| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
109873
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The International Health Regulations (2005) gave the World Health Organization a central role in collecting biosurveillance data and explicitly recognized the importance of human rights for the first time. Human rights and biosurveillance have a complicated relationship with one another though. Surveillance systems are necessary in order to arrest the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, but these same surveillance systems can be used in discriminatory ways. Is some sort of resolution or detente possible? This article investigates the role of the World Health Organization in implementing these potentially competing imperatives contained within the International Health Regulations (2005). To understand this relationship, it examines how the World Health Organization would implement the International Health Regulations in case of an international zombie outbreak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
109866
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
109875
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the motivations behind the provision of disaster aid. Is this aid provision driven more by 'humanitarian' variables such as the severity of the political or natural emergency in the recipient state or 'political' variables such as the economic or strategic interest of the donor state? Through a statistical analysis of the aid activity of 22 donor states between 1997 and 2008, it is found that, contrary to much of the literature on humanitarian aid in general, humanitarian variables are consistently significant predictors of disaster aid provision. However, certain political variables are also significant, in that donor states provide more disaster aid to trading partners, former colonies, and military allies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
109859
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
109878
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article seeks to provoke a deeper engagement of Critical Security Studies with security's relations to technology and weapons. It explores existing assumptions about these relations in mainstream arms control and disarmament theory, and the way such assumptions are deployed and distributed in the current settlement of arms control and disarmament practice. It then draws on recent social and philosophical discussions of materiality, particularly on the thought of Bruno Latour, to propose a different set of concepts for exploring the aims and limits of arms control and disarmament. These concepts emphasise the mediating roles of material things in social relations and they may offer a richer view of the object of arms control (weapons and violence) and of the practices of arms limitation and reduction; one that may ultimately gesture towards a different understanding of arms politics, and that may be used to explore the transformatory potentials of arms control and disarmament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
109863
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
109864
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
109872
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For more than fifty years, the World Health Organization has helped monitor flu viruses and manufacture vaccines through the Global Influenza Surveillance Network (GISN). However, GISN became a flashpoint for conflict when Indonesia refused to share its samples of avian influenza until drugs and other benefits were shared in return. Years of controversial negotiations were required to agree on a framework for virus and benefit sharing, providing important insights into disease surveillance, global norms, and international law. First, this controversy suggests that surveillance behaves like a luxury good, which complicates the conventional wisdom that it is a global public good. Second, even well-established norms were not immune to challenge, thereby limiting the significance of 'tipping points' and 'normative cascades'. Finally, legal arguments were common in this controversy but equivocal and inconclusive, so international law is unlikely to affect important outcomes relating to outbreak response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
109868
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
109862
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
109876
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the extent of the so-called 'civil nuclear renaissance' and the danger it poses to the integrity of the international non-proliferation regime. It also explores the drivers behind the resurgent interest in nuclear energy, as well as the arguments against increased reliance on nuclear power. The article argues that growing interest in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy - even when tempered by strong safety, environmental, economic and security concerns - poses a real challenge to global non-proliferation objectives, a challenge exacerbated by the contradiction at the heart of the non-proliferation treaty architecture. However, the article does not accept the view that civil nuclear capability will inexorably lead to proliferation. Rather, it finds that motive is as central as capability in determining the likelihood of proliferation, and highlights the difficulties of safeguarding against future intentions. Following a brief discussion of the Southeast Asian and North Asian contexts, the paper concludes with a short discussion of how proliferation risks stemming from an increase in nuclear energy might be mitigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
109874
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has turned to how states, particularly developing states, will address core capacity requirements attached to the revised IHR. Primarily, how will states strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern (PHEIC)? Another important but under-examined aspect of the revised IHR is the empowerment of the World Health Organization (WHO) to act upon non-governmental reports of disease outbreaks. The revised IHR potentially marks a new chapter in the powers of 'disease intelligence' and how the WHO may press states to verify an outbreak event. This article seeks to understand whether internet surveillance response programs (ISRPs) are effective in 'naming and shaming' states into reporting disease outbreaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
109870
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper takes a constructivist approach to examining one of the new norms embodied in the recently revised International Health Regulations (IHR). The paper focuses on the provisions that seek to restrain states from applying disproportionate international travel and trade restrictions in response to a disease outbreak occurring in another country. This new norm, which aims to limit unjustified 'additional health measures', has significant implications for state sovereignty. Using the example of the 2009 H1N1 'swine flu' pandemic, the paper examines whether state behaviour and the discourse surrounding that outbreak supports a constructivist contention that a new norm has been created and that most states can be expected to comply with that norm most of the time. We conclude by discussing what the discourse over H1N1 suggests about the extent to which the new norm concerning additional health measures has been internalized by states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
109861
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
109860
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
109879
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The fencing of the India-Bangladesh border suggests finality in the territorial partitioning of South Asia. This article examines the converging and competing narratives surrounding the fence at the national level in India and in the borderland itself, focussing on the federal state of Meghalaya. From this comparison two main arguments are made. First, at the national level, narratives around migration, national security, counterinsurgency and trade underpin a powerful logic that is difficult to contest. By contrast, in Meghalaya the narratives are less cohesive and the logic of the fence is far more contingent on local politics. Second, not only is there a difference between the ways the fence is viewed at the national level and in the borderland, but there is differentiation within the borderland itself. These narratives provide insights into the different ways borders, citizenship and insecurity are viewed and politicised in contemporary Asia and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|