Varieties of organised hypocrisy: security privatisation in UN, EU, and NATO crisis management operations

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F26482789%3A_____%2F22%3A10152358" target="_blank" >RIV/26482789:_____/22:10152358 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975" target="_blank" >10.1080/09662839.2021.1972975</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Varieties of organised hypocrisy: security privatisation in UN, EU, and NATO crisis management operations

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states&apos; growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Varieties of organised hypocrisy: security privatisation in UN, EU, and NATO crisis management operations

Popis výsledku anglicky

International organisations (IOs) have increasingly resorted to private military and security companies (PMSCs) as providers of armed protection, training, intelligence, and logistics. In this article, we argue that IOs, seeking to reconcile conflicting international norms and member states&apos; growing unwillingness to provide the manpower required for effective crisis management, have decoupled their official policy on and actual use of PMSCs, thereby engaging in organised hypocrisy. Due to its stricter interpretation of norms like the state monopoly of violence, the United Nations (UN) has showcased a more glaring gap between talk and action than the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which display a more pragmatic, but not entirely consistent, approach to the use of PMSCs. By examining the decoupling between UN, EU, and NATO official contractor support doctrines and operational records, this article advances the debate on both security privatisation and organised hypocrisy.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50601 - Political science

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA20-07805S" target="_blank" >GA20-07805S: Dynamika sociálních norem v mezinárodním řádu</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European Security

ISSN

0966-2839

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

31

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

21

Strana od-do

159-179

Kód UT WoS článku

000692298800001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85114430230