This chapter focuses on the absence of certain marginal groups from the United Nations’ Women, Peace, and Security Agenda and suggests correctives to those exclusions. The chapter discusses how men and boys as victims of sexual and gender-based violence have been erased in this agenda, and the consequences of this erasure. It challenges the assumptions of militarized masculinity as a uniformly shared identity among conflict-engaged men. It also looks at the outcome of pregnancies resulting from wartime rape and shows how children born of rape are presented and treated in their communities. The chapter draws on research conducted in Peru and Colombia and shows the necessity of understanding both the perpetration and experience of violence in nuanced ways.
Lisbeth Aggestam and Adrian Hyde-Price
This chapter examines the politics of Swedish military activism and the paradoxes they involve. Since the end of the Cold War, Sweden has been involved a range of international military operations—from Bosnia and Congo to Afghanistan and Libya—that are very different from traditional peacekeeping. We argue that this military activism is driven both by the Swedish internationalist tradition of “doing good” in the world, but also for instrumental purposes. These include a desire for political influence in international institutions, an interest in collective milieu shaping, and a concern to improve the interoperability and effectiveness of the Swedish military.
“A Very British Institution”: The Intelligence and Security Committee and Intelligence Accountability in the United Kingdom
This article discusses Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) and intelligence accountability in the United Kingdom. It discusses the origins of intelligence oversight in the United Kingdom including ISC's independence, its ability to maintain secrets, its means of access to information, and its expertise and investigative powers. The article also discusses the reforms undertaken by the ISC to retain public confidence in the committee such as recognizing its limitations and imposing accountability.
The debate concerning how water access, availability, and change will impact conflict is bolstered by growing evidence that some influence exists, however inconsistent. Clear conclusions are obscured by the variety of water issues in developing countries, the difference between direct and indirect effects on conflict, and the additional uncertainty of what future climate changes may do to water availability and rights. This chapter summarizes how the conflict literature has integrated water issues into analyses of violence. In contrast, water researchers are mainly concerned with how little and how poorly water resources are used and managed across Africa. Resource management and politics emerge as the most serious contributors to water stress. Initial conclusions suggest that climate change and associated water shortages are far less of a problem than access and scarcity, and that water politics is leading to new contests, possibly violent, embedded in patterns of marginalization, exclusion, and poor governance.
Contemporary theoretical debates surrounding accountability in global economic governance have often adopted a problem-focused analytical lens—centred on real-world political controversies surrounding the accountability of global governing authorities. This chapter explores four distinctive problems of global accountability for which empirical inquiry has usefully informed normative analysis: first, the problem of unaccountable power within global governance processes; second, the problem of decentred political authority in global governance; third, problems establishing appropriate foundations of social power through which normatively desirable transnational accountabilities can be rendered practically effective at multiple scales; finally, problems associated with the need to traverse significant forms of social and cultural difference in negotiating appropriate normative terms of transnational accountability relationships. In relation to each, this chapter examines how systematic engagement between empirical and normative modes of analysis can both illuminate the theoretical problem and inform practical political strategies for strengthening accountability in global economic governance.
Jonathan G. S. Koppell
Governance is about creating processes and structures that constrain and regulate behavior. There is a wide variety of global governance organizations. Global governance organizations have an impact on a vast number of lives, but they are not guided by the legal, political and organizational rules that govern democratic domestic governance organizations. Accountability in global governance is really about legitimacy. Global governance organizations need to be able to clarify why they can define global rules of the game? For global governance organizations, being accountable means one (or more) of five things: transparency, liability, controllability, responsibility and responsiveness. The combination of these expectations easily culminates in organizational tensions.
The demand for more accountable international relations is really a demand for greater legitimacy. While many transnational actors are highly accountable, they lack legitimacy because they are not democratically accountable. Recent innovations in the theory and practice of accountability suggest that accountability to democratic standards can provide greater legitimacy for transnational actors and international relations without requiring the replication of democratic mechanisms of accountability globally.
Accounting for the Future or the Past?: Developing Accountability and Oversight Systems to Meet Future Intelligence Needs
Stuart Farson and Reg Whitaker
This article discusses the development of accountability and intelligence culture. It begins with the contentious issues that have prevailed in the field of intelligence. It defines the use of certain terms such as accountability and responsibility within the context of intelligence. The article also looks at how systems of oversight and accountability have developed in Canada's longest and most enduring intelligence partners. The focus here is on the causes, legislative practices, and shortcomings. Following the discussion on the systems of oversight and accountability in Canadian intelligence, the article proceeds with a discussion on how Canada has developed its own systems. The emphasis here is on the external procedures and independent institutions. The purpose in this section is twofold: first, is to illustrate that even close allies have followed different paths and, second, is to show that Canada, while initially getting off to a sound start, has failed to keep pace not only with its key intelligence allies but also with the changing threat environment. Finally, the article suggests what a system of oversight and accountability that will meet Canada's future needs might look like and what it would do.
Gregory F. Treverton
This article investigates a new category of intelligence problems called “complexities”. These complexities include terrorism, terrorist groups, “sensemaking” in the homeland security, and “sensemaking” in the law enforcement. The challenge is what intelligence and other agencies can usefully say about them for policymakers, ranging from senior leaders of government to police on the street. This article first defines complexities and explores their implications, then looks at several examples of how complexities might be addressed in counterterrorism intelligence and law enforcement.
Since its inception, the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle has been progressively narrowed in its scope and application in order to capture widespread support from governments and civil society. However, as this chapter will explore, R2P came perilously close to failing to recognize the gendered dimension of mass atrocity crimes and the prevention of these crimes. The chapter examines how R2P came to be characterized as ‘gender blind’, and details how, since 2006, the principle’s supporters have engaged and responded to this challenge. The author argues that there is a need to continually theorize and engage in areas of common discourse to collectively progress the mutual agenda of gender equitable human protection.