Book review : Olivier Corten, The Law Against War

Olivier Corten’s The Law Against War is a comprehensive, meticulously-researched study of contemporary international law governing the use of armed force in international relations. As a translated and updated version of a 2008 book published in French, it offers valuable insights into the positivist methodology that underpins much of the European scholarship of international law. Corten undertakes a rigorous analysis of state practice from 1945 onwards, with a view to clarifying the current meaning and scope of international law’s prohibition on the use of force. His central argument is that the majority of states remain attached to a strict interpretation of this rule. For Corten, state practice indicates that the doctrines of anticipatory self-defence, pre-emptive force and humanitarian intervention have no basis in contemporary international law. His overall position accords with a traditional, restrictive view of the circumstances in which states are permitted to use force...

Panda diplomacy : The cutest part of China’s public diplomacy

Summary In late 2011 and early 2012, the People’s Republic of China drew on its most unique diplomatic tool: the giant panda. Although this phenomenon is widely covered by the global media, the practice of panda diplomacy is only barely discussed in diplomatic or international relations studies. This article uses the most recent revival of this diplomatic practice for a closer analysis and locates it as a special version of animal diplomacy within the frame of public diplomacy. It first argues that panda diplomacy is — besides all the efforts to promote and support animal conservation and biological research — a political undertaking, which is symbolically used by the Chinese government to win hearts and minds in selected foreign countries. Second, it highlights an important aspect of some Chinese public diplomacy initiatives, namely China’s ability to integrate international partners in its attempts to shape its global image.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Responsibility to protect and women, peace and security : aligning the protection agendas

In Responsibility to Protect and Women, Peace and Security: Aligning the Protection Agendas, editors Davies, Nwokora, Stamnes and Teitt address the intersections of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle and the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Widespread or systematic sexual or gender-based violence is a war crime, a crime against humanity and an act of genocide, all of which are clearly addressed in the R2P principle. The protection of those at risk of widespread sexual violence is therefore not only relative to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, but a fundamental sovereign obligation for all states as part of their commitment to R2P. Contributions from policy-makers and academics consider both the merits and the utility of aligning the protection agendas of R2P and WPS. Ultimately, a number of actionable recommendations are made concerning a unification of the agendas to best support the global empowerment of women and prevention of mass atrocities.

Protecting the Displaced : Deepening the Responsibility to Protect

This edited collection has sought contributions from some of the foremost scholars of refugee and Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) studies to engage with the conceptual and practical difficulties entailed in realising how the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can be fulfilled by states and the international community to protect vulnerable persons. Contributors to this book were given one theme: to consider, based on their experience and knowledge, how R2P may be aligned with the protection of the displaced. Contributions explore the history and progress so far in aligning R2P with refugee and IDP protection, as well as examining the conceptual and practical issues that arise when attempting to expand R2P from words into deeds.

'Devils and dust' : extending the 'uncivil politics of law and order' to the 'war on terror'

The ‘war on terror’ and ongoing terrorist attacks around the world have generated a growing body of literature on national and international measures to counteract terrorist activity. This detailed study investigates an aspect of contemporary counter-terrorism that has been largely overlooked; the impact of these measures on the continued viability of the democratic state.

Air navigation services in Australia and the United States : a comparative case study

The central document governing the global organization of Air Navigation Services (ANS) is the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly referred to as the “Chicago Convention,” whose original version was signed in that city in 1944. In the Convention, Contracting States agreed to ensure the minimum standards of ANS established by ICAO, a specialized United Nations agency created by the Convention. Emanating from obligations under the Chicago Convention, ANS has traditionally provided by departments of national governments. However, there is a widespread trend toward transferring delivery of ANS services outside of line departments of national governments to independent agencies or corporations. The Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), which is the trade association for independent ANS providers, currently counts approximately 60 members, and is steadily growing. However, whatever delivery mechanisms are chosen, national governments remain ultimately responsible for ensuring that adequate ANS services are available. The provision by governments of ANS reflects the responsibility of the state for safety, international relations, and indirectly, the macroeconomic benefits of ensuring a sound infrastructure for aviation. ANS is a “public good” and an “essential good” provided to all aircraft using a country’s airfields and airspace. However, ANS also represents a service that directly benefits only a limited number of users, notably aircraft owners and operators. The idea that the users of the system, rather than the taxpaying public, should incur the costs associated with ANS provision is inherent in the commercialization process. However, ICAO sets out broad principles for the establishment of user charges, which member states are expected to comply with. ICAO states that only distance flown and aircraft weights are acceptable parameters for use in a charging system. These two factors are considered to be easy to measure, bear a reasonable relationship to the value of service received, and do not discriminate due to factors such as where the flight originated or the nation of aircraft registration.

Securitizing infectious disease

Over the past decade there has been an increased awareness in the field of international relations of the potential impact of an infectious disease epidemic on national security. While states’ attempts to combat infectious disease have a long history, what is new in this area is the adoption at the international level of securitized responses regarding the containment of infectious disease. This article argues that the securitization of infectious disease by states and the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to two key developments. First, the WHO has had to assert itself as the primary actor that all states, particularly western states, can rely upon to contain the threat of infectious diseases. The WHO's apparent success in this is evidenced by the development of the Global Outbreak Alert Response Network (GOARN), which has led to arguments that the WHO has emerged as the key authority in global health governance. The second outcome that this article seeks to explore is the development of the WHO's authority in the area of infectious disease surveillance. In particular, is GOARN a representation of the WHO's consummate authority in the area of coordinating infectious disease response or is GOARN the product of the WHO's capitulation to western states’ concerns with preventing infectious disease outbreaks from reaching their borders and as a result, are arguments expressing the authority of the WHO in infectious disease response premature?