Militarism and International Relations : Political economy, security, theory, edited by Anna Stavrianakis and Jan Selby, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, 212 pp., £80.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-0-415-61491-7

An engaging narrative is maintained throughout this edited collection of articles that address the issue of militarism in international relations. The book seamlessly integrates historical and contemporary perspectives on militarism with theory and relevant international case studies, resulting in a very informative read. The work is comprised of three parts. Part 1 deals with the theorisation of militarism and includes chapters by Anna Stavrianakis and Jan Selby, Martin Shaw, Simon Dalby, and Nicola Short. It covers a range of topics relating to historical and contemporary theories of militarism, geopolitical threat construction, political economy, and the US military’s ‘cultural turn’.

The Healthy Trends of International Relations Research

As the end of the Cold War approached in 1989, Caroline Thomas argued: “It is important that the discipline [International Relations, IR] should address the issue of disease and more broadly, health, not simply to facilitate containment of disease transmission across international borders but also because central notions of justice, equity, efficiency and order are involved” (1989:273).1 Ten years later, Craig Murphy echoed these sentiments. Murphy (2001: 352) proposed that IR had yet to grapple with the political consequences of growing inequality between the world’s rich and poor, and areas such as health—where these inequalities were most stark—should become the field’s core business. How IR’s theories and methods would approach these issues was less clear. Bettcher and Yach (1998) cautioned that IR would be unable to develop progressive research projects that explored global health diplomacy as a global public good without adopting new perspectives and methods. Others warned that the expansion of security studies into areas such as global health would weaken the intellectual coherency of the field (Walt 1991:213). Taking its cue from the recent Ng and Prah Ruger (2011) study, this paper returns to these concerns to briefly explore key trends and potential future concerns of research in IR on health...

Twentieth Anniversary Special Issue – International relations: an Oceanic perspective

In his sweeping survey of the Australian study of international relations, Martin Indyk1 claimed that ‘a common set of assumptions tends to underpin the work of almost all Australian scholars in the discipline’. If that assertion could have been plausibly extended to the whole region one generation ago, it certainly cannot now. The International Relations scholarship emanating from the Oceanic region regales in a diversity of theoretical, methodological and ethical assumptions. This diversity certainly emerged before the first Oceanic Conference on International Studies (OCIS) was convened in Canberra in 2004, however, subsequent conferences in Melbourne (2006) and Brisbane (2008) have galvanised and enriched that diversity. The state of the discipline in the region is as strong and healthy now as it has ever been, as is its integration into the global discipline, something we believe is reflected in the contributions collected in this Special Issue of Global Change, Peace and Security....

What contribution can International Relations make to the evolving global health agenda?

This article presents two approaches that have dominated International Relations in their approach to the international politics of health. The statist approach, which is primarily security-focused, seeks to link health initiatives to a foreign or defence policy remit. The globalist approach, in contrast, seeks to advance health not because of its intrinsic security value but because it advances the well-being and rights of individuals. This article charts the evolution of these approaches and demonstrates why both have the potential to shape our understanding of the evolving global health agenda. It examines how the statist and globalist perspectives have helped shape contemporary initiatives in global health governance and suggests that there is evidence of an emerging convergence between the two perspectives. This convergence is particularly clear in the articulation of a number of UN initiatives in this area—especially the One World, One Health Strategic Framework and the Oslo Ministerial Declaration (2007) which inspired the first UN General Assembly resolution on global health and foreign policy in 2009 and the UN Secretary-General's note ‘Global health and foreign policy: strategic opportunities and challenges'. What remains to be seen is whether this convergence will deliver on securing states’ interest long enough to promote the interests of the individuals who require global efforts to deliver local health improvements.

