Past Events

Date: Tuesday, 17 November 2009

Abstract:

Private business activity can undermine or assist efforts to achieve sustainable peace and recovery after violent conflict. There is increasing focus on what businesses should, by self-regulation, do more or less of in conflict-affected settings. However, there has been little attention to what international peace operations can or should do to ‘bring out the best’ in private sector actors. This research looks at certain UN peace operations and asks what authority or opportunity these operations have had to engage, influence, enrol, or coerce private sector actors in support of pro-peace endeavours, to minimise conflict risk associated with business activity, and to trigger continuous improvement in their conduct on human rights, corruption and the environment. Ford considers the extent to which ideas of responsive regulation are suitable to complex, temporary, militarised peace operations involved in simultaneously building weak state regulatory capacity. If peace operations are ‘regulators’ in these settings it is against the backdrop of, amongst other things, relevant evolving international norms on the duties of business actors. Ford’s seminar is a report on his ongoing research.

Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Abstract:

In international negotiations domestic politics and international relations are often entangled. The concept of a ‘two-level game’ can be used to understand when and how domestic politics and international relations interact. It is generally assumed to be a static state of interaction. While this may be a suitable assumption in one-off negotiations, it is unlikely to be so for prolonged negotiations which stretch across decades. In such cases the level of interaction may be greater in one round of negotiations than it is in another. In this seminar, Christian Downie will look at the role of the US and the EU over the last two decades of the international climate negotiations. In doing so, he will consider how the dynamic interactions between domestic politics and international relations might be conceived. A better understanding of these dynamics could help to explain why some international negotiations end in deadlock and others in agreement.

Date: Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Abstract:

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Executive Director of the UN Population Fund, is quoted as saying: "If world leaders decide to meet the Millennium Development Goals, I think it can be done by 2015. The question is, is there a political will to make this investment?" One way to increase political will is to have an actively engaged constituency. This paper explores social psychological responses to poverty, with a focus on ways to promote greater collective efforts to overcome poverty and preventable disease in the developing world. I outline three social psychological factors which have been shown to mobilise support for anti-poverty action. These are: meaningful social identities that can mobilise collective action; productive group-based emotions; and group efficacy beliefs. I describe an intervention that aligns these three motivational factors through small group interaction to increase anti-poverty activism.

Date: Monday, 19 October 2009

About the Speaker:

Cameron Jacobs is a Senior Researcher in the Economic and Social Rights (ESR) Unit at the South African Human Rights Commission. The Commission is specifically mandated under the South African Constitution to monitor progress towards the realisation of the various social and economic rights set out in the South African Bill of Rights. Mr Jacobs conducts and manages the research activities in respect of the rights to land, housing and education as well as being responsible for the overall conceptualization and operationalisation of the research activities of the ESR Unit. He holds a Sociology Honours as well as an MPhil degree in Public Policy from the University of Cape Town and has a background in law.  His research interests include land tenure reform, culture and identity and human rights. Mr Jacobs will be visiting Canberra as a guest of the ACT Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Research Project. The project, which is being conducted jointly by the ANU and the ACT Government, is looking at whether the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 should be amended to include economic, social and cultural rights.

Date: Tuesday, 13 October 2009

Abstract:

Interviews with ‘elite’ subjects (i.e. well-known personalities, prominent and influential people) are a useful, albeit infrequently used method in social science research. This presentation will outline the use of elite interviews in a doctoral research project in the discipline of criminology. The body of literature on interviewing elites was found to be somewhat unhelpful throughout this research. In this presentation, I therefore aim to demonstrate how my experiences interviewing elites challenges the existing knowledge on researching this population. Additionally, I will include observations and guidance on interviewing elite subjects, based on my experiences. I will make two main arguments: that the term ‘elite’ should be reconceptualised, as contrary to the view often portrayed in the literature, ‘elites’ are a heterogeneous population, and; that interviewing elites raises a number of important ethical considerations not considered in the literature.

Date: Thursday, 1 October 2009

Abstract:

*Socio-economic rights ... politicise justice and judicialise politics. They allow the courts, by enforcing socio-economic rights, to stray onto the political terrain, at the expense of the democratic process**.

Those who advocate that economic, social and cultural rights should be judicially enforceable in Australia rely on both the jurisprudence on ESC rights from South Africa and current practices of adjudication in Australia. This paper critically examines each of these premises, in investigating whether - and to what extent - the adjudication of ESC rights is a proper role for the Australian judiciary.

