Tag Archives: international relations

International Relations, Politics and Sociology annual postgraduate day proves to be a great success

003The International Relations, Politics and Sociology Programme held its Annual Postgraduate Day on 22 June 2016. This mini-conference was a showcase for work being done both by research students and the current MA International Studies cohort. Prospective MA students and online viewers were able to take part via livestream.

Dr Stephen Hurt, course lead for MA International Relations (formerly International Studies), reports that he was delighted to welcome Dr Juanita Elias (pictured, being introduced by Dr Molly Cohran) from the University of Warwick, where she is an Associate Professor in International Political Economy, for a lecture on ‘Gender, IPE and Labour Migration: Perspectives from South-East Asia’. Her lecture covered some of the key findings of her recent academic publications. Starting from the key feminist claim that a focus on social reproduction is vital, Juanita convincingly demonstrated how the role played by domestic workers is central to an understanding of the political economy of South-East Asia. In doing so she argued that social reproduction is becoming increasingly marketised, with states like Malaysia and Singapore encouraging inflows of migration to this effect.

“We are very grateful to Dr Elias for joining us and for prompting a very lively and interesting Q&A session after her lecture”

After the session broke for lunch, guests heard from three current doctoral research students from the department. Kian Pourkemani outlined some of the themes of his project, which is looking at the right of self-determination within international law. Huw Houssemayne Du Boulay set out the design of his research, which seeks to explore the ‘idea’ of Crimea and how this has varied over time in relation to notions of Russian national identity. Emily Cousens then spoke to some of the work she is doing on an interdisciplinary project with Philosophy on the concept of vulnerability within the history of feminist thought.

The International Relations, Politics and Sociology annual postgraduate day concluded with two sets of parallel panels where current MA students gave short presentations on their summer dissertation projects.

These presentations demonstrated the fascinating range of topics that our MA students are conducting research on. The following projects are just a sample to demonstrate the breadth of their interests:

  • ‘To what extent will the continued automation of labour impact social stratification in the global political economy?’.
  • ‘The relationship between scientific knowledge and political ecology in correcting environmental justice’.
  • ‘How a civil society organisation – Pelitit – is promoting food sovereignty and agro-ecological farming practices in Greece’.
  • ‘Producing in/security and its objects: discourse analysis of the reproduction of French citizen after the Charlie Hebdo attacks’.

Find out more about MA International Relations, or research at Oxford Brookes. Keep an eye on the Department of Social Sciences events page to take part in the next postgraduate day in June 2017.

Oxford Brookes lecturers to convene 2017 British Academy Conference

Carrying child news sizeAn interdisciplinary team of lecturers from the Department of Social Sciences at Oxford Brookes University has been selected to convene one of the prestigious British Academy Conferences, to take place in London in 2017. The theme of the conference will be ‘Vulnerability and the Politics of Care’, a subject that has broad academic and public appeal.

Over the course of the two-day conference speakers will present research and engage in discussions about vulnerability in contexts ranging from eldercare to the war on terror, from epigenetics to phenomenology.

The organisers are Doerthe Rosenow (Senior Lecturer, International Relations), Victoria Browne (Lecturer, Politics), Tina Managhan (Senior Lecturer, International Relations), and Jason Danely (Senior Lecturer, Anthropology) – all of whom are first-time applicants to organise the event. They decided to move forward with their British Academy proposal after a successful two-day workshop on the same topic held at Oxford Brookes University in January 2016, which included participants from across the UK and Italy.

For the British Academy Conference, the four organisers have built upon the success of January’s event and invited even more world-class speakers – not only from the UK, but also the US, Germany, Australia, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Lebanon. One highlight of the conference will be a talk by Professor Judith Butler (University of California Berkeley), widely recognized as one of the most influential voices in contemporary social theory today. Butler, who is best known for her work on politics, gender and queer theory, has been at the center of developing a politics of vulnerability over the past decade, and was a key supporter of the conference proposal. More information on the conference will be available later in the year.

PhD studentships now available for September 2016 start!

8460 800 by 430The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Oxford Brookes University is pleased to offer a number of full-time PhD Studentships across a range of subject areas for a September 2016 start.

The successful candidate will receive an annual payment of £14,000 as a stipend towards living expenses for a maximum of three years.  Home/EU fees will also be covered by the relevant Department for a maximum of three years.

