各种有组织的虚伪:联合国、欧盟和北约危机管理行动中的安全私有化

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES European Security Pub Date : 2021-09-02 DOI:10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975
E. Cusumano, Oldřich Bureš
{"title":"各种有组织的虚伪:联合国、欧盟和北约危机管理行动中的安全私有化","authors":"E. Cusumano, Oldřich Bureš","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states’ growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Varieties of organised hypocrisy: security privatisation in UN, EU, and NATO crisis management operations\",\"authors\":\"E. Cusumano, Oldřich Bureš\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states’ growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46331,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Security\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Security","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要国际组织越来越多地求助于私营军事和安保公司作为武装保护、培训、情报和后勤的提供者。在这篇文章中,我们认为,国际组织试图调和相互冲突的国际规范和成员国越来越不愿意提供有效危机管理所需的人力,从而使其关于私营军保公司的官方政策和实际使用脱钩,从而从事有组织的虚伪行为。由于对国家垄断暴力等规范的更严格解释,联合国在言论和行动之间表现出了比欧盟和北大西洋公约组织更明显的差距,后者在使用私营军保公司方面表现出更务实但并不完全一致的做法。通过研究联合国、欧盟和北约官方承包商支持理论和行动记录之间的脱钩,本文推进了关于安全私有化和有组织虚伪的辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Varieties of organised hypocrisy: security privatisation in UN, EU, and NATO crisis management operations
ABSTRACT International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states’ growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Security
European Security Multiple-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
The European Union's use of contractors in security and defence: blazing its own path of institutional change? Measuring the effectiveness of counter-disinformation strategies in the Czech security forces Diplomacy beyond the state: Ukrainian think tank experts as wartime diplomacy actors What can European security architecture look like in the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine? New Russian migrants in Estonia: performative agency in insecure times
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1