Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:56:26.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linkage Politics and Complex Governance in Transatlantic Surveillance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2018

Henry Farrell  and
Abraham L. Newman
Get access

Extract

Globalization blurs the traditional distinction between high and low politics, creating connections between previously discrete issue areas. An important existing literature focuses on how states may intentionally tie policy areas together to enhance cooperation. Building on recent scholarship in historical institutionalism, the authors emphasize how the extent of political discretion enjoyed by heads of state to negotiate and implement international agreements varies across issue areas. When policy domains are linked, so too are different domestic political configurations, each with its own opportunity structures or points of leverage. Opening up the possibility for such variation, the article demonstrates how actors other than states, such as nonstate and substate actors, use the heterogeneity of opportunity structures to influence negotiations and their institutional consequences. The authors examine the theory's purchase on international cooperation over intelligence, privacy, and data exchange in the transatlantic space in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the revelations made public by Edward Snowden in 2013. The findings speak to critical international relations debates, including the role of nonstate actors in diplomacy, the interaction between domestic and international politics, and the consequences of globalization and digital technologies for the relationship between international political economy and security.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 515 - 554
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Francesca Bignami, Rachel Epstein, Markus Jachtenfuchs, Miles Kahler, and Edward Mansfield; participants at the George Washington University Workshop on the EU at a Crossroads, the Hertie School Workshop on Internet and Global Governance, International Organization's Workshop on Security and International Political Economy, and the University of Denver's European Studies Seminar, for very valuable comments. We also thank three anonymous reviewers, as well as the editors of World Politics. Henry Farrell thanks the Woodrow Wilson Center for research support during his 2010–11 fellowship.

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., Green, Jessica F., and Keohane, Robert O.. 2016. “Organizational Ecology and Institutional Change in Global Governance.” International Organization 70, no. 2: 247–77. doi: 10.1017/S0020818315000338.Google Scholar
Advocate General of the European Court of Justice. 2015. Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. C–362/14. At http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=168421&doclang=EN .Google Scholar
Aldrich, Richard J. 2004. “Transatlantic Intelligence and Security Cooperation.” International Affairs 80, no. 4: 731–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2346.2004.00413.x.Google Scholar
Avant, Deborah, Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan. 2010. Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Keohane, Robert O.. 1985. “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38, no. 1 (October): 226– 54. doi: 10.2307/2010357.Google Scholar
Bach, David, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2007. “The European Regulatory State and Global Public Policy: Micro–Institutions and Macro–Influence.” Journal of European Public Policy 14, no. 6: 827–46. doi: 10.1080/13501760701497659.Google Scholar
Baker, Stewart A. 2013. Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren't Stopping Tomorrow's Terrorism. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Colin. 2008. The Privacy Advocates: Resisting the Spread of Surveillance. Boston, Mass.: MIT University Press.Google Scholar
Bensahel, Nora. 2003. The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Europe, NATO, and the European Union. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.Google Scholar
Bob, Clifford. 2005. The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Börzel, Tanja A., and Risse, Thomas. 2003. “Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe.” In Featherstone, Kevin and Radaelli, Claudio M., eds., The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, David C. 1989. “Proposal to Amend the United States Privacy Act to Extend Its Protections to Foreign Nationals and Non–Resident Aliens.” Cornell International Law Journal 22, no. 2: 285–306.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R. Charli. 2011. “Vetting the Advocacy Agenda: Network Centrality and the Paradox of Weapons Norms.” International Organization 65, no. 1: 69–102. doi: 10.1017/S0020818310000329.Google Scholar
Cerny, Philip G. 2000. “The New Security Dilemma: Divisibility, Defection and Disorder in the Global Era.” Review of International Studies 26, no. 4: 623–46. doi: 10.1017/S0260210500006239.Google Scholar
Cerny, Philip G. 2010. Rethinking World Politics: A Theory of Transnational Neopluralism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charnysh, Volha, Lloyd, Paulette, and Simmons, Beth A.. 2015. “Frames and Consensus Formation in International Relations: The Case of Trafficking in Persons.” European Journal of International Relations 21, no. 2: 323–51. doi: 10.1177/1354066114530173.Google Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2010. “Oil and Revolutionary Governments: Fuel for International Conflict.” International Organization 64, no. 4: 661–94. doi: 10.1017/S002081831000024X.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 2008. “EU US Summit, 12 June 2008 Final Report by EU–US High Level Contact Group on Information Sharing and Privacy and Personal Data Protection.” Manuscript. Brussels. At https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_intl_hlcg_report_02_07_08_en.pdf, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 2009. EU–US High Level Contact Group on Data Protection and Data Sharing (HLCG ). Manuscript. Brussels. At http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/dec/eu–usa–hlg–dp–14574–09.pdf, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Crotty, Jo, Hall, Sarah Marie, and Ljubownikow, Sergej. 2014. “Post–Soviet Civil Society Development in the Russian Federation: The Impact of the NGO Law.” Europe–Asia Studies 66, no. 8: 1253–69. doi: 10.1080/09668136.2014.941697.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina L. 2004. “International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization.” American Political Science Review 98, no. 1: 153–69. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001066.Google Scholar
