Search results

Today, the global education market is one of the faster growing sectors, and it has attracted several new actors or what we call educational brokers who are now responsible for shaping national agendas. The newer actors in education are vastly different for the former players in that whereas previous actors engrossed national educational systems through the provision of technical assistance to meet international standards, best practices, and benchmarks, these newer players are for-profit entities that emphasize austerity, leanness, human resource maximization, performance targets, and competition. Therefore, in this new educational landscape, national governments are seen as “clients” who receive “expert” advice from “external consultants” that have an assortment of experiences across different sectors. Education governance is no longer a statist endowed but one that incubates in laborites of best practices resonates with existing case studies and results driven based on Big Date collected. We argue that educational brokers are responsible for the emergence of a hybrid form of education governance that use business and market techniques to reform strategies within the education sector. We conclude by suggesting that collectively educational brokers are using what we call “educational sub-prime mechanisms” – higher interest rates, reduced quality collateral, and less advantageous terms to counterweight higher credit risk – to manage educational portfolios and newer forms of educational risk.

This article aims to examine some of the implications of the UK Bribery Act (UKBA) 2010 for business in Africa and reviews the effectiveness of strategies African governments have adopted to prevent bribery. The author proposes the development of a bespoke anti-bribery management system (ABMS) based on empirical research. This would help African institutions overcome some of the challenges associated with enforcing regulatory measures formulated in developed countries.

The paper takes the form of a literature review and commentary.

The UKBA has extra-territorial jurisdiction which empowers UK courts to prosecute cases of bribery committed abroad by UK companies and their associates. The risk of prosecution is likely to affect foreign direct investment and official development aid flows to Africa. However, companies can escape prosecution if they can prove that they have adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery. This raises the question as to whether the legislation shifts the responsibility of fighting bribery to under-resourced overseas business partners and supply chains. While most African governments have adopted robust anti-bribery laws, their enforcement is hampered by weak institutions.

Empirical research is required to assess the impact of the legislation over the next five years.

African organisations must be sensitised about the consequences of violating the UKBA to ensure they adopt appropriate anti-bribery strategies.

This article contributes to literature by exploring the development of evidence based ABMS for African organisations which is currently lacking.

Cybersecurity and data protection concerns have gained notoriety in past years intensified by the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica “scandal” in early 2018, which exposed millions of individual data. This case revealed that both regulatory measures and data protection mechanisms were, and still are, insufficient, with several countries reforming or promulgating new legislation. The Article 19 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) contains controversial extra-territorial provisions, which might violate State Sovereignty principles. It is still unknown how the GDPR will be implemented. This chapter reveals data protection as an Ethics discipline, considering that it is a fundamental right of individuals to share or not to share data, vis-á-vis the rights to have the personal data well-protected. The empirical research will be developed based on the need to build up a concept of Responsible Entrepreneurship in the technology sector, applied to cross-border e-commerce. The Digital Silk Road is the case study selected since it represents a complex international cooperation initiative done without institutionalization yet with eminent data surveillance concerns when building network infrastructure and satellite navigation systems.

This paper aims to explain how the EU projects its own data protection regime to third states and the US in particular. Digital services have become a central element in the transatlantic economy. A substantial part of that trade is associated with the transfer of data, most of it personal, requiring many of the new products and services emerging to adhere to data protection standards. Yet different conceptions of data protection exist across the Atlantic, with the EU putting a particular focus on protecting the fundamental right to privacy.

Using the distinction between positive and negative forms of market integration as a starting point (Scharpf, 1997), this paper examines the question of how the EU is projecting its own data protection regime to third states. The so-called California effect (Vogel, 1997) and the utilization of trade agreements in the EU’s foreign policy and external relations are well researched. With decreasing effectiveness and limited territorial reach of its enlargement policy, the EU found trade agreements to be particularly effective to set standards on a global level (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, 2009). The existence of the single market makes the Union not only an important locus of regulation but also a strong economic actor with the global ambition of digital assertiveness. In the past, establishing standards for the EU’s vast consumer market has proven effective in compelling non-European market participants to join.

