Research ArticleAuthors:Victor Samuel, Francisca Oliviera The 2026 High-Level Political Forum reviewed SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) at a moment when only 36 per cent of Sustainable Development Goal targets are on track and the field is saturated with progress diagnoses. This report argues that the scarce and valued contribution now is not another assessment of how far the world has fallen short but usable implementation guidance that helps countries and civil-society organisations translate means-of-implementation commitments into operational delivery. Drawing on the outcomes of the 2026 ministerial declaration, the Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2026, and the Sevilla Commitment adopted at FfD4, the report identifies the specific implementation gaps in the finance, technology, capacity-building, and partnership domains that constrain SDG 9 and 17 acceleration. It then introduces a practical framework, the Acceleration Delivery Cycle, and demonstrates how two digital tools, the SDG Impact Mapper and AdvocacyOS, both components of the AUN Digital ecosystem, can be deployed to close the gap between MoI commitments and on-the-ground results. The report concludes with a Partnership Effectiveness Matrix that maps the most common weaknesses of multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Goals against toolkit-enabled responses, offering a concrete contribution to the acceleration agenda that is actionable rather than merely analytical.
Research ArticleAccording to this report, the International Criminal Court (ICC), founded on the Rome Statute, must overcome jurisdictional challenges to pursue crimes committed around the world. Through a comparative review of case studies, including those in Darfur, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Libya, this study reveals common difficulties. It looks into how they might impact the ICC's effectiveness, reputation, and capacity to fulfil its purpose. The study sheds insight into the jurisdiction's complexity, covering matters like receiving national government support, handling security challenges, gaining access to witnesses, managing conflicting judicial processes, and resolving intricate disagreements. These issues greatly impact the ICC's capacity to look into crimes, collect evidence, hold offenders accountable, and give victims justice. The research clarifies the unique jurisdictional issues faced in each circumstance by analysing the case studies. It emphasises how crucial it is to comprehend the logistical, political, and legal challenges that the ICC faces when operating in various settings. The analysis of these issues sheds light on the wider consequences for the ICC's credibility and effectiveness as an agency with a mandate to advance international justice and end impunity. The results of this study help us comprehend jurisdictional disputes' complexity and how it affects how the ICC operates on a deeper level. The study offers a platform for comparative analysis and highlights potential areas for ICC operations improvement by highlighting similarities and variations among the case studies. The analysis is used to inform the research's policy suggestions for resolving jurisdictional issues. The legislative framework should be strengthened, cooperation channels should be improved, investigative and operational skills should be increased, and regional and international cooperation should be encouraged. States, international organisations, civic societies, and academic institutions must work together to implement these proposals. The study concludes that even though jurisdictional issues offer big obstacles, we shouldn't let them get in the way of bringing criminals to justice worldwide. The ICC can overcome these obstacles and carry out its duty of guaranteeing responsibility, defending human rights, and promoting international justice through consistent commitment, collaboration, and adopting effective policies.
