Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 5 Years

2871. Recognition of National Football Federations and the Diplomatic Role of FIFA

Author:
Michal Marcin Kobierecki
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The paper refers to the category of sports diplomacy and aims to investigate the issue of diplomatic subjectivity of international sports organizations, by the example of FIFA and its prerogative to grant membership to national football federations. Such processes on some occasions are connected to political and diplomatic significance, particularly in relation to states without universal international recognition, for whom participation in international sport is an important tool in their struggle for legitimization. The research question that the author attempts to answer is whether membership of national sports organization in the international sports federations can be meaningful from the perspective of the state’s endeavors toward securing international recognition. The hypothesis stated that the prerogative of international sports bodies such as FIFA to recognize national sports federations enhances their diplomatic subjectivity.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Sports, Football, and FIFA
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2872. Political Trust vs. Turnout in Modern Democracies

Author:
Izabela Kapsa
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The article analyzes the relations between political trust - one of the most important values in the life of political communities - and election-related behaviors in the narrow meaning of voting. Researchers investigate the phenomenon of decreasing turnout as one of the expressions of democratic crisis. When studying such a complex problem, it is essential to search for multi-theme causes which might be helpful in understanding the topic and possibly finding a solution for it. The author of this article, while assuming the correctness of analyzes conducted thus far, which indicate that the problem lies in weaker attachment to political parties, less interest in politics and inadequate tools, raises questions whether the decreasing turnout in individual states may be related to the level of trust that citizens put in political institutions and whether there is a relation between these both indicators. In order to answer these questions, the author employs a quantitative analysis of data which derive from reports containing percentage levels of political trust and turnout in the elections, a comparative analysis, as well as an overview of literature on the subject.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, Voting, Participation, and Turnout
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2873. Institutional Responsibility for Mass Atrocity Crimes with Thomas Pogge

Author:
Jed Lea-Henry
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
Humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are currently limited and encumbered by a pervasive absence of a political will. In states’ calculations, political considerations are constantly winning-out over the moral considerations of saving at-risk segments of our planet. While institutional and legal reforms undoubtedly play a role in addressing this challenge, such reforms and structures have existed for generations now, and have largely failed to bridge this gap from ‘moral necessity to political action’. What has been lacking is a moral understanding of humanitarian crises that is capable of reliably motivating the international community to undertake remedying actions, rather than merely expressions of concern. Such a moral foundation is achievable through institutional cosmopolitanism, an understanding of humanitarian intervention as satisfactions of our negative duties, and specifically the work of Thomas Pogge.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, Atrocities, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2874. Autarchy of Political Science and the Methodological Functions of Object Knowledge. Epistemological Analysis

Author:
Michal R. Wesierski
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
Applying external scientific knowledge - i.e. knowledge achieved in the field of disciplines and sub-disciplines related to political science - in fulfiling such methodological functions as explanation and prevision (forecasting) is frequently approached in meta-scientific and meta-theoretical considerations as conducted on the ground of the family of scientific disciplines constituted by the sciences of politics. These functions can be ascribed to the purely epistemological aspect of scientific activity, not its institutional and organizational aspects. The dispute regarding the explanatory autonomy of political science is fallacious. From the logical and methodological point of view, the institutional “affiliation” of object knowledge, which constitutes a premise in complex inferences, does not play a role in the fulfilment of the assumed cognitive tasks; what is important instead is its epistemological credibility, as well as the goals of the research strategy selected by a given scholar.
Topic:
Research, Political Science, Academia, and Methods
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2875. Strong Yet Brittle: The Risks of Digital Authoritarianism

Author:
Katherine Mansted
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Authoritarian governments increasingly adopt technology-centric national strategies and methods of internal governance. They control their societies through digital censorship, propaganda, and surveillance, and use these same tools to manipulate foreign societies. Their leaders prioritize the development of cutting-edge technologies in pursuit of government efficiency and military and economic advantage. Some analysts view this turn to “digital authoritarianism” as an approach designed to make authoritarians more durable at home and powerful abroad. However, authoritarians adopt technology-centric strategies primarily due to their own insecurity. Digital authoritarianism is not so much a strategic choice, as it is a strategic necessity. In a globalized world, ideas and communications technologies are inherently threatening to authoritarian regimes, which must control both to ensure their survival. Authoritarians also increasingly depend on information technologies for economic growth and to build state capacity in areas where they have traditionally been at a comparative disadvantage to democracies. Ultimately, digital authoritarianism creates systemic risks for domestic governance and national security. In this sense, while digital authoritarianism has strengths, it will also become a regime’s Achilles’ Heel.
Topic:
Government, Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, Surveillance, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2876. Iran’s Authoritarian Playbook: The Tactics, Doctrine, and Objectives behind Iran’s Influence Operations

