Military elites and the study of war

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67081/2/10.1177_002200275700100103.pd

Voluntary organizations and society–military relations in contemporary Russia

The 2014 crisis in Ukraine has refocused attention on Russia as a European security actor. Despite showing renewed military capability, compared to the post-Soviet period, Russian society–military relations have remained the same. This relationship (between society and the security organs) provides the key context for assessing security. Analysis of everyday militarization and the role of voluntary organizations (such as DOSAAF [Dobrovol'noe obshchestvo sodeistviya armii, aviatsii i flotu] and Nashi [Molodezhnoe demokraticheskoe antifashistskoe dvizheni]) in supporting the military can provide an important insight into Russian behaviour as a security actor. These organizations generate a pro-military outlook and at the same time provide training and activities, thus contributing to military effectiveness by developing the competency of young people prior to military service as well as increasing public knowledge of military affairs. However, strong support for the military, a lack of independent information, and an absence of a shared vision on how society–military relations should be developed and also represent political challenges in terms of everyday militarization. This dynamic is important for understanding both Russia's security posture and wider security implications for Europe

Reflections

The American Society of International Law Committee recommended that the Manley 0. Hudson Medal be awarded to Professor Eric Stein for his lifetime of significant contributions to international and comparative law. Stein, the Hessel E. Yntema Professor of Law, Emeritus, at the University of Michigan Law School, had been an active supporter of ASIL as Honorary Vice President, Counsellor, and Honorary Editor of, and frequent contributor to, the American Journal of International Law. His many books and articles established him as a leading thinker and writer on European Community law and on what he described in a famous article as the Uses, Misuses, and Nonuses of Comparative Law

Private Security Companies and Shared Responsibility: The Turn to Multistakeholder Standard-Setting and Monitoring Through Self-Regulation-‘Plus'

The rapid and increasing outsourcing of security services by states to Private Security Companies (PSCs) in recent years and associated human rights violations have served as one of the catalysts for long overdue regulation of the global PSC industry. As part of an ‘empirical stocktaking’, this article focuses on current multistakeholder self-regulatory developments in relation to PSCs, in particular the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers and the PSC1 certification standard, and considers their likely impact on the responsibility of states in this area. What is clear is that the traditional conception of interna- tional responsibility is ineffectual when applied to PSCs because of its focus on the ex post facto responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. Furthermore, the fact that PSCs operate in high risk and complex environments and the fact that their clients are often non-state actors, means that an alternative prophylactic approach to responsibility for human rights violations by PSCs seems to be nec- essary. As it stands, however, the ‘self-regulation-plus’ approach adopted is not the definitive solution. While endeavouring to ensure that PSCs respect human rights, this approach may allow states to evade their own obligations to protect human rights