A paradigm shift is necessary to understand the ocean’s role in the Anthropocene. Rather than viewing the ocean through terra-centric frameworks as biased as, for example, the Eurocentric views of former “Orientalist” scholarship, it urges us to “think through water.” Doing so requires us to vertically explore Earth’s different spatial layers, from subsoil to outer space, that artificial islands gave access to. A paradigm shift also requires a focus on people who sought realistic, sustainable solutions when marine regions were profoundly reshaped. It demands an analysis of the Ages of Coal and Oil in view of oceanic energy transitions and their impacts. The coevolution between humans and other species also must be reexamined regarding the extension of the human habitat, marine biomass concentrations, and invasive species translocations. Exploring the clashes between various environmentalist and developmentalist “schools” of thought is essential, as is understanding the spatial competition among users of marine regions. Finally, the terrestrial mindset must be shed, ranging from climate adaptation thought to geo-ontological views of global production centers and peripheries.

This chapter examines what is considered a fact in individual communications processed by the Human Rights Committee (HRC), recognized as the UN’s most authoritative human rights monitoring body. Despite its significance, little is known about the HRC’s handling of individual complaints against states that have signed the optional protocol. Through the case studies of Sanila-Aikio v. Finland (2018) and Näkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland (2018), which address the inclusion of new voters on the Sámi Parliament’s electoral roll, the chapter scrutinizes the Committee’s evidentiary practices. Notably, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court added ninety-three persons to the Sámi Parliament’s electoral roll, while an unreferenced study suggested over half a million could be eligible. The Committee included this study without verifying its reliability. The chapter explores how evidence is translated and distanced from Committee members, questioning how material veracity is determined. It concludes by reflecting on how the HRC’s evidentiary regime shapes and supports certain narratives while marginalizing others.

This chapter introduces an oceanic-vertical perspective on Asia’s Anthropocene, focusing downward from offshore oil platforms to oil fields beneath the seabed. It emphasizes the overlooked role of marine regions in Asia’s contribution to global carbon emissions. It highlights how Asian political elites, particularly after decolonization, played a central role in developing offshore oil fields, synchronizing terrestrial and oceanic energy transitions by the mid-twentieth century. Unlike land-based infrastructures constrained by colonial legacies, marine regions offered greater autonomy, allowing Asian political elites to assert judicial control. The chapter spans from the 1880s to the 1970s, tracing offshore oil’s rise first across Japanese and US waters, later followed by various Asian marine regions. It argues for recognizing Asia’s marine regions as critical sites of environmental transformation and Asian political agency. By foregrounding offshore fossil fuel development, the chapter reframes the Asian Anthropocene within global histories of energy, development, and technology—beyond terrestrial confines and explanations focused on Western colonial and capitalist elites.

This chapter analyzes how economic globalization constrains parties’ ability to keep their campaign promises once in government. Drawing on large-n data across advanced democracies, we show that globalization – through legal commitments, market discipline, and economic uncertainty – reduces the likelihood that parties fulfill their pledges. We construct a new dataset linking campaign promises with fulfillment outcomes and integrate measures of international legal obligations, exposure to global markets, and volatility. We find that globalization undermines promise keeping particularly for left-wing parties, whose policy agendas often conflict with global market pressures. Importantly, these effects are not mitigated by changes in the number or type of promises parties make. The findings provide empirical support for the argument that globalization erodes core mechanisms of promissory representation by narrowing the space for responsive policymaking. This chapter lays the empirical groundwork for the case study in Chapter 5 and the voting behavior analysis in Chapter 6.

Chapter 7 investigates how globalization pressures shape parties’ ideological positioning, which underpins their campaign promises. The chapter focuses on whether parties adapt their stances symmetrically across the ideological spectrum or face electoral constraints when doing so. It argues that mainstream parties – particularly on the left – are more constrained in shifting rightward than vice versa. To explore this, the chapter combines experimental and observational evidence, drawing on a survey experiment and a large-n dataset of party positions in thirty-one liberal democracies from 1970 to 2020. Although globalization can incentivize parties to recalibrate their economic and cultural positions, the chapter shows that electoral incentives mediate how and where these shifts occur. Together, the findings highlight the complex interplay between international economic pressures and domestic political competition, revealing how ideological recalibration can be both strategic and constrained by voter expectations.

This chapter investigates the electoral consequences of broken promises in the context of globalization. Combining large-n observational data with a survey experiment and a in-depth case study of French voters, it demonstrates that voters do punish governing parties for failing to fulfill campaign pledges, and this punishment intensifies in more globalized environments. Contrary to claims that globalization might provide excuses for unfulfilled promises, the findings suggest that globalization amplifies voters’ concerns about competence and follow-through. As ideological differences between parties shrink and governing space contracts, pledge fulfillment becomes a key signal of competence, heightening electoral costs for unkept promises.

Chapter 1 introduces the core question of the book: how does globalization affect parties’ ability to keep campaign promises and how do they adapt in response? It argues that globalization imposes structural constraints on policymaking that challenge the traditional model of promissory representation, in which parties make pledges and are held accountable for their fulfillment. The chapter presents a theoretical framework linking international economic integration to promise-breaking and outlines the mechanisms through which parties strategically adapt: by modifying the clarity and content of their promises and increasingly using populist or ambiguous rhetoric. It introduces the book’s multimethod approach, combining cross-national pledge data, case studies, and experimental evidence. The chapter also situates the argument in the broader literature on democratic representation, highlighting both the persistence of voter expectations for accountability and the evolving pressures parties face in fulfilling them. This sets the stage for the book’s empirical analyses of how promise-breaking, ideological repositioning, populist framing, and strategic ambiguity reflect broader efforts by political parties to remain electorally competitive while navigating a more constrained and interdependent policy environment.

Chapter 10 examines how ambiguity in campaign promises affects electoral accountability. Building on the previous chapter’s findings that political parties often employ vague language to manage constraints, this chapter evaluates whether such ambiguity allows parties to avoid punishment when pledges are unfulfilled. Drawing on a combination of original survey experiments and cross-national observational data, the analysis shows that voters are generally less likely to punish broken promises when they were made ambiguously. Ambiguity thus serves as a strategic tool that helps parties obscure responsibility and minimize electoral costs, highlighting the trade-off between strategic communication and democratic responsiveness.