Search results

This article examines the early post-World War II civil rights organizing of black women radicals affiliated with the organized left. It details the work of these women in such organizations as the Civil Rights Congress and Freedom newspaper as they fought to challenge the unjust conviction and sentencing of black defendants caught in the racial machinations of U.S. local and state criminal justice systems. These campaigns against what was provocatively called “legal lynching” formed a cornerstone of African American civil rights activism in the early postwar years. In centering the civil rights politics and organizing of these black women radicals, a more detailed picture emerges of the Communist Party-supported anti-legal lynching campaigns. Such a perspective moves beyond a view of civil rights legal activism as solely the work of lawyers, to examining the ways committed activists within the U.S. left, helped to build this legal activism and sustain an important left base in the U.S. during the Cold War.

It is no longer merely far-fetched science fiction to think that robots will be the chief combatants, waging wars in place of humans. Or is it? While artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable strides, tempting us to personify the machines “making decisions” and “choosing targets”, a more careful analysis reveals that even the most sophisticated AI can only be an instrument rather than an agent of war. After establishing the layered existential nature of war, we lay out the prerequisites for being a (moral) agent of war. We then argue that present AI falls short of this bar, and we have strong reason to think this will not change soon. With that in mind, we put forth a second argument against robots as agents: there is a continuum with other clearly nonagential tools of war, like swords and chariots. Lastly, we unpack what this all means: if AI does not add another moral player to the battlefield, how (if at all) should AI change the way we think about war?

I build on a strong foundation of prior studies about expatriate compensation in general to provide an overview of changes in expatriate compensation, from home- to host-based approaches, during the past 10 years.

Underpinned by findings from academic and practitioner literature, I review and integrate studies of expatriate compensation and global talent management to outline the challenges and opportunities home- and host-based compensation approaches present to MNEs.

Home-based compensation is becoming an outdated and overly expensive model that is often ineffective in moving MNEs’ global competitive advantage to where it needs to be, leaving host-based approaches as the only alternative. But the use of host-based “cheaper” compensation approaches can also lead to unintended outcomes for MNEs in terms of unforeseen opportunity costs (such as the loss of critical talent) arising from shortsighted compensation decisions.

I argue that expatriate compensation works best when it is not based on an employees’ home-country status but instead on the role that he or she performs locally. I suggest a host-based compensation approach — global compensation — that is based on the worth of the position rather than where the individual has come from. Such an approach is more equitable because it is performance-based thereby eliminating overpaying and perceived unfairness. It is much simpler to administer than home-based compensation because it represents an extension of most MNEs already existing domestic (home country) pay-for-performance model.

Despite more than 10 years of new compensation practices being implemented and reported by global mobility practitioners, very little has been studied or written by scholars about some of the recent changes in expatriate compensation over the past decade. The chapter addresses this gap in academic literature.

According to the U.S. Committee for Refugees (2002) there were approximately 15 million refugees in the world in 2001, of which over three million were African. Refugees are persons who flee to a different country to escape persecution based on personal or group characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, social group, political opinion, or armed conflict, and lack of a durable solution (U.S. Committee for Refugees, 2001). For example, in Burundi, a small African country of about 6 million people, the civil war between the Tutsi and the Hutu has forced over half a million refugees to seek shelter in other African countries, Europe, and the United States (UNHCR, 2000).