Davis, Christina L. 2009. “Linkage Diplomacy: Economic and Security Bargaining in the Anglo–Japanese Alliance, 1902–23.” International Security 33, no. 3: 143–79. doi: 10.1162/isec.2009.33.3.143.Google Scholar
della Porta, Donatella, and Tarrow, Sidney G.. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dhont, Jan, Perez Asinari, Maria Veronica, and Poullet, Yves. 2004. Safe Harbour Decision Implementation Study. April 19. At http://edz.bib.uni–mannheim.de/daten/edz–k/gdj/04/safe–harbour–2004_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Drezner, Daniel. 2007. All Politics is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Electronic Privacy Information Center. n.d. “Investigations of Google Street View.” At https://epic.org/privacy/streetview/, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 1995. “Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.” At https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/EU–Directive–95–46–EC–Chapter–1/92.htm, accessed July 13, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2013. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Rebuilding Trust in EU–US Data Flows.” COM (2013) 846 final. November 27. At https://eur–lex.europa.eu/legal–content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2013%3A0846%3AFIN, accessed July 10, 2018.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2016. “EU–U.S. Privacy Shield.” Manuscript. Brussels. At http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data–protection/files/fctsheets/factsheet_eu–us_privacy_shield_en.pdf, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
European Court of Justice. 2006. “Judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C–317/04 and C–318/04.” Manuscript. Luxembourg. At http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=57549&doclang=en, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
European Court of Justice. 2015a. “The Court of Justice Declares That the Commission's US Safe Harbour Decision is Invalid. Press Release No. 117/15. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015–10/cp150117en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Court of Justice. 2015b. Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. C–362/14. Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C–362/14.Google Scholar
European Data Protection Supervisor. 2016. “Privacy Shield: More Robust and Sustainable Solution Needed.” Manuscript. Brussels. At https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/edpsweb_press_releases/edps–2016–11–privacyshield_en.pdf, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Farrell, Henry. 2003. “Constructing the International Foundations of E–Commerce: The EU–US Safe Harbor Arrangement.” International Organization 57, no. 2: 277–306. doi: 10.1017/S0020818303572022.Google Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2014. “Domestic Institutions beyond the Nation–State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach.” World Politics 66, no. 2 (April): 331–63. doi: 10.1017/S0043887114000057.Google Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2015. “The New Politics of Interdependence Cross–National Layering in Trans–Atlantic Regulatory Disputes.” Comparative Political Studies 48, no. 4: 497–526. doi: 10.1177/0010414014542330.Google Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2016. “The New Interdependence Approach: Theoretical Development and Empirical Demonstration.” Review of International Political Economy 23, no. 5: 713–36. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2016.1247009.Google Scholar
Farrell, Henry, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2017. “BREXIT , Voice and Loyalty: Rethinking Electoral Politics in an Age of Interdependence.” Review of International Political Economy 24, no. 2: 232–47. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2017.1281831.Google Scholar
George, Alexander, and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne, and Mansfield, Edward D.. 1993. “Power Politics and International Trade.” American Political Science Review 87, no. 2: 408–20. At https://doi.org/10.2307/2939050.Google Scholar
Green, Jessica F. 2013. Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Haas, Ernst B. 1980. “Why Collaborate? Issue–Linkage and International Regimes.” World Politics 32, no. 3 (April): 357–405. doi: 10.2307/2010109.Google Scholar
Green, Jessica F. 1991. When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46, no. 1: 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300001442.Google Scholar
Hale, Thomas, and Held, David. 2011. Handbook of Transnational Governance. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Hall, Nina. 2016. Displacement, Development, and Climate Change: International Organizations Moving Beyond Their Mandates. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hameiri, Shahar, and Jones, Lee. 2013. “The Politics and Governance of Non–Traditional Security.” International Studies Quarterly 57, no. 3: 462–73. doi: 10.1111/isqu.12014.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Daniel. 2017. The Transatlantic Digital Economy. Washington, D.C.: Center For Transatlantic Relations.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence, and Voeten, Erik. 2014. “International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe.” International Organization 68, no. 1: 77–110. doi: 10.1017/S0020818313000398.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen, and Levitsky, Steven. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda.” Perspectives on Politics 2, no. 4: 725–40. doi: 10.1017/S1537592704040472.Google Scholar
