|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
175714
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the aftermath of 9/11, aviation security has become a central component of counterterrorism. To mitigate threats whilst maintaining flight schedules, airport security officers require the cooperation of all passengers, but especially of ethnic minorities perceived as posing a potential threat to homeland security, often referred to as “suspect communities.” Passengers from suspect communities are subject to rigorous screening, but are also regarded as a source of information, making their cooperation even more important than that of other passengers. Nevertheless, suspect communities’ cooperation with airport security, and the gap between their attitudes and those of other passengers, have not yet been examined. The current study utilizes a survey of 1970 passengers at the Ben-Gurion airport in Israel, examining passengers’ perceptions of airport security and their willingness to cooperate. We find that passengers belonging to the suspect community of Israeli Muslims were less willing to cooperate with security procedures than all other passengers. However, when controlling for passengers’ perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice, Israeli Muslims were more willing to cooperate with airport security than Israeli Jews. The findings highlight the importance of legitimacy and procedural justice perceptions in obtaining the cooperation of suspect communities, and suggest practical pathways for improving cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
132719
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The EU 7th Framework Project FAST20XX [1] aimed to enlarge the foundations of suborbital high-speed transportation in a wide variety of fields. One of the key issues of this project was to outline a desirable regulatory framework that would best serve the interests of all European stakeholders in this new activity.
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a series of requirements for operators of commercial suborbital flights under the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA), enabling the corresponding market to develop. These regulations were initially valid until 2012 but have now been extended until 2015.
In Europe, practical and successful attempts to fly experimental vehicles of this kind do not yet exist. However, several developments indicate that it is becoming urgent to pay attention to this potential new industry and find ways to regulate it in a safe yet flexible manner. Although the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) explored the possibility in 2008 to prepare for a certification approach under the concept of "Suborbital Aeroplanes" (SoA), this initiative was put on hold in 2011, and a final decision by the European Commission is still pending.
This paper highlights some of the research performed by the authors towards the establishment of a roadmap for future regulation of suborbital flight in Europe. In particular, it will present results of a survey carried out among stakeholders, including operators and manufacturers of vehicles, spaceports, national and European regulators, insurers and brokers, consultants, users and lobbyists. The paper also presents results from the workshop on the future regulatory framework for suborbital flights in Europe, which was co-organised by the present authors and held in Brussels in October 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
081455
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Aviation security is a vital but under-studied component of contemporary security. This article uses the Foucauldian notion of a `dispositif of security' to understand how policies, practices, and institutions of aviation security are arranged to surveil, police, and control mobile populations. Moving beyond sovereign accounts of law or disciplinary descriptions of incarceration, the analysis of the dispositif demonstrates the ever-expanding areas of life that are colonized by `security' and `risk'. I argue that the general strategy of quantification and the specific tactic of the expert panel both illustrate how the invocation of risk allows for new and expanding security practices, and also masks the depoliticization of the airport and civil aviation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|