Stephanie Carvin

The ISA Drinking Game

by Stephanie Carvin | 15 March, 2012 | Various and Sundry

The Duck crew getting ready for theirannual meet-up in 2011.We are now two weeks away from the start of the annual International Studies Association convention in sunny San Diego. In 2010 the Duck developed the APSA drinking game. Here is the ISA version for your conferencing pleasure. (Oh, and if Tom Volgy asks, you haven’t seen me.)The following, unless otherwise specified, result in the taking of one drink for every observation/sighting at the Annual Conference of the International Studies Association. The Duck of Minerva is not responsible for any liver damage or unfortunate choice of...

International Women’s Day: Cupcakes and Hateraid

by Stephanie Carvin | 8 March, 2012 | Various and Sundry

I did not make these to destroy feminism.Duck readers, I have a confession. I bake cupcakes. Thousands of them. I love doing it, I love icing them, I love decorating them and I really like eating them.This is not something that I would typically share with a blog on international politics. Normally I write about things that blow up or try to calmly argue that twitter is not going to stop a war lord. But you see I am compelled. I am compelled to write in defence of cupcakes for International Women’s day.Apparently some people think my love of cupcakes makes me a bad feminist: real feminists...

Invisible Children – Pretty Dang Visible

by Stephanie Carvin | 7 March, 2012 | Various and Sundry

KONY, WE GON' FIND YOU - as soon as I buy my bracelet!Anyone who has been on Facebook and Twitter over the past 24 hours has probably seen impassioned pleas to watch a high-production video by Invisible Children, an American NGO (whose Board of Directors just happens to be entirely white American males). And anyone who is following many of the IR tweeters out there, you have also probably began to see the backlash.For those of you who do not know what is going on, the video produced by Invisible Children discusses the conflict in Uganda with the Lord’s Resistance Army and in particular the...

Cyber Nerd Blogging: Neuroscience, Conflict and Security

by Stephanie Carvin | 29 February, 2012 | Various and Sundry

Antoine Bousquet has a fascinating post at Disorder of Things on developments in neuroscience and how they are being used by militaries to 1) enhance their own soldiers and 2) degrade the abilities of their opponents. The post is in response to a report by The Royal Society on Neuroscience, Conflict and Security which outlines these developments, speculates on the future and the ethical implications of these developments.As Bousquet notes, it’s some pretty hairy stuff:Yet perhaps the most potentially consequential developments will be found in the area of neural interfacing and its efforts...

War Crimes and the Arab Spring. Again.

by Stephanie Carvin | 23 February, 2012 | Various and Sundry

The direct targeting of actors protected under the laws of war has been one of the most disturbing trends arising out of the Arab Spring. For example, the targeting of medical workers and ambulance drivers was well documented and reported on last year. Additionally, here at the Duck we've been following the issue. In recent months Dan Nexon wrote about the targeting of doctors who treated protesters in Bahrain and I've bloged about the growing concern of the ICRC who have seen themselves and their workers targeted. Unfortunately, this trend has continued into 2012. In January, the...

More on Gotovina

by Stephanie Carvin | 21 February, 2012 | Various and Sundry

Ante GotovinaLast week I wrote about targeting and mentioned the Gotovina Case. This case has become interesting for those interested in international law and post-conflict justice because of the decision of the court (among other things) effectively states that a 4% error rate in targeting in a complex military operation was tantamount to a war crime.As I said in the post, the decision prompted several laws of war scholars (many of whom were former JAGs) to have a roundtable at Emory University on the decision and subsequently write up an amicus brief supported by 12 international law...

Targeting…targeting: What are reasonable expectations?

by Stephanie Carvin | 14 February, 2012 | Various and Sundry

Blue moon, you targeted me standing alone...Yesterday Charli wrote a post on whether or not those opposed to the use of drones should use the concept of “atrocity law” instead of “war crimes” or human rights violations.I wonder if others who generally oppose "targeted killings" think the concept of "atrocity law" might be a more useful way of framing this problem publicly than talking about "war crimes" or "human rights" specifically - concepts that by their nature draw the listener's attention to a legal regime that only partially bears on the activity in question and invites contrasting...

Visas and scholarship

by Stephanie Carvin | 14 January, 2012 | Featured

Sarah Duff (who has contributed to this blog before) had a very interesting piece in the UK Guardian this week on the hurdles scholars in developing countries have to face in order to engage with scholars in the developed world. Rather than focusing on whether or not the visa system is fair, she describes exactly what she must do in order to present a paper in “the West” how this impacts on the development of her research:I describe the expensive, time-consuming, and often quite invasive procedure of applying for a visa to explain why they influence my work. Because my American visa is valid...

Kim Jung Il is Dead

by Stephanie Carvin | 19 December, 2011 | Featured

In a week filled with the death of intellectuals and political activists, we now have the death of Kim Jung Il. Other than the fact that this destabilizes an already crazy country (and I mean 'crazy' in that professional IR kind of way), I can't think much of us will miss him. Except maybe the creators of South Park.But who knew Juche could be so funky?

A View to Kill: Should states engage in assassination?

by Stephanie Carvin | 15 December, 2011 | Featured

I have a lengthy piece on targeted killing/assassination up at the Canadian International Council’s Open Canada blog. It touches on some of the issues I’ve raised in previous posts here and here. The short version is that targeted killing/assassination advocates tend to rest their arguments on three assumptions: first, that it is morally legitimate on the basis of reciprocity, that it is easier than launching full-scale invasions or sending in troops to difficult/hostile terrain, and finally that it is effective. I question these assumptions – first, tit-for-tat/"Golden Rule” justification...

The Duck of Minerva