Governing civil society: How literacy, education and security were brought together

This study questions how the categories of security, education and literacy were brought together as related elements of a whole-of-government strategy in the production of civil society. Drawing on an analysis of key political texts, the study argues that the categories of education and literacy have been used in diverse ways in the production of national, social, economic and geopolitical security interests. As dialogue about security has intensified, rationalisations about the national interest have engaged notions of security leading to the legitimation of a diverse set of policy instruments, strategically used to contain the rise of complex social forces and protect homogenous cultural values.

China’s National Security Review: a tit-for-tat response?

China is gradually taking its place as a major regulator, exercising concurrent jurisdiction of the national security review along with the US and EU over high-profile cross-border mergers and acquisitions. The National Security Review (NSR) regulatory regime of foreign acquisitions has attracted significant attention recently with the establishment of China's counterpart to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Due to the intensified activities of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) that are closely linked with states, CFIUS's broad discretion to deal with China's SWF-based investment may have a far-reaching impact on China's implementation of the newly enacted NSR regime. It is essential to design a mechanism that allows SWFs to maximise their positive attributes while safeguarding the apolitical integrity of the marketplace. Any disproportionate use of the NSR regime would inevitably bring about more unintended consequences, such as tit-for-tat protectionism. This represents an imminent threat to the tenuous recovery from the recent economic crisis, largely because of the increasingly intertwined and interdependent nature of the global financial markets. It is of utmost significance to evaluate the extent to which the updated legislation strikes a reasonable balance between preserving genuine national security interests and maintaining an open environment for investment.

Trading off sovereignty. The outcome of Belarus's integration with Russia in the security and defence field. OSW Commentary No. 107, 2013-04-25

Although the Republic of Belarus is constitutionally designated as a neutral country1, it is in fact closely connected with Russia’s own security and defence architecture. Within the Union State of Belarus and Russia, the armed forces are integrated to an extent unequalled in the world. A legacy of the Soviet division of labour, the Belarusian defence industry complex remains structurally dependent on Russia, which is its main raw material provider, outlet for exports and intermediary on world markets. Bilateral military cooperation also builds on the perception of common threats and partly shared security interests. Hence it unfolds regardless of the disputes that sporadically sour relations between Minsk and Moscow, standing out as the main achievement of the Union State – if not the only one.

Conceptualizing American power and security in a post -9/11 security context: Conflict, resistance, and global security, 2001–present

In a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, the advent of US global supremacy resulted in the installation, perpetuation, and dissemination of an Absolutist Security Agenda (hereinafter, ASA). The US ASA explicitly and aggressively articulates and equates US national security interests with the security of all states in the international system, and replaced the bipolar, Cold War framework that defined international affairs from 1945-1992. Since the collapse of the USSR and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US has unilaterally defined, implemented, and managed systemic security policy. The US ASA is indicative of a systemic category of knowledge (security) anchored in variegated conceptual and material components, such as morality, philosophy, and political rubrics. The US ASA is based on a logic that involves the following security components: (1) hyper militarization, (2) intimidation,(3) coercion, (4) criminalization, (5) panoptic surveillance, (6) plenary security measures, and (7) unabashed US interference in the domestic affairs of select states. Such interference has produced destabilizing tensions and conflicts that have, in turn, produced resistance, revolutions, proliferation, cults of personality, and militarization. This is the case because the US ASA rests on the notion that the international system of states is an extension, instrument of US power, rather than a system and/or society of states comprised of functionally sovereign entities. To analyze the US ASA, this study utilizes: (1) official government statements, legal doctrines, treaties, and policies pertaining to US foreign policy; (2) militarization rationales, budgets, and expenditures; and (3) case studies of rogue states. The data used in this study are drawn from information that is publicly available (academic journals, think-tank publications, government publications, and information provided by international organizations). The data supports the contention that global security is effectuated via a discrete set of hegemonic/imperialistic US values and interests, finding empirical expression in legal acts (USA Patriot ACT 2001) and the concept of rogue states. Rogue states, therefore, provide test cases to clarify the breadth, depth, and consequentialness of the US ASA in world affairs vis-à-vis the relationship between US security and global security.

Conceptualizing American power and security in a post-9/11 security context : conflict, resistance, and global security, 2001-present