As the globe’s largest consumer market, Europe aims to project its own data protection laws through the market place principle (lex loci solutionis), requiring any data processor to follow its laws whenever European customers’ data are processed. This paper argues that European data protection law creates a “California Effect”, whereby the EU exerts pressure on extra-territorial markets by unilateral standard setting.

With its GDPR, the EU may have defused the problem of European citizens’ data being stored and evaluated according to the US law. However, it has also set a precedent of extra-territorial applicability of its legislation – despite having previously criticized the USA for such practices. By now, international companies increasingly store data of European customers in Europe to prevent conflicts with EU law. With this decision, the EU will apply its own law on others’ sovereign territory. Conflicts created through the extra-territorial effects of national law may contradict the principle of due diligence obligations but are nevertheless not illegitimate. They may, however, have further unintended effects: Other major economies are likely to be less reluctant in the future about passing legal provisions with extra-territorial effect.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of key issues and concepts related to discussions of the internet, its governance, and its multi-stakeholder model.

The method adopted is to discuss definitions of internet, to identify the key characteristics of internet, to define the multi-stakeholder approach, and to discuss the results it has achieved.

The article finds that the internet is different from other networks, albeit not exactly in the ways that are commonly mentioned, and it finds that the internet's current governance mechanisms can be improved, in particular by increasing the role of more traditional governance mechanisms such as intergovernmental organizations.

The analysis and conclusions are not found in previous literature, and they are meant to provoke further research and discussion.

This chapter provides a legal and theoretical overview of environmental PPMs articulated in private standards. It seeks to expand the debate about environmental PPMs, elucidating important dimensions to the issue from the perspective of global governance and international trade law. One of the arguments advanced in this chapter is that a comprehensive analysis of environmental PPMs should consider not only their role in what is regarded as trade barriers (governmental and market driven) but also their significance in global objectives such as the transition towards a green economy and sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

This chapter is based on an extensive literature review and doctrinal legal research.

This research shows that environmental PPMs represent a key issue in the context of the trade and environment relationship. For decades such measures have been thought of as being trade distortive and thus incompatible with WTO law. Although it seems clear now that they are not unlawful per se, their legal status remains unsettled. PPMs can be regarded as regulatory choices associated with a wide range of environmental concerns. However, in trade disputes, challenged measures involving policy objectives addressing production issues in the conservation of natural resources tend to focus on fishing/harvesting techniques. On the other hand, an important goal of Global Environmental Governance (GEG) is to incentivise sustainable consumption and production in order to achieve the transition to a green economy. In this sense, it can be argued that what are generally denominated as ‘PPMs’ in the WTO terminology can alternatively be regarded ‘SCPs’ in the language of environmental governance. Environmental PPMs are not only limited to state-based measures, such as import bans, tariff preferences, and governmental labelling schemes. Environmental PPMs may also amount to good corporate practices towards environmental protection and provide the rationale for numerous private environmental standards.

Most academic attention afforded to environmental-PPMs has focused on their impacts on trade or their legality under WTO law. Although legal scholars have already referred to the significance of such measures in the context of environmental governance, this issue has remained almost entirely unexplored. This chapter seeks to fill the gap in the literature in this regard. In particular, it addresses the relevance of environmental PPMs in the context of decentralised governance initiatives such as the UN Global Compact and private environmental standards.

Overall, this chapter assists in the understanding of the significance of environmental PPMs in the context of private environmental standards and other governance initiatives involving goals related to sustainable consumption and production. This chapter adds to the existing body of literature on the subject of PPMs in international trade and environmental governance.

This paper stems from a 12-month collaborative enquiry between a group of Syrian academics in exile in Turkey and academics from the University of Cambridge into the state of Syrian Higher Education after the onset of the conflict in 2011. The purpose of this paper is to draw on 19 open-ended interviews with exiled Syrian academics; two focus groups; mapping and timeline exercises; and 117 interviews collected remotely by collaborating Syrian academics with former colleagues and students who were still living inside Syria at the time of data collection. The findings of the research suggest that Syrian HE after 2011 was fragmented across regions; in some cases non-existent, and in others deemed to be in a state of reform in order to meet student needs. Key issues that emerged from this work are human rights’ abuses directed against academics and students including the detainment, purging and kidnapping of academics, an increased militarisation of university life and a substantive loss of academic and human capital.

