Content／学習内容

• Introduction – Practitioners View on Hot Issues in Peacebuilding

  Ice breaking session, introducing the lecturer with reference to own accumulated experiences both as a practitioner and academic. This session focuses on securitization leading to war, collective hysteria common in wartime society with the prevailing phenomenon of collective punishment. Also consideration of memory of war that is dominated by the winnters’ justice and biases in post-war era and may cause new forms of securitization including that of insurrections.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    War experiences are passed on to the next generation mostly in widely accepted historical discourse, but for some, it could be in the form of family history. For such individuals, the attitudes toward war will probably be uniquely formulated from a slightly different angle.

  • Part 2

    Demonization and peer pressure are common phenomena, whether the war is waged by a democracy or a dictatorship. People are led to believe one-sided information and go so far as to choose their own death. Demonization is a form of war propaganda necessary to mobilize citizens for war.

  • Part 3

    Every war is accompanied by an arbitrary act of demonization or dehumanization against the presumed enemy, and even fellow countrymen who are deemed accomplices of the enemy become the target. Demonization and dehumanization are rather sensational terms. Here, we have one academic term, “Securitization”.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Aya Fukuda

    Lecturer, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Rules of War: Jus in Bello & Jus ad Bellum

  Overviewing the legal regime of humankind governing today’s war especially after the birth of United Nations from the point of views of Peacebuilding practitioners and the challenges they face today.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    International law governing war or armed conflict has historically consisted of two concepts. Jus ad bellum limits the pretext for starting a war. Being a customary law, the modern version of it is Article 51 of the UN Charter, which strictly prohibits the use and threat of force to change the status quo but allows the right of individual and collective self-defense as an exceptional but inherent right, in addition to collective measures as the UN. The other is Jus in Bello, the law of engagement, which defines the violations that occur in the course of an engagement of hostilities that have begun following Jus ad Bellum.

  • Part 2

    Article 51 of the UN charter seems to imply that the right to self-defense is to be invoked when you, as a sovereign state, are attacked in your territory that the UN recognizes. But a question here is whether or not Israel’s right to self-defense former President Joe Biden supports is the same as the right to individual self-defense as per the UN charter.

  • Part 3

    Historically, such a divided nation as Ukraine is subjected to foreign interference and often becomes the battleground for proxy war. Domestic separatists are even more hated than their foreign sponsors. Are they evils that destroy your national sovereignty? Not always. Depending on who you are. From the other side of the people, they might be freedom fighters.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Aya Fukuda

    Lecturer, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Justice & Peace

  Peace-building is mostly about trust-building. It faces the hardest challenge when the world is divided into two camps, as is evidenced by the Ukraine war; one is the Justice camp that tries to achieve peace by “letting the anvil beat devil”, another is the Peace camp that prioritizes convergence and stability by facilitating “Talk” that primarily aims at the cessation of hostility. This session revisits the concept of Transitional Justice.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Ukraine war polarized academic discourse. One is the justice camp; there is no world peace until and unless beating Mr. Putin. The other is the peace camp, which prioritizes convergence and stability by facilitating ‘Talk’ or Dialogue that primarily aims at the cessation of hostility or ceasefire. These two camps fight fiercely, sometimes become very personal, and deny each other’s personalities. Especially, the justice camp goes to the extent of accusing that the peace camp has vested interest in favor of the enemy.

  • Part 2

    Once a ceasefire has been reached and the political reconciliation phase has begun, we have to begin restoring the justice that has been left in limbo and repairing the human rights that have been damaged. This is what is called “transitional justice”. The preparation for this must begin as early as possible, even when the ceasefire is being brokered.

  • Part 3

    The reality of adjudicating war crimes is a long and difficult process. That is why it is important to control the emotion to bring down the hammer of justice immediately but achieve a ceasefire at first, prevent further war crimes from occurring and prevent the evidence needed to bring charges in international courts from fading away.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Aya Fukuda

    Lecturer, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Civilian Mobilization: Ukraine Arming Children in Eastern Europe