Date: Tuesday, 29 September 2009

Date: Tuesday, 22 September 2009

Abstract:

The combustion of coal contributes to around 40% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Coal consumption has almost doubled since the 1990s will continue to rise significantly, unless constrained by regulatory intervention. This presentation identifies the various ways in which multinational coal mining corporations justify the continued use of coal in a carbon-constrained world, and considers the impact of these coal industry discourses on global climate policymaking.

Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009

Date: Tuesday, 8 September 2009

Date: Tuesday, 1 September 2009

Abstract:

Biobanks are vital resources in research aimed at understanding complex human diseases and improving healthcare. In the first part of this presentation I will examine some of the key features of biobanks and some of the governance challenges that they raise. Various regulatory options will then be discussed. In the second half of the presentation I will explore the motivations for participating in biobanking. I will report on a nationwide survey looking at attitudes towards participation in biobanking, particularly focusing on the relative importance of various types of benefit sharing obligations and the extent to which benefit sharing is a motivator for participation.

Date: Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Abstract:

With a view to examining Indigenous child protection from the theoretical perspective of responsive regulation, a qualitative study was undertaken in 2008 to explore Indigenous parents' and self-identified carers' experiences with child protection authorities. Interviews focused on the nature of the relationship between parents and regulators and how these regulatory encounters could be understood to better assist child protection authorities, parents and carers to keep children safe from abuse and neglect. Data are taken from in-depth interviews conducted with forty-five Indigenous parents and self-identified carers in three separate jurisdictions in Eastern Australia. Findings suggest that child safety regulators can influence parents' behaviour towards keeping their children safe; however current enforcement strategies rely on threat and legal coercion and serve only to negate parenting morale and undermine capacity within care networks. The development of a national service charter is proposed as a first step to assisting child safety regulators, parents and families become more responsive to each other's expectations. Partnering with informal networks is the second step in moving toward a more responsive regulatory model.

Heather Strang, Director Centre for Restorative Justice, Institute of Advanced Studies, ANU | Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge

Date: Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Date: Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Date: Tuesday, 4 August 2009

Date: Tuesday, 28 July 2009

About the Speaker:

Justice Yvonne Mokgoro has been a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa since its establishment in 1994. She has written some of the Court’s major ESCR judgements in recent years, including Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development [2004] ZACC 11, a landmark decision which extended the right of access to social security to permanent residents. Justice Mokgoro is also Chair of the South African Law Reform Commission and has been President of Africa Legal Aid, a non-governmental organisation which provides legal aid and human rights education throughout Africa. She is a Professor of Law and a recipient of many honours, including the Women's Law and Public Law Fellowship by Georgetown University Law Centre, the Human Rights Award by the Black Lawyers Association, the Legal Profession's Woman Achiever Award by the Centre for Human Rights and the Kate Stoneman Democracy Award. Her areas of interest and expertise include women's rights, children's rights and economic, social and cultural rights.

Date: Friday, 24 July 2009

Date: Thursday, 23 July 2009

Further Information: Book Club Flyer

Date: Tuesday, 21 July 2009

Michael W. Dowdle: Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash University, and Visiting Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore

Date: Tuesday, 14 July 2009

Abstract:

Particularly with regards to thinking about constitutions in comparative and developmental contexts, I argue that the better approach is to approach constitutionalism from a 'regulatory' perspective rather than from a structural perspective. Both comparatively and historically, constitutionalism is better seen as a device that negotiates the interaction between two somewhat contradictory regulatory spaces. One such space is the more traditional space of government institutions - a space that is configured primarily around various forms of institutional or bureaucratic authority. The other space is a relatively new space that was created out of the Enlightenment, one that for convenience we might call the "Polity." The Polity is configured around a more persuasion-oriented form of authority characterized by what that I refer to as more 'open' political epistemologies - i.e., the idea that political knowledge is understandable to all, not simply to a select class.

I will show how this 'regulatory' model actually offers a more complete accounting of Western constitutional emergence than does the Montesquieuian model. Looking outside the West, I will also argue that this model helps us better understand what I have elsewhere called "the curious case of constitutional development in China" - a case that similarly defies Montesquieuian explanation. Finally, I would conclude with a brief investigation into what this model might have to tell us about recent constitutional developments in the EU, Thailand and Malaysia.

Date: Friday, 10 July 2009

Date: Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Abstract:

Questions surrounding the effectiveness and legitimacy of state building interventions are forming a growing global research agenda. Apart from a small number of transitional administrations, most state building interventions take the form of extensive longer-term state building partnerships between external actors and governments – they are ‘cooperative state building interventions’. This partnership model has been criticised for its lack of transparency in terms of power relations and responsibilities, with claims that the partnership model is a deliberate attempt to escape accountability for aid policies. However, the question of how accountability can be constituted in these cooperative state building interventions remains under-investigated.

