As emerging markets rise, some incumbent firms that once occupied follower positions are now striving for industry leadership, surpassing competitors to become new frontrunners. These firms must overcome both competitive barriers and organizational identity (OI) challenges, constructing a leading organizational identity (LOI) that aligns with their new roles. This study delves into these transformations through the temporality lens of OI, using a comparative analysis of two Chinese firms, and identifies two distinct modes: progressive evolution and radical change. The progressive evolution mode adopts a more gradual, layer-by-layer iterative transition, whereas the radical change mode follows a ‘break and (re)build’ logic to identity structure. Both modes demonstrate a ripple effect of OI’s three structural layers, radiating outward from the core. Temporal dynamics play a pivotal role: the progressive evolution mode aligns with a more stable environment and a future-oriented, long-term temporal perspective, while the radical change mode is linked to a dynamic, unstable environment and a past-oriented, short- and long- term interactive temporal pattern. This study highlights how temporal orientation and temporal horizon shape the construction of an LOI, advancing research on OI construction and its temporal dynamics while providing insights into high-position leaps in emerging markets.

In Beyond the Law’s Reach? Shmuel Nili examines the moral responsibilities of affluent democracies toward poorer countries to whose misfortunes they contributed. Because of their entanglement, Nili argues, affluent democracies are (often, but not always) morally barred from pursuing policies more obviously aligned with their moral preferences when another policy would benefit the weakened state more. In this essay, I discuss some of the challenges of trying to repay a moral debt between states. The affluent democracy has incentives to underestimate the extent of its moral debt, while the weakened state benefits from overestimating the harm it suffered. Moreover, since the state is not a unitary actor, different members of a state might disagree on which actions should count as proper forms of atonement. I argue that moral debts cannot ever be fully repaid, but that such impossibility does not undermine the moral requirement to try to pay them; and, further, that the inability to fully settle a moral debt is not a shortcoming to lament, but closer to a blessing in disguise, because acknowledging past misdeeds and embracing the moral implications of deep entanglement may foster greater reciprocity and solidarity in the international realm.

This article reinterprets Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s invasions of Korea (1592–1598) as a project of revisionist order-building undertaken by a liminal polity situated between two competing systems: the declining Ming-centered Chinese international system and the advancing Spanish–Portuguese imperial order. Rather than viewing the invasions as products of domestic consolidation, megalomania, or simple expansionism, the study situates them within Japan’s systemic dilemma of in-betweenness. From this perspective, Hideyoshi’s campaigns represented an attempt to construct a Japan-centered international system designed to assert autonomy, deter Iberian colonization, and reconfigure regional hierarchy. Drawing on the concept of liminality in international relations (IR), the paper shows how actors at the margins of overlapping systems can exercise strategic agency – not only adapting to dominant orders but seeking to create alternative ones. Hideyoshi’s vision combined elements of the Chinese international system and deterrent signaling aimed at European powers, producing a hybrid order neither Confucian nor colonial. Although the project collapsed after his death, it temporarily deterred European expansion and reshaped East Asian political dynamics. Theoretically, this case extends debates on revisionism and liminality, demonstrating that order-building from the margins can be both creative and destructive, illuminating broader dynamics of plural international orders.

In The Emperor’s New Mind [7], Roger Penrose proves a variant of the halting problem, and uses it to argue that humans have cognitive capacities beyond the computable. In this short note, I explicate his argument, and show how it fails, via a corollary of his result. My response to Penrose is in fact of a kind with a number of prior responses: he assumes human powers, that (as the corollary shows) no computer could have. However, as far as I am aware, no one has previously addressed this specific form of the argument, in the direct way that I will.

The co-occurrence of mental illness and substance use disorders (SUDs) presents a significant public health challenge with affected individuals facing compounded stigma that leads to poor health outcomes, social exclusion, and systemic neglect. Despite growing recognition of stigma as a social determinant of health in people with comorbid mental illness and SUDs, current responses remain largely confined to clinical and academic settings. This article argues that civil society, particularly groups led by individuals with lived experience, represents an underutilized yet powerful force in combating stigma. Drawing from historical movements such as HIV/AIDS activism and contemporary examples from peer-led movements, we highlight how civil society organizations (CSOs) have reshaped public discourse, influenced policy, and fostered inclusive research. We examine emerging efforts in low resource settings and explore the transformative potential of digital civil society spaces. We advocate for a shift in stigma reduction paradigms to those that center lived experience, supports cross-sectoral collaboration, and recognizes both physical and digital civil society as essential to inclusive and sustainable change. To addressing the complex and intersecting stigmas associated with comorbid mental illness and SUDs, we recommend investing in CSOs, especially those grounded in participatory, culturally relevant approaches, particularly in low- and middle-income settings.

To anticipate relationships between future climate change and societal violence, we need theory to establish causal links and case studies to estimate interactions between driving forces. Here, we couple evolutionary ecology with a machine-learning statistical approach to investigate the long-term effects of climate change, population growth, and inequality on intergroup conflict among farmers in the North American Southwest. Through field investigations, we generate a new archaeological dataset of farming settlements in the Bears Ears National Monument spanning 1,300 years (0 to AD 1300) to evaluate the direct and interactive effects of precipitation, temperature, climate shocks, demography, and wealth inequality on habitation site defensibility—our proxy for intergroup conflict. We find that conflict peaked during dry, warm intervals when population density and inequality were highest. Results support our theoretical predictions and suggest cascading effects, whereby xeric conditions favored population aggregation into an increasingly small, heterogenous area, which increased resource stress and inequality and promoted intergroup conflict over limited productive patches. This dynamic likely initiated feedback loops, whereby conflict exacerbated shortfalls and fostered mistrust, which drove further aggregation and competition. Results reveal complex interactions among socioclimatological conditions, all of which may have contributed to regional depopulation during the thirteenth century AD.

