Antitrust issues increasingly reach beyond national borders. This paper addresses the question whether such issues can reasonably be solved by an extraterritorial application of national competition law or whether they call for an international competition policy of its own. The analysis is based upon 20 case studies which are examined with regard to the suitability of the effects doctrine and the principles of comity as conflict resolution mechanisms. The case studies demonstrate that conflicts in international antitrust are most likely to arise where national competition laws differ from each other or where national authorities are pursuing divergent industrial policy objectives.
In this paper we analyse cyberattacks and cyber conflict and the challenges they pose to the field of conflict resolution. State and non-state actors alike are conducting cyberattacks in new and sophisticated ways that result in conflicts which are not readily addressed by conflict resolution approaches. Consequently, these developments in cyberspace take place without much input from conflict resolution scholars and practitioners. We suggest that these developments in cyberspace result in changing relationships between actors, and thus potentially different types of conflict, based around two key problems. First, there is the problem of attribution. Cyberspace is inherently linked with anonymity and attributing a cyberattack with certainty is almost never possible. In addition, it is difficult to distinguish the difference between various types of actors, which include a mixture of states, non-state groups, and individual hackers. ; peer-reviewed
FY 2012-2013. Project Leads: Kosal, Margaret E. ; The report will advance critical thinking on the potential role and impact of nanotechnology on defense policy. It will view nanotechnology through the prism of international cooperation and competition, examining whether emerging nanotechnology will exacerbate or mitigate regional security challenges. ; NA ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Property concerns conflicts - both conflicts between individuals and conflicts of interest. Conflicts between individuals have long been the paradigmatic property focus. According to this view, property debates circle around issues of autonomy and productive competition. But this is an impoverished view. In this Article, we shift attention to conflicts of interest. By helping people manage conflicts of interest, a well-governed property system balances interdependence with autonomy and productive cooperation with productive competition. We identify three mechanisms woven throughout property law that help manage conflicts of interest: (1) internalization of externalities; (2) democratization of management; and (3) de-escalation of transactions. We show that property law predictably selects among these mechanisms depending on the ratio of economic to social benefits that people seek from a group resource. When economic concerns predominate, property law typically uses contribution-based allocations of rights and responsibilities mediated by formal, foreground procedures, while at the social end of the spectrum we tend to see more egalitarian substantive rules operating as an informal, background safety net.
This presentation will include an extensive review of literature of Conflict Minerals, particularly situations occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Conflict minerals, as defined by Salem Press Encyclopedia are raw minerals that derive from areas of armed conflict. The presentation will examine the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, conflict minerals and its intersection with militant groups and the recovery process. We seek to portray historical events that led to this conflict and discuss current initiatives to combat this important social issue. Our goal is to raise awareness of the far reaching impact of this conflict on the Congolese people and other nations. We also aim to educate about ways to affect change.
The essays in this book focus on the tension built into the vocation of the journalist. He and she not only report on what has happened but also play a key part in forging a way forward. The media both report on conflict and play a critical part in building consensus. The link between the two is the following: reporting on events is not just a passive process. In constructing a narrative for the reader, the journalist plays an active role in defining the event in question and underlining what is at stake. In sodoing, the journalist both reports as well as joins the effort to forge a way forward. The essays in this volume seek to probe the contradictory character of the journalist's vocation: to report on conflict but also to build a consensus on the way out of it. What, in this context, is the meaning of mediation and reconciliation? Are journalists external to the conflict? Can they be objective or should they recognize their own limitations, thereby reporting all sides to the conflict? What are the moral dilemmas faced by a war journalist as opposed to a peace journalist, since the former is more likely to turn into an official mouthpiece? The essays address these questions in different contexts, ranging from Afghanistan to South Sudan, Syria to Libya, and Nepal to Colombia. In doing so, they allow us to go beyond the sometimes banal and formulaic literature on "peace-building" in "post-conflict" societies. ; This book is published in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Expression, Media Development and Global Policy at the University of Gothenburg.
