AUTHOR CREDENTIALS 1. Bhattacharya, Sridatri – B.A. (Hons.) Psychology, Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi 2. Chourasia, Maahi – B.A. Liberal Arts (Psychology Hons.), Sri Balaji University, Pune 3. Dokania, Swati- B.A. (Hons.) History, Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College, University of Delhi 4. Puniani, Lavanya – M.Sc. Clinical Psychology, Christ (Deemed to be) University, Delhi NCR 5. Rachchh, Yaja Kalpesh – B.A. Psychology, Economics (Dual Majors), Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore 6. Sharma, Tanisha – M.Sc. Clinical Psychology, Jain University, School of Applied Healthcare and Sciences, Bangalore 7. Singh, Roshni X. Sudarshan, G. M. – B.A. (Hons.) Psychology, Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi 8. Singh, Roshni X. Sudarshan, G. M. – M.Sc. Psychology, Karnataka State Open University, Mysur 9. Yadav, Navya – B.A. (Hons.) Psychology, Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi ABSTRACT A vast majority of research on identity formation focuses on societal and environmental factors. However, there has been less research on the age factor in identity formation. There are various dimensions of the identity we form for ourselves ranging from achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, diffusion and achievement moratorium cycle. This study uses quantitative data collected by a survey form based on the Modified Marcia Questionnaire to understand the formation of such identities in individuals of ages 18-24. The results of this study highlights the age factor in identity formation in young adults. A major chunk of the population of young adults have reached the dimension of achievement, and many are at the level of achievement moratorium cycle.

Christabel Okoroafor, Anushka Pandey, Natalie Joseph, Ceren Kale, Akshara Shukla, Chibudom Ironuru ABSTRACT Migration is a fundamental aspect of human history, driven by the search for survival, security, and opportunity. From the earliest movements out of East Africa to contemporary global flows, migration patterns have always reflected deeply embedded political, economic, and environmental dynamics. In the modern era, migration is shaped by “push” factors such as conflict, poverty, and climate change, and “pull” factors like economic opportunity and safety. However, these movements are not merely personal choices, they symbolize persistent global inequalities, particularly between the Global North and South. Statistics reveal that while 37% of migration occurs between Southern nations, corridors such as Mexico–U.S. and Africa–Europe underscore the influence of geopolitical alliances, policy disparities, and entrenched systemic inequalities. The study of U.S. migration policy offers a powerful lens into these broader forces. Recent years have witnessed profound shifts, especially under the Trump administration, which implemented sweeping rollbacks on humanitarian protections. Policies like the “Zero-Tolerance” family separation initiative, the “Remain in Mexico” protocol, travel bans targeting Muslim-majority and African countries, and narrowing of asylum eligibility marked a stark departure from prior commitments to refugee and asylum rights. These measures resulted in widespread family separation, increased deportations, and fueled an atmosphere of fear and exclusion for migrants and asylum seekers. Moreover, the Trump administration’s approach has had long-term reverberations, weeakening institutional capacity, fueling backlogs, and politicizing immigration agencies. Even as the Biden administration has attempted to reverse some of these policies, structural barriers and the legacy of enforcement-first strategies persist, complicating efforts toward humane migration justice and reform. The implications extend beyond the U.S., altering global attitudes and contributing to a backlash against multilateral cooperation on migration issues. As migration remains a key site of contestation and negotiation, achieving genuine change will require not just policy reversal but structural transformation to address the deep-rooted inequalities, uphold human rights, and rebuild trust in migration governance.

Apratim Rashmi, Bhavyaa Sharma, Prarthana Mohta and Urukirti Gupta ABSTRACT This paper investigates the ideological foundations and real-world applications of Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP), which is increasingly embraced as a multidimensional tool for promoting gender justice in global relations. Emerging as both a theoretical and policy-oriented framework, FFP challenges traditional notions of diplomacy that often prioritize military alliances and economic interests over human rights and inclusion. Guided by the “3Rs” model – Rights, Representation, and Resources (Swedish Government, 2018; Oxford Research Encyclopedia, 2019), laying a blueprint for integrating gender into diplomacy, defense, trade and development (Aggestam & True, 2020). The model emphasizes equitable participation of women and marginalized communities in foreign policymaking, thereby attempting to shift the focus from state-centric to people-centric governance. The study interrogates the extent to which this policy paradigm addresses root causes of inequality and violence, while also criticising its susceptibility to instrumentalization by states with conflicting domestic or geopolitical agendas (Thompson & Clement, 2019; SWP Berlin, 2021). While some governments have made substantial investments in multilateralism and inclusive diplomacy, the gap between normative ambition and material policy outcomes remains evident. In many cases, feminist rhetoric coexists with militarized borders or regressive social policies at home, raising questions about coherence and accountability. Recognizing the gap between ambition and delivery, it proposes that the next generation of feminist policy must adopt feminist-informed foresight, integrating long-term, participatory, and decolonial approaches (Jöster-Morisse, 2025). This anticipatory method allows for imagining alternative futures shaped by care ethics, intersectionality, and sustained peacebuilding. By focusing on inclusivity, transparency, and structural transformation, FFP has the potential to not only redefine diplomatic priorities but also foster more equitable global systems rooted in justice rather than power.

