To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 3 explains the blending process – a thoughtful combination of F2 F and online component. This chapter delineates what the process entails and describes the BLL path. Readers will understand the crucial aspects of the pedagogical plan at the base of the blending process in order to guide a successful blending process. To this end, the chapter identifies and explains the essential organization of the blended path and differentiates between its two main types: input front-loading and input back-loading.
This article is concerned with the colonial state as a producer, consumer, and regulator of print. Propaganda and censorship may represent two extremes in the management of a colonial public sphere. Censorship was an interactive and negotiated process—one whose successful management was in the interest of both the censoring agents and those censored. One might think that censorship is a measure taken in order for communication to break down. If we imagine colonial print communication as a continuum suspended between partners that at one end desire full freedom of expression and at the other full control, absolute censorship does constitute silence, like that represented by the dramatic closure of the African press in Kenya with the Emergency of 1952. In a politicised colonial environment, like that in postwar Kenya, censorship may be understood as negotiation between colonisers and colonised on the limits of free speech. The article examines what changed in Kenya's late-colonial period in relation to the production, broadcasting, censoring, and suppression of non-European newspapers, and how the change affected the institutions and groupings that produced and received texts. More narrowly, it seeks to trace the dynamics of textual interfaces between the European print frameworks and those of the consolidated or emerging non-European publicists and publics. An examination that situates censorship in a broader context of management of discourse, of negotiation and dialogue, one that tests and goes beyond the dualism of suppression and resistance, may make it clearer why and to what extent a number of critical, anti-colonial publications were allowed to exist, and some were encouraged; and what the limits were, when opposition became unacceptable, and communication broke down.
The logic of democratic power is put to an empirical test in Chapter 6. Having identified treaties as the best observable source of international rules, this chapter tests the democratic power argument for international rule–based cooperation systematically in the context of international treaty making, which involves three stages – negotiations, commitment, and compliance. This statistical analysis is based on a dataset of seventy–five international treaties adopted between 1945 and 2008 and is complemented with insights from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The results reveal consistent and robust empirical patterns regarding states’ willingness and ability to cooperate over international treaties, which are generalizable across treaties, issues, and the stages of treaty making. The analysis confirms the centrality of the democratic powers as the chief promoters and adherents of international rules that gradually but inadvertently contribute to the constitutionalization of world politics.
The first part of this chapter describes the background to and the main elements in the negotiation of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The second part of the chapter analyses the negotiations, examining the conduct of the negotiations and the drafting outcome from the perspectives of key actors (principally US, UK, Soviet, French and ICRC delegations) with accompanying observations on positions taken by other delegations. The chapter then examines the implications of the negotiating history for the five hypotheses, finding that the drafting reflects a balance between competing symbolic costs and benefits arrived at largely through processes of principled contestation and moral and technical persuasion, conducted against the material backdrop of the nascent Cold War and decolonisation, as well as a broader humanitarian international normative Zeitgeist.
This chapter establishes the theoretical orientation of the study. Traditional IR approaches to regime development – which have typically drawn on a single research tradition – are mapped, and then contrasted with the pluralist approach taken in Negotiating Civil War, highlighting the rationale, principal benefits and challenges of drawing variously on Realist, Rationalist, Liberal and Constructivist insights. The hypotheses to be tested in each of the subsequent case studies chapters are then set out and their underlying explanatory factors identified. The chapter then sets out the potential interaction amongst these hypothesised factors in a ‘straw person’ diagram. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the key methodological considerations informing the study.
The chapter opens with an overview of the discussions on internal armed conflict at the four sessions of the diplomatic conference convened between 1974 and 1977 (the ‘CDDH’) which led to the conclusion of the first two Additional Protocols to the 1949 Conventions. The chapter then considers key outcomes of the CDDH – Article 1(4) of Protocol I, which requires ‘wars of national liberation’ to be treated as international rather than internal armed conflicts, and Protocol II in terms of both scope and content – from the perspective of the principal actors in the negotiations, in this instance the USA, UK, Canada, Nordic states (particularly Norway), Australia, Egypt, India, Pakistan, the Soviet Union and ICRC. In this instance, the provisions on internal armed conflict primarily reflected the preferences of materially less powerful states: the 1974 negotiation of Article 1(4) also illustrates well the limited efficacy of moral persuasion, technical authority and principled argument in the absence of a normative consensus across delegations. The 1977 drafting of Protocol II, in contrast, highlights the ability of weaker powers to deploy moral and technical authority alongside principled argument to bring about drafting outcomes.