  The United Nations has categorized child soldiering as a violation of The 1949 Geneva Convention IV, Article 50, thus the hosting state or organization shall be sanctioned. However, the lack of consideration for the child’s protection, the use of “erroneous grammar of wars”, and the outdated ideological foundation on child soldiering challenge the legitimacy of the treaty. Within the recent Russo-Ukrainian War, the proximity between the war and the civilian population is creating new needs for self-protection and the spirit to aid their war efforts. Hence, more military training programs for vulnerable people will be formed, and their presence will become more solid, despite the hosts being syndicates with extreme political stances. This lecture will visualize the risk to children’s security within the Russo-Ukrainian War and discuss the future challenges that academia and legal frameworks may encounter.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    It has been around two years since the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia began. Without any sign of peace, the expansion is jeopardizing the safety of civilian populations, especially among the vulnerable part of society; the juveniles. Not only are they becoming the imminent victims of the armed conflict, but the desperate efforts to aid their armed forces and the need for self-defense are hinting at the danger of child soldiering. Theestablishment of army training “summer camps for children” had, otherwise,justified the possibility.

  • Part 2

    These children’s training camps consist of war and political elements. Affiliated with regional militia and government institutions, the young participants in these programs are expected to obtain a strong sense of patriotism, war heroism, and even xenophobic ideologies, which the psychological impact on juveniles and children could be consequential. While its legality remains highly questionable, the public’s need and support for the training programs hinder legal interventions and international security surveillance. It also shows how international treaties could, sometimes, be vulnerable to “grammatical issues”. Certain universal definitions of child soldiering must be updated.

  • Part 3

    With a lack of solid foundations, both on academic and political frontiers, child soldiering in Eastern Europe has the possibility of further development. Regardless of the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the erroneous grammatical issues, ignorance of child safety in wars, and the practice of outdated laws lead to the sustainability of child training programs and habits.It requires humble emphasis and acknowledgment of the significance of this issue, instead of filtering certain aspects of reality based on certain conveniences.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Taku Suda

    Graduate of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Responsibility to Protect

  “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” is an idea invented and practiced to realize Human Security mostly in the spheres of UN Peacebuilding Operations. This session covers how its concepts are challenged and evolved in the UNPKO and what is the challenge to apply it in Non-UNPKO environment such as Myanmar and Hongkong where it has been sought.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    The “responsibility to protect” means that when a state is unable to fulfill its responsibility to protect its own people, the international community must fulfill that responsibility instead. Civilian protection includes the use of force. The Libyan case of 2011 was commonly said to be the first time in UN Security Counsel history that authorized collective military action in the name of R2P.

  • Part 2

    In the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2013, the UN authorized the UN Peacekeeping force to launch a “Preemptive attack” known as FIB: Force Intervention Brigade in order to implement its mandate for R2P.

  • Part 3

    How about Libya today, where R2P was first authorized in UN history? It seems the power vacuum after the dictator was gone triggered another problem. The power struggle among armed factions resulted in a civil war.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Kevin Brandon Saure

    Doctoral Student, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Sanctions as a Tool to Contain Human Rights Abuses 1: Global Magnitsky Act

  As UN security council is dysfunctional over considerable Human Rights abuses, what could be an alternative? “Global Magnitsky” policy aims at creating a coalition of unilateral sanctions against the particular regime responsible for human rights abuses. This session extends the discussion even to the dark side of it and the political arbitrariness of its application.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    In peacebuilding, sanction is considered an effective tool to contain human rights abuses caused by the regime. However, there is a dilemma when those regimes are related to the UN Security Council, which has a veto. In this section, the Global Magnitsky Act, as a tool to contain human rights abuses, is discussed.

  • Part 2

    This section discusses the Japan’s situation regarding Global Magnitsky Act. Japan has not yet enacted the Global Magnitsky Act, but there is certain progress toward implementing it through political efforts, including the Bipartisan Parliamentary Caucus, Political parties, and Cabinet. What prevents the enaction of this law in the Japanese political arena?

  • Part 3

    Following the introduction of the Global Magnitsky Act, lecturers discuss the situation and their experiences, including the Hong Kong case. The discussion also covers types of sanctions – smart/targeted/pinpoint sanctionand and general sanction. Finally, it discusses the work of the international Court of Justice.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Shiori Kanno

    Lawyer, Former Member of the House of Representatives

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Legislation as a Tool to Contain Human Rights Abuses 2: Human Rights Due Diligence

  Human Rights abuse within cross-border supply chains is somehow invisible and buried in daily end-consumer’s lives, and hardly visible even if it would constitute the causes for international and/or non-international armed conflict. This session oversees related mechanism and the international corrective effort.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    This lecture discusses collective action to deal with human rights abuses. It especially focuses on how to deal with human rights abuses that occur in the transnational supply chain of the commercial sector and introduces the concept of “Human Rights Due Diligence”. This section starts by introducing the report issued by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that shocked the Japanese business sector.

