Past Events

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