Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
Content TypeContent Type
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectCountry Of PublicationPublisherSourceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
2,081
result(s) for
"Duress"
Sort by:
State Building in Putin’s Russia
2011
This book argues that Putin's strategy for rebuilding the state was fundamentally flawed. Taylor demonstrates that a disregard for the way state officials behave toward citizens - state quality - had a negative impact on what the state could do - state capacity. Focusing on those organizations that control state coercion, what Russians call the 'power ministries', Taylor shows that many of the weaknesses of the Russian state that existed under Boris Yeltsin persisted under Putin. Drawing on extensive field research and interviews, as well as a wide range of comparative data, the book reveals the practices and norms that guide the behavior of Russian power ministry officials (the so-called siloviki), especially law enforcement personnel. By examining siloviki behavior from the Kremlin down to the street level, State Building in Putin's Russia uncovers the who, where and how of Russian state building after communism.
Cautious Bully
2019
Since 1990, China has used coercion in its maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, despite adverse implications for its image. China is curiously selective in its timing, targets, and tools of coercion: China rarely employs military coercion, and it does not coerce all countries that pose similar threats. An examination of newly available primary documents and hundreds of hours of interviews with Chinese officials to trace the decisionmaking processes behind China’s use and nonuse of coercion reveals a new theory of when, why, and how China employs coercion against other states, especially in the South China Sea. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the findings show that China is a cautious bully that does not use coercion frequently. In addition, when China becomes stronger, it tends to use military coercion less often, choosing instead nonmilitary tools. Moreover, concerns with its reputation for resolve and with economic cost are critical elements of Chinese decisionmaking regarding the costs and benefits of coercing its neighbors. China often coerces one target to deter others—”killing the chicken to scare the monkey.” These findings have important implications for how scholars understand states’ coercive strategies and the future of Chinese behavior in the region and beyond.
Journal Article
State building in Putin's Russia : policing and coercion after communism
by
Taylor, Brian D., 1964-
in
Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1952- Political and social views.
,
Yeltsin, Boris Nikolayevich, 1931-2007 Influence.
,
Post-communism Russia (Federation) History.
2011
\"Building a strong Russian state was the central goal of Vladimir Putin's presidency. This book argues that Putin's strategy for rebuilding the state was fundamentally flawed. Taylor demonstrates that a disregard for the way state officials behave toward citizens--state quality--had a negative impact on what the state could do--state capacity. Focusing on those organizations that control state coercion, what Russians call the \"power ministries,\" Taylor shows that many of the weaknesses of the Russian state that existed under Boris Yeltsin persisted under Putin. Drawing on extensive field research and interviews, as well as a wide range of comparative data, the book reveals the practices and norms that guide the behavior of Russian power ministry officials (the so-called siloviki), especially law enforcement personnel. By examining siloviki behavior from the Kremlin down to the street level, State building in Putin's Russia uncovers the who, where, and how of Russian state building after communism\"--Provided by publisher.
A provably secure coercion-resistant e-voting scheme with confidentiality, anonymity, unforgeability, and CAI verifiability
by
Kho, Yun-Xing
,
Heng, Swee-Huay
,
Chin, Ji-Jian
in
Artificial intelligence
,
Duress (Law)
,
Investment analysis
2025
Ensuring both cast-as-intended (CAI) verifiability and coercion-resistance in e-voting remains a critical challenge. The e-voting scheme proposed by Finogina and Herranz in 2023 represents the first notable advancement in reconciling these conflicting requirements. CAI verifiability allows voters to confirm that their intended vote has been correctly recorded, even without a secure channel to the election committee, while coercion-resistance prevents external influence and vote-selling. However, essential security properties such as confidentiality, anonymity, unforgeability, and double-voting prevention fall outside the scope of Finogina and Herranz's e-voting scheme, leaving significant gaps in its security guarantees. To address this limitation, we propose a novel e-voting scheme that simultaneously achieves CAI verifiability, coercion-resistance, confidentiality, anonymity, unforgeability, and double-voting prevention while maintaining an asymptotic complexity of [Formula: see text]. To the best of our knowledge, no existing scheme satisfies all these properties concurrently. Moreover, we establish that anonymity inherently implies CAI verifiability in e-voting schemes, a result of independent interest. By strengthening security and privacy guarantees, our work bridges existing gaps and provides a comprehensive security model that serves as a foundation for the design of future e-voting systems.
Journal Article
ABOLITION AS PRAXIS OF HUMAN BEING
2019
What are the historical conditions and political imperatives of \"abolition\" as a contemporary praxis? How does abolition generate a radical critique of carceral power - of \"incarceration\" as a logic of state and social formation? What are the limitations of liberal-to-progressive demands to reform (allegedly) dysfunctional and/or scandalous systems of legitimated state violence (for example, \"mass incarceration\" or \"police brutality\")? How does abolitionist praxis facilitate notions of freedom, justice, security, and community that do not rely on systems of carceral state power, including but not limited to criminal justice, policing, and (domestic) militarization/war?
Journal Article