里行间。因此，问题的根源可能得不到适当解决。其次，可持续发展目标峰会文件主要涉及义务意义上的责任。我们对一再考虑各国国情和非政府行为者的义务模糊表示关切。第三，关于问责制，我们强调，数量指标在审查阶段之前和之后都具有意想不到的指导作用。对指标的重视有可能掩盖更广泛的义务，如国际人权。在这三种意义上，可持续发展目标关键文件中的责任仍然以国家为中心，为国家主权、自我监管和尊重国情留下了巨大空间。我们的框架是有用的，也表明，这三种责任感建立在彼此和责任的参与提供了富有成效的基础，进一步研究。
This article asks what key concerns emerge from the way responsibility is framed in United Nations summit documents on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. Our conceptual framework serves to make the study of SDG responsibility more systematic by distinguishing three main senses of responsibility: cause, obligation, and accountability. The framework structures our analysis of two SDG summit documents, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. The article shows, first, that the causal sense of responsibility is hidden between the lines in paragraphs on poverty, debt and environmental issues. As a consequence, root causes of problems might not be appropriately addressed. Second, SDG summit documents deal predominantly with responsibility in the sense of obligation. We raise concerns with repeated consideration for national circumstances and with vague obligations for non-governmental actors. Third, with regard to accountability, we stress that quantitative indicators have unintended steering effects both before and beyond the review phase. The focus on indicators risks shadowing broader obligations, such as international human rights. In all its three senses, responsibility in key SDG documents remains statecentric with great room for state sovereignty, self-regulation and respect for national circumstances. Our framework is useful also in showing that the three senses of responsibility build on each other and that engagement with responsibility provides fruitful ground for further research.