  • Part 2

    This section discusses elements of Human Rights Due Diligence. It also introduces the movement in Japan from 2020, including the report by Human Rights Now based on the 2023 survey. It analyzes the way for the legalization of Human Rights Due Diligence in Japan. It finally points out our responsibilities as end consumers. In the last part, lectures discussed Human Rights Due Diligence. They discuss the situation regarding diamonds. Also, the topic covers legislation, including the reaction of Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) and international trends.

  • Part 3

    This section concludes the Global Magnitsky Act and Human Rights Due Diligence by lecturers’ discussion. It reviews the movement of Japan, especially by the Bipartisan Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights Diplomacy (BPC) in Japan and the trends of other countries’ situation. It also discusses Human Rights Due Diligence in relation to the International Court of Justice. Lecturers finally discuss on the concept of the Universal Jurisdiction of Human Rights.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Shiori Kanno

    Lawyer, Former Member of the House of Representatives

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Democracy and Intervention : Case of Afghanistan

  After defeating undemocratic regime, how have we build a democratic society and what was the consequence? The global experiment with the hightest ever international investment, both militarily and financially, in modern history was the case of Afghanistan. This session examines the lessons learned.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Democracy and Intervention : Case of Afghanistan post-2001

    After the incident of 9/11, the United States attacked Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban in late 2001. The USA was involved in the state-building process, established so-called democratic institutions in the Western style and their military bases in different provinces of Afghanistan to monitor the situation in surrounding countries including China, Russia, and Iran. Mr. Hamid Karzai was appointed as a chairman of interim administration but he continued his job as the president of Afghanistan for 13 years. In this period Afghanistan received huge financial and technical support for the reconstruction and political and economic reforms.

  • Democracy and Intervention : Case of Afghanistan post-2014

    The USA started its support and secret negotiations with the Taliban in 2007. This led to the expansion of Taliban attacks on schools, public and private offices, mosques, universities, etc. In 2019, 5000 Taliban fighters were released from the prison by the US request. In February 2020, the US and the Taliban signed an agreement in Doha, without involving the people of Afghanistan. Its result was the collapse of the Afghanistan government in August 2021.The ultimate outcome of the 20-year presence of the US and NATO in Afghanistan was the lack of social and political stability, brain drain and capital drain, violating women’s rights, external and internal displacements, and many other difficulties.

  • Review and Discussion

    The year 2014, was a turning point for the international community. This year Russia attacked Crimea, and the West turned its focus from Afghanistan to Crimea. The US decided to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. Dealing with the Taliban as the representative of the people, recognition of them by the international community, emerging new leadership in Afghanistan or a force to fight against them are points of discussion. It is an issue of why everything goes wrong in Afghanistan and how we can prevent these mistakes.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Hasibullah Mowahed

    Visiting Lecturer, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Democracy and Foreign Intervention: Case of Myanmar

  To what extent is democracy-building synonymous to peacebuilding? To what extent is foreign intervention condoned? We tend to demonize and sanction any regime and agents that are deemed undemocratic, consequently cause global cleavage over the solution to armed conflicts and sufferings of common people. This session focuses on the challenges in Myanmar.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Is democracy-building synonymous to peacebuilding? This part focuses on the idea of democracy and foreign intervention and how UN has engaged internationally in Sovereign States. Why and how the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm was created will also be discussed.

  • Part 2

    Myanmar’s tentative movement from a military dictatorship towards democracy since 2011, was brutally derailed by the military coup of 01/02/2021. How did we get here. What of the international community; of ASEAN, the regional social, economic and security block; and of the regional power. This session lays the foundations for an analysis of the current conflict and consideration of potential outcomes.

  • Part 3

    Myanmar post-coup: Is UNGA offering legitimacy either to the SAC(junta) or to the National Unity Government (NUG). How does ASEAN respond to the absence of progress towards peace and stability? What is China’s perspective? How might the current advances by the opposition to the SAC impact on the conflict? What is the likely outcome. Prof Isezaki and Prof Molloy debate their perspectives.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Desmond J. Molloy

    Professor, Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration DDR – The UN Approach

  Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration (DDR) was developed as a process to assist in consolidating fragile ceasefire deals into stable peace deals, by integrating combatants into the community to rebuild war-torn nations. The concept evolved in the field of UN Peacekeeping Operations. This session examines the cases of UN driven DDR.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Introduction by Prof Isezaki. The UN approach to DDR addresses a complex, flexible process adapted to specific contexts to “place arms beyond use,” contributing to Peacebuilding in both post-conflict environments and situations where “there is no peace to keep.” What are the policies that guide this approach?

