Beyond 'Do No Harm': The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research

This paper highlights some of the central ethical challengesinvolved in undertaking social science research with refugeesin conflict and crisis situations. It focuses on two main setsof challenges: first, the difficulties of constructing an ethicalconsent process and obtaining genuinely informed consent; andsecond, taking fully into account and responding to refugeeparticipants' capacities for autonomy. The authors also discussthe challenges involved in applying the central normative principlesgoverning ethics review processes—the principles of beneficence,integrity, respect for persons, autonomy and justice—tothe context of refugee research. It is argued that researchersshould seek ways to move beyond harm minimization as a standardfor ethical research and recognize an obligation to design andconduct research projects that aim to bring about reciprocalbenefits for refugee participants and/or communities. Some ofthe methodological issues raised by this analysis are discussedin the conclusion.     

Intellectual property provisions and support for US trade agreements

Intellectual property rights are a key piece of the expanded trade agenda, and the United States has pushed hard to strengthen protections beyond WTO standards in its trade agreements. While agreement provisions governing intellectual property are commonly thought to be an important driver of corporate preferences over US trade policy, systematic empirical evidence for this proposition, especially in comparison to other determinants of trade policy, is generally lacking. To fill this void, this paper examines variation in reliance on intellectual property across US industries to explain attitudes and lobbying on US trade agreements. The effects of IP provisions on support for US trade agreements are politically substantial, though trade remains the primary determinant of preferences over trade agreements.     

Environmental Security and New Middle Powers: The Case of South Korea

This article considers the role of new middle powers in the climate change debate. We focus on the issue of “green growth.” We argue that new middle powers such as South Korea are increasingly proactive in promoting this green growth agenda and, as a result, challenging conventional realist and liberal approaches and expectations to new middle powers. This diplomacy is aiming to bridge states, great and small, by leading to strategic breakthroughs in the current climate change negotiation deadlock. The article discusses South Korea’s green growth initiative and identifies how this initiative affects South Korea’s middle power role in the global environmental debate with respect to its inclusion in the Environment Integrity Group and its initiative the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI).     

Rational Choice and Politics

The rational-choice approach brings scientific deductive methods to bear on politics. Appropriate methods are derived from physics, when actors interact probabilistically but non-rationally, and from game theory when they interact rationally. Collective action problems occur in the provision of public goods. As policies are themselves public goods, this leads to the game-theoretic analysis of voting, bureaucracy and lobbies. It is inconsistent to believe that economic actors are basically self-interested but that political actors are not. Rather, one should treat people as equally (not necessarily wholly) self-interested in each sphere. The paradoxes of social choice are then shown to have important implications for political science.