英国反恐,国际禁止酷刑,以及多渠道框架

IF 2.1 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Janina Heaphy
{"title":"英国反恐,国际禁止酷刑,以及多渠道框架","authors":"Janina Heaphy","doi":"10.1332/030557321x16375950978608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After years of violating the basic principles of human rights in the name of counterterrorism, western democracies have begun to implement extraterritorial safeguards that extend protections under the Convention against Torture to foreigners abroad. The case of the UK and the development of the ‘Principles’ in 2019, however, presents a particular puzzle to policymaking research, as it challenges traditional hypotheses regarding the opening of problem windows within the multiple streams framework. Accordingly, the UK presents an interesting case in which a powerful state willingly engaged in self-restraint, despite little electoral pressure to do so and a persistently high terrorist threat. Drawing on theory-building process-tracing, this article addresses this gap using data from semi-structured interviews with British policy experts to present a refined hypothesis, which can also be applied to policy fields of little public interest and processes of foreign policymaking.","PeriodicalId":53177,"journal":{"name":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","volume":"174 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"British counterterrorism, the international prohibition of torture, and the multiple streams framework\",\"authors\":\"Janina Heaphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557321x16375950978608\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After years of violating the basic principles of human rights in the name of counterterrorism, western democracies have begun to implement extraterritorial safeguards that extend protections under the Convention against Torture to foreigners abroad. The case of the UK and the development of the ‘Principles’ in 2019, however, presents a particular puzzle to policymaking research, as it challenges traditional hypotheses regarding the opening of problem windows within the multiple streams framework. Accordingly, the UK presents an interesting case in which a powerful state willingly engaged in self-restraint, despite little electoral pressure to do so and a persistently high terrorist threat. Drawing on theory-building process-tracing, this article addresses this gap using data from semi-structured interviews with British policy experts to present a refined hypothesis, which can also be applied to policy fields of little public interest and processes of foreign policymaking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice\",\"volume\":\"174 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16375950978608\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16375950978608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

多年来,西方民主国家以反恐的名义违反了人权的基本原则,如今它们已开始实施域外保障措施,将《禁止酷刑公约》(Convention against Torture)的保护扩大到海外的外国人。然而,英国的案例和2019年“原则”的发展给政策制定研究带来了一个特别的难题,因为它挑战了关于在多流框架内打开问题窗口的传统假设。因此,英国提供了一个有趣的例子:一个强大的国家自愿进行自我约束,尽管几乎没有来自选举的压力,而且恐怖主义威胁一直居高不下。借助理论构建过程追踪,本文利用与英国政策专家的半结构化访谈数据来解决这一差距,提出了一个完善的假设,该假设也可以应用于公众不感兴趣的政策领域和外交政策制定过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
British counterterrorism, the international prohibition of torture, and the multiple streams framework
After years of violating the basic principles of human rights in the name of counterterrorism, western democracies have begun to implement extraterritorial safeguards that extend protections under the Convention against Torture to foreigners abroad. The case of the UK and the development of the ‘Principles’ in 2019, however, presents a particular puzzle to policymaking research, as it challenges traditional hypotheses regarding the opening of problem windows within the multiple streams framework. Accordingly, the UK presents an interesting case in which a powerful state willingly engaged in self-restraint, despite little electoral pressure to do so and a persistently high terrorist threat. Drawing on theory-building process-tracing, this article addresses this gap using data from semi-structured interviews with British policy experts to present a refined hypothesis, which can also be applied to policy fields of little public interest and processes of foreign policymaking.
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
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that explores the multiple relationships between nursing and health policy. It serves as a major source of data-based study, policy analysis and discussion on timely, relevant policy issues for nurses in a broad variety of roles and settings, and for others outside of nursing who are interested in nursing-related policy issues.
×
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