The first section of the chapter draws together the findings from Chapters 3 – 5, revisiting Chapter 1’s ‘straw-person’ Figure 1 in light of the case studies to produce a more fine-grained portrait of how hypothesised and other factors contributed to shaping the civil war regime. This is followed by a reconsideration of how these factors combined in different instances to produce drafting outputs.
This chapter provides context for the study as a whole, situating the development of the civil war regime within the evolution of the international law of armed conflict. The chapter considers the classical, mediaeval and enlightenment manifestations of the legal distinction between international and internal armed conflict. It then discusses the rise and fall of the doctrines of belligerency and insurgency, the Lieber Code, and the establishment and early activities of the ICRC, before surveying the development of the law of armed conflict from the late 19th century until the Second World War. The chapter then considers the development of the civil war regime between 1949 and 1998 and subsequently, highlighting the key elements of the regime and setting these in the broader international legal context, including the development of international human rights law and international criminal law.
Negotiating Civil War has sought to provide a rounded, nuanced, portrait of the emergence of the Civil War Regime, leveraging the explanatory capacity of carefully selected theoretical propositions derived from mainstream IR research traditions. The following discussion assesses the extent to which this endeavour has been successful, and identifies wider lessons that can be derived. The first section sets out the key findings from the case studies and the examination overall. The second section sets Negotiating Civil War in the context of related bodies of research and considers scholarly and practical implications. The final section draws the volume to a close.
The introduction sets out the empirical puzzle at the heart of the study, contrasting the historical regulation of international armed conflict with the absence of regulation in respect of non-international armed conflict. This is followed by an overview of Negotiating Civil War and the book’s key findings. A closing discussion sets Negotiating Civil War in the context of broader, related literature.
Chapter 5 examines the negotiation of paragraphs (c) and (e) of Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The chapter provides a brief historical background before setting out the key turning points in the negotiation of these clauses. As in preceding chapters, the negotiations are considered from the perspectives of key actors: in this case, the ‘Like-Minded Group’, the P5 (particularly the USA, UK and France), the Non-Aligned Movement, and prominent civil society participants (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, FIDH). The chapter underlines that while like-minded and NGO moral authority and technical expertise played a large part in persuading wavering delegations, the internal armed conflict provisions closely reflect the preferences of the Western P3 as well as the post-Cold War liberal Zeitgeist.
Contemporary studies of conflict have adopted approaches that minimize the importance of negotiation during war or treat it as a constant and mechanical activity. This is strongly related to the lack of systematic data that track and illustrate the complex nature of wartime diplomacy. I address these issues by creating and exploring a new daily-level data set of negotiations in all interstate wars from 1816 to the present. I find strong indications that post-1945 wars feature more frequent negotiations and that these negotiations are far less predictive of war termination. Evidence suggests that increased international pressures for peace and stability after World War II, especially emanating from nuclear weapons and international alliances, account for this trend. These original data and insights establish a dynamic research agenda that enables a more policy-relevant study of conflict management, highlights a historical angle to conflict resolution, and speaks to the utility of viewing diplomacy as an essential dimension to understanding war.
This chapter presents evidence on individual psychological attributes and preferences of men and women which combine to identify the female ‘style of leadership‘. It then focuses on women as decision-makers in business positions and presents empirical analysis to test some of the predictions of the impact of female leadership on firms’ outcomes using rigorous identification strategies. The empirical analysis is organized by outcome: firms’ business performance, firms’ social and sustainability performance, firms’ international performance (export and trade) and labour market outcomes. Cross-country analysis with fixed effects as well as more detailed country analyses for two selected countries, Norway and Italy, are provided.
