The Rise of Asian Defense Diplomacy： Convergence or Divergence in Sino-Australian Security Relations？

The rise of multilateral defense diplomacy in Asia is an important new phenomenon.In addition to the newly established ADMM+ process and the Shangri-La Dialogue(SLD) ,ASEAN defense ministers,ASEAN chiefs of defense and ASEAN chiefs of intelligence are now all meeting on a regular basis.Such gatherings were almost unthinkable as recently as a decade ago.This paper seeks to interpret these developments and their implications for the Sino-Australian security relationship.It argues that while these recent developments appear to reflect a deepening of Asian security cooperation,they are actually a manifestation of an intensifying institutional competition,namely between the ASEAN-centered ADMM and the Western-backed SLD.This,in turn,is symptomatic of a broader institutional contestation——reflecting underlying strategic competition——which is becoming a distinctive feature of Asia’s emerging security ‘architecture.’ The paper goes on to argue that China and Australia find themselves on opposite sides of this competition and,particularly in the area of defense diplomacy,are likely to become increasingly important players in fuelling it.The paper concludes by observing why such a dynamic is potentially problematic and offers a modest set of policy recommendations designed to assist Beijing and Canberra in addressing and alleviating their competitive tendencies.     

Drone Use ‘Outside Areas of Active Hostilities’: An Examination of the Legal Paradigms Governing US Covert Remote Strikes

Netherlands International Law Review - This article examines the use by the US of drone strikes in regions described as ‘outside areas of active hostilities’ a phrase that appears to...     

Concurrent Duties

This paper offers an account of concurrent liability, and in particular the existence of, and interaction between, concurrent contractual and non‐contractual duties. It argues for five essential propositions: (1) a defendant can owe simultaneous private law duties towards a claimant, the content of which overlaps in whole or in part; (2) cases of concurrent liability in contract and negligence involve independent duties, which are concurrent but not coextensive; (3) the doctrine of concurrent liability is conceptually distinct from the rule that the claimant must elect between inconsistent remedies; (4) if the defendant commits a wrong in breach of more than one duty, the claimant has a prima facie choice to sue for any of those breaches; and (5) the content of one any duty might affect the content of the other. The last of these principles, it is argued, provide an explanation for the recent decisions in Wellesley Partners v Withers and AIB v Mark Redler.     

Victimization and fear of crime in an entertainment district crime “hot spot:” A test of structural-choice theory

Theories of criminal opportunity and criminal victimization (lifestyles, routine activities, and structuralchoice) all stress the convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of guardianship in time and space. They each assert the chances of victimization increase as proximity to motivated offenders, exposure to highrisk environments, target attractiveness, and ineffective guardianship increase. This study tests Miethe and Meier’s structuralchoice theory by examining domainspecific victimization and fear of crime among patrons of an entertainment district crime “hot spot. ”Regression results show both victimization experience and fear of crime are associated significantly with indicators of proximity and guardianship, but not with exposure or target attractiveness. White patrons of this area are more likely to be victimized, nonwhites report significantly higher levels of fear. The research for this paper was supported by Grant No. 97PRWX0298 from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

Literatur

Ohne Zusammenfassung