  • Part 2

    Pervasive criticism of DDR includes that there are often amnesties for ex-combatants associated with DDR while limited reparations are offered to victims of the conflict. What are the UN Principles regarding the implementation of DDR. What are the challenges? How is UN approach to DDR evolving as a result of the changing nature of violence and emerging technology?

  • Part 3

    Part 3 continues to consider the evolving UN approach to DDR in light of emerging policy and technology. What of innovation and broadening partnerships? How is DDR implemented in non-permissive environments? Prof. Molloy and Prof. Isezaki engage in a lively discussion on approaches to DDR.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Desmond J. Molloy

    Professor, Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• DDR in Non-UN Environments

  Though Disarmament, Demobilization & Reintegration(DDR) is known as an aspect of UN Peacekeeping Operations, it is often implemented in cases where the host countries reject the presence of UN PKO especially with UN mandated military. This session examines such cases.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    DDR in a Non-UN environment. Introduced by Prof. Isezaki, we consider debatably successful processes in Ache and Mindanao, with limited UN engagement. How important are compromise, trust-building, non-conflictual language and innovative thinking supported by Interim Stabilization Measures and Confidence Building Measures.

  • Part 2

    DDR in Terrorism… we start with a definition, various typologies. motivations and methodologies. We note that interventions, particularly foreign ones, often lose the people, both at home and in-theatre. Successful counter-terrorism strategies seem to focus on light-footprint engagement applying principles of prevention and transformation. Can DDR be done in terrorist environments?

  • Part 3

    DDR in non-permissive environments and in on-going violence. Is there a dilemma in light of Human security versus Security? What of ‘soft-power’ and hybrid context specific approaches? How important is prevention and transformation? Why are innovative thinking and application of emerging technology essential? How does the changing global order impact on how DDR can be implemented? A lively debate ensues.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Desmond J. Molloy

    Professor, Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Nordic Peace

  Nordic history experienced the transition from conflict to peace. How were conflicts resolved? What were the strategies? This session examines conflict resolution between Norway and Sweden, Aland Island resolution between Finland and Sweden, and Denmark-Germany’s Schleswig settlement.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    The principles of conflict resolution between Norway and Sweden during their union and disunion emphasized using peaceful strategies, including unilateral accommodation by Sweden, democratic referendums, and compromises that built mutual trust. Demilitarized borders were established to prevent future conflicts, while a commitment to non-interference helped build confidence and avoid cycles of revanchism, ultimately contributing to a lasting and stable peace.

  • Part 2

    Nordic history transitioned from conflict to a high-quality and comprehensive peace through the peaceful dissolution of 1) the Norway-Sweden union, 2) the Åland Islands resolution between Finland and Sweden, and 3) Denmark-Germany’s Schleswig settlement. Emphasizing autonomy, minority rights, demilitarization, and international mediation, these cases built trust and balanced territorial integrity with self-determination, establishing a resilient security community in the Nordic Region that can function as a model for conflict resolution.

  • Part 3

    Nordic peace principles are examined in the discussion, highlighting how regional conflicts were historically resolved through compromise and accommodation. Norway’s successful border settlement with Russia in the Barents Sea is discussed, and furthermore, the potential parallels with Japan’s Northern Territories dispute are highlighted. Emphasis on the importance of timing in diplomatic negotiations, and the suggestion is to focus on planning for peace amid current securitization trends.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Gunnar Rekvig

    Program Director, Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Cold War Trust Building in the Nordic Arctic

  How was trust fostered during Cold War tensions? Nordic governance prioritized trust to maintain regional stability. In this session, trust-building through initiatives such as Finland’s sauna diplomacy and bilateral agreements are examined in relation to peace-building amid current global tensions.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Nordic conflict resilience emphasizes peaceful resolution through cooperation, seen in e.g., the Norway-Russia Barents Sea treaty and Åland Islands settlement. Initiatives like Finland’s sauna diplomacy and Nordic-Soviet cultural agreements fostered trust during Cold War tensions. Strategies balanced deterrence and reassurance, including military restrictions and joint fisheries management. Nordic governance prioritized trust, inclusivity, and robust democracies to maintain regional peace and stability.