OCIS and Beyond: International Relations in Australia: Introduction

The Oceanic Conference for International Studies (OCIS) has grown from a small, mostly Australian and New Zealand, affair to an international biennial gathering of scholars from North America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific. Established by a small organising committee drawn from universities across Australia and New Zealand, the principal aim of OCIS was to bring together the Oceanic International Relations (IR) community in an organic and inclusive fashion. There would be no secretariat, minimal bureaucracy, costs would be kept as low as possible, and assistance provided to graduate students. The first OCIS, held at the Australian National University in 2004, proved more successful than the organisers had envisaged. The conference continued to grow at its subsequent meetings at the University of Melbourne (2006) and the University of Queensland (2008). With each conference, a new organising committee was established to take carriage of OCIS. At the 2008 meeting, the question of creating a permanent organising meeting and beginning the transition towards a professional association was discussed in detail. If the transition happens at all, it will be gradual, organic, inclusive, and will prioritise the maintenance of the sense of community OCIS has helped establish. Whilst OCIS itself has flourished, associated initiatives such as OCIS working groups and the OCIS newsletter and listserv have withered on the vine, confirming the original organising committee’s view that endeavours such as this will only prosper to the extent that they are derived and driven from the community as a whole. In 2010, OCIS will hold its first conference in New Zealand, hosted by the University of Auckland...

Review of Dr. Richard Shapcott's International Ethics : A Critical Introduction. 2010. London: Polity Press. ISBN-13: 978-0-7456-3142-4.

This work by Richard Shapcott is, as the title provides, an introduction to international ethics. By taking a quick glance at the table of contents (see Figure 1) we see that he has systematically divided this particular discourse into its normative areas of concern (in other words its major areas of argument or research). When reading, we also see that a great deal of work has gone into the publication because the narrative is flowing, the arguments continuous, and because the tone of the work maintained its critical position throughout.

An interview with Dr. Richard Shapcott : the international ethics of 'Basic Democracy'

Dr. Richard Shapcott is the senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Queensland. His areas of interest in research concern international ethics, cosmopolitan political theory and cultural diversity. He is the author of the recently published book titled International Ethics: A Critical Introduction; and several other pieces, such as, “Anti-Cosmopolitanism, the Cosmopolitan Harm Principle and Global Dialogue,” in Michalis’ and Petito’s book, Civilizational Dialogue and World Order. He’s also the author of “Dialogue and International Ethics: Religion, Cultural Diversity and Universalism, in Patrick Hayden’s, The Ashgate Research Companion to Ethics and International Relations.

The inherent international tax regime and its constraints on Australia's sovereignty

Neither an international tax, nor an international taxing body exists. Rather, there are domestic taxing rules adopted by jurisdictions which, coupled with double tax treaties, apply to cross-border transactions and international taxation issues. International bodies such as the OECD and UN, which provide guidance on tax issues, often steer and supplement these domestic adoptions but have no binding international taxing powers. These pragmatic realities, together with the specific use of the word ‘regime’ within the tax community, lead many to argue that an international tax regime does not exist. However, an international tax regime should be defined no differently to any other area of international law and when we step outside the confines of tax law to consider the definition of a ‘regime’ within international relations it is possible to demonstrate that such a regime is very real. The first part of this article, by defining an international tax regime in a broader and more traditional context, also outlining both the tax policy and principles which frame that regime, reveals its existence. Once it is accepted that an international tax regime exists, it is possible to consider its adoption by jurisdictions and subsequent constraints it places on them. Using the proposed changes to transfer pricing laws as the impetus for assessing Australia’s adoption of the international tax regime, the constraints on sovereignty are assessed through a taxonomy of the level adoption. This reveals the subsequent constraints which flow from the broad acceptance of an international tax regime through to the specific adoption of technical detail. By undertaking this analysis, the second part of this article demonstrates that Australia has inherently adopted an international tax regime, with a move towards explicit adoption and a clear embedding of its principles within the domestic tax legislation.

The Responsibility to Protect and International Law

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major new international principle, adopted unanimously in 2005 by Heads of State and Government. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that the principle has an important and intimate relationship with international law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict, there has yet to be a volume dedicated to this question. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law fills that gap by bringing together leading scholars from North America, Europe and Australia to examine R2P’s legal content. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law focuses on questions relating to R2P’s legal quality, its relationship with sovereignty, and the question of whether the norm establishes legal obligations. It also aims to introduce readers to different legal perspectives, including feminism, and pressing practical questions such as how the law might be used to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, and punish the perpetrators.

