| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
088727
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The international governance of climate change was initially informed by two norms concerning who should take responsibility for mitigating climate change and how such mitigation should be pursued.1 Since the early 1990s, these norms have been contested by several states. In this article the author argues that such contestation is a product of the perceived incongruence between these norms and the domestic conditions of those states they seek to govern. Following an overview of the emergence and contestation of climate governance norms, the author elaborates on this relationship between international norms and domestic conditions. These theoretical assumptions are then explored in the context of Australia's response to international climate governance norms from the late 1980s to 2007. As the author demonstrates, the perceived incongruence of these norms with domestic conditions led Australia's foreign policy makers to contest the norms and focus on the construction of alternative governance processes by reframing the issue of climate change. Through a diversion of attention away from historical emissions to future emissions and possible technological mitigation options, climate governance was temporarily reconciled with Australia's domestic conditions. However, the author suggests that this came at the expense of international equity and long-term national sustainability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
088904
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite possessing relatively well-developed domestic legislative and policy frameworks, corruption continues to be a problem for the island states of the Pacific. The lack of effectiveness can be traced back to issues of capacity. This article shows that some of these capacity issues can be overcome through the use of regional networks and organisations. These networks and organisations can provide a way to share work across a number of different countries, as well as providing a point of articulation between frameworks at the global level and programs of reform and action at the domestic level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
088725
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) is a radical Muslim organisation whose origins go back two and a half decades. It espouses an ideology crafted during the 1950s by the Palestinian, Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. Hizbut Tahrir's international leadership exerts control over its Indonesian branch's activities to an extent virtually unprecedented in Indonesian political life. Like other radical Muslim movements, HTI is bitterly anti-Western and rejects capitalism, democracy, liberalism and pluralism. Its objective is to turn Indonesia into an Islamic state that would be merged into a global caliphate or Muslim superstate. Unusually for a radical group, HTI strictly eschews violence, though its rhetoric is often strident and inflammatory. HTI also opposes terrorism, but contrives to depict terrorist attacks that have taken place in Indonesia as the result of Western manipulation and conspiracies. Although HTI retains some elements of the clandestine life it led when it was first set up, it has provoked surprisingly little hostility from the Indonesian political mainstream or security authorities. It is likely to continue to grow and remain the source of a powerful critique of Indonesia's status quo. But this is no guarantee, however, that it will succeed even in the long term in positioning Indonesia for merger into an international caliphate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
088728
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article tries to understand Russia's policies towards the South Caucasus and answer the question of whether there is a tension between Russia's interests and policies. An attempt is made to identify Russia's strategic interests in the region and the crucial factors that shape Russian policies. Based on the assumption that today's Russia gives de facto support to the secessionist regimes in Georgia, the author attempts to explain what the Kremlin's motives are in supporting the secessionist regimes. The author investigates whether Russian support for the separatist regimes in the South Caucasus is a reaction to the foreign policy orientation of the parent states or a part of Russia's security political interests. On the one hand, supporting instability in the South Caucasus cannot be a part of the Kremlin's strategic interests, because that can pose a threat to the North Caucasus. On the other hand, however, Russian policies are not designed to achieve long-term stability in the South Caucasus, and controlled instability seems to suit the Kremlin. Why Russia vies for coercive hegemony and supports secessionism are the central questions of this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
088908
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The extent to which the Pacific Solution and other refugee policy developments under the Howard government were contested within Canberra circles will not be known until cabinet files are opened many years hence. However, if recent research into the White Australia policy is anything to go by, the files may shed unappreciated nuance on the context and reasoning behind such developments. We cannot pre-empt this research, but we can explore documents to which we do have access to deepen insight into Australia's refugee policy foundations, and to prepare the ground for more informed assessments of recent developments. Using archived policy files, this article examines the internal debates that surrounded Australia's accession to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The picture that emerges challenges simplistic assessments as to the motives of policy makers of the time. It also shows how different government departments-in this case Immigration and External (now Foreign) Affairs-can support policy changes for different reasons, at different speeds, and not always in the order that might be expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
088903
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Remote Crisis Management
Australia's 2006
Rescue of Citizens
Trapped in Lebanon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
088730
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses the strategic dynamics of the Sino-Japanese relationship and argues that the potential for confrontation between China and Japan has been exaggerated. There is an underlying tendency in much of the literature to treat the emergence of rivalry between China and Japan since the end of the cold war as synonymous with an inevitable drift towards bilateral strategic confrontation. This article argues that Beijing and Tokyo are better placed to manage the strategic dimension of their bilateral relationship than many analysts have been willing to acknowledge thus far. To test this argument, the article examines two prominent case studies that lie at the heart of the contemporary and future Sino-Japanese bilateral strategic relationship: the territorial dispute over the East China Sea and Japan's virtual nuclear weapons capability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
088906
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the great whaling debate, fuelled twice yearly by the annual International Whaling Commission meeting and the departure of the Japanese research fleet for the Southern Ocean, silliness knows no bounds. 2008 was no exception, as the Southern Ocean again became the location of protest action (sometimes provocative and potentially life-threatening) against Japanese scientific research vessels. The Japanese are accused of 'whaling' in a whale sanctuary off the Australian Antarctic Territory, yet this claim to sovereignty is not legally proven and therefore not universally accepted. The Rudd Labor Government bowed to significant pressure and sent its Customs vessel, the Oceanic Viking, to spy on the Japanese fleet and gather evidence for a possible 'world court' action. This paper examines what options were available to Australia to intervene in the protest action, to monitor the Japanese research and to take legal action in an international forum within the constraints of internationally defined diplomatic and legal boundaries. It concludes that the risk of attracting the wrath of the Japanese government and other Antarctic Treaty countries is great indeed and the Australian government must be careful not to step too far outside these boundaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|