At a fundamental level, aaccountability is a relationship between power holders and those impacted by their decisions. Therefore, accountability mechanisms can contribute to the clarification and strengthening of the relationship between actors and account holders. This in turn can assist in the search for answers to the questions around the legitimacy and effectiveness of state building partnerships. In other words, a focus on accountability can provide insight into the processes through which answers to such questions can continuously be updated and further refined. Accountability mechanisms can support a process of feedback, evaluation and learning to underpin the continuing search for legitimacy and effectiveness of state building interventions.

Cooperative state building interventions are neither actual institutions of global governance nor ordinary development assistance programs, complicating the question how accountability can be constituted in such interventions. Accountability mechanisms in these interventions cannot simply draw on existing accountability models in global governance institutions, and their constitution as comprehensive long-term partnerships with governments calls for more than conventional aid monitoring and evaluation to constitute accountability. In addition, the concept of accountability is itself contested. This paper investigates these complexities and suggests that the question how accountability should be constituted in cooperative state building interventions involves the negotiation of a number of dilemmas.

Date: Thursday, 18 June 2009

Date: Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Further Information: RegNet Colloquium Flyer

Date: Tuesday, 9 June 2009

Date: Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Date: Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Abstract:

Environmental law and policy has come a long way since the birth of the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, and the launch of the first European environmental policy in 1972. Today law is no longer centre stage but simply one instrument amongst others in the environmental regulator's toolkit. And talk of regulation may itself be giving way to the broader concept of environmental governance.

This paper examines the evolution of environmental law, regulation and governance over almost four decades. It explores the major initiatives of that period and the lessons that can be learned from them, it maps shifting regulatory architectures and explains what has worked and why, and it considers the changing nature of the environmental challenge itself. Finally it seeks to identify which particular architectures are most suited to deal with particular types of environmental problems.

Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Abstract:

This seminar empirically examines a bold and profoundly new way of governing environmental problems. This so called “new environmental governance” (NEG) is palpable around the globe and aims to overcome the limitations of the interventionist state and its market alternative to offer more effective and legitimate solutions to today’s most pressing environmental problems. To counter the pathologies of these traditional approaches, NEG emphasizes a host of novel characteristics including participation, collaboration, decentralization, deliberation, flexibility, learning and adaptation and “non-traditional” forms of accountability.

While these unique features have generated significant praise from scholars, there has in fact been very few systematic evaluations of NEG programs in practice, and it is still unclear whether this unique approach will in fact “work”, and if so, when and how.

Responding to these issues, the seminar draws on interview data from three different case studies covering point source pollution, diffuse urban pollution and natural resource management to examine the conditions under which we can achieve “good” NEG. The findings that emerge suggest there are seven key “pillars” that are central to NEG’s success. The seminar also reflects on what the findings suggest for NEG theory, including understanding the role of the State and the interaction between law and new governance.

Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Abstract:

We are told that good regulation works. Whilst there are examples where effective regulatory measures can bring about good outcomes, to date too little attention has been given to contested meanings underlying the phrase ‘good regulation’. Both the form regulation takes and the goals regulation is set to pursue are I argue as much political as technical problems. Hence what constitutes ‘good regulation’ is always changing as political fortunes wax and wane.

To make sense of these changes this paper explores regulation as designed to respond to three distinct risk challenges: one actuarial (the harm or potential for an adverse event), the second socio-cultural (threats to social integration) and the third political. Political risk, following Habermas is comprised of threats to political legitimacy that arise either through an incapacity to manage the economy and maintain necessary fiscal resources or from an incapacity to reassure people (citizens) that they are secure from a variety of actuarial and socio-cultural risks.

Analysing regulation as a response to these three independent but interrelated risk challenges suggests several tentative conclusions. Firstly, and in contrast to perhaps recent writing this analysis suggests regulation remains critically dependent on the state. Secondly, that regulation is a social process and as such it must reassure the relevant communities as much as it addresses actuarial risk. Finally, that where risk assessments around actuarial risk contain high levels of uncertainty or are tightly embedded within political or socio-cultural risks (such that reducing actuarial risk would heighten political or socio-cultural risk to unacceptable levels) regulation may be more often designed to reduce political and socio-cultural risk at the expense of actuarial risk. ‘Model mongering’ and other strategies to convince governments of the potential of a particular strategy to reduce risk (or indeed raise standards), then, may be more successful if they can convince of the capacity to reduce both socio-cultural and political risk as well as deal with the actuarial risk problem.