This chapter covers a core problem that managers regularly face (i.e., negotiating with current or prospective employees over pay). The topic is usually omitted from compensation texts and is covered in separate courses in business programs. But negotiation over pay is such an integral part of strategic compensation and talent management that it cannot be omitted from a book that aims to train managers to think strategically about pay. For example, talent retention (Chapter 12) requires managers to respond correctly when employees receive outside offers from competitors, which immediately triggers bargaining and negotiation over pay. The chapter opens by stressing the importance of defining your objective. The most important ingredient to successful negotiation is information, so the questions of when and how to reveal and collect information are addressed in depth. Sections 14.4 and 14.5 examine threats and bluffs as negotiating tools, as well as how managers should think about and respond to counteroffers. As discussed in the final section, sometimes employers can gain the upper hand during bargaining by complicating the discussion, whereas other times simplification is better.
The chapter addresses the phases in making a new treaty: negotiation, drafting and production of the text. It discusses how to prepare for treaty negotiations and how to influence the drafting effectively, differences in the making of multilateral and bilateral treaties, and identifying the main actors involved in negotiating and drafting a new treaty. It explains in detail how to structure a treaty text, including title, preamble, final clauses, testimonium, signature block. It then examines the process of preparing and producing a treaty text for signature, including adoption, translation, formatting, binding and sealing. At each stage the role of the Treaty Office is highlighted. The importance of Full Powers is explained, as well as how to produce them and when it is permissible to dispense with them. Lastly, the chapter provides useful checklists for Treaty Offices and depositaries in making new bilateral and multilateral treaties.
We analyse the politics of the reform of teacher payment modalities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in light of the uneven territorial reach of the DRC state. The reform focused on extending this reach by paying all teachers via a bank account, replacing long-standing shared governance arrangements between state and faith-based organisations with a public-private partnership. By using qualitative and quantitative data, we map the political practices accompanying the implementation of the reform. While the reform itself was officially deemed a success, its intended effects were almost completely offset in rural areas. Moreover, governance of teacher payments was not rationalised but instead became even more complex and spatially differentiated. In sum, the reform has rendered governance processes more opaque and deepened the existing unevenness in the geography of statehood.
Noncompete clauses (NCCs), or agreements by employees to not work for a competitor or start a competing business, have recently faced increased public scrutiny and criticism. This article provides a qualified defense of NCCs. I focus on the argument that NCCs should be banned because they unfairly restrict the options of employees. I argue that this argument fails because it neglects the economist Thomas Schelling’s insight that limiting exit options can be beneficial for a person. This employee-based defense of NCCs does not absolve all their uses, but it does give us a rough test for evaluating the permissibility of NCCs. With this test in hand, I turn to some of the more controversial uses of NCCs. For those who weigh heavily the interests of employees, the question is not whether NCCs, but when.
In this chapter, we explore the ability of courts to enhance the role of substantive law in case outcomes by reducing party litigation costs. When it becomes less costly for parties to engage actively in dispute resolution, the shadow of substantive law should, in theory, become more pronounced and case outcomes should change (and hopefully become more accurate/efficient on average). To empirically investigate this hypothesis, we examine the consequences of a large state court’s implementation of court-assisted online dispute resolution (ODR) tools for its small claims docket. A central goal of this technology is to reduce litigation costs of all sorts so that parties are able to communicate easily and negotiate settlements quickly in the shadow of what is —or could be—efficient substantive law, thereby avoiding inefficient status quo outcomes, like default judgments. ODR tools enhance court efficiency and litigant satisfaction by giving parties on‐demand, inexpensive access to a private and secure platform to negotiate an agreement that fully resolves their dispute. We find that, by reducing costs, eliminating procedural inefficiencies, and placing decision-making power in the hands of the parties, platform technology reduces the likelihood of default and likely improves the substantive outcome of disputes.
Chapter three tracks the geographical expansion of the legal reform, exploring the debates and negotiations around its implementation in Crimea and Kazan. In order to better contextualize this implementation, it first discusses the changing political climate after the Great Reforms and the limited politicization of the emerging public sphere, which also affected provincial cities such as Kazan. Pragmatic concerns over resources and infrastructure came to play as important a role as political and ideological concerns over power and authority. The chapter shows that the reform had to be negotiated carefully at the provincial and local levels, with occasional clashes disrupting the process, as a range of individuals and institutions advanced their positions and defended specific interests. In charting these negotiations and controversies, the chapter also paints a detailed ethnographic portrait of communication and administrative interaction in post-reform Russia.