Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The proposed paper interprets the second Chechen conflict (since 1999) through the prism of the securitisation framework derived by Barry Buzan et al. In studying official discourses and securitising moves, the repeated claims on the part of the Russian authorities that the situation in the republic is ?normalising? are assessed. Using elements of the constructivist speech-act approach advocated by Buzan et al?s securitisation framework, the first part of the paper analyses Russian and Western discourses relating to developments in Chechnya. Amongst other issues it assesses the effects of 9/11 on international reactions to Russian representations of the Chechen conflict, such as the increasing acceptance by foreign governments of the highly securitised nature of this discourse. The second part of the paper assesses successful securitisation moves with reference to the discourses within which the war has been framed officially, and in particular in consideration of the claims voiced by the Russian authorities of an occurring ?normalisation? of the Chechen republic. By contrasting Russian securitising discourse and claims of a process of normalisation with the counter-discourse of opponents of the Chechen war in Russia and abroad, the paper concludes that the second Chechen war is a clear example of a successful securitisation having taken place.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper examines the prospects for participatory regional economic governance in ASEAN by using discourse analysis to probe the manner in which civil society actors have been constituted, contrasting this with the way the business groups have been constituted. The analysis reveals that while business groups have been ‘normalised’ as legitimate actors in regional economic governance, non-elite civil society groups have yet to enjoy such status. This arises from the dominant neoliberal market discourse on regional economic integration, which has discursively universalised the market as a uniform social space in which the market values of competitiveness and efficiency are the governing norms for society. Thus, the representativeness of business actors has not been questioned given their ‘expert’ status on economic matters, and they enjoy a high degree of legitimacy among national leaders and ASEAN officials as rightful participants in regional governance. Civil society actors, on the other hand, are not regarded as ‘experts’ on the economy, which, coupled with questions regarding their autonomy, transparency, and accountability, undermines their claim as rightful participants in regional economic governance. Thus, the frameworks that are being put in place to increase societal participation in regional governance are actually rather fragile, and ASEAN will continue to remain for some time an elitist regional institution, especially with regard to regional economic governance.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In recent years the law of tort has been moving to recognise a new form of direct institutional systemic negligence. “Abusive institutionalisation” describes a quality of institutional culture, the “nature of the institution itself,” as a source of a particular global quality of harm that will often encompass traditional legal categories such as assault or battery as one aspect of a total experience. Recognition of an abusive institutionalisation experience extending beyond the traditional assault paradigm may significantly impact the effect of limitations principles in this context. A key element of abusive institutionalisation is the normalisation of harm; normalisation affects an individual’s perception of harm as a legally redressable wrong, and compounds damage arising from that harm by making it more likely that the individual (perceiving abusive institutional culture to be normal) will replicate that environment outside of the institution.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The latter part of the twentieth century saw some striking changes in governmental perspectives on corruption: first, an increasing tendency to treat corruption and its consequences in economic terms; second, a shift in the perceived relationship between corruption and development; and third, the internationalisation of the problem of corruption. This paper explores the implications of these changes through an examination of the emergence and rise to prominence of Transparency International (TI), which is now the major international agency focused specifically on combatting corruption. Apart from a short account by one of its founders, TI has yet to be studied in its own right – unlike, say, the World Bank, IMF or UNDP. Its situation in this respect reflects a more general limitation of the burgeoning literature on corruption: the perception of corruption as an urgent practical problem suggests that the most important issues concern the incidence of corruption itself and the effectiveness of various possible responses. Our aim is certainly not to question the significance of these issues, but it is to insist that anti-corruption activity should now be regarded as an important object of study in its own right. An immediate effect of adopting this focus is to suggest that there may be more to international and national anti-corruption activity than a simple response to the perceived problem of corruption. It is partly for this reason that we have chosen to locate the emergence and development of TI, and the broader anti-corruption movement of which it is a part, in the context of the contemporaneous rise of neo-liberalism and related changes in the pattern of international order. An example from a somewhat different policy area will illustrate what is at stake. Several commentators have noted the one-sided response of the IMF to the recent Asian crisis, imposing structural reform on LDCs while rejecting the option of managing international capital flows. But it has also been suggested that the structural reforms in question can be seen as promoting a broader program of normalisation, displacing Asian patterns of business organisation and finance in favour of an Anglo-American model. The issue that concerns us here, then, is how far TI's preferred response to the problem of corruption – the promotion of national integrity systems and the like – might also be seen as part of a broader neo-liberal program of normalisation.