TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

Most of the time the use of the notion of organized crime is related with groups such as mafias or
chief of the drogue.
Apart from that world, there might be another real crime where companies and “legal actors
(government chiefs)” are involved. CORPORATE CRIME.

1. WHITE COLLAR CRIME

1.1. THE PRIONEERS

a) W. A. Bonger and his typology (1905): understand the role of economic factors to understand
criminal activities. Causality between an event of a financial crisis and a rise of crime. To what
extent capitalism is a producer of a specific type of crime. The first in history did not limit the
research to the so-called lower classes (looper proletarians). Up to that moment, all studies
were focus on lower classes as the responsible of crime. He also studied crimes committed
by commercial actors and entrepreneurs (member of upper class maximize their speculation
logic to what extent does that relate with crime). Separation between:
1. Situational deliquency: 1) situation when CEO commit crime to save the
enterprise/ for the sake of the existence of the enterprise. Ex: Financial manipulation,
corruption, or collision to access to other countries markets, violence to other market
actors or the trade union.
2. Greed-based delinquency: occasional delinquency (not systemic), but to gain even
more profit. When you have the opportunity to accumulate more profit. Ex: Conquer
another new market in other country, want to keep a market and you are okay to
make transactions with terrorist groups.
3. Professional delinquency: when is systematic. You created the company with this
objective. Legitimate crime.
b) E.S. Sutherland (1949) - White Collar Crime
What is? → <<a crime committed by a person of respectability and high status in the course of his
occupation>>
- professional or political occupation.
- Notion of differential association: you became a criminal base on social relations.
- White collar crime: Not to focus on individuals, is about situations, when a collective actor can
be considered as such (collective crime). Difference between of moral and judicial person. →
General Motors: the company was declared delinquent but not the bosses.

1.2. SUTHERLAND’S RESEARCH (METHODOLOGY)

● Database: proceeding regarding 70 american big businesses
1900-1944: We can see how big companies in the US can be considered or not as responsible for
criminal activities.

1.3. SUTHERLAND’S THESIS

● White Collar Crime:
- Benefits from privileged modes of regulation unike “ordinary” crime

● One thesis, 3 points

1. People from upper classes can be/are involved in criminal activities collectively or individually.
2. Why does or: administrative procedures and not ordinary crime? A difference of management
in the legal system. Upper class usually get used to administrative procedures to get rid of the
crime.
 3. Differences in treatment are not related to the seriousness of the crime. There are political
reasons in relation to that.
- Upper classes: administrative procedures to manage crimes.
- Lower classes: penal procedures…
- TAXIVATION is a crime.

ONE METHAPOR:
‘The causes of tuberculosis were not different when it was treated by poultices and bloodletting than
when treated by streptomycin’.
→ Most of the time, the way we usually perceive the crime is in relation to the sanction. If the way of
treating is simple, the reaction will be that it is not a dangerous illness (tuberculosis). However, if we
create a more serious mechanism, the perception of crime will upgrade.

1.4. SUTHERLAND AGAINST 2 TRADITIONAL EXPLANATIONS

- On crime and poverty (main reason) → people do crime because they are poor. This doesn’t
work when you are not the CEO of a major company.
- On crime and psychopathology → it is committed because there are psychological reasons.
The CEO is perfectly fine, smarter. Or we could treat all the capitalists as a psychopath.

→ Conclusion: most of the time they are successful to avoid penal sanctions
Even when they are condemned,they are not perceived in the media as real criminals, compared to
the neighbor who has gone to jail, and will be considered as a criminal for the rest of their life.

1.5. SUHERLAND AND THE LACK OF REACTION AGAINST WCC

- Its technical, it’s difficult to detect low visibility (collusion, administrative corruption). Crime
without the victim.
- The lobbying of the big business, regarding to avoid hash regulations.
- Most of the time, the public authorities that deal with the crime are special authorities not the
police. Most of the time they are not very communicative, they refuse to communicate
(Dilution of responsibilities “That’s not me, I’m not responsible of that”)
- Mediatization: the space in the media is reserved for physical crime (fights, kills), but financial,
administrative corruption don’t occupy first pages.

