对阿富汗武装非国家行为者风险的风险管理反应

Q3 Social Sciences
Jeremy Simpson
{"title":"对阿富汗武装非国家行为者风险的风险管理反应","authors":"Jeremy Simpson","doi":"10.1515/irsr-2015-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article considers responses by different categories of actor to the threat of armed non-state actors in the international intervention in Afghanistan 2001-2015. Concepts from the sociology of risk, in particular risk-management and the distinction between operational and reputational risk, are related to field research in Afghanistan during the intervention. The ‘risk society’ approach of Beck (2009) is critiqued as relatively inapplicable to a discussion of differences in risks to and responses by different categories of actor. The article identifies some convergences of practice across three categories of intervening actor, civil-developmental, counter-insurgent and counter-terrorist, in particular tendencies to risk-transfer and remote-management that draws together theorisation of civil practice by Duffield (2010) and military practice by Shaw (2002). This is problematised relative to difficulties in managing tensions between operational risks to intervening actors and reputational risks vis-à-vis local actors.","PeriodicalId":37251,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Research","volume":"5 1","pages":"156 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk Management Responses to Armed Non-State Actor Risk in Afghanistan\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Simpson\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/irsr-2015-0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article considers responses by different categories of actor to the threat of armed non-state actors in the international intervention in Afghanistan 2001-2015. Concepts from the sociology of risk, in particular risk-management and the distinction between operational and reputational risk, are related to field research in Afghanistan during the intervention. The ‘risk society’ approach of Beck (2009) is critiqued as relatively inapplicable to a discussion of differences in risks to and responses by different categories of actor. The article identifies some convergences of practice across three categories of intervening actor, civil-developmental, counter-insurgent and counter-terrorist, in particular tendencies to risk-transfer and remote-management that draws together theorisation of civil practice by Duffield (2010) and military practice by Shaw (2002). This is problematised relative to difficulties in managing tensions between operational risks to intervening actors and reputational risks vis-à-vis local actors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Social Research\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"156 - 166\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Social Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/irsr-2015-0015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/irsr-2015-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文研究了2001-2015年阿富汗国际干预中不同类型的行为体对武装非国家行为体威胁的反应。来自风险社会学的概念,特别是风险管理和业务风险与声誉风险之间的区别,与干预期间在阿富汗的实地研究有关。Beck(2009)的“风险社会”方法被批评为相对不适用于讨论不同类别行为者的风险差异和反应。本文确定了三类干预行为者(民事发展、反叛乱和反恐)的一些实践趋同,特别是风险转移和远程管理的趋势,这些趋势将Duffield(2010)的民事实践理论与Shaw(2002)的军事实践理论结合在一起。相对于管理干预行为者的业务风险与-à-vis当地行为者的声誉风险之间的紧张关系的困难而言,这是有问题的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk Management Responses to Armed Non-State Actor Risk in Afghanistan
Abstract The article considers responses by different categories of actor to the threat of armed non-state actors in the international intervention in Afghanistan 2001-2015. Concepts from the sociology of risk, in particular risk-management and the distinction between operational and reputational risk, are related to field research in Afghanistan during the intervention. The ‘risk society’ approach of Beck (2009) is critiqued as relatively inapplicable to a discussion of differences in risks to and responses by different categories of actor. The article identifies some convergences of practice across three categories of intervening actor, civil-developmental, counter-insurgent and counter-terrorist, in particular tendencies to risk-transfer and remote-management that draws together theorisation of civil practice by Duffield (2010) and military practice by Shaw (2002). This is problematised relative to difficulties in managing tensions between operational risks to intervening actors and reputational risks vis-à-vis local actors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Review of Social Research
International Review of Social Research Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信