Advertisement

Introduction

  • Hakan Seckinelgin
Chapter
Part of the Social Aspects of HIV book series (SHIV, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter sets out the rationale behind the book and describes its conceptual underpinnings. It focuses in particular on the idea of politics, which grounds my approach to understanding both the nature of Global AIDS and its implications. Jacques Rancière’s work provides the conceptual framework for the chapter. This highlights the importance of considering the politics of ‘Global AIDS’ rather than the global politics of AIDS at a time when the sustainability of the lives of people living with HIV is becoming a major concern for the future concern. Using such an approach, the chapter analyses the practices associated with Global AIDS in a number of policy areas. Following this, the methodological grounds that make possible an analysis of the politics of Global AIDS – developed through an engagement with Niklas Luhman’s systems theory – are outlined.

Keywords

Executive Director Success Story Male Circumcision Knowledge Claim Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Doyal, L. and Doyal, L. (2013) Living with HIV and Dying with AIDS: Diversity, Inequlaity and Human Rights in the Global Pandemic. London:Ashgate.Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Kosseleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts (T. Samuel Presner and others, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Luhmann, N. (1998). Observations on modernity (W. Whobrey, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. McFalls, L. (2010). Benevolent dictatorship: The formal logic of humanitarian government. In D. Fassin & M. Pandolfi (Eds.), Contemporary states of emergency: The politics of military and humanitarian interventions (pp. 317–334). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  5. Parker, R. (2002). The global HIV/AIDS pandemic, structural inequalities and the politics if international health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(3), 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Patten, S., Mantell, J., & Stein, Z. (2013). Discord and harmony in biomedical HIV prevention technologies: Advancements through advocacy. In R. A. Smith (Rd.), Global HIV/AIDS politics, policy and activism: Persistent challenges and emerging issues (pp. XXX). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  7. Paxton, N. A. (2012). Political science(s) and HIV: A critical analysis. Contemporary Politics, 18(2), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pereira, R. J. R. (2013). Sustainability in the post-PEPFAR period: Examples from Botswana, Ethiopia and South Africa. In R. A. Smith (Ed.), Global HIV/AIDS politics, policy and activism: Persistent challenges and emerging issues (pp. 27–44). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Ranciére, J. (2010). Dissensus on politics and aesthetics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Seckinelgin, H. (2012a). International security, conflict and gender ‘HIV/AIDS is another war’. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Seckinelgin, H. (2012b). The global governance of success in HIV/AIDS policy: Emergency action, everyday lives and sen’s capabilities. Health and Place, 18(3), 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shadlen, K. C. (2013). Is AIDS treatment sustainable? In O. Aginam, J. Harrington, & P. K. Yu (Eds.), The global governance of HIV/AIDS: Intellectual property and access to essential medicines (pp. 29–58). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Siplon, P. (2013). The troubled path to HIV/AIDS universal treatment access: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? In R. A. Smith (Ed.), Global HIV/AIDS politics, policy and activism: Persistent challenges and emerging issues (pp. 3–26). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Strand, P. (2012). Public opinion as leadership disincentive: Exploring governance dilemma in eth AIDS response in Africa. Contemporary Politics, 18(2), 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tilly, C. (2004). Social movements, 1768–2004. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. UNAIDS. (2015a). How AIDS changed everything. Geneva: UNAIDS.Google Scholar
  17. UNAIDS. (2015b). Programme coordinating board-thirty seventh meeting. http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/20150930_UNAIDS_PCB37_Report-PCB36_EN.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2016.
  18. UNAIDS. (2015d). On the fast-track to end AIDS by 2030: Focus on location and population. Geneva: UNAIDS.Google Scholar
  19. UNAIDS. (2015e). UNAIDS strategy 2016–2021. Geneva: UNAIDS.Google Scholar
  20. UNAIDS. (2016a). 2016 high-level on ending AIDS. Geneva: UNAIDS.Google Scholar
  21. UNAIDS. (2016b). Invest in advocacy: Community participation in accountability is the key to ending the AIDS epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS.Google Scholar
  22. UNAIDS and Lancet Commission. (2015). Defeating AIDS, advancing global health. London: The lancet. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%%25. Accessed 5 Feb 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hakan Seckinelgin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social PolicyLondon School of Economics and PoliticalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations