Soft Power and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar: Learning from Experiences of Past Mega-Sporting Event Hosts

The experiences of past hosts to mega sporting events like the Olympics, or FIFA World Cup games show that there are numerous ways in which countries can be both empowered or disempowered through their pursuit of soft power. Through a selective literature review, this paper uses the relevant soft power experiences of six countries who have hosted either the World Cup or Olympic Games from 2008. The cases include China (Beijing 2008 Olympics), South Africa (2010 World Cup), United Kingdom (London 2012 Olympics), Brazil (2014 World Cup and Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympics), Russia (Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, and 2018 World Cup), and Japan (Tokyo 2020 Olympics). The paper then considers Qatar’s 2022 World Cup with an angle on applying and adapting the experiences of past hosts to understand the soft empowerment or disempowerment that Qatar will likely face as a result of hosting the games. The numerous international concerns over the situation with migrant workers in Qatar, and the Islamic and cultural norms that are alien to Western audiences, will continue to challenge Qatar’s image management and branding measures. Nevertheless, the commitment to holding the most eco-friendly event, continuous presence on international soccer fields through sponsorships, ownerships, and winning championships, in addition to actively seeking to enhance and alleviate the status of the country on the global stage will help Doha in its soft empowerment endeavors in the period before and during the event. Its pledge and dedication to keeping a long-lasting legacy after December 2022 will also help the State in the post-event phase of soft empowerment.

Cybersecurity Information Sharing

This chapter considers the impact on cyber security of a shift from voluntary coordination to mandatory incident reporting. It traces the efforts to organize collaboration for cyber security incident response back to its voluntary beginnings with the establishment of CERT/CC by DARPA in response to the Morris Worm in 1988, via the establishment of ISACs then ISAOs under successive US presidents, to the CiSP in the UK following the London 2012 Olympics. Recognizing efforts to standardize and automate information sharing, the discussion touches on how information sharing has come to form the basis of national cyber strategies, forming a foundational element of internationally recognized maturity models for those strategies, and it goes on to consider the increasing move towards more mandatory incident reporting, especially in Critical National Infrastructure sectors across the globe, from the Defence Industrial Base in the United States to the NISD throughout the European Union. It considers the impact of mandating reporting on levels of collaboration overall, concluding that regulators must be careful not to create sector-specific silos or undermine existing levels of voluntary sharing through their enforcement of such mandatory schemes.

Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement and Cheapened Achievement: A New Dilemma

Recent discussions of cognitive enhancement often note that drugs and technologies that improve cognitive performance may do so at the risk of “cheapening” our resulting cognitive achievements (e.g., Kass, Life, liberty and the defense of dignity: the challenge for bioethics, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2004; Agar, Humanity’s end: why we should reject radical enhancement, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010; Sandel, The case against perfection. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2007; Sandel, The case against perfection: what’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering?”. In: Holland (ed) Arguing about bioethics, Routledge, London, 2012; Harris in Bioethics 25:102–111, 2011). While there are several possible responses to this worry, we will highlight what we take to be one of the most promising—one which draws on a recent strand of thinking in social and virtue epistemology to construct an integrationist defence of cognitive enhancement. (e.g., Pritchard in Synthese 175:133–151, 2010; Palermos in Synthese 192:2955–2286, 2015; Clark in Synthese 192:3757–3375, 2015). According to such a line, there is—despite initial appearances to the contrary—no genuine tension between using enhancements to attain our goals and achieving these goals in a valuable way provided the relevant enhancement is appropriately integrated into the agent’s cognitive architecture (in some suitably specified way). In this paper, however, we show that the kind of integration recommended by such views will likely come at a high cost. More specifically, we highlight a dilemma for users of pharmacological cognitive enhancement: they can (1) meet the conditions for cognitive integration (and on this basis attain valuable achievements) at the significant risk of dangerous dependency, or (2) remain free of such dependency while foregoing integration and the valuable achievements that such integration enables. After motivating and clarifying the import of this dilemma, we offer recommendations for how future cognitive enhancement research may offer potential routes for navigating past it.

“This Is the Story of Community Leadership with Political Backing. (PM1)” Critical Junctures in Paralympic Legacy: Framing the London 2012 Disability Inclusion Model for New Global Challenges

The London 2012 Paralympic Games was called “the most successful Paralympic Games ever” (by the then-President of the IPC), and it saw more athletes from more countries than ever before compete and become global heroes for the first time in a redeveloped part of East London which also hosted “the most accessible Olympic Games ever” that summer. However, the model used to design and deliver disability inclusion for London 2012, and its legacy, has never been explicitly written up. This paper presents new primary evidence from first-hand research from those who were involved; retrospectively framing the London 2012 Disability Inclusion Model such that it might be usable and developed for other global disability challenges. We used an adapted Delphi methodology, through four rounds: beginning with an initial hypothesis and testing through semi-structured interviews with ten key players in the London 2012 disability inclusion approach. Using thematic analysis with consensus building surveys and workshops we came to a settled unanimous agreement on the 12-step London 2012 Disability Inclusion Model comprising three parts: (Get ready) community-led mission setting, (Get set) essential building blocks and (Go) enabling a culture of success. The model is presented here, alongside a narrative on its uniqueness and replicability to other major programs, as a public good. We welcome its active use, testing and adaption by others in service of disability innovation for a fairer world.