Author:
Ariane Tabatabai
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
According to a 2013 indictment by the U.S. Department of Justice, hackers backed by a foreign power gained access to the controls of the Bowman Avenue Dam, a small dam in the New York City suburb of Rye, New York. Cyberattacks on infrastructure have long been a concern in the United States: Russia has targeted the U.S. power grid and other critical infrastructure in the past—at times successfully.1 Hackers backed by the People’s Republic of China have targeted U.S. utilities companies.2 However, neither of these strategic adversaries was behind this bold foray into U.S. suburbia: the culprit, according to the indictment, was the Islamic Republic of Iran.3 Over the past decade, Iran has emerged as an important national security challenge for the United States. A novel part of the regime’s effort—facilitated by the advent of the information age and new technology—is its development of a playbook and toolkit designed to undermine the United States at home just as, in the eyes of Tehran, Washington does in Iran. This makes the current Iranian challenge more subtle and nuanced than has been the case for most of the Islamic Republic’s existence. Iran has gradually expanded its capabilities to compete against the United States for influence within the region, and it is now also taking this competition into the United States and even Europe. One hundred days before the 2020 U.S. elections, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence put a fine point on this threat when National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director William Evanina released a statement noting that, “at this time, we’re primarily concerned with China, Russia and Iran,” who are all looking to “use influence measures in social and traditional media in an effort to sway U.S. voters’ preferences and perspectives, to shift U.S. policies, to increase discord and to undermine confidence in our democratic process.”4 The statement characterized the Iranian threat as follows: “Iran seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions and divide the country in advance of the elections. Iran’s efforts center around online influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content.”5 The Islamic Republic’s authoritarian toolkit is unlikely to become as sophisticated as that of China or Russia in the near-term. After all, Iran’s economy is in shambles, its capacity restrained, and the model of society and governance it tries to offer profoundly limited in its appeal. And even the flagship tool used by Iran to interfere in democracies, namely its online influence operations, continues to suffer from such basic shortcomings as misspelled names, the repeated use of the same tactics and techniques, and a lack of proper research into the target and familiarity with its behavior.6 However, a perceived existential threat posed by the United States, an inability to match the conventional capabilities of the United States and its allies, and a strong desire to compete with the same, have encouraged Iran to double down on efforts to develop a set of asymmetric tools allowing it to overcome its shortcomings. In this sense, Iran is not dissimilar to Russia. “Authoritarian learning” (including partnerships with both Beijing and Moscow) has likely helped Tehran to overcome challenges and to develop its toolkit quickly and effectively. The result is that Iran is becoming a significant authoritarian actor challenging democracy in the United States and Europe. Tehran’s influence operations span traditional and digital media. The regime has built a sprawling web of traditional media outlets, as well as networks of accounts on all major social media platforms (even as it bans and limits access to these websites at home), allowing it to reach millions of users abroad. The content Iran creates, distributes, and amplifies is multilingual and seeks to adapt to democracies’ social, cultural, and political contexts—with fairly mixed results. Among the objectives of Iran’s information manipulation efforts are sowing tensions in democracies, dividing democratic nations internally and from each other, and alleging hypocrisy in democratic states’ foreign policies, undermining democratization in Iran and elsewhere. Iranian hackers routinely target U.S. persons, academic institutions, companies, non-profit organizations, and government agencies and departments. And Iran’s illicit finance schemes are considerable; although, they are currently focused on sanctions evasion and support of information operations, rather than used as a standalone vector to undermine democracies. Some of these tools and the tactics used by Iran are similar to those employed by both Russia and China—and both Beijing and Moscow have lent Tehran a hand in developing some of its capabilities,7 particularly in the realm of information manipulation. Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media and associated social media accounts echo and amplify each other’s messaging. But there are also some differences in how Tehran deploys these tactics. This is in part due to differences in the political culture and structure of the country, the Islamic Republic’s own ideology and worldview, and the country’s status in the international system. Another significant set of differences arises from Iran’s shortcomings vis-à-vis both its adversaries (including the United States) and its authoritarian partners in Russia and China. For example, Russia and China can leverage their vast nuclear arsenal and enormous economic weight, respectively, to compete directly with the United States. Iran is ill-equipped to compete with the United States in either of those domains and, as such, sees this set of tools and efforts to undermine democracy as a means to elevate its level of competition rather than an end in itself. Hence, Tehran’s toolkit is more limited than those of Beijing or Moscow, leading the Islamic Republic to be more deliberate and selective in the programs it develops and, perhaps, more forceful in how it deploys them. As a result, though Iran’s growing efforts to undermine democracy should not be ignored and should be addressed adequately, for now, the Islamic Republic remains a lesser threat than China and Russia. This report tries to make sense of these activities and provide a framework for understanding Iran’s intentions and capabilities. It provides one of the first comprehensive discussions of Iran’s authoritarian toolkit, doctrine, and objectives. It must be noted that unlike other key Iranian initiatives—such as its nuclear program, missile activities, support for non-state actors, and regional interventions—Iran’s authoritarian toolkit remains scarcely studied in the academic literature. Understanding Tehran’s objectives in undermining democracy and the means it leverages to do so is important for a few reasons. First, Iranian activities over the past few years have shown that the regime is increasingly active in this space. And as Iran’s objectives and the tools it employs are different from those of other key malign actors, understanding their strengths and weaknesses and developing specific responses to them is a worthy exercise. Second, authoritarians learn from each other, and observing the Iranian case allows us to better identify the trends and comprehend the ways in which less powerful malign actors (as opposed to Russia and China, for example) may engage in similar activities designed to undermine democracy.
Topic:
Authoritarianism, Elections, Cybersecurity, Foreign Interference, Cyberspace, and Influence
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and Global Focus

