Suchergebnisse

This book steers discussion of the 'war on terror' away from the militaristic tinge it has acquired, back to the idea that increased global cooperation and a cosmopolitan agenda would be the best solution to managing globalised risks like terrorism.

Existing studies of European Union Common Security and Defence Policy (EU CSDP) missions often rely on a conceptualisation of Women, Peace and Security (WPS) implementation as a technical, linear and deterministic process. While this scholarship is part of a concerted effort to develop an accountability mechanism and push for organisational change, this paper contends that we also need a more grounded and contextual approach to capture the complex, ambivalent and often tortuous translation of WPS into CSDP relatively new security practices. This suggests that a deeper interrogation of what meaning(s) mainstreaming gender assumes in the context of EU CSDP missions and how this conceptualisation informs the practice of peacekeeping is required. Drawing on interviews with EU peacekeeping personnel, we outline an ambivalent account of how different CSDP actors interpret WPS and gender mainstreaming and compose it in use, with different effects.

This project bridges the divide between policy makers and critical approaches to gender by engaging with both the quantitative (number of women) and qualitative (shifts in underlying social power structures) aspects of gender in the context of CSDP. To do so it examined the policy documents and secondary literature on women, peace and security and the EU. We also conducted interviews with key personnel in Brussels and in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina to examine the planning, practice and impact of EU crisis management missions in the field. The Project makes the following recommendations based on this research: • Greater commitment to the Women, Peace & Security (WPS) agenda is required at the very top-level, both within EU planning offices such as the CMPD & CPSS, and within Member States at the highest political level and in addressing institutional cultures within personnel contributing agencies. • Better resourcing for Gender planning and Gender Focal point staff, doublehatting should be ended and continuity planning between staff should be enhanced. • Gender-mainstreaming has to include addressing institutional culture at the planning stage in addition to looking at staffing ratios and implementation on the ground. • Improving gender outcomes requires cooperation between CSDP missions and civil society, as well as better linking between gender mainstreaming initiatives in the other EU institutions and the EEAS. • Academic researchers working on gender and conflict need to emphasise the translational aspects of their findings and actively seek to engage with policymakers and practitioners • The CSDP institutions need to improve transparency and accessibility for academic researchers to maximise the accuracy, relevance and impact of research

In March 2009, the Obama administration sent a message to senior Pentagon staff instructing them to refrain from using either of the terms 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' and to replace these terms with 'Overseas Contingency Operations'. The change in tone and, potentially, substance, from the Obama White House by ending the 'war on terror' at the rhetorical level suggests a need to shift our academic attention towards developing more appropriate analytical frameworks for examining alternative strategies for countering terrorism. This paper seeks to explore what it terms an emerging risk-based approach being deployed by states. Our framework proposed here deploys the twin concepts of 'risk bureaucracies' and risk regulatory regimes (RRRs) in examining terrorist financing and aviation security regulations.

Since the events of September 11th 2001 much as been written on how the construction of the terrorist threat post-9/11 contributed to the legitimising and use of extraordinary practices outside of the traditional boundaries of legal and, indeed, security practice. Much of this literature has focussed on the violation of the human rights of individuals caught up in the web of practices ranging from extraordinary rendition to targeted assassination to military intervention. Simultaneously a growing literature has drawn attention to the low key risk-based institutions and practices that have grown up around the 'War on Terror' such as the efforts against terrorist financing, the growing web of dataveillance and the emergence of risk management bureaucracies designed to calculate and manage risks to a tolerable level. This paper seeks to examine these latter discussions towards the concerns raised in relation to the less visible practices of counter-terrorism. What are the implications of the construction of risk-bureaucracies that operate on the logic of prevention and risk-management for our understandings of human rights? What accountability mechanisms are in place and how do they operate in practice? Given the complex and largely hidden nature of such regimes, the question of how we can reconcile them with the ideals of democratic and liberal societies is a pressing one, particularly as such structures once established may prove to be more long-lasting and have greater repercussions than the more controversial but visible practices mentioned above.

In March 2009, the Obama administration sent a message to senior Pentagon staff instructing them to refrain from using either of the terms 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' and to replace these terms with 'Overseas Contingency Operations'. Similarly, the 2009 UK Strategy for Countering International Terrorism eschews military terminology, preferring instead National Risk Assessments whose overall aim is 'to reduce the risk to the UK'. This paper seeks to explore what it terms an emerging risk-based approach being deployed by states. Such an approach has already played a significant role in the 'War on Terror' to date, particularly in relation to Anti-Terrorist Financing and Aviation security guidelines. The change in tone and, potentially, substance from the Obama White House may however create the opportunity for risk-based approaches to move further onto the centre stage in the war on terror, just as it has in the wider Risk Society. This paper argues that the end of the 'War on Terror' at the rhetorical level suggests a need to shift our academic attention towards developing appropriate analytical frameworks for examining such risk-based strategies for countering terrorism. Our framework proposed here deploys the twin concepts of 'risk bureaucracies' and risk regulatory regimes (RRRs) in examining terrorist financing and aviation security regulations.

Abstract. Despite initial fanfare surrounding its launch in the White House Rose Garden, the War on Terrorist Finances (WOTF) has thus far languished as a sideshow, in the shadows of military campaigns against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. This neglect is unfortunate, for the WOTF reflects the other multilateral cooperative dimension of the US-led 'war on terror', quite contrary to conventional sweeping accusations of American unilateralism. Yet the existing academic literature has been confined mostly to niche specialist journals dedicated to technical, legalistic and financial regulatory aspects of the WOTF. Using the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a case study, this article seeks to steer discussions on the WOTF onto a broader theoretical IR perspective. Building upon emerging academic works that extend Foucauldian ideas of governmentality to the global level, we examine the interwoven overlapping national, regional and global regulatory practices emerging against terrorist financing, and the implications for notions of government, regulation and sovereignty.

Hameiri, S. ; Kühn, F. P.: Introduction. - S. 275-279 Clapton, W.: Risk in International Relations. - S. 280-295 Jarvis, D. S. L.: Theorising risk and uncertainty in International Relations: the contributions of Frank Knight. - S. 296-312 Heng, Y.-K. ; McDonagh, K.: After the 'War on Terror': regulatory states, risk bureaucracies and the risk-based governance of terror. - S. 313-329 Rothe, D.: Managing climate risks or risking a managerial climate: state, security and governance in the international climate regime. - S. 330-345 Gutkowski, S.: Secularism and the politics of risk: Britain's prevent agenda, 2005.2009. - S. 346-362 Kühn, F. P.: Securing uncertainty: sub-state security dilemma and the risk of intervention. - S. 363-380 Hameiri, S.: State transformation, territorial politics and the management of transnational risk. - S. 381-397