《全球治理中的秘密:披露困境和世界政治中国际合作的挑战》,艾莉森·卡内基和奥斯汀·卡森(纽约:剑桥大学出版社,2020年),362页,布面99.99美元,平装本34.99美元。

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1017/s0892679421000186
Austin Carson
{"title":"《全球治理中的秘密:披露困境和世界政治中国际合作的挑战》,艾莉森·卡内基和奥斯汀·卡森(纽约:剑桥大学出版社,2020年),362页,布面99.99美元,平装本34.99美元。","authors":"Austin Carson","doi":"10.1017/s0892679421000186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transparency in international organizations (IOs) is at the top of the list of practices traditionally thought to comprise good governance and is often argued to be associated with greater accountability to their member states and enhanced information sharing among the states. However, in Secrets in Global Governance, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson use information from interviews and new data on the sensitive datatransparency practices of  different IOs to argue that, paradoxically, confidentiality systems, which are designed to protect sensitive intelligence and economic information, actually increase an IO’s policing power and ability to punish states and private firms that break the rules-based order. Carnegie and Carson analyze why countries and firms may not feel comfortable sharing information with IOs, even if doing so would absolve them of accusations or incriminate a rival, or would allow the IO to punish a rule breaker, such as an accused war criminal. While member states may choose to share such information, they also run the risk that the information could be leaked, allowing their rivals to adapt their practices, which happened, for example, when Bosnian Serbs destroyed mass graves after Germany released surveillance photos showing evidence of the graves (p. ). Through reviewing case studies in four areas of international relations (nuclear nonproliferation, international trade, international war crime tribunals, and foreign direct investment), Carnegie and Carson analyze under what conditions states and nonstate actors share sensitive information with IOs, and whether the sharing of sensitive information increases compliance or cooperation within that IO. Each case study examines an international organization’s ability to uphold its rules-based order after confidentiality systems are introduced, or taken away, through reforms. For example, the authors explain how in the early s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spurred by the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons development program in Iraq, shifted from verifying members’ selfreported nuclear activities to accepting intelligence provided by member states about other members. This shift resulted in the IAEA being able to act on intelligence provided by the United States and to insist on visiting additional nuclear sites in Iran during an IAEA inspection.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"49 1","pages":"169 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secrets in Global Governance: Disclosure Dilemmas and the Challenge of International Cooperation in World Politics, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 362 pp., $99.99 cloth, $34.99 paperback.\",\"authors\":\"Austin Carson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0892679421000186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Transparency in international organizations (IOs) is at the top of the list of practices traditionally thought to comprise good governance and is often argued to be associated with greater accountability to their member states and enhanced information sharing among the states. However, in Secrets in Global Governance, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson use information from interviews and new data on the sensitive datatransparency practices of  different IOs to argue that, paradoxically, confidentiality systems, which are designed to protect sensitive intelligence and economic information, actually increase an IO’s policing power and ability to punish states and private firms that break the rules-based order. Carnegie and Carson analyze why countries and firms may not feel comfortable sharing information with IOs, even if doing so would absolve them of accusations or incriminate a rival, or would allow the IO to punish a rule breaker, such as an accused war criminal. While member states may choose to share such information, they also run the risk that the information could be leaked, allowing their rivals to adapt their practices, which happened, for example, when Bosnian Serbs destroyed mass graves after Germany released surveillance photos showing evidence of the graves (p. ). Through reviewing case studies in four areas of international relations (nuclear nonproliferation, international trade, international war crime tribunals, and foreign direct investment), Carnegie and Carson analyze under what conditions states and nonstate actors share sensitive information with IOs, and whether the sharing of sensitive information increases compliance or cooperation within that IO. Each case study examines an international organization’s ability to uphold its rules-based