Outback institutions : an application of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to four case studies in Australia’s Outback -- Part 4 : Incentives for community participation and land use decisions in Etheridge Shire, Queensland

Natural resource management planning in the Northern Gulf region of Queensland is concerned with ‘how [natural assets] and community aspirations can be protected and enhanced to provide the Northern Gulf community with the economic, social and environmental means to meet the continuing growth of the region in an ecological and economically sustainable way’ (McDonald & Dawson 2004). In the Etheridge Shire, located in the tropical savanna of the Northern Gulf region, two of the activities that influence the balance between economic growth and long-term sustainable development are: 1. the land-use decisions people in the Shire make with regards to their own enterprises. 2. their decisions to engage in civically-minded activities aimed at improving conditions in the region. Land-use decision and engagement in community development activities were chosen for detailed analysis because they are activities for which policies can be devised to improve economic and sustainable development outcomes. Changing the formal and informal rules that guide and govern these two different kinds of decisions that people can make in the Etheridge Shire – the decision to improve one’s own situation and the decision to improve the situation for others in the community – may expand the set of available options for people in the Shire to achieve their goals and aspirations. Identifying appropriate and effective changes in rules requires, first, an understanding of the ‘action arena’, in this case comprised of a diversity of ‘participants’ from both within and outside the Etheridge Shire, and secondly knowledge of ‘action situations’ (land-use decisions and engagement in community development activities) in which stakeholders are involved and/or have a stake. These discussions are presented in sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2.

Requiem for a beast : a case study in controversy

In 2008, Matt Ottley’s Requiem for a Beast: A Work for Image, Word and Music was awarded the Book of the Year: Picture Book by the Children’s Book Council of Australia (CBCA). Ottley’s book is challenging in its form and content: it uses words, illustrations, and music to tell a sustained, multi-layered narrative about one young man’s attempts to reconcile his family’s and his nation’s shameful history of violence against Aboriginal Australians, while also coming to terms with his own attempts to commit suicide. Given the ways in which the CBCA’s annual book awards are used by teachers, librarians, and parents to select the “best” books for young readers, it is unsurprising that the prizing of Requiem for a Beast stirred up controversy. Responses to the book proliferated across professional and popular outlets—it even received coverage on an Australian tabloid television program—and initiated a variety of conversations about what constitutes appropriate reading for young people. Perhaps more significantly, the controversy over Requiem winning picture book of the year forced the CBCA, teacher librarians, and caregivers to examine (and, often, defend) their roles and responsibilities in the circulation and promotion of children’s literature. This paper reads the Requiem controversies as a case study for understanding the complementary and contradictory roles of institutions and individuals in the ethical circulation of children’s literature in contemporary Australia and beyond.

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...

The challenge to know and control: Disease outbreak surveillance and alerts in China and India

Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has been turned to how states, particularly developing states, will address core capacity requirements. The question often examined is how states with poor health systems can strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern. A core capacity requirement is that by 2012 states will have a surveillance and response network that operates from the local community to the national level. Much emphasis has turned to the health system capacity required for this task. In this article, I seek to understand the political capacity to perform this task. This article considers how the world's two most populous states,1 1. For the purposes of this paper, I use the word ‘state’ as a shorthand for the nation-state of China and India, or member state as used by the United Nations. View all notes China and India, have sought to communicate outbreak events in times of crisis and calm. I consider what this reporting performance tells us of their capacity to meet their IHR obligations given the two countries differing political institutions.

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....

The international politics of disease reporting : towards post-Westphalianism?

Since the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, there has been much discussion about whether the international community has moved into a new post-Westphalian era, where states increasingly recognize certain shared norms that guide what they ought to do in responding to infectious disease outbreaks. In this article I identify this new obligation as the ‘duty to report’, and examine competing accounts on the degree to which states appreciate this new obligation are considered by examining state behaviour during the H5N1 human infectious outbreaks in East Asia (since 2004). The article examines reporting behaviour for H5N1 human infectious cases in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam from 2004 to 2010. The findings lend strong support to the claim that East Asian states have come to accept and comply with the duty to report infectious disease outbreaks and that the assertions of sovereignty in response to global health governance frameworks have not systematically inhibited reporting compliance.

Is there an international duty to protect persons in the event of an epidemic?

In 2006, the International Law Commission began a study into the role of states and international organizations in protecting persons in the event of a disaster. Special Rapporteur Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina was appointed to head the study, and in 2011 the findings of the study will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly. Of interest to this paper has been the inclusion of “epidemics” under the natural disaster category in all of the reports detailing the Commission’s program of work on the protection of persons. This paper seeks to examine the legal and political ramifications involved in including “epidemic” into the concept of protection by exploring where sovereign responsibility for epidemic control begins and ends, particularly in light of the revisions to the International Health Regulations by the World Health Assembly in 2005. The paper will first analyze the findings already presented by the Special Rapporteur, examining the existing “responsibilities” of both states and international organizations. Then, the paper will consider to what extent the concept of protection entails the duty to assist individuals when an affected state proves unwilling or unable to assist their own population in the event of a disease outbreak. In an attempt to answer this question, the third part of the paper will examine the recent cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe.

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...