Sayyed Zeenat Yahiya, T. S. Bagheshri, and Bhavya Gupta ABSTRACT Purpose – This article studies the localization of climate action through the lens of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and its implementation through the framework of Panchayat Raj Institutions, aiming to understand how effectively climate change is being localized. In the context of SDG 13 (Climate Action), we focus on assessing the alignment between national climate goals and their reach into community-level initiatives. Design/methodology/approach – The focus of this research is qualitative. We have used secondary sources which were available, like policy documents, earlier research, official reports, and expert commentary to collect data. To look at the weaknesses and strengths in the local implementation of NAPCC policies and schemes, we have drawn themes through research lens and comparative case studies from selected Panchayats. Findings – Strengthening Local Climate Governance• PRIs generally have little to no access to climate finance, such as the NAPCC.• A majority of PRIs do not have the technical capability to support the writing of fundable project proposals.• Climate and ecology are not embedded into GPDPs – due to the low levels of awareness and capacity around climate and ecology. Inter-Institutional Coordination• The various departments, such as agriculture, energy, and rural development, are generally insulated from one another, and as a result, climate planning is often not integrated. Bridging the Capacity–Finance Gap• More than 90% of PRI officials do not have a formal education and training for mobilizing climate finance, interlinking schemes, and budgeting for resilience approaches (NIRDPR, 2020).• The existing climate-related schemes, like PM-KUSUM and SAPCCs, aren’t even localized, with Panchayats not aware of scheme components like objectives, eligibility, or modalities of implementation.• Even if CSR and NGO partnerships exist, it is evident that most Panchayats do not have the institutional set-up to initiate or sustain these partnerships.• There is almost no incorporation of climate-related vulnerabilities (like drought/flood risks) into the planning and fund allocation, which, as sad as it sounds, makes the proposals less investable or productive.• There are no formal and standardized digital platforms or dashboards that capture climate-related pathways to finance, the fund status, and any anecdotes from successful examples (other models). Originality/value – This study addresses the need to assess the integration of NAPCC missions into Gram Panchayat Development Plans (GPDPs) and to identify best practices and barriers in localizing climate action.

Harmanpreet Singh, Gauri Sharma, Ruchi Tiwari, Mahi Tyagi , Shivangi Varma, Naukhaiz Aftab. ABSTRACT The rapid digitalisation and expansion of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) in India have brought mixed outcomes, particularly for informal sector workers. The digital divide is a result of existing inequalities in socioeconomic status, geography, caste, and gender. While digitalisation has improved access in many areas, its benefits remain unevenly distributed. This paper investigates structural and systemic factors behind this gap and explores legal frameworks and the PPP model to promote financial inclusion.Using qualitative analysis of secondary data, this study finds that access to digital services remains uneven for informal workers with low digital skills and sporadic access to the internet. It underscores spatial divide, limitations of the “one-size-fits-all” approach and the lack of legal protection in labour codes. It also reveals disparities within the informal sector, where MSME owners benefit from DPI but many workers remain excluded.Key recommendations include a universal legal definition for informal workers, rural digital awareness, government digital hubs under PPP model, and simplified user-centric e-portals designed with principle of privacy. Bridging the digital divide needs inclusive policy reforms to improve access to DPI across the Indian informal economy.