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences spans a diverse range of disciplines that include social sciences, history, philosophy, religion, education, law, English and modern languages, and has a long tradition of producing world-class research. The REF 2014 results confirm our ‘world-leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’ research status in a range of subjects, and serve as official recognition of the expertise, dedication and passion of our academic community. We are now accepting applications for the following PhD studentships:


Department of Social Sciences

Applications are invited for a PhD Studentship in ‘Lemurs as protectors of the forest: Lemur seed dispersal, forest regeneration and local livelihoods in the littoral forest fragments of Madagascar’ The supervisory team will be led by Dr Giuseppe Donati (Primatology/Biological Anthropology), with Professor Kate Hill  (Anthropology). This proposed PhD project will examine the assumed role of lemurs’ forest regeneration and the likely value of this to local human populations.

Applications are invited for a PhD Studentship in Challenging Security Anew: Probing the Bases and Limits of Critical Security Studies. The supervisory team will be led by Dr Tina Managhan (International Relations) with Dr Doerthe Rosenow (International Relations). This proposed PhD project will explore the ontological and philosophical underpinnings of post-structuralist Critical Security Studies with the aim of furthering its critical ethos and politics.

Applications are invited for a PhD Studentship in Exploring family, care work and fatherhood in the ‘age of migration’. The supervisory team will be led by Professor Tina Miller (Sociology) with Dr Maja Cederberg (Sociology). This proposed PhD project will investigate the role of fathering and examine the emotion work involved in transnational migration, focusing on fathers who are migrants coming to the UK. In particular it will explore how men who are fathers navigate expectations of paternal care and associated emotion work across their home and host country, and how parental obligations and responsibilities are understood, maintained and practiced over time and across borders.


Department of English and Modern Languages

Applications are invited for a PhD Studentship in ‘Avant-Garde Writing, Technology and the Everyday’. The supervisory team will be led by Professor Alex Goody (Twentieth-Century Literature), with Dr Eric White (American Literature).  We are interested in proposals that examine the interactions between the avant-garde writers of modernism and its aftermath and the technological world of the twentieth century. The proposed research should aim to produce a new account of the relationship between the modernist ‘revolution of the word’ and the contingencies and externalities of living in a modern world radically reconfigured through technology (such as transport, inscription, information, communication, surveillance, prosthesis, augmentation and warfare).


Department of History, Philosophy and Religion

Applications are invited for a PhD Studentship in ‘The Art of Pre-Raphaelite Criticism’. The supervisory team will be led by Professor Christiana Payne, (History of Art) with Dr Dinah Roe (19th Century Literature). The proposed project will examine the role of contemporary criticism in the development of the Pre-Raphaelite aesthetic, with particular reference to the work of William Michael Rossetti and Frederic George Stephens.


New! Fee-waiver scholarship now available for MA International Relations

Portuguese FPU's, Malaysian FPU's Internatioanl Stabilization Forces, ISF, together with the Rapid Intervention Unit from PNTL conducted a practical joint-exercise at the independance field in tasitolu creating scenario of demonstration that would increase the level of hostility for the police to train their tactics against rock throwing, cocktail molotov, burning tyres and demonstrators. Photo by Martine Perret/UNMIT. 17 March 2009.

An annual MA International Relations (all pathways) Fee Waiver Scholarship is available to an international student with suitable academic credentials. This will cover 100% of the tuition fees(£13,620) and is open to international students intending to start their course in September 2016. Applicants for the scholarship will need to hold an offer before submitting their scholarship form.

Find out more about our MA in International Relations programme here. An application form for the fee-waiver scholarship is available from and must be returned by midnight on Thursday 30th June 2016.

The MA in International Relations offers you the flexibility of choosing either our general programme, or one of three specialist pathways (Global Political Economy, Security and Environment) to suit your specific interests. Our postgraduate students benefit from being taught by a team of research-active scholars who publish in their areas of expertise.
In addition to the taught modules, students on our MA in International Relations also get the opportunity to go on a four-day study tour to Brussels and The Hague. Travel and accommodation are included in your fees, and this includes visits to key institutions of the European Union and a range of international organisations, including the International Criminal Court and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was awarded the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize. This trip enables students to get a first-hand experience of how these important international institutions work.

