Arms Transfers beyond the State-to-State Realm

Arms transfers beyond the state-to-state realm can have harmful effects for international security dramatically affecting the relations and behavior of states. This article examines why an emerging international norm on "prohibiting states to transfer arms to nonstate groups" has failed to diffuse at the international level. It discusses the already available international law framework existing at the regional and international levels upon which the potential norm could be built. The failure of the norm to diffuse at the international level can be primarily explained by the existence of a long-consolidated norm: the customary practice of states to transfer weapons to nonstate actors, that is, groups they deem legitimate to, without any interference or constraint. ¹ The unrestrained transfer of weapons is an established foreign-policy practice. It is the way states form, uphold alliances, extend friendships, and build spheres of influence ( Sorokin 1994 ). Clearly, no state willingly wants to give this up. Therefore, the multilateral agreement on a norm barring most or all transfers of weapons to nonstate actors would curtail the freedom of action to build spheres of influence as states please. There are genuine ethical and moral dilemmas in this discussion, a nonstate actor may be a freedom fighter or a terrorist depending on different perspectives. The distinction between the categories "state" and "nonstate" actors may risk classifying actors in two camps: the good and the bad, respectively. This is problematic as a few states are known to be the most brutal perpetrators of egregious violations against their own citizens, whereas certain nonstate actors are legitimately fighting for the protection of vulnerable populations.  

Norms,Behavioral Compliance,and Status Attribution in International Politics

Extant work on status attribution has largely focused on major powers or state capabilities as key explanatory factors driving these social processes and suggests that status considerations increase conflicts between states. We argue for a more comprehensive approach to status attribution that considers international norms as another major factor that is weighed in the attribution process. We contend that states (policymakers) evaluate one another not only on the basis of economic and military capabilities but also on the extent to which there is behavioral conformance with normative expectations and reward one another dependent upon whether these expectations are met. However, this attribution of status is dependent upon the level of contestation pertaining to that norm. Using a data set that assesses consistency with six different norms (resource transference, multilateralism, economic liberalism, democratic governance, respect for human rights, and peaceful dispute resolution), we find that status attribution is associated with norm-consistent behavior but only when these norms are uncontested at the global level.  

Poor communities as corporate stakeholders: A bottom-up research approach

Abstract

This article strives to provide an understanding of salient issues affecting the daily lives of participants from various developing communities in the country, and within the bigger picture, discuss some implications for organisations that affect or are affected by such communities. A key implication is that the process of constant connectivity and dialogue, including dissent, with communities as corporate stakeholders, may be more important in establishing trust and earning accountability, than the outcomes of well-planned corporate social responsibility campaigns. The study is based on qualitative research undertaken between 2006 and 2008 in 35 South African rural and township communities in Limpopo Province, North-West and Gauteng. A bottom-up research approach was proposed by the researchers, which, instead of evaluating the effects of corporate communication campaigns on communities, was to begin at a grassroots level with communities themselves, by exploring top-of-mind issues. From the findings it was apparent that a vicious cycle of extreme and endemic poverty was the focal area that occupied community members’ minds. This study provides a linkage between certain aspects of corporate social responsibility, normative stakeholder theory, strategic communication and stakeholder dialogue, in an attempt to provide organisations with guidelines to evaluate and respond to the challenges of poor communities, and offer a perspective on the way strategic communication with poor communities should take place.  

Parallel authoritarian powers: an explanation of Mexico’s authoritarian regime breakdown

Regional multilateral regimes have become important instruments for promoting and defending democracy around the world. The novel nature of these regional instruments has generated a cottage industry in social science scholarship. Yet, none of these works compare the democracy promotion and defence regimes of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (AU). This article is designed to fill this gap. We argue that the unique constellation of actors that are members of each respective organization have reinforced two distinct democracy promotion and defence paths. The state-driven regime evolution characteristic of the Americas contrasts with Africa's expert-driven process of regime construction. The state-centric process of the OAS regime has bolstered a narrow interstate multilateralism that upholds traditional sovereign state prerogatives and minimizes the role for non-state actors in the promotion and defence of democracy in the Americas. The expert-driven process of AU's regime construction has fostered a legalistic approach to democratic promotion and defence in Africa and opened up space for non-state actors to play a central role in the development of regional democracy promotion and defence norms.  