Deeksha, Avradeep Saha, Pavni Agrawal, Nandan Dhar, Ankit Vardani ABSTRACT This study is to critically examine how targeted digital education policies and initiatives have contributed to reducing educational inequality in India. By using key policies such as the BharatNet Project, PM e-vidya, DIKSHA platform as evaluative tools, this study aims to assess both their achievements in improving access, inclusion, and learning outcomes, and their limitations in addressing structural and digital disparities across socio-economic, rural-urban, and gender divides. We used the descriptive method by reviewing policies, government reports, news articles, and educational data from official sources to understand how digital initiatives are addressing educational inequalities in India. Digital policies like BharatNet and Digital India have improved internet access in rural areas, and have helped schools adopt online learning. However, gaps still remain due to lack of devices, electricity, and digital skills, and access to the internet in some regions. Further, the study seeks to bridge the gap between policy intent and on-ground impact, enhanced understanding of how far these digital interventions have progressed in transforming educational equity, and what barriers persist in the path toward inclusive and equitable quality education. The study relies on secondary data sources and does not include direct surveys or interviews, so some ground-level issues may not be fully recorded.

AUTHORS 1. Ankitha Lahari M N – 4th Year B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) Student at School of Law, Ramaiah University ofApplied sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 2. Aiswaryya Dhamodaran -IPR LLM ,University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United kingdom. 3. K K Sree Purna – Final Year B.COM LLB (Hons.), Saveetha School of Law, SIMATS, Chennai, TamilNadu, India. 4. Vidhushi Sharma – BBA-LLB Research Scholar, MIET School of Law, Jammu, India. This research critically examines the pressing need to recognize ecocide – which we define as large-scale, long-term, and serious environmental destruction – as the fifth international crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) – which includes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. The thesis of this study is motivated by numerous ecological crises – climate change, pollution, deforestation, the extinction crisis – and potential ecological crises that largely escape the reach of international criminal law. Through a doctrinal and comparative legal approach, this paper assesses the historical development, moral underpinnings, and jurisdictional implications of articulating ecocide internationally. The paper traces the evolution of the concept from outrage about the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War to current attempts at legal definitions of ecocide proposed by the Independent Expert Panel (2021). This paper seeks to demonstrate that ecocide endangers not only the environment, but human rights, world peace, and intergenerational justice. Legal systems across the world are starting to adapt – for example, in France, Belgium, and the Philippines, various laws relating to ecocide have been proposed or enacted. Specifically, the case studies and examples, such as the Bhopal gas leak, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the Amazonian clearing, are used to capture how, overall, legal reactions have not been sufficient to respond to catastrophic environmental disasters. Ethically, criminalization of ecocide is warranted by the principles of ecocentrism and intergenerational justice, which provide that nature has an intrinsic value independent of anthropocentrism. Legally, while there are challenges around enforcement, jurisdiction, and corporate liability, the paper argues that there is adequate scope to amend the Rome Statute to include ecocide, as long as Article 30’s “unless otherwise provided” clause is utilized, and by amending mens rea to include elements of recklessness. Finally, the research provides a policy platform that includes: amending the Rome Statute; enacting domestic legislation that supports the “ecocide” concept; developing corporate accountability mechanisms; and developing restorative justice alongside ecological protection. Recognizing ecocide as an international crime is clearly legally possible; it is also an ethical and ecological imperative, if we are to enjoy environmental sustainability, justice, and accountability for future generations.

Asanda Keitumetse Khwabe, Maksym Loharzhevskyi, Omundu Eddy Odhiambo and Onemena Odebala Accountability, rule of law and trust are at a continuous turbulent state that serve as the foundation of peace, justice and strong institutions categorised as the SDG 16. The inconsistency of such factors contributes to the global polycrisis of instability, birthing corruption and mismanagement. Thus, with such an environment conjured, institutions cannot mandate sustainable cities and communities of SDG 11, which ultimately break down the vital state-citizen relationship. Continuously, quantitative data research has revealed that the introduction of integrating information and communications technology (ICT) into the political realm will promote transparency, reinforce better trust mechanisms, and contribute to anti-corruption attempts. This particular paper explored two different regions, India and European countries, executing the transformation of e-governance while revealing the extent of successes of maintaining both SDG 16 and SDG 11 goals as well as the challenges faced by both regions. It is imperative to understand that strong institutions and the performance style in which to manage their unique society have not been perfected, for there are always different multifaceted factors such as circumstances presented by histories of the regions as well as the dynamics instilled and practiced by the government and people based on preferences to use. Thus, with expectations, functioning governing bodies should be able to sustain their societies, ensure transparent justice and safety, and curate mandates for the betterment of the civil. Thus, this paper concludes such findings of the specific method of integrating ICTs in attempts to bridge the existing disconnect experienced by multiple institutions.