Date: Tuesday, 14 April 2009

Abstract:

In the lead up to the all-important climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December this year, all eyes are on the positioning of the key parties. In this seminar, Christian Downie will look back across the last decade of climate negotiations to consider how the United States and the European Union have behaved during the negotiations. In doing so, he will explore how well existing theoretical frameworks, notably game theory and negotiation theory, account for the behaviour of states in complex international multilateral negotiations.

Date: Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Abstract:

Scholars who have studied borders and boundaries in IR and Human Geography suggest that state borders construct and accentuate differences not only between states and 'geographical spaces', but also between 'insiders' and 'outsiders'. These analyses disregard the complexities that are reflected within a territory, where people experience invisible boundaries imposed by states. Even without crossing borders, people can be powerless, oppressed and disenfranchised.

Traditional security scholars and policymakers on the other hand, often argue that only those people who cross borders become a human security concern for states. This view overlooks the reality that, from a human security perspective, states are often a part of the problem rather than a source of a solution. As agents of insecurity, states contribute to the marginalization of communities, with resulting human security implications.

National borders determine the human security responsibilities of states for those people who live within those borders. In this paper, I address two specific questions. How can a conceptualisation of borders and national boundaries based on human security theories explain the 'everyday practices' of the people who are strangers within the state? Secondly, how is the socio-political boundary reinforced by the citizenship and identity politics of a state?

After consideration of case studies of the Rohingya refugees on the Burma-Bangladesh border, the stateless Biharis and the Jumma people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, as internally displaced people (IDPs), I argue that this is not merely a case of domestic security of Bangladesh, but rather a regional security question that requires a transnational response. I further suggest that it is essential to address the concerns of refugees, stateless people and IDPs by analysing borders and the movement of peoples from human security perspectives in order to generate strategic responses.

Date: Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2009

Abstract:

This paper examines cooperation against transnational crime and terrorism in two regional associations - The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). It argues that, given the Kautilian dictum that relations between neighbours are often ones of tension or competition, the existence of such regional associations does not guarantee sound cooperation. Indeed, often the pace of cooperation is dragged back to the lowest common denominator - that of paired antagonistic states. Competition between Thailand and Burma in ASEAN and Pakistan and India in SAARC are discussed as examples of this process.

Criminals, on the other hand, do not recognise either antagonisms or borders in deciding with whom to cooperate. They are motivated by absence of guardianship (or failed cooperative regimes) and presence of profit.

'Securitisation' of non-conventional security threats further complicates the picture. This occurs when military and security authorities are involved in matters more normally handled by civilian agencies such as police. This process in turn serves to exacerbate pre-existing political tension and further attenuate the cooperative process. In cases of paired antagonists, it would, perhaps, be better for initial cooperation to occur in a non-securitised framework.

Date: Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Abstract:

Health policy makers in many countries have proposed protocols to reduce so-called ‘never events’, meaning adverse incidents in hospitals that are preventable, such as incidents involving the wrong patient, wrong site, or wrong procedure. These types of adverse incidents are more frequent than initially thought: for example, 53 such incidents were reported in 2004-05. The Australian Health Ministers in April 2004 called for all public hospitals to implement the ‘Ensuring Correct Patient, Correct Site, Correct Procedure’ protocol, as part of a broad strategy to introduce and standardize patient safety procedures in hospitals. While policy makers saw the protocol as a self-evidently sensible solution, compliance by surgeons was low and slow. Medical governance traditionally has relied upon voluntarism and self-regulation by the professions. Directors of Surgery said surgeons believed a checklist is 'bureaucracy gone mad' and that 'mistakes only happen to bad surgeons'. Hospital managers proved to be 'responsive regulators' in trying multiple soft regulatory mechanisms for improving safety check compliance before escalating to harder mechanisms.

Date: Thursday, 5 March 2009

Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Abstract:

The height of the inventive step is central to whether a patent system delivers a net economic benefit, as it is the spillovers from new knowledge or know-how which offset the cost of the monopolies granted. Recently there has been considerable criticism in the USA, Europe and Australia that the inventive step has fallen to a very low level. These criticisms are based on doctrinal analysis or anecdote, not solid scientifically-based evidence. My recent empirical investigation into a small universe (72 cases) of recently granted Australian business method patents used the economic yardstick of “a contribution to knowledge or know-how” to test for inventiveness. Most cases failed.