The overall design involved two workshops held in Turkey (in June and July, 2017) at which the Cambridge team explained the stages of undertaking qualitative research and planned the collaborative enquiry with Syrian co-researchers. The first workshop addressed the nature of qualitative research and explored the proposed methods of interviewing, using timelines and mapping. The instruments for interviewing were constructed in groups together and mapping was undertaken with the 21 Syrian academics in exile who attended the workshop. Syrian academics also built their own research plans as a way of expanding the consultation dimension of this project inside Syria, engaged in survey and interview protocol planning and discussed ways to access needed documentation which could be drawn upon to enrich the project. The Syrian co-researchers interviewed remotely HE staff and students who had remained in, or recently left, Syria; the key criterion for group or participant selection was that they had recent and relevant experience of Syrian HE. The second workshop focused on data analysis and writing up. There was also wide consultation with participants inside and outside Syria. As part of the research, the Cambridge team conducted open-ended interviews with 19 Syrian academics and students living in exile in Turkey. This involved interviewing Syrian scholars about their experiences of HE, policy changes over time and their experiences of displacement. The researchers developed this protocol prior to the capacity-building workshops based on previous research experience on academic and student displacement, alongside extensive preparation on the conditions of Syrian HE, conflict and displacement. In addition to interviewing, a pivotal element of methodological rigour was that the authors sought to member check what participants were learning through mapping and timeline exercises and extensive note-taking throughout both workshops. The major issues that the authors confronted were ethical concerns around confidentiality, the need to ensure rigourously the protection of all participants’ anonymity and to be extremely mindful of the political sensitivity of issues when interviewing participants who may not feel able to fully trust “outsider” researchers. Issues of social trust have been reported in the literature as one of the most significant drawbacks in conducting research in “conflict environments” (see Cohen and Arieli, 2011) where academics and students have been working and/or studying in autocratic regimes or were operating within political contexts where being open or critical of any form of institutional life such as university work or the nation could cost them their jobs or their lives.

The accounts of Syrian academics and students emerging from this work point to some of the state-building expressions of HE manifested in the shaping of professional and personal experiences, the condition and status of HE, its spatial arrangements and their associated power formations, and resulting in feelings of intense personal and professional insecurity among Syrian scholars and students since 2011. While acknowledging that the Syrian situation is deemed one of the worst humanitarian crises in the region in recent decades, these accounts resonate, if in different ways, with other studies of academics and students who have experienced highly centralised and autocratic states and tightly regulated HE governance regimes (Barakat and Milton, 2015; Mazawi, 2011).

Currently, there is virtually no research on the status and conditions of higher education in Syria as a consequence of the war, which commenced in 2011. This work presents a first-person perspective from Syrian academics and students on the state of HE since the onset of the conflict. The major contribution of this work is the identification of key factors shaping conflict and division in HE, alongside the political economies of HE destruction which are unique to the Syrian war and longstanding forms of authoritarian state governance.

This paper aims to highlight the disparity between the huge global influence and reach of transnational corporations, on the one hand, and the lack of international legal infrastructure for regulating TNC activity, on the other. Existing avenues for holding TNCs accountable for breaches of international standards are woefully inadequate. After rejecting the idea of subjecting TNCs to potential criminal liability, the paper then proposes a set of principles for international TNC responsibility modelled on the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility. The potential future role of regional human rights courts and the International Labour Organisation in holding TNCs accountable is also explored.

A survey of existing legal texts and secondary scholarship was undertaken to determine the existing coverage of the regulatory infrastructure for holding TNCs to account, and to identify gaps in that coverage.

Significant governance gaps in the existing institutional infrastructure were identified, creating a permissive environment within which blameworthy acts by TNCs may occur without adequate sanctioning or reparation. Potential regulatory and institutional avenues for filling these gaps were identified.

The author lacks hands‐on experience of the political barriers which may exist and may make the proposed reforms unrealistic. Those in the field are encouraged to consider whether the proposed reforms are feasible/desirable.

The paper contains implications for the future of international law, the regional human rights courts and the International Labour Organisation.

The paper contains original proposals for the future evolution of international law in its application to TNCs.