English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

What catalysed the changing status of riot control agents (RCAs hereafter) use in wartime? Is that the same catalyst causing domestic policy change for RCAs today? The relationship between war and technology is dynamic, with regular advances to make militaries and police more effective. Some emergent chemical-based technologies are quickly restricted as chemical weapons; others are deemed permissible in perpetuity. However, there may be a third option where classification can change from permissible to restricted over time. We use a structured, focused comparative case study of the United States to understand the  INUS  causes of this shift at both the domestic and international level of policymaking, particularly where RCAs like tear gas are concerned. To determine this, we ask (1) what processes led to policy change; (2) which factors or forces motivated policy change; and (3) were the same factors present at both the domestic and international level of policy change? By investigating these questions, we find that normative logics are necessary but not sufficient for causing RCA’s changing status. Factors like social pressure and issue saliency, among others, create the necessary environment for norms to impact the RCAs’ status.

Don’t Cry No More: A Comparative Study of U.S. Domestic and Foreign Restrictions on Riot Control Agent Use