Suchergebnisse

In recent years, dozens of drone development projects have attracted hundreds of millions of euros from EU public research funds with little accountability and scarce political oversight. This article relates the ongoing exponential growth of the drone industry in Europe with the vast amounts of EU public research funding channelled to drone research. These projects typically configure partnerships that are neither strictly public, nor strictly private, and it is precisely a combination of their hybrid nature with the centrality of technological expertise that makes them less visible. This partial invisibility is particularly relevant in the context of a dual‐use technology that enables new forms of surveillance, poses societal challenges, and can be used as a lethal weapon. Beyond providing short‐term responses to specific problems, we argue that these tactics are largely aimed at fostering a common EU security and defence research & development culture in a time of international security uncertainty

The externalization of the EU's migration policies has seen a sharp increase in recent years but many aspects of its historical roots, internal dynamics, and broader implications remain insufficiently explored. This special issue analyses recent developments in the EU's external migration policies including the extra-territorial reach of EU migration policies; the power relationships between the EU and third countries involved in EU migration policies; the overlap with critical development studies and post-colonialism; the replication of many of Australia's external migration policies; the impact of EU external migration policies on third countries, and civil society contestation of those policies. As the contributions show, the series of policies discussed here go beyond the specific empirical area of migration control to have significance for both the future of the European Union and its role in global affairs.

AbstractIn recent years, dozens of drone development projects have attracted hundreds of millions of euros from EU public research funds with little accountability and scarce political oversight. This article relates the ongoing exponential growth of the drone industry in Europe with the vast amounts of EU public research funding channelled to drone research. These projects typically configure partnerships that are neither strictly public, nor strictly private, and it is precisely a combination of their hybrid nature with the centrality of technologial expertise that makes them less visible. This partial invisibility is particularly relevant in the context of a dual‐use technology that enables new forms of surveillance, poses societal challenges, and can be used as a lethal weapon. Beyond providing short‐term responses to specific problems, we argue that these tactics are largely aimed at fostering a common EU security and defence research & development culture in a time of international security uncertainty.

The two books highlight two different views on the way that private security is governed in the African states under review.

AbstractDrones have been widely used by public authorities during the COVID‐19 pandemic for pandemic‐related problems. As an innovative tool with a wide range of potentialities, they have been deemed suitable for an exceptional situation marked by the persistence of social distance. Yet, the turn to new technology to solve complex problems is a political decision that has broad societal implications, especially in the context of declared states of emergency. In the article we argue that the extensive use of drones by national authorities during the COVID‐19 pandemic has generated a new socio‐technical assemblage of actors, technologies and practices. Building on the three main uses of drones as responses to specific pandemic‐related challenges (disinfection, delivery, and surveillance), we analyse the actors and the practices involved in this new socio‐technical assemblage. From the empirical material, we explore potential effects of drone uses on key issues such as the technology regulatory processes, public acceptance, and security and safety concerns.

Drones have been widely used by public authorities during the COVID‐19 pandemic for pandemic‐related problems. As an innovative tool with a wide range of potentialities, they have been deemed suitable for an exceptional situation marked by the persistence of social distance. Yet, the turn to new technology to solve complex problems is a political decision that has broad societal implications, especially in the context of declared states of emergency. In the article we argue that the extensive use of drones by national authorities during the COVID‐19 pandemic has generated a new socio‐technical assemblage of actors, technologies and practices. Building on the three main uses of drones as responses to specific pandemic‐related challenges (disinfection, delivery, and surveillance), we analyse the actors and the practices involved in this new socio‐technical assemblage. From the empirical material, we explore potential effects of drone uses on key issues such as the technology regulatory processes, public acceptance, and security and safety concerns.

xisting research on digital technologies in peacebuilding exhibits both tech-solutionist and tech-problematizing traits that tend to understate their embeddedness in society and politics. We argue that the study of digital peacebuilding should instead reflexively engage with the coproduction of the technical and the social in both academia and practice. This requires asking how assumptions about technology are related to assumptions about the conflict and peacebuilding context on which these technologies are brought to bear, and with what consequences. Therefore, we propose a methodological framework that brings to the fore how technologies for peacebuilding and peacebuilding with technology are coproduced. First, we focus on the interrelated claims about peacebuilding and technology, and the coproduction of peacebuilding problems and technological solutions. Second, we inquire into the characteristics of the digital peacebuilding agendas built on these claims, including the dynamics of disruptive change and datafication that these agendas bring. Third, we consider the sticky effects of digital approaches, in terms of a politicization or depoliticization of peacebuilding efforts, and ask what kind of peace this may produce.