● 4 explanations according to Sutherland

- In his classic book…the press was reluctant to publish it. This was because some of the
companies were philanthropic companies that support this actor. Asked to do two big
changes:
do two big changes:
1. change real names of the companies accused by letters (Genal motors = A…B…C),
2. Asking to erase entire chapters, because even with the letter it was easy to come up with the
company.
→ Why this repression → because this book was published during the Cold War: The big companies
of the American dream are all corrupted → a full model of society that is corrupt
2. Transnational Organized Crime

2.1. ‘TOC’: THE ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPTS

a) ‘Organized crime’ as an official category in US law enforcement:

- 1896 until the 1940s: any systemic, illegal activity rooted in US life.
The Wickersham Commission (1929)
- Post- 2nd World War: Mafiaa imagery, the ‘upper world’ vs the ‘underworld’ → o There is a
shift regarding to definition after the II world War. The main question now is who is organizing
and not how.
The main point was to find ethnic group outside the US life that are committing organized
crime.

The Kefauver Committee (1950) → ‘A nationwide crime syndicate known as the Mafia,
whose tentacles are found in many large cities’.
The main point was the italo-argentinian mafia organized crime as part of the outside
life of the US. Done by the gain of ethnical outer groups.

The Johnson Committee (1967);

The Reagan Committee (1983) → clear distinction between the upper-and lower-class
activities. Upper world considered auxiliaries of the lower
b) The concept of TOC:
- Its origins in the internationalization of US law enforcement…
- or a “coincidence of interets”

● The Kefauver Committee:

- “A nationwide crime syndicate known as the Mafia, whose tentacles are found in many large
cities”
● The Johnson Committee:
- “Organized crime is a society that seeks to operate outside the control of the American people
and their governments. It involves thousands of criminals, working within structures as
complex as those of any large corporation, subject to laws more rigidly enforced than those of
legitimate governments. Its actions are not impulsive but rather the result of intricate
conspiracies, carried on over many years and aimed at gaining control over whole fields of
activity in order to amass huge profits”

2.2. ‘TOC’: THE SUCCES OF THE CONCEPT

● From the end of the Cold War to the 2000 UN Convention against TOC
- The development of a consensus on mafia-related issues. Focus on: commun structural
features, criminal org., as companies; the exclusive parasitic relation
● Still a predominant issue on national and international public agendas

2.3. THE (IM)PRECISE DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT

a) Definition as blurred as the one of OC and criminal organizations:
- ‘Organized criminal group” shal mean a structured group of three or more persons, existing
for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious
crumes or offences established in accordance with this Convention, in order to obtain, directly
or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit (The 2000 UN Convention against TOC) → ·
Very ambiguous: every kind of group that have made a crime?
 b) What is transnational in TOC? → • If you have committed group criminal in more that
one country you are considered transnational criminal group?
c) The entrepreneurial image of OC in the face of globalization:
- Towards a worldwide enemy

2.4. THE CRITICS OF THE CONCEPT

a) The lack of available and reliable primary sources (‘guesstimates’) → a. We have

few sources to persecute these crimes. To understand it’s quite limited. Guess the estimate to
understand laws it’s based on nothing estimations (“the rate of unemployment, how do you
justify the implementation of a politic, when it’s just an estimation?)
Very attached to the official definition (ambiguous).

b) The dual problem of definition

c) Does the entrepreneurial analogy really work?
- Pino Arlacchi, Diego Gambetta, Federico Varese, Pierre Kopp → a. Pino Arlacchi; Diego
Gambetta, Federico Varese; Pierre Kopp they are not companies, mafia offer a specific type
of criminal organization. Main activity is more local that international. In many refers to
multinational rather than the gangster.
d) Which kind of threat for the State(s)?