The Colombian Peace Process (2012-2016) ended with an agreement that finished one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts of the contemporary world. The traumatic effects on the population give an account of the horrors committed by different actors at the crossfire throughout the years. The peace agreement achieved between the government and the FARC guerrilla movement (2016) embodies a novel and persistent way to overcome different perspectives of the actors and the population itself. In a divided political panorama, the Post-conflict scenario will be a true test for the Colombian people that can serve as an example of the capacity of forgiveness and reconciliation in the modern global system. For the Colombians, it will not be easy to consolidate a peaceful era to facilitate the rise of the country as a new power in the Global South. In this chapter, we will analyze the main elements of the Contemporary Colombian Conflict and its process of negotiations from the short and midterm perspectives, as well as the main actors involved, and the effects of the conflict on the civilian population.
Expeditionary conflict, where military force is used for purposes other than defence of the state, is a developing field in military ethics. In law, the nature of these conflicts raises a question of whether or not military force should be constrained by the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) or the law enforcement paradigm, which demands that Human Rights Law take precedence over International Humanitarian Law. In ethics there is some question of whether or not Just War Theory can be applied to such conflicts, or if we need to apply some other ethical theory.
Expeditionary conflict, where military force is used for purposes other than defence of the state, is a developing field in military ethics. In law, the nature of these conflicts raises a question of whether or not military force should be constrained by the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) or the law enforcement paradigm, which demands that Human Rights Law take precedence over International Humanitarian Law. In ethics there is some question of whether or not Just War Theory can be applied to such conflicts, or if we need to apply some other ethical theory.
This paper discusses some of the principal issues relating to the reconstruction of the financial sector in conflict-affected countries, focusing on currency reform, the rebuilding (or creation) of central banks, the revitalization of the banking system, and its prudential supervision and regulation. Different types of conflict have different effects on the financial system. Country priorities for reconstruction therefore vary accordingly. Nevertheless, the following problems repeatedly occur in reconstruction. First, central banks often remain weak and under-resourced. The consequence is haphazard and lenient supervision of the financial system, which is compounded by the frequently lax accounting and reporting standards of commercial banks. This hinders the application of international models of prudential supervision, such as the Basle Core Principles. Second, regulatory forbearance is common, reflecting both the technical weakness of central banks, but also the pressure of powerful interests—including war criminals—that straddle both state institutions and the financial sector. The consequences are leniency in the licensing of banks, insider-lending, excessive risk exposure, and a general failure to curb emergent bank crises. These in turn destabilize economies in recovery from war, and the fiscal burden of bank crises limits development and poverty spending—thereby threatening 'postconflict' reconstruction itself. – aid ; conflict ; financial development ; sub-Saharan Africa
The approach of the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor provides the opportunity to reflect on the collapse of the framework it announced for managing intra-class conflicts. That framework, reinforced two years later in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., was bold, in that it broadly defined actionable conflicts to include divergent interests with regard to settlement allocation; market-based, in that it sought to regulate such conflicts by harnessing competing subclass counsel's financial incentives; and committed to intrinsic process values, insofar as, to assure structural fairness, the Court was willing to upend a settlement that would have solved the asbestos litigation crisis. Since the 1990s, the lower federal courts have chipped away at the foundation of that conflicts management regime by limiting Amchem and Ortiz to their facts, narrowly defining the kinds of conflicts that warrant subclassing, and turning to alternative assurances of fairness that do not involve fostering competition among subclass counsel. A new model of managing class conflicts is emerging from the trenches of federal trial courts. It is modest, insofar as it has a high tolerance for allocation conflicts; regulatory, rather than market or incentive-based, in that it relies on judicial officers to police conflicts; and utilitarian, because settlement outcomes provide convincing evidence of structurally fair procedures. In short, the new model is fundamentally the mirror image of the conflicts management framework the Court created at end of the last century. This Article provides an institutional account of this transformation, examining how changes in the way mass tort and other large-scale wrongs are litigated make it inconvenient to adhere to the Supreme Court's twentieth century conflicts management blueprint. There is a lesson here: a jurisprudential edifice built without regard to the practical realities of resolving large-scale litigation cannot stand.
