Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been characterized by a considerable number of cyber operations by States and non-State actors in support to either party to the conflict. One year since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the 'Russia-Ukraine cyber conflict' offers valuable insights for estimating the effectiveness of International Humanitarian Law in regulating the status and the conduct of individuals engaging in cyberspace operations during wartime. By discussing the status of hackers groups and individuals who have conducted cyber operations in support of Ukraine, this Article claims that the relevance of the concept of combatancy is diminished in the cyber domain, and that the notion of direct participation in hostilities must be adapted to the specific features of cyberspace. Furthermore, the article focuses on the issues relating to the targeting of individual who directly participate in hostilities by conducting cyber operations in support of Ukraine. By doing so, the Article argues that cyber direct participants place themselves at an increased risk of being attacked, even though the Russian armed forces are limited in their targeting decisions by the principles of proportionality and precaution.

We introduce status conflicts—defined as disputes over people's relative status (i.e., respect) positions in their group's social hierarchy—as a key group process that affects task group performance. Using mixed research methods, we qualitatively identify the characteristics of status conflicts, validate a four-item survey scale that distinctly measures status conflict, and investigate the relationship between status conflict and group performance. We determine that status conflict exerts a significant negative main effect, moderates the effects of task conflict on group performance, and hurts performance by undermining information sharing more than other types of conflict do.

This paper focuses on what could be learned about statuses and status groups from the work of Randall Collins in the 1980s, and in particular from Weberian Sociological Theory (1986). I mention how I myself found this book useful at that time to further my own work in the sociology of science and in sociological theory, and emphasise its value in appreciating the fundamental and irremediable deficiencies of individualistic rational choice theory in both contexts. I go on to note how Collins, a 'macro' sociologist in the 1980s, was nonetheless well aware of the indispensable role of micro-sociology in advancing the fundamental understanding of the field as a whole, and his singling out of Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel as primus inter pares for their special theoretical importance at this time. I say a little about why these two did indeed have much to contribute to an understanding of statuses and of status groups and still do even today, and end by noting how effectively Collins has used and built upon the work of Goffman in particular since the 1980s.