The role of the Asia Pacific Partnership in discursive contestation of the international climate regime

After withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, the US Bush Administration and the Australian Howard Government pursued an international climate change policy focussed on voluntary international agreements outside the UN climate negotiations. This strategy included the formation of several climate agreements directed at technology development, including the 2005 Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). The APP provides a model for international climate change policy directed at voluntary national greenhouse gas intensity targets, technology development through sectoral public–private partnerships and technology diffusion through trade. This article situates the APP within these US and Australian inspired climate agreements formed outside the UN negotiations. Bäckstrand and Lövbrand’s (in M. Pettenger (ed.) The social construction of climate change: power knowledge norms discourses, 2007) discourse analysis in relation to the international climate negotiations is used to explore differences between the APP and UN climate treaties. We find the APP embodies a discourse of what we call ‘deregulatory ecological modernisation’ that promotes limited public funding to ease informational failures in markets for cleaner technologies and management practices. The deregulatory ecological modernisation discourse is a deeply intensive market liberal approach to international climate change policy, which contests binding emission reduction targets and the development of a global carbon market. The USA, Australia, Japan and Canada represented a core group of countries that used the APP to promote the deregulatory ecological modernisation discourse and thereby contest any deepening of developed nations' emission reduction targets for the post-2012 period. However, with changes of leadership and new parties in power in the USA and Australia, it appears that the deregulatory ecological modernisation discourse has lost ground compared to a reengagement with discourses supportive of developed country emission reduction targets and equity-based adaptation and technology transfer assistance for developing nations.     

Adorno and Marcuse at the Barricades?: Critical Theory,Scholar-Activism,and the Neoliberal University

When Marx proclaimed the importance of not just interpreting the world but actually changing it, he initiated an important imperative that has existed within all forms of critical theory up to today. Drawing upon the work of Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, we use their unique way of looking at the theory/praxis couplet as an avenue to rethink the role of critical theory as a form of “scholar-activism.” Theory, to paraphrase Adorno, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed; and it is because of this lack of immediate utility that theory occupies a space of resistance. Nonetheless, as Marcuse avered, theory itself may retreat into the privileged space of scholastic philosophy if it does not constantly engage activist movements that challenge the historical and social conditions of human oppression. In the first part of the essay, we will look at Adorno and Marcuse’s critical theories as well as their own political engagements to clarify the concept of critical theory as scholar-activism. In the second part of the essay, we will demonstrate the importance of this particular kind of scholar-activism in the context of (and against the logic of) the neoliberal university.     

What Is Cyberterrorism? Findings From a Survey of Researchers

This article reports on a recent survey designed to capture understandings of cyberterrorism across the global research community. Specifically, it explores competing views, and the importance thereof, amongst 118 respondents on three definitional issues: (a) the need for a specific definition of cyberterrorism for either policymakers or researchers; (b) the core characteristics or constituent parts of this concept; and (c) the value of applying the term “cyberterrorism” to a range of actual or potential scenarios. The article concludes by arguing that while a majority of researchers believe a specific definition of cyberterrorism is necessary for academics and policymakers, disagreement around what this might look like has additional potential to stimulate a rethinking of terrorism more widely.     

Anarchs and Social Guys

This contribution addresses the question raised by Robin Fox concerning our tribal ancestry and its relevance to modernity and civilization. The discussion centers first on the concept of communitas with the suggestion that it be defined as referring to two different states, the psychological communitas and the sociological communitas. Groups or communities organized along the lines of a sociological communitas are then examined cursorily and their properties are outlined. Numerous tribal groups of that sort have been documented and have been shown to lack the traits of what is called a social organization. The observation of their non-social organization is arguably a fact of major significance in the social sciences, one that has not been clearly highlighted so far. The hypothesis presented in this paper is that such organizations that are anarchic and complex have to be epistemologically dissociated from organizations that are social. Anarchs and social guys thus point to two different ancestries in the genealogy of humankind.     

Bank Charges and the Core Exemption: Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc

Consideration is given to the treatment of the core exemption in Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Bank. Certain aspects of the approach taken to the general limitation of the exemption to terms in plain intelligible language are looked at, before the scope of Regulation 6(2)(b) itself is addressed.