You can find profiles of some of our former students at
For general sources of financial support at Oxford Brookes University, see:

Funding for Postgraduate students from the UK and EU
Funding for Postgraduate students from outside the EU

Theories of Globalization Workshop


Panelists reflected on the book’s contribution to global studies and research on the global. A recurrent theme was the extent to which globalization scholarship has yet to fully embrace the promise of global theory as a game changer in how the world is understood and knowledge about it accrued. In this regard Theories of Globalization was seen as providing a very welcome forensic critique of existing scholarship and some important, if tantalizing, pointers to how a theory of the global can embrace interdisciplinarity and multidimensionality when describing and explaining new worlds.

Each panelist applauded the book’s scholarship and its contribution to a more theoretically refined global scholarship. All agreed that a book with this scope and ambition would always suffer from the “not invented here” kind of critique and from charges that such-and-such a theme or topic ought to have been included. As such their reviews of the book picked up on different facets of the analysis and highlighted a number of interesting issues about coverage and whether and how these might be addressed in subsequent editions.

Darren O’Byrne noted that what is particularly striking about Axford’s efforts is that they demonstrate a respect for the complexity of globalization theory. It is no easy task to start from a position of such complexity and translate that into a clear and understandable text. Global change is clearly not one-dimensional or one-directional. Multiple processes occur at multiple levels. They co-exist and sometimes collide. They are both happening and not-happening at the same time. From the standpoint of organizing a work of exposition and critique this makes for a daunting task.

O’Byrne stated that Axford presents us with a framework for mapping theories of globalization that distinguishes (for analytical but not empirical purposes) between five core logics (his term) of globalization. Axford does not seem to be attempting to ‘compare and contrast’ these five logics (in the way that one can compare and contrast hyper-globalizers, transformationalists and sceptics, or long-term and short-term theorists, or Marxists and non-Marxists). This is an understandable strategy, given his concern with the complexity of global change. Axford’s five dimensions of globalization – spatial, cultural, historical, political, economic – are akin to Bourdieu’s ‘fields’, each driven by its own logic, disagreements over which produce the rich theoretical debates captured in these chapters. Finally, O’Bryne pointed to the absence of any real engagement with the gendered dimensions of globalization.- an omission acknowledged by the author. He suggested that perhaps this is an unfortunate reflection of the state of globalization theory, rather than a deliberate omission from an author obviously sensitive to such dynamics.

David Inglis also pointed to the danger of adopting a “not invented here” mentality to any critique of this book. He extolled the virtues of the book for teaching and research purposes. In particular the book was not neglectful of the need for a historical dimension in all studies of globalization to balance the overweening presentism of much early theory and empirical research. At the same time he suggested that, in any future edition, Axford might afford more attention to the ways in which classical theory and classical thinkers have much more to say about contemporary forms of globalization than is often credited.  He posed the question “what makes good globalization theory?” and how should that inform the making of intellectually challenging and socially useful global studies?

Ray Kiely applauded a hugely impressive critique of a wide range of literature from across the disciplines – Political Science, IR, Sociology, Cultural Studies, geography, Political economy. This is testimony to the notion that Globalisation studies is at its best when it is interdisciplinary and he agreed that Axford does an excellent job discussing global issues across and between these disciplines.

He also suggested that the work needs to be seen, in part at least, as an extended response to Rosenberg’s post-mortem. Rosenberg argued that globalisation theory was guilty of circular reasoning, so that a set of processes called globalisation (global governance, migration capital flows etc) were explained by something called globalisation – thus conflating description with explanation. like Axford, Kiely think Rosenberg lumps too much diverse work into the globalisation mix and overstates the issue of causality. Taking up Axford’s approbation of complexity theory as a relatively uncontaminated way of thinking about globalization, Kiely offered some support for that view, but expressed the reservation that complexity theory might be stuck at the level of appearances, with the result that anti-reductionism simply becomes non-explanation and/or description. All of which reintroduces Rosenberg’s structures about globalization theory.