  • Part 2

    Nordic governance emphasized resilience through diplomacy, cultural agreements, and regional cooperation. Trust-building involved pragmatic and innovative methods like sauna diplomacy and bilateral agreements. Johan Galtung’s framework contrasted realist and idealist views, emphasizing the necessity of envisioning potential realities to foster a lasting peace and stability.

  • Part 3

    Peace-building amid current global tensions is explored in the discussion, particularly Russia-Ukraine relations in relation to the war in Ukraine. Drawing from Johan Galtung’s work, the speakers contrast realist and idealist perspectives on reality, emphasizing the importance of envisioning potential peaceful futures. They compare Norway and Finland’s different approaches to engaging with Russia, with Norway maintaining a more nuanced stance despite official restrictions on academic collaboration.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Gunnar Rekvig

    Program Director, Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• The Gaza Crisis: A Shifting Paradigm of Conflict

  What impact does the victory of Taliban, once considered terrorists, have on radicalization as a global phenomenon? Furthermore, now that the Gaza war has made the suffering of Palestine an issue that unites Muslims around the world more vividly visible than ever before, how should we deal with future radicalization? This session will boldly address these issues.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    This section explores the definitions of violent extremism, terrorism, radicalization, and deradicalization. It then examines the global landscape of radicalization through two case studies: post-Taliban Afghanistan and Hamas-led radicalization supported by a third country.

  • Part 2

    This section explores theoretical frameworks for understanding radicalization and extremism, drawing on Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory and Amartya Sen’s critique and alternative perspective.

  • Part 3

    In this section, Professor Isezaki and Dr. Mubashar discuss human rights violations in Bangladesh, student protests, the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina’s regime, and other relevant topics related to the lecture.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Mubashar Hasan

    Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Oslo

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

• Engaging “Enemies”

  Is peace built by eliminating enemies of peace, or by dialogue with them? Or is a compromise between two camps possible by identifying “reconcilability within the enemies”? What would be the modus operandi for it? This session will consist of series of structured debates with guest lecturers, particularly focusing on the changes after Ukraine war and Gaza war.

  Videos

  ／学習動画

  • Part 1

    Following contemporary war reflections, the lecture analyzes Finland’s historical approaches to ‘enemy’ engagement – from the peaceful Åland Islands resolution to Cold War diplomacy – ultimately exploring how Finland’s non-violent strategies with powerful neighbors show paths to achieving ‘high-quality peace.’

  • Part 2

    Dr. Mubashar Hasan discusses how political non-engagement led to authoritarian rule in Bangladesh and introduces a socio-psychological model for engaging adversaries.

  • Part 3

    Dr. Mubashar discusses with Professor Kenji Isezaki how engaging with adversaries could have led to a different outcome in Bangladesh. Dr. Rekvig highlights that modern Nordic peace facilitation involves bringing all stakeholders to the table, no matter how small their role.

  Lecturers

  ／講師

  • Mubashar Hasan

    Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Oslo

  • Gunnar Rekvig

    Program Director, Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  • Kenji Isezaki

    Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Staff／スタッフ

• 
  Kenji Isezaki

  Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  Professor Emeritus
• 
  Aya Fukuda

  Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  Lecturer
• 
  Taku Suda

  Graduate of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
• 
  Kevin Brandon Saure

  Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  Doctoral Student
• 
  Shiori Kanno

  Lawyer, Former Member of the House of Representatives
• 
  Hasibullah Mowahed

  Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

  Visiting Lecturer
• 
  Desmond J. Molloy

  Paññāsāstra University (Cambodia)

  Professor
• 
  Gunnar Rekvig

  Sasakawa Peace Foundation

  Program Director
• 
  Mubashar Hasan

  University of Oslo

  Postdoctoral Fellow

Competency／コンピテンシー

Contact／お問合せ先

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Office for International Affairs
tufs_pcs_ondemand@tufs.ac.jp

Related Contents／関連コンテンツ

Contents

Learning about "Japanese tea ceremony and culture" with NHK TV show Japanology Plus

• Learning

Free

On Air

Intercultural collaborative learning activities on educational reform and teacher well-being

• Learning

Free

On Air

An Introduction to Postwar Taiwan Fiction

• Learning

Free

On Air

【YOKOHAMA-SXIP 2025】 Themed Lecture ２: Introductory to Circular Economy

• Learning
• Link

Free

On Air