Societal Views of Surrogacy—Responding and Reframing: Gay Israeli Fathers

The present study aims to explore gay Israeli fathers’ responses and resistance to societal criticism on their decision to become parents through transnational surrogacy. The authors interviewed 39 Israeli gay men who became parents via transnational gestational surrogacy using in-depth, semistructured interviews. Analysis of the interviews suggest that the gay fathers responded to societal perceptions on their choice of surrogacy, which they interpreted as heterosexist and hostile, by relating them to Israeli dominant ideologies and constructing a counter discourse that frames surrogacy as an intimate process fostering gender and parental change. Yet, while the participants portray surrogacy as a catalyst for social change, their accounts are embedded within an Israeli context defined by pronatalist and neoliberal ideologies, showing how accounts of change are intertwined within hegemonic ideologies.

“I’d Go from a Mountain Top and Tell My Story”: Perspectives of Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence on Storytelling for Social Change

Storytelling has well-documented therapeutic benefits for survivors of trauma. However, little is known about intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors’ perspectives on sharing their stories. This article presents findings based on the analysis of 26 qualitative interviews with individuals who had experienced IPV regarding first-person story sharing. Participants described telling their stories as an act of healing and empowerment. They also named ways that storytelling can challenge societal views and structures that perpetuate IPV. Based on our findings, we offer suggestions for supporting survivor expertise and storytelling as part of a survivor-centered approach to IPV advocacy and social change.

Legislation on the offence of rape in Icelandic criminal law

In recent years the concept of rape has been frequently discussed in Iceland. The chapter on sexual offences in the Icelandic General Penal Code (GPC) was revised in its entirety in 1992 and 2007, and important amendments were made on the provision on rape, section 194 of the GPC. The amendments in 2007 included a new, broad definition of the concept of rape, which was intended to cover all incidents where sexual intercourse or other sexual relations were performed against the victim’s will. In 2018 amendments were made on section 194 on rape, where the word “consent” was included in the provision. This does not constitute a substantive change since lack of consent was already an underlying element of the provision due to the amendments in 2007. The article addresses the academic discussion and societal views that were the precursor of these amendments, evaluates the current provision and discusses whether further amendments are needed.

Enabling Change

This chapter provides a pragmatic perspective on enabling the changes needed to substantially enhance failure management practices. The behavioral and social nature of human decision making is reviewed. Decision-making vignettes are provided to illustrate the general human phenomena of interest. Societal views and practices of system maintenance are considered. Broader perspectives on economic, legal, political, and social aspects of change are reviewed. Numerous examples of computational approaches to change are summarized.

OSCE Insights 2020

The contributions to the 2020 edition of OSCE Insights examine the various crises the OSCE faced during that year. Themes include the efforts of the Minsk Group to manage the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the implications of anti-coronavirus measures for the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. Furthermore, authors analyse OSCE conflict cycle tools, the OSCE’s role in the fight against antisemitism, the increasingly limited space for supporting democratic police governance in Central Asia, trust-building in the field of arms control, societal views on the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, relations between the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and Kazakhstan’s aspirations for hosting a connectivity center.

OSCE Insights 2020

The contributions to the 2020 edition of OSCE Insights examine the various crises the OSCE faced during that year. Themes include the efforts of the Minsk Group to manage the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the implications of anti-coronavirus measures for the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. Furthermore, authors analyse OSCE conflict cycle tools, the OSCE’s role in the fight against antisemitism, the increasingly limited space for supporting democratic police governance in Central Asia, trust-building in the field of arms control, societal views on the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, relations between the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and Kazakhstan’s aspirations for hosting a connectivity center. With contributions byAndrew Baker, Cornelius Friesendorf, Frank Evers, André Härtel, Marietta Koenig, Sebastian Mayer, Michael Raith, Filip Ejdus, Alexandre Lambert, Thomas Schmidt, Marina Dolcetta Lorenzini, Anna Hess Sargsyan, Philip Remler, Richard Giragosian, Sergey Rastoltsev and Benjamin Schaller.

ОБСЕ Insights 2020

The contributions to the 2020 edition of OSCE Insights examine the various crises the OSCE faced during that year. Themes include the efforts of the Minsk Group to manage the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the implications of anti-coronavirus measures for the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. Furthermore, authors analyse OSCE conflict cycle tools, the OSCE’s role in the fight against antisemitism, the increasingly limited space for supporting democratic police governance in Central Asia, trust-building in the field of arms control, societal views on the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, relations between the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and Kazakhstan’s aspirations for hosting a connectivity center.

“A Question of Integrity”: Academic Values Torn Between Organizational Affiliation, National Competitiveness and the Global Academic Community

Values of higher education, as supported by the IAU, are grounded in the belief-systems and behaviour of the individual researchers/teachers and the academic community more generally. Although these values are influenced from the outside by educational policies and economic considerations, and although they also encompass societal views on science (e.g. trust in science), it is academia itself that has to uphold, and sometimes defend, the inner principles of higher education.