In a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, the advent of US global supremacy resulted in the installation, perpetuation, and dissemination of an Absolutist Security Agenda (hereinafter, ASA). The US ASA explicitly and aggressively articulates and equates US national security interests with the security of all states in the international system, and replaced the bipolar, Cold War framework that defined international affairs from 1945-1992. Since the collapse of the USSR and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US has unilaterally defined, implemented, and managed systemic security policy. The US ASA is indicative of a systemic category of knowledge (security) anchored in variegated conceptual and material components, such as morality, philosophy, and political rubrics. The US ASA is based on a logic that involves the following security components: 1., hyper militarization, 2., intimidation, 3., coercion, 4., criminalization, 5., panoptic surveillance, 6., plenary security measures, and 7., unabashed US interference in the domestic affairs of select states. Such interference has produced destabilizing tensions and conflicts that have, in turn, produced resistance, revolutions, proliferation, cults of personality, and militarization. This is the case because the US ASA rests on the notion that the international system of states is an extension, instrument of US power, rather than a system and/or society of states comprised of functionally sovereign entities. To analyze the US ASA, this study utilizes: 1., official government statements, legal doctrines, treaties, and policies pertaining to US foreign policy; 2., militarization rationales, budgets, and expenditures; and 3., case studies of rogue states. The data used in this study are drawn from information that is publicly available (academic journals, think-tank publications, government publications, and information provided by international organizations). The data supports the contention that global security is effectuated via a discrete set of hegemonic/imperialistic US values and interests, finding empirical expression in legal acts (USA Patriot ACT 2001) and the concept of rogue states. Rogue states, therefore, provide test cases to clarify the breadth, depth, and consequentialness of the US ASA in world affairs vis-a-vis the relationship between US security and global security.

Outline of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which commenced operation on 30 January 2012. The policy objectives of the new legislation are to increase certainty and consistency and to reduce complexity and cost. To achieve this, the legislation treats like transactions alike, by focusing on substance over form, and so removes distinctions between security interests which have been based on their structure. Differences based on the location or nature of the secured property and the debtor’s legal form, as an individual or company, have also disappeared. We now have one single national scheme and one national electronic registration system for all security interests throughout Australia. The Act applies to security interests in tangible and intangible personal property, including those based on some form of title retention which are not security interests under the general law. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

The Proposed Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Act 2008

Inspired by similar reforms introduced in New Zealand, Canada and the United States, the Commonwealth, with the co-operation of the States, seeks in the Personal Property Securities Bill 2008 (the Bill) to introduce a central repository of recorded information reflecting particular security interests in personal property in Australia. Specifically, the interest recorded is an interest in personal property provided for by a transaction that in substance secures the payment or the performance of an obligation. In addition to providing a notification of the use of the personal property as collateral to secure the payment of monies or the performance of an obligation, the Bill proposes to introduce a regime of prioritising interests in the same collateral. Central to this prioritisation are the concepts of a ‘perfected security interests’and ‘unperfected security interests’. Relevantly, a perfected security interest in collateral has priority over an unperfected security interest in the same collateral. The proposed mechanisms rely on the fundamental integer of personal property, which is defined as any property other than land. Recognising that property may take a tangible as well as an intangible form, the Bill reflects an appreciation of the fact that some property may have a tangible form which may act as collateral, and simultaneously the same property may involve other property, intangible property in the form of intellectual property rights, which in their own right may be the subject of a‘security agreement’. An example set out in the Commentary on the Consultation Draft of the Bill (the Commentary), indicates the practical implications involving certain property which have multiple profiles for the purposes of the Bill. This submission is concerned with the presumptions made in relation to the interphase between tangible property and intangible property arising from the same personal property, as set out in s 30 of the Bill.

It might be yours there but it’s not down here: Issues arising under the PPSA in cross-border transactions

As a relatively new piece of legislation, the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is yet to be the subject of much significant judicial consideration. Whilst the position of the Australian courts is becoming clearer in relation to domestic disputes, parties to cross-border transactions continue to encounter an alarming number of uncertainties with respect to the enforcement and maintenance of their security interests. This article considers the relevant problematic provisions of the PPSA and considers them in light of the authorities dealing with corresponding legislation in other jurisdictions. It then attempts to provide some guidance and suggestions as to the best means of protecting security interests in cross-border transactions.

Statutory licences and third party dealings: Property analysis v statutory interpretation

Statutory licensing schemes are proliferating as a means of regulating commercial activity, resource exploitation and activities harmful to the environment. Statutes often declare that entitlements are non-transferable or are transferable only with approval or subject to conditions. Some entitlements, such as resource consents issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ), are declared not to be property. Despite these statutory declarations, entitlements are often held to be transferable in equity or to be property for the purposes of resolving private disputes. Recently, in Greenshell New Zealand Ltd v Tikapa Moana Enterprises Ltd, the High Court of New Zealand indicated that a resource consent was property that could support a claim for relief against forfeiture, continuing the trend in earlier cases that appear to depart from the statute. In this article we examine the juridical treatment of entitlements in private law. We identify factors influencing the courts’ enforcement of private arrangements which may circumvent the statutory intent. Our analysis will guide legislators in the design of provisions to implement new schemes.

Crisis Management in the Eastern Mediterranean (Implications for Policymakers)

This article examines Greek-Turkish crisis behaviour in the Eastern Mediterranean over the past two decades. Crises are first defined and classified, after which a number of common misperceptions are then addressed in light of recent experience. Three broad categories of foreign policy crises are analyzed: 1) those involving ethnically related minorities across the border; 2) those with 'alien' minorities within borders; and 3) those with third countries involving territories and resources. The article examines whether crises are simply elite-driven or partly endorsed and motivated by mass publics in both countries, and whether Greek-Turkish crisis behaviour reflects enduring ethnic rivalries, 'genuine' security interests, or domestic political needs and norms. The article draws upon the Greek-Turkish experience of the past two decades to illuminate contemporary dilemmas and issues which policymakers face in this region.