Barrie Axford thanked the panellists for their considered and supportive comments. He acknowledged the challenge and the difficulties of writing “a” book about the vagaries of globalization theory and reiterated his hopes that the approach adopted does 3 things. First, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of global scholarship; second, it highlights similarities and differences in approach to what are often the same puzzles as these appear in scholarship out of various intellectual traditions; third, it points to a jobbing interdisciplinarity in some areas of research and theorizing and thus, fourth, goes some way to demarcate a social science of globality that has always implied the absence of boundaries, but needs a scholarship that is dedicated to the same ends.  He noted the qualifiers offered by the panellists and promised to bear these in mind when (if) a second edition is on the cards.


The rest of the session was taken up with a lively Q+A session led by the audience in which issues as diverse as the treatment of colonialism in globalization theory, the continued Euro-centrism of many accounts and the still powerful grip of disciplinary traditions and concerns were rehearsed.

The workshop which took place on Tuesday 18 February at Oxford Brookes University. It brought together a panel of leading academics of globalization to discuss Barrie Axford’s recently published book Theories of Globalization (Polity, 2013). The workshop was chaired by Chris Rumford (Royal Holloway, University of London) and the panel was made up of Darren O’Byrne (University of Roehampton), David Inglis (Exeter University) and Ray Kiely (Queen Mary, University of London). The audience was made up of members of the GSA, GPES and graduate students at Brookes.

Organized by the Global Studies Association (GSA) and the Centre for Global Politics, Economy and Society (GPES), Oxford Brookes University






Internet security and Big Data considered by panel of experts during seminar hosted by Oxford Brookes University

In the third of a series of three seminars on ‘Networks and Society’ organised by Brunel University and the Centre for Global Politics, Economy and Society at Oxford Brookes University, the theme was ‘Data-bases and surveillance’.


The proceedings were opened by Professor Barrie Axford (Oxford Brookes) who reminded participants that while everyone knows that the Internet has changed how we live, are governed and conduct business, a new, perhaps less visible technological trend promises or threatens greater transformation.  It is known as “big data.” Big data is not coterminous with the Internet, although the Web makes it much easier to collect and share data. Big data is about more than just communication:  we can learn from a large body of information things that we could not grasp, or even conceive, when we had access to and used only smaller amounts.  Big data is also characterized by the ability to turn into data many aspects of the world and everyday life that have never been quantified before. Some call this process  “datafication.”, and unlovely as that term is, it does service. As we all know, even friendships and “likes” can be datafied, most obviously on Facebook and other social media platforms.

Lest this appear as rather benign, or merely descriptive, arguably, it is increasingly clear that citizens are, or may be, vulnerable to the increasingly routine use of big data, and thus in need of protection.  Big data in the guise of Big Brother sounds rather clichéd, but is far from impossible. In all countries, but particularly in non-democratic ones, big data can exacerbate the existing asymmetry of power between the state and the people and between powerful corporate interests and citizens. This asymmetry could well become so great that it leads to what has been described as big-data authoritarianism.

He ended by saying that the seminar affords insights into the aims and mechanics of big data construction and use, into the costs and benefits so visited and the propriety – the democratic propriety – of everything being “datafied”.

In his paper Stephen Coulson stressed that the UK Government in fact has a long track record of successfully implementing Big Data projects. This record extends back at least to 1086 with the compilation of the Doomsday Book. More recently, the first regular, national census in 1801 was launched with the aim of collecting reliable data for social and defence planning as well as to inform the private sector by making the information available to life insurance companies. That the information in the Doomsday Book and the 1801 census is still being actively used today is testament to the success of both these projects.  It may be no coincidence that both projects occurred before the advent of IT and the term Big Data. Delays and lack of clarity of purpose in current Big Data projects have created the impression that the concept of using large data sets for predictive modelling is at best inaccurate and at worst a danger. Attempts to investigate the truth of this impression by studying current Big Data projects are complicated by the fact that the projects that use Big Data such as the human genotype and NHS Patient Records tend to be large, high-profile projects. The size and duration of these projects (both examples are still running) makes it difficult to assess the future benefits of their work and their impacts on the perceptions (sense of threat, predisposition to resist) and behaviour of citizens.