● To conclude

2.5. NEW RESEARCH AND POLICY TRENDS

a) Conceptualizing (again) OC as illicit enterprises:
- The development of Social Network Analysis
b) Conceptualizing OC as a poly-criminals:
- From an all-encompassing definition to evolving content definitions of emerging threats and
risks
c) ‘Threat assessments’ & identification of ‘weak points’:
- Europol: The (Serious and) Organised Crime Threat Assessments.
- From criminal justice to security
d) Towards empirical research on politico-criminal configurations:
- Briquet, J-L, Favarel-Garrigues, G. (eds) (2010). Organized Crime and States: The Hidden
face of Politics.
 HEALTH IN THE REALM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

(before covid crisis) after covid everything became an internationational security issue

how quickly by US auhroties became a global international security issue (case of ebola) → 6 years
before covid
ebole outbreak as a global security issue (not the first time) it happened before in the 90s. But this
time it was a security mision. Basically, international relations was a key moment in the 90s and in
2010 with the ebola. for understanding health issues that represent international security problems.

INTRODUCTION: HEALTH ISSUES AS SECURITY THREATS?

● the US:
- Since B. Clinton: a special advisor for international health affairs to the <national Security
Council
- And inclusion of global health issuess in The National Security Strategies
- Now: the Office of the President includes:
a senior director for global health security and biothreats
a directori for global helath and international development
- and regular reports from intelligence community

● The World Helath Organization (WHO):

- a “gloval helath security” in the 1990s → abandoned after this, it appears again with the covid
crisis.

● Health & Security - a controversial relationship (Sue Peterson): 2004-2018 debate → one
year before covid: since the 90s, health became a state security vison after the Cold War
- Priority for the treats to the ‘developed countries’
- What about the relevance of national security thinking?
- What about the need for a securitized approach?

1) The Links between health and security

1.1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

A) 19th century:
- diseases (such as cholera) as externatl threats to western States: India , RRussia and Europe
consider external trehath to western states. how do we do surveillance? How is perform?
direct observation then surveillance to collect information in order to segment the population
differently, in this case surveillance health issues were key, to monitor people activity. DATA
B) WHO Charter - 1948: at the end of the IIWW → presentation of health as badic huma right
- Health as a basic human right
Mid - 20th century → heath is also framed as a development issue
health as a development issue → why? for the western country was over, it was an issue for
development countries, in order to help the other countries for give them solutions
C) Since the 1990s:
- re-emergence as a security issue in the light of AIDS/HIV → became an international security
issue, it was needed to reforce the international security instracture. rethink international
security frame. But why or how was this topic able to be considered as a classic international
security issue? → It is a national security topic, a threat for the statement, loss of lives, impact
of how the state survices, children without parents, the stability of the economy in tension.
Most important argument: the main actor affected by this topic is the army/mlitary issues.
 D) Since the late 20th century:
- a world more interconnected than ever before

1.2. SECURITY STUDIES & IR PERSPECTIVES

● Calls to expand classic definitions of (inter)national security
1) human security
- “forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily
lives. For many of them ,security symbolized protection from the threat of disease, hungerm
unemployment, crime, social conflict, plitical repression and environment hazards” (UNDP,
1994)
2) Traditional security studies →
- infectious diseases as threats in relation to international and domestic conflict and stability
3) Securitzation theory
- securitizing actors/audience/extraordinary measures/ now considere as a high political topic
4) A global health security approach
- global effects to detect and respond to disease outbreaks → in the 90s, try to pu in place
some military disposes in order to manage epidemic or pandemic situation