Les enjeux du droit des sûretés grevant des valeurs mobilières indirectement détenues en Amérique du Nord

Le présent mémoire a pour but de présenter une analyse des règles de droit s'appliquant aux sûretés grevant des valeurs mobilières indirectement détenues, ou détenues auprès d'un intermédiaire, en Amérique du Nord. Afin de procéder à cette étude, il sera nécessaire d'expliquer brièvement le fonctionnement du système de détention indirecte des valeurs mobilières et de déterminer la nature juridique de la valeur mobilière indirectement détenue et des droits de l'investisseur à son égard. Une analyse critique sera faite des différents cadres juridiques nord-américains applicables aux sûretés grevant ce type de valeurs mobilières en examinant, d'abord, les règles du droit civil québécois. Seront ensuite étudiées les règles du droit des sûretés des provinces canadiennes de common law de même que les règles du droit américain. Un tel examen nous permettra d'identifier les lacunes de chacun de ces cadres juridiques et de constater le manque d'uniformité entre eux. Afin d'apporter des solutions juridique à ce manque d'uniformisation, le présent mémoire analysera finalement les objectifs recherchés et les règles proposées par la Conférence pour l'harmonisation des lois au Canada, UNIDROIT et la Communauté européenne en matière d'harmonisation des règles du droit des sûretés grevant des valeurs mobilières indirectement détenues.

Les sûretés sur les valeurs mobilières : le mouvement d'uniformisation d'origine américaine est-il transposable universellement ? : vers une approche québécoise à la question

L'avènement des nouvelles technologies a modifié considérablement le marché des valeurs mobilières. Le certificat représentant les actions de personnes morales s'est dématérialisé, facilitant et augmentant la rapidité des échanges, mais en causant de nouveaux problèmes, notamment à cause de l'incertitude juridique entourant les transferts et les sûretés sur les valeurs mobilières et autres actifs financiers. Pour répondre à ces problématiques, le Uniform Commercial Code américain a créé de nouveaux concepts et de nouvelles règles applicables au régime de détention indirecte. S'inspirant du modèle américain, un effort international d'harmonisation a été déployé, comme en témoignent, entre autres, les initiatives de la Conférence de La Haye, d'UNIDROIT et de la Conférence pour l'harmonisation des lois au Canada. C'est ainsi que le Québec a adopté la Loi sur le transfert de valeurs mobilières et l'obtention de titres intermédiés, afin de combler les lacunes d'un régime devenu désuet. Toutefois, le projet de loi s'inscrit-il avec le régime civiliste du Québec? Le particulier peut-il hypothéquer des valeurs mobilières? Où se situent les titres dématérialisés et intermédiés? Nous tenterons de répondre à ces questions en deux temps ; premièrement, nous étudierons l'évolution des régimes de transfert et de sûretés sur les valeurs mobilières et autres actifs financiers ainsi que leurs particularités. Ensuite, nous étudierons la loi québécoise en parallèle avec les différents instruments d'harmonisation et avec le régime civiliste québécois des sûretés.

Les États-Unis d'Amérique face a la reconnaissance d'État : les cas des États balkaniques, du Kosovo et du Québec

Ce mémoire s’intéresse au comportement américain en matière de reconnaissance d’État. Il tente d’identifier quels sont les facteurs susceptibles d’être appliqués par les États- Unis d’Amérique dans l’hypothèse d’une éventuelle reconnaissance du Québec. Les évènements politiques survenus au cours des trente dernières années au Québec ont non seulement suscité un fort intérêt à Washington, ils ont également conduit le gouvernement américain à mettre en place une approche politique particulière à l’endroit du Québec. Utilisée à partir de la fin des années 1970, cette approche spécifique (qui fait maintenant office de ligne de conduite) demeure encore aujourd’hui celle qui prévaut à la Maison- Blanche. En dépit de la tenue de deux référendums sur la souveraineté en 1980 et en 1995, le Québec demeure encore aujourd’hui une province de l’État canadien. Cependant, s’il devait un jour accéder à l’indépendance, il y a fort à parier que la décision des États-Unis de reconnaître le Québec serait modulée à partir d’intérêts sécuritaires ponctuels, mais aussi en fonction d’intérêts politiques ou économiques. Dans la majorité des cas depuis la dissolution de la Yougoslavie en 1991, les États-Unis d’Amérique ont agi ainsi. L’analyse du comportement américain lors de la reconnaissance récente du Kosovo en 2008 vient appuyer ces dires et démontre que Washington utilise la même approche pour reconnaître de nouveaux États depuis au moins 20 ans.