Aashi Sahu, Anshim, Ritika Jindal, Swastika Kar Abstract This paper attempts to investigate the gap between reproductive health policies in India and theirgrassroots implementation. Special focus is given to marginalized women, mainly those from Dalitand tribal backgrounds. Although there are various legal frameworks such as the Janani SurakshaYojana (JSY) and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act amendments, deep rootedimpediments continue to restrict women’s access to sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR).Most mainstream literature focuses on service outreach metrics but fails to look into theintersectional realities of caste, class, age, and geography in health-system interactions.Methodologically, this paper builds on the qualitative approach with content analysis of policydocuments, review of secondary data, and semi-structured interviews with women. Alongside, thispaper explores the lacuna in SRHR. Primary focus is given to institutional bias, provider’s attitudes,and lack of infrastructure that result in denial or delay of services. Emphasizing lived experiencesand examining the state’s accountability in ensuring bodily autonomy, the research aims to offer anuanced critique of India’s reproductive health landscape. The paper concludes with policyrecommendations targeting both structural reforms and sensitization frameworks to makereproductive rights meaningfully accessible to marginalized women.

Author: Rajan Patel India’s strategic positioning India’s engagement with BRICS and the G20 reflects its consistent efforts to shape the global political discourse in line with its own interests, while also promoting ideas like multilateralism, inclusive development, and reforming existing institutions. India is often seen as a democratic counterweight to China’s influence in the region and even though both countries align on certain economic and developmental issues, their bilateral ties remain tense mainly because of long-standing territorial disputes and trade imbalances but these tensions have at times helped India maintain its ties with the West, where it is increasingly viewed as a credible alternative to China in the region (Stimson, 2022). India’s trade with BRICS countries witnessed a substantial growth over a period of 4 years as it increased from USD 120.65 billion in 2019 to around USD 174.45 billion in 2023, with China alone accounting for over USD 122 billion (Kamalakar, 2024), a significant percent of India’s trade. Addressing this issue, India has tried to strengthen its ties with Russia, especially post-Ukraine war, and expanded trade with Brazil and South Africa in areas like defence, energy, and pharmaceuticals. It has also supported the expansion of BRICS to include countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, positioning itself as a leader of the Global South while also pushing for strategic autonomy through ideas like de-dollarisation and the proposal of a BRICS currency (Pant & Jayaprakash, 2024). India’s G20 presidency in 2023 marked a diplomatic shift by putting the Global South at the centre of the conversation. The theme “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – One Earth, One Family, One Future” was more than just a symbol; it showed India’s effort to reposition itself as a consensus-builder in a world that is divided (Kumar, 2024) The Voice of the Global South Summit brought together 125 countries, and India’s leadership was evident in its success as it promoted the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member of the G20 – a move that addressed long-standing concerns around institutional equity and representation (India Foundation, 2023; Kumar, 2024). Economic Policy and Initiatives India has always been committed to global financial reforms, as it supported the Common Framework for Debt Treatment, calling for an overhaul of international financial institutions, so they could better serve the interests of emerging economies while also advocating for a comprehensive restructuring of debts, as developing countries held nearly 30% of the world’s USD 92 trillion debt (Kumar, 2024), a much-needed intervention helping countries like Zambia, Ghana, and Ethiopia. India also pushed for greater South-South trade cooperation, which rose from USD 140.75 billion in 1990 to USD 9.36 trillion in 2021 and measures like the Jaipur Call to Action and the Digital Trade Documentation Principles reflected this priority. India also pushed for greater South-South trade cooperation, which rose from USD 140.75 billion in 1990 to USD 9.36 trillion in 2021. Measures like the Jaipur Call to Action and the Digital Trade Documentation Principles reflected this priority. Digital Push and Global Role India also aced the race for digitization and its digital public infrastructure – the Aadhaar, UPI, Co-Win – was showcased as a model for the Global South, backed by the launch of a Global DPI Repository and a USD 25 million contribution to the DPI Impact Fund which played a key role in announcing the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), offering an alternative to China’s connectivity push (Kumar, 2024; India Foundation, 2023). Together, India’s role in BRICS and the G20 is a reflection of its attempt to maintain strategic autonomy while still leading on issues that matter to the developing world. It is not just participating—it is shaping.