Alex Finnen gave a detailed comparative analysis of the vicissitudes in implementing systems of population movement control by way of biometric ID cards, digital passports and other state-of-the-art population management technologies. His paper outlined the current state of affairs from the point of view of managers attempting to effectively use ICTs in these areas. Most population management control mechanisms are subject to rigorous national and international legislative control, but in order to work effectively in a mobile world they require international agreements on the formats in which data is to be stored and presented.  Nowhere is this more so than in Europe where it is possible for a citizen to move by car between five or six different states in one day.  Such agreements are not in place and are not likely to be so in the near future.  While this remains the case, the United Kingdom and the EU have a brief window to introduce appropriate legislation to manage these still nascent technologies. His basic premise is that “big brother is not here yet” in global terms but that we should use this window of opportunity to develop the national and international legislative framework for the day when it is a real global prospect.

Karl Harrison gave a close-grained portrayal of the ways in which the capacity to gather large quantities of data from numerous types of mobile devices has become a commonplace of major crime investigation in the UK. Such ‘high-tech’ sources of intelligence have become progressively more established and systematised within major crime investigation. He argued that There is an implicit challenge for police in recognising the distinction between ‘data’ and ‘intelligence’ in the context of the interrogation of mobile devices; this is not dissimilar to the conflation the persists between concepts of forensic intelligence and evidence, and the tendency to regard only certain specific forensic evidence types as being suitable providers of intelligence (most specifically PACE DNA samples). As a consequence, complex enquiries that might be led in some part by forensic intelligence, are sometimes hamstrung by a syndrome of tunnel vision that directly equates the term ‘intelligence’ with biometric identification.

Jonathan Joseph, spoke to the wider and contested theme of ‘resilience’ applied to a host of policy areas and bearing on the ways in which systems and actors react to, manage and ‘bounce back’ from external shocks.  A resilience approach to development, security and disaster protection focuses on risk awareness, preparedness and assessment. Using EU policy on monitoring crisis situations in the Horn of Africa, he revealed how the resilience discourse allows actors such as the EU to portray itself in a way that is consistent with its image as a facilitator of better governance and normative forms of power. It also allows the EU to project itself as a strong actor in a complex and uncertain global environment.  His position is that while resilience encourages a view of the bigger picture as more complex, uncertain and yet inter-dependent, this in fact legitimates more mundane practices at the micro level that relate to monitoring and evaluation of performance of individuals and institutions, including forms of data gathering and storage. Here, under the resilience motif, routine surveillance of individuals and populations can be parlayed into a a cost-effective way of dealing with interdependency crises.

In the final paper of the day, Anthony Barnett turned directly to the potential and actual consequences for democracy carried in the routinisation of big data generation and usage. Big data is a wonderfully powerful tool in many areas, in the sciences in particular, but also in surveillance, because it changes the way the intelligence services work and the way citizens – and journalists – must relate to them. Where there were once specific targets, everyone is now under automatic surveillance, the information ready to be accessed by an agent if so desired. Where suspects where once placed under surveillance by human judgment, computers looking for patterns of behaviour will flag most suspects for the intelligence services in the future, most of which will be false positives. The copious amount of metadata we leave by living normal 21st Century lives mean we can be mapped in the smallest detail with a minimum of effort. Activists, journalists and their sources will need to be much more careful and courageous than ever before, and a self-censorship mentality is a likely outcome. These changes should be problematic also to those who place much trust in the state’s intentions – with the huge size of the intelligence services in Britain and its allies, and the information sharing amongst them, leaks for profit and other motifs is inevitable. How are we to deal with this brave new world?

The day closed with a lively discussion on the propriety of big data generation and usage; on its liberating and oppressive effects. In this, and throughout the day, a number of themes and issue-areas were apparent:

  1. In what could otherwise be presented as a managerial or simply technical solution to, for example, crime investigation, population movement or consumer marketing, underlying principles are at stake; not least the legitimate extent and appropriateness of state and private-corporate surveillance or monitoring in a democratic polity and society?
  2. At heart we are dealing with the changing nature of power in contemporary societies and whether the digital revolution is entrenching or fundamentally altering past configurations.
  3. So, rather than trade only in discussions on the technical capacity of states and other actors to carry out such surveillance / monitoring, or on their relative efficiency when doing so, we should be examining the objectives of data gathering in the first place.
  4. Insistence on clarity of purpose is essential to ensure democratic accountability, along with the expectation that the institutions charged with oversight of intelligence and other kinds of data gathering are fit for purpose.
  5. Clarity of purpose also bears on the sensitive area of data sharing. Where this occurs – as it frequently does – lists of “customers” for shared data must be publicly available and their intended uses made known.
  6. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between data willingly and knowingly surrendered by individuals and data – perhaps metadata – gathered from individuals and populations ‘behind their backs’, as it were, as a result of them going on line to further a line of inquiry or personal connection.
  7. This is a tricky area for students of democracy weighted, as it is, with matters of trust and / or a sense that in a highly digitized and interconnected world, citizens and consumers may be relatively uncaring – rather than ill-informed – about the possible dangers of identifying and revealing themselves online.
  8. As such, the different motivations underlying citizen/consumer resistance to data gathering have to be canvassed and understood. The world is not  ordered, or is not just ordered, by principled or ideological cyber-enthusiasts or sceptics.

