Putting security governance to the test: conceptual,empirical, and normative challenges

Security governance has featured prominently in recent debates about fragmentation, informalization, and privatization in the increasingly diverse field of security policy. It has inspired much valuable research. Yet, there are not just very different conceptual understandings of security governance; there is also a lack of clarity regarding its empirical manifestations and normative connotations. After a decade of research, the special issue therefore puts security governance to the test and scrutinizes its analytical and political pitfalls and potentials. This editorial briefly reviews the rise of security governance, identifies central conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges that need to be addressed, and introduces the individual contributions to this special issue.     

Towards security governance as a critical tool: a conceptual outline

This article argues that security governance can and should be reframed as a critical tool that enables us to understand and reappraise concrete practices of security provision. Security governance needs to move beyond the functional mapping of different governing arrangements and the presumption that security governance leads to effective and legitimate problem-solving in a quasi-automatic manner. In this article, we propose a framework that identifies the essential characteristics of security governance and turns them into critical questions with the aim to reveal persisting frictions and dilemmas. First, we trace the rise of security governance as concept and practice over the past decade and identify its central characteristics with regard to prerequisites, structures and consequences. Second, we reframe the core characteristics of security governance into critical questions and thereby develop an understanding of security governance as a critical tool. Finally, we illustrate the relevance of this approach with examples from EU security governance.     

试论国家治理现代化视域下的基层群众自治制度

推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化是完善和发展中国特色社会主义制度的必然要求。基层群众自治现代化是国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的题中之义和基础工程。国家治理现代化,涉及国家治理的各个层面,其中,观念和制度的现代化尤为重要。     

INVESTING IN RESILIENT GROWTH

正China adds new vitality to global governance during Brisbane G20 SummitLeaders of the Group of 20(G20)have promised to work together to lift growth,boost economic resilience and strengthen global institutions upon concluding their summit meeting held in Brisbane,Australia,on November 15-16.     

论文化治理的运行逻辑

党的十八届三中全会提出国家治理体系要加强党委领导,发挥政府主导作用,实现对社会的综合治理。这引发了学者对国家治理体系现代化以及治理能力的相关思考。文化作为一种软性的治理手段,虽然并非是现代社会的常规国家治理方式,但却在中西方传统社会至现代社会中发挥着重要的作用。笔者从国家治理中的文化因素入手,考察文化引发治理困境、促进治理转型、达成治理优化的运行逻辑。     

论旅游景区经营公司治理结构创新

公司是旅游景区市场化经营的有效组织形式.旅游景区的开发经营涉及众多利益主体,旅游景区经营公司比一般公司肩负着更复杂广泛的社会责任.创新旅游景区经营公司的治理结构是强化景区经营公司社会责任、协调不同利益主体之间矛盾的一条可行路径.     

两岸海洋管理制度比较研究

近年来,人们对海洋及海岸地带的开发日渐增多,这一方面带来了丰富多样的资源,另一方面却又使海洋及海岸地带的环境和秩序面临着前所未有的压力与冲击,这一状况使人们不得不开始关注并审视关于海洋治理的问题。台湾地区作为一个四面环海的地区,在海洋治理方面之作为应有其可取之处。另外,以总体性观念与方式处理海洋（包括海岸地区）事务的观点已成为国际的主流思潮。因此,从立法,行政和执法三个层面上对比中国大陆和台湾地区的海洋治理制度,寻求台湾地区海洋治理中的先进做法,并审视两岸在治理中共同存在的问题以及与总体性海洋治理理念上的差距,并提出改进建议。     

论区域经济发展中的软法之治——以包容性发展为视角

软法之治是解决我国区域经济法制发展滞后问题的有效制度方案之一。区域经济发展中的软法在结构、功能与效力等方面有其自身的内在规律。在区域经济发展领域,软法与硬法之间所形成的制度包容性发展乃是区域经济包容性发展的题中之义。在法治语境下,区域经济软法在融入法治的过程中需要在价值取向上秉持善治的旨归,在实施依据上彰显制度的包容,在完善路径上顺应法治的嬗变。     

行政治理视野下的行政协商

我国传统的行政管理模式过于注重行政治理的威权性,而忽视了公民的主体性,因此难以适应现代行政治理之发展诉求。而行政协商是一种注重行政治理过程中公民与行政主体间的交往对话,凸显行政过程的公民参与性,以及行政治理活动之主体间良性互动的行政方式。它的兴起反映了人们对我国传统单方性、命令性和封闭性的行政治理模式之弊病的反思,回应并诠释了合作行政、柔和行政与开放行政等现代行政治理模式的发展诉求。当前,超越行政协商所面临的制度与现实困境,并不断促进其融入我国行政治理实践,不仅有利于推动我国行政治理模式之现代转向,而且有利于促进我国行政法治、行政善治之发展。     

Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research

Although increasingly global, data-driven genomics and other ‘omics’-focused research hold great promise for health discoveries, current research ethics review systems around the world challenge potential improvements in human health from such research. To overcome this challenge, we propose a ‘Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency’ that facilitates the harmonization of ethics review of specific types of data-driven international research projects while respecting globally transposable research ethics norms and principles. The Safe Harbor would consist in part of an agency supporting an International Federation for Ethics Review (IFER), formed by a voluntary compact among countries, granting agencies, philanthropies, institutions, and healthcare, patient advocacy, and research organizations. IFER would be both a central ethics review body, and also a forum for review and follow-up of policies concerning ethics norms for international research projects. It would be built on five principle elements: (1) registration, (2) compliance review, (3) recognition, (4) monitoring and enforcement, and (5) public participation. The Safe Harbor would create many benefits for researchers, countries, and the general public, and may eventually have application beyond (gen)omics to other areas of biomedical research that increasingly engage in secondary use of data and present only negligible risks.