“…The interactionist framing of state–corporate crime scholarship provides a direct parallel to the institutional structures found within governance studies. Twenty‐first century processes of globalization and digitalization have created “counter‐hegemonic transnational networks” (Ward & Green , p. 229) through which victims of state crime can secure justice; transnational legal pluralism has thus created more diverse opportunities for “criminalization,” broadly understood, than traditional concepts of state and state–corporate crime acknowledged (Ward & Green ). However, the market‐government‐civil society “governance triangle” that underpins regulatory scholarship is cast in a more problematic light if we focus on the nature of the political power that corporations wield in the era of globalization (Barkan ; Wilks ).…”
Section: The Role Of Power and Politicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This critical view of regulatory governance narrows our understanding by equating the regulatory state with neoliberal deregulation (Levi‐Faur ). It arguably undervalues the importance of augmenting or aligning the formal criminal law with more bottom‐up community, digital, and market‐based forms of social control (Lacey ; Ward & Green ). There are non‐criminal systems of administrative sanctioning that increasingly possess greater power, capacity, and deterrent impact than prosecutorial agencies, and fields of “beyond‐the‐state” regulation that exert just as, if not more, effective control than state‐led alternatives (Haines ; Grabosky ; Parker et al .…”
Section: The Relationship Between Public and Privatementioning
This paper seeks to bridge the disciplinary gap between regulation and governance studies, and criminology. Based on a review of theoretical and empirical work on corporate crime, this paper argues that divergent approaches to questions of individual agency, localized variety, and political context, have drawn these two disciplines in different directions. Regulatory governance scholarship has thrived as a discipline, but has also narrowed its focus around these issues. Corporate criminology offers a means of broadening this focus by drawing attention to the normative theorizing behind the regulatory project. At the same time, however, insights drawn from regulatory governance scholarship can prompt corporate criminology to innovate by broadening the scope of its engagement beyond the sphere of traditional criminal justice. The paper argues for the development of a research agenda to sit at their intersection, to engage with the challenges that exist at the interface between criminal and regulatory law.
“…The interactionist framing of state–corporate crime scholarship provides a direct parallel to the institutional structures found within governance studies. Twenty‐first century processes of globalization and digitalization have created “counter‐hegemonic transnational networks” (Ward & Green , p. 229) through which victims of state crime can secure justice; transnational legal pluralism has thus created more diverse opportunities for “criminalization,” broadly understood, than traditional concepts of state and state–corporate crime acknowledged (Ward & Green ). However, the market‐government‐civil society “governance triangle” that underpins regulatory scholarship is cast in a more problematic light if we focus on the nature of the political power that corporations wield in the era of globalization (Barkan ; Wilks ).…”
Section: The Role Of Power and Politicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This critical view of regulatory governance narrows our understanding by equating the regulatory state with neoliberal deregulation (Levi‐Faur ). It arguably undervalues the importance of augmenting or aligning the formal criminal law with more bottom‐up community, digital, and market‐based forms of social control (Lacey ; Ward & Green ). There are non‐criminal systems of administrative sanctioning that increasingly possess greater power, capacity, and deterrent impact than prosecutorial agencies, and fields of “beyond‐the‐state” regulation that exert just as, if not more, effective control than state‐led alternatives (Haines ; Grabosky ; Parker et al .…”
Section: The Relationship Between Public and Privatementioning
This paper seeks to bridge the disciplinary gap between regulation and governance studies, and criminology. Based on a review of theoretical and empirical work on corporate crime, this paper argues that divergent approaches to questions of individual agency, localized variety, and political context, have drawn these two disciplines in different directions. Regulatory governance scholarship has thrived as a discipline, but has also narrowed its focus around these issues. Corporate criminology offers a means of broadening this focus by drawing attention to the normative theorizing behind the regulatory project. At the same time, however, insights drawn from regulatory governance scholarship can prompt corporate criminology to innovate by broadening the scope of its engagement beyond the sphere of traditional criminal justice. The paper argues for the development of a research agenda to sit at their intersection, to engage with the challenges that exist at the interface between criminal and regulatory law.
“…If specific software applications, system architectures and personalized devices are now indispensable for the maintenance and extension of punitive forms of border security, then they need to be incorporated into debates around defining and pursuing cases of state crime on one hand and, on the other, human rights norms and jurisprudence (Pillay 2014;Ward and Green 2016;Vincent 2010). After providing an overview of the statistical and categorical dimensions to these population movements according to UN records, I consider the conceptual challenges of these politically and ethically controversial undertakings for the study of state crime in domains characterized by the embedding of computer-networked tools and procedures in the redesign of immigration and asylum policies across the EU.…”
Section: Aims and Organizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For organizing resistance, within and across physical and digitally encoded borders, as well as in specific locales where local groups can interact with those populations needing assistance, the offline-online nexus needs addressing in a strategic way. The digitization of Fortress Europe needs its riposte in technologically and media-savvy responses to human rights abuses in order to generate the sort of critical mass that can support activist and scholarly approaches to tackling the intersection of state crime, humanitarian crises and their digital, networked manifestations, approaches that can work within the paradigm of "dialectical legal pluralism" (Ward and Green 2016).…”
Section: Resistance At the Online-offline Nexusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Echoing the conclusions of Ward and Green (2016) in their rethinking of state crime as a multiplex category and domain, critical scholarship that hopes to influence policymakers and judiciaries needs to take the lead in several respects. First, to develop robust modes of analysis that can shift the political payoff of binaries that feed xenophobic and racist public discourses on one hand and, on the other, dismiss human rights activism at the online-offline nexus as irrelevant (Franklin 2018).…”
This contribution addresses an emergent research agenda for critical theory and research into state crime in the context of two domains in which state and non-state actors are reinventing their terms of engagement, roles and responsibilities under international law: (1) governments' responses to the suffering of the thousands dying at sea on the doorstep of the EU and (2) the cyberspatial dimensions to border enforcement and related practices of surveillance and cybersecurity measures from the perspective of how human rights are rendered in digital, networked contexts. Drawing on reconsiderations of Foucault's thought on the underlying schizoid tendencies of modern statecraft, I argue that identifying perpetrators of state crime and the related embedding of mass online surveillance lie at the epicentre of how critical scholars, activists, and judiciaries consider the ways that people use digital and networked devices and systems and how these can be used to undermine fundamental rights and freedoms, not only of millions of forcibly displaced persons but also those of all "netizens". The article concludes by considering where openings for (digital) resistance lie in the face of these shifting constellations of state/non-state "collectives" as they patrol the online-offline nexus of contemporary borderzones.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.