We define a natural notion of standard translation for the formulas of conditional logic which is analogous to the standard translation of modal formulas into the first-order logic. We briefly show that this translation works (modulo a lightweight first-order encoding of the conditional models) for the minimal classical conditional logic $\mathsf {CK}$ introduced by Brian Chellas in [3]; however, the main result of the article is that a classically equivalent reformulation of these notions (i.e., of standard translation plus theory of conditional models) also faithfully embeds the basic Nelsonian conditional logic $\mathsf {N4CK}$, introduced in [11] into $\mathsf {QN4}$, the paraconsistent variant of Nelson’s first-order logic of strong negation. Thus $\mathsf {N4CK}$ is the logic induced by the Nelsonian reading of the classical Chellas semantics of conditionals and can, therefore, be considered a faithful analogue of $\mathsf {CK}$ on the non-classical basis provided by the propositional fragment of $\mathsf {QN4}$. Moreover, the methods used to prove our main result can be easily adapted to the case of modal logic, which makes it possible to improve an older result [10, Proposition 7] by S. Odintsov and H. Wansing about the standard translation embedding of the Nelsonian modal logic $\mathsf {FSK}^d$ into $\mathsf {QN4}$.

This study explores the heterogeneous and asymmetric macro-financial effects of weather-related shocks in Central, Eastern and Southeastern European countries, depending on the level of underlying macro-financial vulnerabilities. Focusing solely on acute physical risks – those arising from extreme weather events – it employs panel quantile regression analysis to examine data from 2000Q1–2022Q4 for 17 countries in the region. Notably, we find that weather shocks – particularly droughts, floods, heatwaves and wildfires – exacerbate macroeconomic and financial imbalances, increasing the susceptibility of already vulnerable economies to additional risks. Specifically, countries with higher economic imbalances suffer more severe output disruptions and heightened inflationary pressures following a weather shock. While the immediate impact of climate shocks on external imbalances is limited, countries with existing vulnerabilities may still encounter longer-term pressures on trade and investment patterns. Additionally, extreme weather events can intensify financial vulnerabilities for countries that are already grappling with lower levels of financial resilience.

Michael Blake, Yuna Blajer de la Garza, and Alex Zakaras offer insightful critiques of several arguments central to my book Beyond the Law’s Reach? In the process, they raise large questions in political philosophy more generally, especially as it pertains to global affairs. Blake is skeptical about the distinction, driving much of the book, between consolidated liberal democracies and jurisdictions where the “shadow of violence” prevails. Blajer de la Garza worries that the international reparative duties that the book highlights may linger indefinitely, and, consequently, be exploited by cynical political actors. Finally, whereas Beyond the Law’s Reach? argues that liberal democracies’ collective integrity is affected by their entanglement in violence and corruption abroad, Zakaras doubts whether this collective moral problem carries over into the individual level, given individual citizens’ reasonable ignorance of policy details. I offer responses to each of these critiques in turn. I conclude by highlighting the picture of democratic civic responsibility that emerges from these responses.

Sri Lanka is immersed in the ideology of Buddhist primacy: “the island belongs to its Sinhala Buddhists, and Buddhism should dominate the state.” Why does this ideology attract? The standard answer is that it justifies the power of the Sinhala Buddhist ethnic group. This article offers a different take through two contestations of modernity. It draws from Sabhyatva Rajya Kara or Towards a Civilisation-State by the Sinhala public intellectual Gunadasa Amarasekara, and the work of post-secular thinkers such as Jurgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and Nicholas Wolterstorff, and argues that, along with power, Buddhist primacy attracts because it offers an invitation to join a dignifying, heroic narrative, and a vision of “fullness.” That is, there is more to Buddhist primacy than power. This points to the need for a richer human anthropology, and a fuller account of religion, in studies of religion and constitutions.

Nisbett and Wilson’s (1977) classic study in social cognition, the so-called ‘stocking case’, is a long-lasting authority that has often been interpreted as providing empirical support for the claim that introspection regarding mental processes such as the decision-making process is untrustworthy. In this article, I argue that such interpretations fail to identify the appropriate targets of introspection or appropriate object of criticism, thus leading to the emergence of several sceptical views. I show that researchers erroneously view the psychological causes of mental processes, rather than the processes themselves, as the targets of introspection and erroneously equate introspection about the decision-making process with mechanisms such as reasoning and retrospection. Therefore, sceptical views concerning the trustworthiness of introspection about the decision-making process ultimately commit two fallacies pertaining to – what I call – equivocal targets and equivocal mechanisms.

Informative path planning (IPP) is one of key applications for unmanned aerial vehicles. It can be applied to terrain monitoring problems, which are to find the static targets from bird’s eye view. In this research, the proposed algorithm generates the cost-benefit spanning tree (CBST) to boost the IPP performance. The CBST is able to generate different tree structures based on different parameters. The proofs show that the theoretical guarantees depend on the tree structures (e.g., minimal spanning tree and shortest path tree). The simulations and experiments demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms the benchmark approaches.