Search results

Background: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. Main text: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decisionmaking. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. Conclusions: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into ...

The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs is an independent, nonpolitical and non-profit-making organisation which promotes the study of international questions and the understanding of peoples of the world through research, lectures, seminars, and information exchange with institutions of learning in Nigeria, Africa, and the world.

Esmé Shirlow presented the findings of a policy paper developed in collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), titled Approaches of International Courts and Tribunals to the Award of Compensation in International Private Property Cases and Implications for the Reform of Investor-State Arbitration. The policy paper follows previous IISD work on compensation in investor-state arbitration, which left open the question of whether approaches to issues of compensation in investor-state arbitration differ from the approaches of other international courts and tribunals (hereinafter, courts), and the extent to which this comparative practice might offer inspiration or ideas for ongoing investor-state dispute settlement reform. The research presented by Dr. Shirlow seeks to answer this question by analyzing how issues of compensation have been analyzed in cases concerning alleged state interferences with private property filed before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea Annex VII Tribunals, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACtHPR), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).

This article argues that the normative promise of recognition theory in International Relations has become increasingly inadequate to the cross-cutting and intersecting issues characteristic of a globalised and fragmented world. Engaging in critical readings of cosmopolitan forms of recognition theory, the critique of sovereignty and Markell's influential critique of recognition theory, I suggest that the increasing ontological specificity of recognition theory in IR has come at the expense of its ability to develop links between different areas of international politics. The result is a failure to deal with recognition's simultaneity, or the co-existence of analytically distinct and internally coherent recognition orders that is characteristic of the international. Building on this insight, I argue that a more historically-sensitive and materialist approach to recognition can be grounded in the concept of multiplicity. By opening recognition up to processes of interaction, and not merely reproduction, multiplicity frames the international more clearly as a historical presupposition, rather than a limit, of recognition. Furthermore, placing recognition struggles within the state, international institutions or transnational movements in relation to each other ensures that IR can contribute to the further development of recognition theory by situating recognition struggles at the intersection of different moral geographies.

Transnationalism, regime theory, multilateralism, intervention, international civil service, and economic cooperation; 9 articles.

International Relations theory does not distinguish enough between prediction and vision, and, as a result, retreats unduly from practice. This article argues for the importance of political vision in the study of international relations by complicating the standard social science distinction between fact and value. Using Nietzschean genealogy, it argues for a dual relationship between the normative and the empirical: the deduction of norms from the constraints of history; and the normative, proactive responses to this history within these constraints. This dual relationship underscores the importance of political vision and political leadership in the study of international politics. The article then analyses present historical challenges and suggests several normative responses to them that can be understood in the terms of 'political vision' in International Relations. It finally takes the example of the present absence of vision and leadership in the European Union and argues for a political Europe, the Union as a political power.

The international conference "Russia-Europe: Topical Issues in Contemporary International Journalism" took place in Paris on November 24-25, 2011. The conference was organized by International Affairs with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications. Adapted from the source document.