Research productivity levels of Chinese TEFL academics

Since China’s Economic Reform and its Open Door Policy, China has entered a new era of education (Adamson, 2002; Hu, 2005a). English has gained status as a language for international relations (Graddol, 1997) and international trade (Qu, 2007). Hence, in 2001, China’s Ministry of Education (MOE) required universities to offer 5-10% of their course units in English, particularly in the fields of information technology, biotechnology, finance and law (Jen, 2001; MOE, 2001). However, “the upgrading of national English proficiency, then, is predicted largely on the professional competence of the teaching force” (Hu, 2005b, p. 655). For TEFL academics, one component of this competence is the capacity to conduct research (Day, 1991; Shu, 2002). Indeed, research productivity has become essential for university success, and academics’ employment and promotional prospects. This study aims to investigate 182 Chinese TEFL academics’ research outputs across three Chinese higher education institutions through the research question: What are the research productivity levels of Chinese TEFL academics? A survey instrument was devised to gather TEFL academics’ calculations of research productivity and, in particular, the quality and quantity of research outputs over a five-year period (2004-2008). Descriptive statistics through SPSS were used to analyse data across research output fields (e.g., journal articles, conference papers). Academic status varied (n=182; teaching assistants 23.6%, lecturers 47.3%, associate professors 22.5%, and professors 6.6%) as did years of teaching (1-5 years 27.4%, 6-10 years 24.7%, 11-15 18.1%, 16-20 years 13.7%, > 21 years 15.9%). Results (n=182, male=27%, females=73%) indicated 18% had not produced any research in the five-year period. Indeed, more than 70% had produced no research in all categories except non-core journal articles and provincial projects. An overwhelming majority of TEFL academics had zero productivity in 10 of the 12 categories. Nevertheless, there were highly-productive TEFL academics, who had produced five or more pieces of research across the 12 categories. In addition, there was not much difference between sole and co-authored research outputs, except non-core journal articles where sole authored work was 20% higher than co-authored work. China’s desire for international competitiveness in education will require measures that facilitate higher levels of research productivity. These measures must include professional development, support and mentoring programs, and employment of personnel who can guide these processes. Research performance is an outcome, hence there is a need to understand Chinese TEFL academics’ perceptions about research, and experiences that may hinder and facilitate higher research productivity.

Introduction

The production of knowledge has become central to economic life. Competitiveness in the 21st century market place is now characterized by the ability to translate scientific and technological knowledge into innovation. But does this render cultural and social knowledge unimportant? This unique book advocates a broader epistemological base for the term ‘knowledge’ and develops policy implications from this perspective. By examining long-term challenges, the volume argues that fresh policy thinking is needed not only in the obviously knowledge-intensive portfolios but across all areas of knowledge production and questions how the different dynamics of the knowledge era affect defence, employment, environment, indigenous and international relations, multiculturalism and urban policy.

Realistic yet humanitarian? The comprehensive plan of action and refugee policy in Southeast Asia

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) has recently been described as a successful example of how to manage large protracted refugee flows. However, this article revisits the circumstances surrounding the CPA used to resolve the prolonged Indo-Chinese refugee crisis to highlight that part of its development was linked to the fact that Southeast Asian states refused to engage with proposed solutions, which did not include repatriation for the majority of the Indo-Chinese asylum seekers who were deemed to be ‘non-genuine’1 ( UNGA, 1989a) refugees. This resulted in the CPA often forcibly repatriating ‘non-genuine’ refugees, particularly near the end of its program. This article reviews the CPA in order to assess whether its practices and results should be repeated.

Necessary but not sufficient : accelerating progress and looking beyond the MDGs

The MDG deadline is fast approaching and the climate within the United Nations remains positive but skeptical. A common feeling is that a great deal of work and headway has been made, but the MDG goals will not be achieved in full by 2015. The largest problem facing the success of the MDGs is, and unless mitigated may remain, mismanaged governance. This argument is confirmed by a strong line of publications stemming from the United Nations and targeting methods (depending on a region or country context) such as improving governance via combating corruption, instituting accountability, peace and stability, as well as transparency. Furthermore, a logical assessment of the framework which MDGs operate in (i.e. international pressure and local civil socio-economic and/or political initiatives pushing governments to progress with MDGs) identifies the State's governing apparatus as the key to the success of MDGs. It is argued that a new analytic framework and grounded theory of democracy (the Element of Democracy) is needed in order to improve governance and enhance democracy. By looking beyond the confines of the MDGs and focusing on properly rectifying poor governance, the progress of MDGs can be accelerated as societies and their governments will be - at minimum - held more accountable to the success of programs in their respective countries. The paper demonstrates the logic of this argument - especially highlighting a new way of viewing democracy - and certain early practices which can accelerate MDGs in the short to medium term.