1.3. INSTITUTIONAL (NATIONAL) PERSPECTIVES

● The US:
- 1991: the US institute of medicine: health of potential sccurity consequences of this in the
population. First time that official institute insist in this type of connection
- 1996: Clinton’s National security strategy + Presidentiail decision directive → first time
- 2000: US National Intelligence Estimate
- After 9/11:
office of health affairs in the Dept. of Homeland security (2002)
The PUblic Helath Security and Bioterrorism preparedness and Response Act (2002)
Office of Public Helath Preparedness and Response (CDC - 2002): lesgilation
The BioShield (2004) : capability to collect medicines in case of bio terrorism attack
The Global helath security initiative in the face of CBR&N terrorism
- Pre-Covid: 2007

1.4. INSTITUTIONAL (INTERNATIONAL) PERSPECTIVES

● the WHO - towards an ‘early outbreak detection ad rapid response’

1. mid 1990s: resolutions for combating ‘emergening infectious diseases’
2. 1997/2000: global outbreak alert & response network (GOARN)
3. 2005/2007: revision of the international Heath Regulations as apart of the WHO’s global
health initiative
4. 2006: individual anf global health security as a top priority
5. 2007: ‘a safer futute: global public health secuirty in the 21st century’

2. (De) Securitization of Global Health

2.1. AN AMBIVALENT RELATIONSHIP

A) In academia:
- limited inclusion in traditional security studies
- limited inclusion in international courses
B) The weakness of empirical links: try to discuss the argument of official authorities
 - HIV/AIDS in the face of security rhetoric
- a ‘noble lie’ (S: Elbe, 2009) → yes is an issue but interms of security none of thai happened
C) The global health security agenda in the face of ‘developing’ countries
- about US efforts on CBRN threats in the international Helath Regulations → how the US push
for putting in international regulations on this topic?
- About HSN1: 2006 in Indonesia → refuse to share information in relation to the disease of the
country, why do they refuse? they were considered to be not healthy for the other countries.
when they ask for get this acces to medicines
- Opposition to the security concept towards ‘public health risk’: (Thailiand, Brasil, India…)
before the end of 2010, the notion of global security health was erases because of the tension
caused between countries like the US or Brazil)

3. Securitizing Health or Not

3.1. HOW TO FFRAE GLOBAL HEALTH ISSUES?
A) Securitizing helahn for further resources?
B) securitizing attempts: not new
C) Arguments against elath securitization: normatives concerns & instrumental reasons
D) Towards a transversal framing of global health issues: developemnt , human right, economic,
medical and security frames (last position right before covid)

LAST CLASS: THE TECHNOLOGIZATION OF WAR

INTRODUCTION: WARFARE IN THE FACE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

● Towards fully autonomous weapons in the near future?
- Time for regulation?
 - Which kind of regulation?
Video → mobile robots are changing the dynamics of war
- Several examples:
● R-Ukr war - drone bombs (keenly used by Russia), small but they generate
considerable damage. Ukraine use Turkish drones for surveillance
● Tigray war - Israeli robots
- Development of killer robots → robotic provided with powerful arms
Air and seacrafts
The developments of artificial intelligence to do war

The weaponization of robots and use of drones as bombs has open a debate about wheter warfare is
moving towards autonomous weapons in the near future, what would entail certain level of regulation
of the use and the technical features of the weapons

Which kind of regulation? → difficult to accomplish

1) Lethal autonomous weapons

1.1. DEFINTION
→ no agreement regarding which regulation we can use, neither in a standard definition. Generally,
scholars link 2 aspects to autonomous weapons whn they treat to define them
a. No standard definition:
- Link to human operator → law are defined weapons that are once activated, they can select
their target with any human intervention
- Link to artificial intelligence → learning capabilities of the machine → one that it is
programmed, it can learn from the environment (it is programmed with capability od
adaptation)
b. (Lack of) human control as the defining criteria:
1. “Human in the loop weapons” (UAVs→dron; UCAVs→ robot can select targets only with
human management (human press the button; etc)
2. “Human on the loop weapons” (Automatic weapons defense systems; etc) → can select
target, deliver force under the supervision of human, but its intervention is not necessary for
the robot to operate (human dont need to press the button)
3. “Human out of the loop weapons” → robots capable of selecting targets and delivering force
fully autonomous, without any need of human inputs
Many countries used the first two (Denmark, UK, Israel, South Korea…), But sometimes the
distinction between each type is a bit blurred