The analysis provides insights into how a wide set of rules and decision-making procedures have virtually eliminated the inventive step in Australia.

The patent system seems impervious to empirically-based criticism, and has broadened its reach at the very time that more evidence as to its failings has become available. Certainly it is a stereotypical case of regulatory capture, but free-market economists have been keen to eliminate other such cases. Nor is it the only major economic policy delivered through the legal system. Both tax policy and competition policy are also rife with rule complexity, yet it has been possible to introduce significant changes which enhance the welfare outcome. Why has it not been possible to introduce such changes into the patent system? Is more evidence needed, or is it an intractable case?

Date: Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Date: Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Abstract::

During the 2004 presidential election campaign, the successful presidential aspirant, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, said that resolving the three decade long separatist conflict in Aceh was one of his priorities. The war had to be ended to prove that Indonesia was indeed a viable state as constituted, that it was able to find political solutions to political problems, and because it needed to demilitarise the state, including reducing the military's role in business and criminal activities along with its political influence. A political resolution to this war was achieved 11 months after Yudhoyono took office. This political solution incorporated many elements of a previous declaration of "special autonomy" for Aceh, but took them further, particularly around local decision making on local affairs. Despite some problems, to date this peace agreement has held.

Despite at the same time having declared "special autonomy" for Indonesia's other troubled province of Papua, there has been no similar subsequent political resolution to separatist claims there. Despite a call from the Papuan separatist umbrella organisation for such a resolution, there has been no government expression of interest in doing so. This paper assesses both the parallels and differences between the options for a political resolution in Papua. It then considers possible steps towards a finalisation of claims that address the needs of both the Indonesian government and the indigenous people of Papua, and whether such an approach could be incorporated as a policy position into the 2009 Indonesian elections.

Date: Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Date: Tuesday, 3 February 2009

Date: Friday, 30 January 2009

Date: Tuesday, 18 November 2008

Date: Tuesday, 28 October 2008

Date: Monday, 27 October 2008

Date: Tuesday, 21 October 2008

Date: Tuesday, 14 October 2008

Date: Tuesday, 7 October 2008

Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2008

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Date: Tuesday, 16 September 2008

Date: Tuesday, 9 September 2008

Further Information: BookClub Flyer

Date: Tuesday, 2 September 2008

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday, 26 August 2008

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday, 19 August 2008

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday, 12 August 2008

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday, 5 August 2008

Date: Tuesday, 29 July 2008

Date: Tuesday, 22 July 2008

Date: Tuesday, 24 June 2008

Date: Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Date: Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Date: Tuesday, 13 May 2008

Further Information: Seminar Slides

Date: Tuesday, 6 May 2008

Date: Tuesday, 29 April 2008

Further Information: CIGJ Website

Date: Tuesday, 22 April 2008

Date: Friday, 18 April 2008

Further Information: Gary T. Marx is professor emeritus, M.I.T. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley (from where he received his PhD), Harvard University, the University of Colorado, and for shorter periods at 20 other institutions. He has published widely, including Protest and Prejudice; Undercover: Police Surveillance in America; and Windows Into the Soul: Surveillance and Society in an Age of High Technology. Additional information is at garymarx.net.

Date: Tuesday, 15 April 2008

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday, 8 April 2008

Abstract: "In many countries there have been high profile failures in public services like schools, hospitals and social care, often resulting in real damage to service users and often followed by a public inquiry or investigation and an official report. This presentation will explore the circumstances and organisational characteristics which predate or precipitate failure, and the strategies employed to bring about a turnaround in performance. For regulators, organisational failures present particular challenges and risks and can consume substantial regulatory resources. If possible, regulators should design their regulatory regimes to detect and prevent major failures."

Date: Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Abstract: Research on long-run comparative economic development in the last decade or so have focused heavily on the role of institutions as a deep factor explaining the cross-national differences in living standards. The argument is that institutional differences (both economic and political) explain the majority of cross-national variation in income. However there are more to it than just institutions. In this talk I will make an attempt to provide a broad overview of the literature, its strength and weaknesses and also the contributions made by researchers working on the issue at the ANU. This will include the specific case of Africa where diseases seem to be more important than institutions, a stage theory of development, impact of trade policy on institutions, and the impact of foreign aid on institutions.

Date: Tuesday, 25 March 2008

Further Information: Michael Maley is Director of Research and International Services at Australian Electoral Commission. A graduate of the Australian National University, he has served as a consultant to the United Nations, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the International Foundation for Election Systems and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and has occupied senior positions in a number of United Nations peacekeeping operations which involved elections.