order after confidentiality systems are introduced, or taken away, through reforms. For example, the authors explain how in the early s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spurred by the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons development program in Iraq, shifted from verifying members’ selfreported nuclear activities to accepting intelligence provided by member states about other members. This shift resulted in the IAEA being able to act on intelligence provided by the United States and to insist on visiting additional nuclear sites in Iran during an IAEA inspection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & International Affairs\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"169 - 170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & International Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679421000186\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679421000186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

国际组织的透明度历来被认为是构成良好治理的最重要的实践,经常被认为与对其成员国更大的问责制和加强国家间的信息共享有关。然而,在《全球治理中的秘密》一书中,艾莉森·卡内基和奥斯汀·卡森利用采访信息和不同国际组织敏感数据透明度实践的新数据,提出了一个矛盾的观点:旨在保护敏感情报和经济信息的保密制度,实际上增加了国际组织的监管权力和惩罚违反规则秩序的国家和私营公司的能力。卡耐基和卡森分析了为什么国家和公司可能不愿意与国际组织分享信息,即使这样做可以免除他们的指控或使竞争对手有罪,或者允许国际组织惩罚违反规则的人,比如被指控的战争罪犯。虽然成员国可能会选择共享这些信息,但它们也面临着信息可能被泄露的风险,从而使竞争对手得以采用他们的做法,例如,在德国公布了显示坟墓证据的监控照片后,波斯尼亚塞族摧毁了万人坑(p.)。通过回顾国际关系四个领域(核不扩散、国际贸易、国际战争罪法庭和外国直接投资)的案例研究,卡内基和卡森分析了国家和非国家行为体在什么条件下与国际组织分享敏感信息,以及敏感信息的共享是否会增加国际组织内部的遵守或合作。每个案例研究都考察了一个国际组织在通过改革引入或取消保密制度后维护其基于规则的秩序的能力。例如,这组作者解释了在年代早期,国际原子能机构(IAEA)如何在发现伊拉克秘密核武器发展计划的刺激下,从核实成员国自己报告的核活动转向接受成员国提供的关于其他成员国的情报。这种转变导致原子能机构能够根据美国提供的情报采取行动,并在原子能机构视察期间坚持访问伊朗的其他核设施。
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
Secrets in Global Governance: Disclosure Dilemmas and the Challenge of International Cooperation in World Politics, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 362 pp., $99.99 cloth, $34.99 paperback.
Transparency in international organizations (IOs) is at the top of the list of practices traditionally thought to comprise good governance and is often argued to be associated with greater accountability to their member states and enhanced information sharing among the states. However, in Secrets in Global Governance, Allison Carnegie and Austin Carson use information from interviews and new data on the sensitive datatransparency practices of  different IOs to argue that, paradoxically, confidentiality systems, which are designed to protect sensitive intelligence and economic information, actually increase an IO’s policing power and ability to punish states and private firms that break the rules-based order. Carnegie and Carson analyze why countries and firms may not feel comfortable sharing information with IOs, even if doing so would absolve them of accusations or incriminate a rival, or would allow the IO to punish a rule breaker, such as an accused war criminal. While member states may choose to share such information, they also run the risk that the information could be leaked, allowing their rivals to adapt their practices, which happened, for example, when Bosnian Serbs destroyed mass graves after Germany released surveillance photos showing evidence of the graves (p. ). Through reviewing case studies in four areas of international relations (nuclear nonproliferation, international trade, international war crime tribunals, and foreign direct investment), Carnegie and Carson analyze under what conditions states and nonstate actors share sensitive information with IOs, and whether the sharing of sensitive information increases compliance or cooperation within that IO. Each case study examines an international organization’s ability to uphold its rules-based order after confidentiality systems are introduced, or taken away, through reforms. For example, the authors explain how in the early s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spurred by the discovery of a clandestine nuclear weapons development program in Iraq, shifted from verifying members’ selfreported nuclear activities to accepting intelligence provided by member states about other members. This shift resulted in the IAEA being able to act on intelligence provided by the United States and to insist on visiting additional nuclear sites in Iran during an IAEA inspection.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Accountability for the Taking of Human Life with LAWS in War Toward a Balanced Approach: Bridging the Military, Policy, and Technical Communities How to End a War: Essays on Justice, Peace, and Repair, Graham Parsons and Mark A. Wilson, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 207 pp., cloth $110, eBook $110. Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests, Agathe Demarais (New York: Columbia University Press, 2022) 304 pp., cloth $30, eBook $29.99. The Hegemon's Tool Kit: US Leadership and the Politics of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, Rebecca Davis Gibbons (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2022), 240 pp., cloth $49.95, eBook $32.99.
×
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