Private Label and National Brand Pricing and Promotional Strategies in Health Differentiated Product Categories: Canadian Evidence

Health Economics and Policy, Marketing,

Fourth- and Fifth-Generation Warfare: Technology and Perceptions

The composition of warfare is changing. There is an increasing transformation in the traditional aspects of waging a war: conventional techniques of warfare are in decline and newer tactics and tools of warfare, such as information warfare, asymmetric warfare, media propaganda, and hybrid warfare, are filling the gap, blurring the lines between combatant and noncombatant, and between wartime and peacetime. The basic framework of modern warfare was elaborated by Carl von Clausewitz in his magnus opus On War. He defined modern warfare between states as “a duel on larger scale,” and explained its purpose as “a continuation of politics by other means,” with its core elements of “rationality of the state, probability in military command, and rage of the population.” Building on Clausewitz’s work, William S. Lind distinguished between four generations of warfare since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, each generation having its own way of fighting war. This Article intends to explore Lind’s fourth-generation warfare and Daniel H. Abbott’s fifth-generation warfare. It provides different interpretations of fourth-generation warfare (4GW) by several scholars. First, it explains that 4GW is asymmetric warfare fought by nonstate actors and by nonstate cultural groups, where asymmetric warfare and shadow wars are waged by nonstate actors and mercenaries for the political interests of aggressive states. Then, it provides additional interpretations of 4GW, which is often understood as fighting on a moral level employing light infantry. By contrast, other scholars believe that 4GW is fought with the tools of information and technology using cyberspace. Afterwards, this Article explores how to fight 4GW and how it is being fought. The Article also investigates Abbott’s fifth-generation warfare, a war of perceptions, and explains how to fight 5GW and how it is being fought. Furthermore, this Article explains how technological progression is used as a tool of modern warfare

Can the Burning of Holy Books Ever Be Justified?

While exploring the historical context of the burning of books during the times of Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of unified China, the European Dark Ages, the colonial era, the Nazi Germany era, Iranian triumphs, and contemporary instances of the burning of literature, comics, and history, philosophy, and religious books,this paper identifies “freedom of expression” as the underlyingprinciple for the burning of holy books, an action that eventually fuels religious hatred, public disorder, and violence in society. Notwithstanding such consequences, Pastor Terry Jonesannounced an event calling for the burning of the Holy Qur’an onthe ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Simultaneously, European right-wing political and religious leaders also have pronounced hate speech against Islam, which has resulted in enraged mass protests in Muslim countries. Ironically, the UnitedStates (“U.S.”) and European (“EU”) media have provided full coverage on hate speech, which has resulted in the intensification of Islamophobia in the EU and the U.S. Articles 19 and 20 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”)and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights(“ECHR”), to which the U.S. and the EU have agreed, cover therights of freedom of religion; but they regard religion as a private matter and do not make state-backed interventions to prohibit any act of hate speech except insofar as it might disrupt public order and national security

The Rise of Hybrid Warfare

In the twenty-first century, wars are not declared or waged conventionally; instead, conflicts are instigated by clandestine agents using cyber tools, information operations, NGOs, nonstate actors, economic tools, propaganda, ambiguity, terrorism, and insurgency or rebel movements. In hybrid warfare, the lines between peacetime and wartime and between combatants and civilians are blurred. Further, systemic aggression is imposed on a targeted state using gray zones, nonlinear warfare, unrestricted warfare, unconventional warfare, and color revolutions to avoid attribution and possible retribution for the aggression. Hybrid warfare employs a wide array of power tools, ranging from political, economic, military, and civil to informational. This type of warfare targets the vulnerabilities of a society and system, while deliberately exploiting ambiguity to avoid detection. Hybrid warfare is usually detected only when it is fully functional and capable of inflicting harm. Today, its operations are employed by several nations around the world. Presently, the most notable effects of hybrid wars can be seen in Syria, Ukraine, and Hong Kong. Moreover, there are a plethora of cases where aggressors using hybrid warfare have either admitted their involvement in hybrid operations or declassified their unapproved plans for hybrid wars. A responsive strategy to fight hybrid warfare comprises three steps: detect, deter, and respond. Therefore, this Article intends to explore: What is hybrid warfare? What are the prevalent theories and theoretical frameworks through which hybrid warfare operates? (This will involve a discussion on the notions of the theory of global dominance, Lind’s predictions, the color revolutions, unconventional warfare, Warden’s five rings, Hart’s theory of indirect warfare, John Boyd’s OODA loop theory, chaos theory, the United States’ full spectrum dominance strategy, insurgency, and the theory of leading from behind.) What are the elements of hybrid warfare? How does it use propaganda, proxies, economic leverage, and cyberattacks? Are there any case studies where aggressors using hybrid warfare have either admitted to their plans and activities or been caught during the act? (This section will include details and summaries of hybrid warfare cases, attacks, and operations that have been admitted by Russia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, Macedonia, Italy, and the U.S.) Finally, this Article examines which tactics or strategies can be used to counter hybrid threats or hybrid warfare

Equitable Apportionment of Shared Transboundary River Waters: A Case Study of Modifications of the Indus Waters Treaty

The principle of equitable utilization and the doctrine of equitable apportionment are regarded highly in customary international law for the apportionment of transboundary river waters between upper and lower riparian states. In this regard, the Indus Waters Treaty is an excellent example of the pragmatic implementation of the principle of equitable utilization, as well as of the principles of equity and justice. The treaty allottedthree eastern rivers to India and three western rivers to Pakistan in an attempt to equitably divide the shared Indus River basin and its five tributaries between the neighboring countries. However, India has now expressed an eagerness to modify the Indus Waters Treaty as it wants to gain a higher water share of the western rivers for its hydropower projects. Pakistan has not accepted Indian calls to modify the treaty because it considers Indian demands for a higher share of the western rivers as inequitable and unjust in nature. Furthermore, Pakistan is already receiving an insufficient flow of waters in its western rivers and negligible water flow from the eastern rivers; it cannot forgo more water to India as this could be detrimental to its agricultural economy

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: An Analysis of the Indus Waters Treaty

Since India and Pakistan’s independence in 1947, both states have fought over the occupied territories of Kashmir to gain control of water supplies, which are strategically valuable. Even in recent times, the countries are facing constant threats from each other over several separate issues. India and Pakistan’s water conflicts are long-standing and relate to Indian infrastructure on the western tributaries. Pakistan is of the view that India is robbing Pakistan’s water supplies and building its water management capacity only as a political maneuver to gain political supremacy by practicing hydro-hegemony. On the other hand, India maintains that it is only constructing infrastructure within the scope of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), and the decreased water flows in Pakistan are due to climate change. Owing to Indian construction works on the western rivers and the Pakistani interest in safeguarding its water supplies, water disputes are routinely referred to the legal mechanism prescribed in the IWT. Recently, the tension over water conflicts between India and Pakistan has been soaring. India has threatened that it will scrap the IWT entirely. In response, Pakistan has stated that such a revocation of a bilaterally agreed treaty would be considered an act of war. This extraordinary intensity in political rigidity between Pakistan and India has a solution enshrined in the legal framework of the IWT to alleviate water disputes. This paper seeks to explore the legal framework of the dispute resolution mechanism under the IWT, and further investigates the weaknesses and strengths of the prescribed mechanism