Date: Tuesday, 18 March 2008

Abstract: The energy industries in Australia are about to undergo a regulatory revolution. In this seminar Clive Hamilton will consider the policies needed to tackle Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and the political implications of the planned emissions trading system, including the international considerations.

Date: Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Abstract: The presentation will discuss the facilitation of money laundering by the gatekeepers using derivatives. The role of the gatekeepers in the context of the sub-prime loan debacle will also be discussed.

Date: Wednesday, 27 February 2008

Further Information: S21 Website

Date: Tuesday, 19 February 2008

Further Information:

Professor Stephen Bottomley (Associate Dean and Head of School, ANU College of Law) discusses The Constitutional Corporation with Professor Stephen Parker (VC and President, University of Canberra) and Professor John Braithwaite (RegNet, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific).

Corporate laws are based on the idea that the interests of shareholders should be the primary concern of company directors. However, some argue that the proper role for shareholders is to sit back and let the corporation's managers do their job, or that the pursuit of shareholders' interests detracts from the concerns of employees or victims of corporate wrongdoing or other stakeholders.

Stephen Bottomley argues that instead of consigning shareholders to this passive role, they should be given opportunities to be active members of corporations. Corporations are constitutional arrangements rather than mere contractual agreements. They are decision-making organizations in which questions of process and structure are important. Thus, instead of using economic criteria such as efficiency as the sole measure for deciding what constitutes 'good' corporate governance, this book examines whether ideas of accountability, deliberation and contestability provide a valuable framework for assessing corporate structures and process and for encouraging greater shareholder participation.

Date: Tuesday 30 October 2007

Date: Wednesday 24 October 2007

Further Information:

Roger King is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information at The Open University. Previously he was Vice Chancellor of the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside (now Lincoln) and the founding Chair of the Institute for Learning and Teaching (now Higher Education Academy).

Roger King has a strong interest in regulatory governance with a particular interest in higher education regulation (on 16 Oct Palgrave Macmillan is publishing his 'The Regulatory State in an Age of Governance') and he is currently writing a book for Edward Elgar on 'Governing Universities Globally: Organizations, Transnational Regulation and Soft Law'. A chapter will be on such developments in Australia and other parts of the Asia Pacific.

Date: Tuesday 23 October 2007

Date: Tuesday 16 October 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 9 October 2007

Date: Tuesday 2 October 2007

*Date: Thursday 27 September 2007

Venue: Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne

Date: 25 September 2007

Further Information: Centre for International Governance & Justice (CIGJ) Website

Date: Tuesday 18 September 2007

Date: Tuesday 11 September 2007

Forum panel featuring the authors of 'National Insecurity: The Howard Government's Betrayal of Australia' (Allen & Unwin 2007) Linda Weiss, Professor of Government and International Relations in the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney Elizabeth Thurbon, Senior Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences and International Studies, University of New South Wales John Mathews, Professor of IStrategy, Macquarie Graduate School of Management

Date: Friday 31 August 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 28 August 2007

Date: Tuesday 21 August 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 14 August 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 31 July 2007

Date: Tuesday 10 July 2007

Date: Thursday 5 July 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 26 June 2007

Date: Tuesday 19 June 2007

Date: 13-14 June 2007

Date: Tuesday 5 June 2007

Date: Tuesday 29 May 2007

Date: Tuesday 22 May 2007

Date: Tuesday 15 May 2007

Date: Thursday 10 May 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 1 May 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 24 April 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 17 April 2007

Date: Tuesday 10 April 2007

Date: Tuesday 3 April 2007

Date: Tuesday 27 March 2007

Further Information: Professor Michael Blakeney is the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property at Queen Mary College, University of London. He has written extensively in the field of intellectual property, transfer of technology and international intellectual property. Professor Michael Blakeney is visiting the Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development, Regulatory Institutions Network, RSPAS.

Date: Wednesday 21 March 2007

Further Information: Please join us for the next Book Club on Cyber Criminals on Trial which will be held on Wednesday 21 March. This book was the winner of the American Society of Criminology Distinguished Book Award in 2005. The authors will introduce the central ideas that led to this collaboration. A panel of staff and postgraduates will comment briefly on the book followed by a question and answer session and open discussion. All are welcome.

Date: Tuesday 20 March 2007

Date: Tuesday 13 March 2007

Further Information: Abstract

Date: Tuesday 27 February 2007