Property concerns conflicts – both conflicts between individuals and conflicts of interest. Conflicts between individuals have long been the paradigmatic property focus. According to this view, property debates circle around issues of autonomy and productive competition. But this is an impoverished view. In this Article, we shift attention to conflicts of interest. By helping people manage conflicts of interest, a well-governed property system balances interdependence with autonomy and productive cooperation with productive competition. We identify three mechanisms woven throughout property law that help manage conflicts of interest: (1) internalization of externalities; (2) democratization of management; and (3) de-escalation of transactions. We show that property law predictably selects among these mechanisms depending on the ratio of economic to social benefits that people seek from a group resource. When economic concerns predominate, property law typically uses contribution-based allocations of rights and responsibilities mediated by formal, foreground procedures; while at the social end of the spectrum we tend to see more egalitarian substantive rules operating in an informal, background safety net.
Property concerns conflicts – both conflicts between individuals and conflicts of interest. Conflicts between individuals have long been the paradigmatic property focus. According to this view, property debates circle around issues of autonomy and productive competition. But this is an impoverished view. In this Article, we shift attention to conflicts of interest. By helping people manage conflicts of interest, a well-governed property system balances interdependence with autonomy and productive cooperation with productive competition. We identify three mechanisms woven throughout property law that help manage conflicts of interest: (1) internalization of externalities; (2) democratization of management; and (3) de-escalation of transactions. We show that property law predictably selects among these mechanisms depending on the ratio of economic to social benefits that people seek from a group resource. When economic concerns predominate, property law typically uses contribution-based allocations of rights and responsibilities mediated by formal, foreground procedures, while at the social end of the spectrum we tend to see more egalitarian substantive rules operating as an informal, background safety net.
Ethnicized armed conflicts are usually studied in their territorial dimension and analyzed through the patterns of involvement of different direct and indirect actors. Mostly the focus lies on the multiple ways these direct and indirect actors affect the processes and outcomes of such conflicts. While direct actors mostly participate in the fighting itself, indirect ones can involve transnational advocacy organizations and diasporic groups. Diasporas in this perspective are usually considered to be either "peace-makers" or "peace-wreckers". Less research has been done on the effects the ethnicized armed conflict in the "homeland" can have on diasporic communities. In this dissertation, I develop theoretical conceptualization of the intersection of armed conflict in the "homeland" and diaspora. I focus on a specific case of Ukrainian-Russian conflict and Ukrainian, Russian and conflict-generated diasporic groups in Sweden. I argue that the ethnicized armed conflict in the "homeland" can become deterritorialized. In other words, ideas, attitudes and ethnicized narratives of such conflicts can become detached from a certain geographical location and settle in the transnational space of interactions. Such conflict deterritorialization can in its turn trigger diasporization processes elsewhere. It can also mobilize the pre-existing diasporic organizations for "homeland"-related activism. If diasporic individuals and communities use the symbols, ideas and narratives of the conflict in the "homeland" in defining the Other, as well as their relationships and networks, another process – conflict reterritorialization – is at play. This process can subsequently shift group boundary making and maintenance processes. Together, the concepts of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization help explain the patterns and mechanisms of the armed conflict in its meaning dimension. In addition, such theoretical conceptualization enables the analysis of the effects the conflict might have in the diasporic setting, including the processes of politicization. Using the specific case of Ukrainian-Russian conflict (2014-ongoing) I analyze the collaboration networks of Ukrainian, Russian and conflict-generated organizations active in Sweden between 2013 and 2016 and interview Ukrainians and Russians from Ukraine living in Sweden. I show that both patterns of conflict deterritorialization and reterritorialization are present in this specific diasporic setting to different degrees. Study 1 theoretically conceptualizes conflict deterritorialization as a diasporization process using previous findings from different case studies. Study 2 investigates the mechanisms of diaspora politicization and the role of conflict-generated diasporas in facilitating these mechanisms. In Study 3 I find that during the most violent period of war in eastern Ukraine, the attitude towards the conflict might have become a leading factor for collaborations between diasporic organizations. And, finally, Study 4 explores the potentiality of armed conflict in the "homeland" to contribute to a shift in ethnic group boundary making processes in the diasporic setting. Taken together the four studies aim to shed light on the non-territorial meaning dimension of the ethnicized armed conflicts theoretically and empirically. Thus, the dissertation contributes to the development of the holistic understanding of war and diaspora while taking into account the importance of contexts, factors and conditions of the country of residence, the "homeland" and the transnational space. ; At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 1: Submitted. Paper 2: Submitted. Paper 4: Submitted.