Details of the outputs from this and the first 2 seminars in the series will be advertised on these pages in the coming months, along with notices about future events.

  • The panel of expert speakers comprised:  Dr Stephen Coulson (Buckingham University and Apsley Analytics), Dr Alex Finnen (Ministry of Defence), Dr Karl Harrison (Cranfield), Professor Jonathan Joseph (Sheffield) and Anthony Barnett (openDemocracy).

Senior Lecturer in Politics, Sarah Whitmore, publishes article about the political situation in Ukraine

Senior Lecturer in Politics, Dr Sarah Whitmore, has published an article on the Political Studies Association blog about the political situation in Ukraine.


The article, published on 6 December, is intended for a wide audience who perhaps don’t know too much about Ukraine but are interested in understanding why hundreds of thousands of people have been out on the streets demonstrating for almost two weeks.

Sarah Whitmore is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Oxford Brookes University and an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Birmingham.



Professor Barrie Axford to give keynote address about the digital revolution and global society

Axford_B_p0054569Professor Barrie Axford has been invited to give a keynote address at the Institute for Humanities and Social Science Research (IHSSR) at Manchester Metropolitan University. He will give the 3rd lecture in a series devoted to  ‘Making Global Society’ and will talk on the theme ‘The digital revolution and the making of global society: limits and possibilities’. The lecture will take place on 18 November 2013.

Professor Barrie Axford to be international reviewer for Hawaii International Conference on Information and System Sciences

Axford_B_p0054569Professor Barrie Axford has been invited to be a member of the international reviewer panel for the E-Government Track at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on Information and System Sciences (HICSS-47). The conference, the largest and most prestigious in Information Sciences, will be held on the Big Island Hawaii in March 2014

Centre for Global Politics, Economy and Society Launch event

To celebrate its launch the Centre for Global Politics, Economy and Society (GPES) will hold a workshop on January 17-18, 2013 on the theme of “The Borders of Global Theory: views from within and without”

The workshop will be held in the University’s Buckley Building, on its Gipsy Lane campus and will commence at 1:45pm on Thursday January 17; finishing on Friday, January 18 at 2pm.

There is no charge for the workshop, but if you would like to attend so that we can estimate seating and refreshments, please contact Dr David Hughes on

The Centre is an interdisciplinary body with a remit to encourage reflection on and research into social transformations of global scope, which are impacting on the world today. For further information visit

The workshop will examine the current state of global theory, assess its contribution to the transformation or modification of social-scientific knowledge and reflect on its future. A body of work with the idea of the global at its core can be traced back to the 1980s and despite the narrowing of the research focus seen in the shift from broad-brush and often ideologically – inflected tracts, to projects with a rather middle-range cast, arguably there remains the promise of a two-way transformation immanent in global scholarship. The first is a transformation in the ways in which the world is ordered and lives conducted; the second a transformation in how knowledge about the world is garnered and evaluated. In both cases, our frames of reference either have changed, or may be changing.  Nearly 3 decades on it is apposite to take stock and look forward; all with a critical eye.
The final programme for the workshop will be published on January 5 at:

Speakers include:

Roland Roberston: “Beyond the Global? Potential Directions for ‘Global Studies'”

Chris Rumford: “Strangeness: theorizing a particular experience of globalization”

Jan-Aart Scholte: “Global Democracy Research: A Methodological Reflection”

Grahame Thompson: “Should we be worried about global quasi-constitutionalization?”

Heather Widdows: “Public Goods and the Possibility of Theories of Can theories of Justice ever being Global?”

Gillian Youngs: “Virtual Globalization: Directions in Digital Thinking”