Preventive War and Permissive Normative Order

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. president George W. Bush articulated a new national security strategy based on striking terrorist organizations and the states that harbor them before they could endanger the United States. Though expressed in the language of preemption, the Bush strategy embodied a far more problematic doctrine of preventive warfare. Whereas the grounds for preemption lie in evidence of a credible, imminent threat, the basis for prevention rests on the suspicion of an incipient, contingent threat. We argue that an American national security strategy that embraces preventive war will set an inauspicious precedent, undermining normative restraints on when and how states may use military force.  

Global Debate and the Limits of the Bush Doctrine

The "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to preemptively attack states that support or harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has bitterly divided world opinion. Many seemingly long-settled questions of international politics, especially involving the unilateral use of force, have been reopened. Although we are concerned about the implications of the Bush Doctrine, we do not agree that it fundamentally changes world politics as some have asserted. Instead, we argue that the global debate leading up to the war in Iraq signals widespread support for existing international norms. Most states continue to see force as a last resort, properly subject to multilateral control in all but the most urgent cases of imminent self-defense. The nature of American diplomatic maneuverings in the United Nations and the public statements of high-level officials suggest that even the United States continues to recognize the importance of these norms.  

自下而上的规范制定与网络安全国际规范的生成

信息通信技术的使用给国际和平与国家安全带来威胁，而网络安全国际规范还处在生成的过程中。各国政府致力于达成一定的规范共识，但常常受到国家间政治博弈的影响。在此情况下，互联网企业及非政府组织开始以“自下而上”的方式积极参与到规范制定中，并提出了不少有别于现有规范成果的规范倡议。互联网企业及非政府组织期望严格约束国家的网络空间行为，并在网络安全治理中扮演更重要的角色。它们提出的规范倡议从多个方面弥补了现有规范的不足。在现实中，主导规范制定的国家行为体与非国家行为体既相互利用，又持续博弈，互联网企业及非政府组织在规范制定进程中的权力与影响力受限。联合国信息安全开放式工作组及少部分国家有限度地向非国家行为体开放，使经过挑选的部分规范倡议进入政府间规范讨论议程，但国家间的分歧与博弈又阻止了这些规范倡议成为受到认可的国际规范。尽管如此，国家间博弈方式的转变，即越来越多的国家利用互联网企业及非政府组织的力量为政治博弈服务，以及公私关系更为平衡的新型网络安全治理模式的构建，为互联网企业及非政府组织争取更大的规范制定权力提供了机会。  

美国选举安全问题:以2016年和2020年总统大选为例

2016年美国总统大选暴露了长期存在于该国选举体系中的风险,"选举安全"迅速成为当代美国国家安全与国土安全领域的重要议题。美国选举安全涉及网络安全、社会安全、政治安全与军事安全,体现出"复合安全问题"的特质。美国联邦与各州政府试图从降低关键基础设施风险、重建选民信任、减少部门壁垒以及填补机制缺失四个层面入手,系统性化解存在于选举系统的各类安全威胁。2020年美国大选期间,原有选举安全风险得到一定程度的缓解,但美国国家安全体制及文化与其选举安全体系的运行逻辑之间仍存在多层矛盾,特别是美国选举体系的产业市场与创新之间的矛盾、国家安全与"言论自由"之间的矛盾、"全政府"与"地方权"之间的矛盾、"网络自由"与"网络主权"之间的矛盾。这些矛盾会长期存在,将使利益攸关方不断发生龃龉,阻碍相关政策深入推进,最终导致美国在选举安全治理上将一直面临难以克服的困境。  

以色列的网络安全问题及其治理

网络安全威胁是当今国际社会普遍面临的主要威胁之一。受地缘政治与国际局势的影响,以色列成为遭受网络攻击最为频繁的国家之一。由于长期遭受网络攻击的威胁,以色列在国际社会中较早重视网络安全问题,建立了一系列网络安全应对机制。2010-2011年是以色列加强国家网络安全建设的重要时间节点,以《2010国家网络倡议》和以色列政府第3611号决议两个具有里程碑意义的文件为代表,以色列政府将制定国家网络战略提上议事日程。在国家网络局的统筹规划下,通过政府机构、军情部门、学术界、产业界等之间的密切合作,以色列构建了一整套较为健全的网络安全维护机制,不仅有效治理了网络安全问题,而且通过与技术研发相结合形成了科学合理的网络安全生态系统,蓬勃发展的网络安全产业也带来了可观的经济效益。作为全球网络安全领域的引领者之一,以色列在网络安全治理上积累了较为丰富的经验,并具备一定的网络战实战能力,值得其他相关国家学习和借鉴。