2877. Linking Values and Strategy: How Democracies Can Offset Autocratic Advances

Author:
Jessica Brandt, Zack Cooper, Bradley Hanlon, and Laura Rosenberger
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The United States and other liberal democracies face a persistent asymmetric threat from authoritarian challengers who aim to reshape the global order in their favor. Illiberal regimes use a wide range of tools across the political, economic, technological, and information domains to undermine democratic institutions and alliances, prevent criticism of their own regimes and governance systems, and establish norms and standards favorable to autocratic rule. In the case of digital information technology, these efforts go beyond shaping norms to controlling the infrastructure that transmits information itself. To date, democracies have been slow to adapt to this contest, allowing autocrats to seize the initiative by taking advantage of the openness of liberal systems. Fortunately, the United States can regain the initiative in this emerging competition with authoritarianism—if it addresses its vulnerabilities, leverages its strategic advantages, and reframes the contest on its own terms. The United States faces an array of domestic challenges—political polarization, inequality and racism, erosion of traditional media, a growing tech-government divide, flawed and porous political influence systems, and impaired economic competitiveness—that threaten to undermine the United States’ competitive strengths. Autocrats can leverage these cleavages and constraints in the short-term, but in the long-term democratic characteristics confer tremendous strategic advantages. The United States’ advantages include a vibrant civil society, dynamic and competitive economy, innovative private sector, and robust network of alliances. Leveraging these strengths requires a national strategy to offset autocratic advances by seizing on the advantages of open systems, building resilience into democratic institutions, and exploiting the brittleness of authoritarian regimes. This Task Force report outlines the logic and contours of such a national strategy across four overlapping non-military domains.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

2878. Technology in Conflict: how COVID-19 contact tracing apps can exacerbate violent conflicts

Author:
Jennifer Easterday
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
In this Strategic Update, Jennifer Easterday explores how a human security approach to COVID-19 tech tools would prompt tech companies, governments, and other actors to work with communities in ways that enhance their agency in the face of the pandemic to both reduce the risk of exacerbating conflict while maximizing the benefits of technology.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Conflict, Violence, Human Security, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2879. Old Issues, New Threats: Mine Action and IEDs in Urban Environments

Author:
Dave Luke
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The nature of conflict is changing. Mine Action’s policy and practices are therefore coming under strain from the contemporary conflict trends of urbanisation and non-state armed groups (NSAG) using improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This Strategic Update considers if there is a paradigm shift underway or if the current frictions are growth pains for this generation of humanitarian responders.
Topic:
Weapons, Landmines, and IED
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2880. Foreign Market Entry Mode Choice In Service Firms: a Business Model Perspective

Author:
Alptegin Albayraktaroğlu
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AURUM Journal of Social Sciences
Institution:
Altinbas University
Abstract:
The topic of foreign market entry in service sector could benefit from a more granular approach, since the business model (BM) employed varies greatly across different types of services. It is argued that this in turn would affect the internationalization strategy to be employed in each service case. In this paper, services are classified along three dimensions (inseparability, capital intensity, degree of customization), and propositions are developed regarding the right foreign market entry mode for each of the eight service variations. The propositions are grounded in business model and general strategic management theories, since it is argued that service firms design their activity systems in host countries via tradeoffs between adjustment costs and transaction costs involved. As the service classification defines the nature of these costs for the focal firm, previous findings regarding the choice of foreign market entry mode reflects BM designs to optimize such costs. The scientific value of this paper is the introduction of the business model concept as a new perspective for research on decision making in service firm internationalization.
Topic:
Business, Internationalization, Foreign Market Entry, and Service Marketing
Political Geography:
Global Focus