|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
128612
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines the involvement of new modes of governance (NMoG)/new actors, in establishing new regional regulatory frameworks in Southeast Asia. The basis for this discussion is a framework suggested by Kanishka Jayasuriya who argues that the activities of NMoG can facilitate the establishment of such regional regulatory frameworks. Concentrating on maritime services provided by one new actor, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs), this paper suggests that the current activities and working practices of PMSCs in Southeast Asia are more likely to undermine regional security cooperation and regional governance, thus challenging some of the tenets of Jayasuriya's framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134402
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A defining feature of the ‘9/11 wars’ has been the prominent role played by private military and security companies (pmsc). The growth of this market for military and security services has not gone unnoticed. Yet the role pmsc have played in supporting the US-led war on drugs has largely gone under the radar, both literally and figuratively. The aim of this article is to look at the activities of pmsc funded by the USA in Latin America, and to consider the specific consequences that arise from employing them in the field of counter-narcotics. It is argued that the use of pmsc further entrenches a costly and unsuccessful way of dealing with drugs. There is a need to move from a strict prohibitionist stance and consider alternatives to the war on drugs approach, but the use of pmsc creates another strong vested interest in maintaining an increasingly problematic and costly status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
120088
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The proliferation of private military and security companies (PMSCs) in Iraq and Afghanistan has raised many questions regarding the use of armed force by private contractors. This article addresses the question of whether the increased acceptance of PMSCs indicates a transformation of the international norm regarding the state monopoly on the legitimate use of armed force. Drawing on theoretical approaches to the analysis of norm change, the article employs four measures to investigate possible changes in the strength and meaning of this norm: modifications in state behaviour, state responses to norm violation, the promulgation of varying interpretations of the norm in national and international laws and regulations, and changes in norm discourse. Based on an analysis of empirical evidence from the United States of America and its allies, the article concludes that these measures suggest that the USA is leading the way towards a transformation of the international norm of the state monopoly on violence, involving a revised meaning. Although this understanding has not yet been formally implemented in international law, it has allowed a growing number of countries to tolerate, accept or legalize the use of armed force by PMSCs in the international arena.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
140341
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
More than 15 years ago a new debate was opened discussing an emerging phenomenon: Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) in and around conflict zones. Initially focused on the actions of a number of notorious companies, the field matured rapidly and created a lively debate on how to accommodate these actors in military and democratic institutions. This article has two purposes. First, it offers an appraisal of the literature, and past research priorities (which questions were asked, and which fields/cases received most attention?). Second, it offers a critical reflection on the state-of-the-art, and argues that the strong preference for studying regulation, control, and accountability, and PMSCs working for the USA and UK, has limited our understanding of the scope of the phenomenon, its antecedents, and the implications beyond those directly related to regulation and control. Highlighting a recent, critical wave of scholarship I discuss the headway that can be made by studying: the commercialization of defence beyond the usual suspects; outsourcing in conflict zones beyond the nation-state; and questions beyond those directly related to regulation, control, and accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|