2) Academic debates
2.1.STRATEGIC STUDIES: LEGAL & ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF NEW WEAPONS
a. On strategic advantages:
- To reduce costs → from the economic and human perspectives
- to acces denied areas → it is easier to send machines than soldiers in restricted areas
- to wage wars with minimal footprint → not depoying huge amount of soldiers to war
- To minimize risks for soldiers & civilians → in terms of speed, organization and precision,
machines are more efficient
b. On downsides/risks
- The “decide function” & the questions of responsibility → morally berrafed to lead a machine
to make life-death decisions. Even if we do it, responsability will be blurred
- Less destructive and harmful? → there is an advantage, because it is more precise, but hat is
also a risk, if we consider that we can manage collateral damage, in a way that war is less
 harmful, then war will be the answer for every international dispute (diplomatic means will be
less chosen)
- The potential loss of control → the principle of distinction (IPL) → it is not trustworthy the fact
that machines are able to fully distinguish targets

2.2. CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES: THE “DRONIFICATION” ODF STATE VIOLENCE

a. Strategies, practices & technologies of war in the face of drones:
- 3 critical turns:
1. .
2. the modern way of war…owes he sovereign state - the state connection is not drones
individualizes war (target is individual, not the sovereign state)
b. Questioning distance:
- The pilots intimacy → the fact that the distance is completely changed. You are the target PI
even when it is so far away
c. The “scopic regime” → we dont care anymore state sovereignty. There is an inside and an
outside
- Inside/outside
d. Signature strikes/personality strikes
- Pre-emption
The individualization of war derives in: signature strikes, personality strikes, the uses of drones has
benn so controversial because of this - preemption
“The future war will be clean” - There has not been in this way at all
The principles of distinction and proportionality are being very questioned with the automatization of
warfare through drones.

3) Regulation
3.1. CALLS FOR A BAN
The first and the most important advancement regarding regulation of LAW was calls fro Ban of
warfare robots
a. “Losing Humanitty: The Case against Killer Robots” (2012)
- Human Rights Watch & The Harvard Law School INternational Human Rights Clinic
- “Campaign to Stop Killer Robots” + Open Letter (The Future of Life Institute) + States
b. Critics on the protection of cibilians in war:
- Legal arguments → the main one has been that the machine is not able to fully comply with
the principles of proportionality and distinction, provided by Humanitarian Law
- Ethical arguments → dehumanization → we become objects for the machine, so human
accountability and dignity is lost
video → autonomous weapons explained
- functionability - amachine does not perceive as people o (reductionist data)
- dehumanization - we became objects - we must not lose huma accountability and human
dignity
c. Various legal forms for an international ban:
- Additional protocol to the UN “Convention on Certain Conventiona Weapons”
- Independent treaty

3.2. CALLS FOR A REGULATORY TREATY

a. Towards specific restriction:
- features & context
b. Against the idea of weapons unlawful per se
- for a careful review
 c. Idea of potential benefits under certain conditions
- From an ethical perspective:
- On collateral damage, soldiers can feel emotions, thus generate problems (anxiety). Robots
dont
d. Various forms of treaties
- Arts. 36 of the 1st additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977)
- The vast majority of states follow this perspective
- Towards a more concrete regulatory framework

3.3. CALLS FOR BEST PRACTICES

No treaty, no regulation, it is too early to do nothing because LAW are not fully developed. They
support the development of incremental norms
● Towars incremental norms:
- From a leading State (national level) to the international level
- Critics: it will not anyone, development and deployment of LAW
Let’s take a superpower state that can do at a national level the imposition of regulation - you