Hofheinz, Paul, and Mandel, Michael. 2015. “Uncovering the Hidden Value of Digital Trade: Towards a 21st Century Agenda of Transatlantic Prosperity.” Interactive Policy Brief, 19. At https://www.lisboncouncil.net/publication/publication/127–uncovering–the–hidden–value–of–digital–trade–towards–a–21st–century–agenda–of–transatlantic–prosperity.html, accessed July 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Information Technology Industry Council. 2015. “RE : H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act of 2015.” Manuscript. Washington, D.C. At http://www.itic.org/dotAsset/5/8/58eb178a–e926–4783–959b–60d9464248e6.pdf, accessed on April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Irish High Court. 2014. Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. IEHC 310.Google Scholar
Jinnah, Sikina. 2014. Post–Treaty Politics: Secretariat Influence in Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Tana, and Urpelainen, Johannes. 2012. “A Strategic Theory of Regime Integration and Separation.” International Organization 66, no. 4: 645–77. doi: 10.1017/S0020818312000264.Google Scholar
Jupille, Joseph. 2012. Procedural Politics: Issues, Influence, and Institutional Choice in the European Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahler, Miles. 2009. Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kahler, Miles. 2016. “Complex Governance and the New Interdependence Approach (NIA).” Review of International Political Economy 23, no. 5: 825–39. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2016.1251481.Google Scholar
Kahler, Miles, and Lake, David A.. 2003. Governance in a Global Economy: A Political Authority in Transition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, Mary. 2013. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kaunert, Christian. 2009. “The External Dimension of EU Counter–Terrorism Relations: Competences, Interests, and Institutions.” Terrorism and Political Violence 22, no. 1: 41–61. doi: 10.1080/09546550903409551.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1999. “Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics.” International Social Science Journal 51, no. 159: 89–101. doi: 10.1111/1468–2451.00179.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S.. 1987. “Power and Interdependence Revisited.” International Organization 41, no. 4: 725–53. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300027661.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S.. 1998. “Power and Interdependence in the Information Age.” Foreign Affairs, September/October. At https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1998–09–01/power–and–interdependence–information–age, accessed July 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Kerry, Cameron. 2014. “Missed Connections: Talking with Europe about Data, Privacy, and Surveillance.” Brookings Institution. At https://www.brookings.edu/wp–content/uploads/2016/06/Kerry_EuropeFreeTradePrivacy.pdf, accessed July 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Khagram, Sanjeev, Riker, James V., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 2002. Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti–Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 16, no. 1: 57–85. doi: 10.1017/S000712340000380X.Google Scholar
Kobrin, Stephen J. 2004. “Safe Harbours Are Hard to Find: The Trans–Atlantic Data Privacy Dispute, Territorial Jurisdiction and Global Governance.” Review of International Studies 30, no. 1: 111–31. doi: 10.1017/S0260210504005856.Google Scholar
Long, William J., and Quek, Marc Pang. 2002. “Personal Data Privacy Protection in an Age of Globalization: The US–EU Safe Harbor Compromise.” Journal of European Public Policy 9, no. 3: 325–44. doi: 10.1080/13501760210138778.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2003. “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis.” In James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McKibben, Heather Elko. 2010. “Issue Characteristics, Issue Linkage, and States’ Choice of Bargaining Strategies in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 17, no. 5: 694–707. doi: 10.1080/13501761003748682.Google Scholar
McKibben, Heather Elko. 2013. “The Effects of Structures and Power on State Bargaining Strategies.” American Journal of Political Science 57, no. 2: 411–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–5907.2012.00628.x.Google Scholar
Meunier, Sophie. 2005. Trading Voices: The European Union in International Commercial Negotiations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Powell, Emilia Justyna. 2011. Domestic Law Goes Global: Legal Traditions and International Courts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1992. “Signaling Difficulties with Linkage in Crisis Bargaining.” International Studies Quarterly 36, no. 2: 153–72. doi: 10.2307/2600879.Google Scholar
Muzaka, Valbona. 2011. “Linkages, Contests and Overlaps in the Global Intellectual Property Rights Regime.” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 4: 755–76. doi: 10.1177/1354066110373560.Google Scholar
Newman, Abraham L. 2008a. “Building Transnational Civil Liberties: Transgovernmental Entrepreneurs and the European Data Privacy Directive.” International Organization 62, no. 1: 103–30. doi: 10.1017/S0020818308080041.Google Scholar
Newman, Abraham L. 2008b. Protectors of Privacy: Regulating Personal Data in the Global Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen, and Skowronek, Stephen. 1996. “Institutions and Incurrence: Theory Building in the Fullness of Time.” Nomos, 38: 111–46.Google Scholar
Pawlak, Patryk. 2009. “Network Politics in Transatlantic Homeland Security Cooperation.” Perspectives on European Politics and Society 10, no. 4: 560–81. doi: 10.1080/15705850903314833.Google Scholar
Pawlak, Patryk. 2010. “Transatlantic Homeland Security Cooperation: The Promise of New Modes of Governance in Global Affairs.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 8, no. 2: 139–57. doi: 10.1080/14794011003760277.Google Scholar
Pearce, Graham. 1998. “Achieving Personal Data Protection in the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 36, no. 4: 529–47. doi: 10.1111/1468–5965.00138.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2006. “Public Policies as Institutions.” In Ian Shapiro, Stephen Skowronek, and Daniel Galvin, eds., Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State. New York, N.Y.: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Poast, Paul. 2012. “Does Issue Linkage Work? Evidence from European Alliance Negotiations, 1860 to 1945.” International Organization 66, no. 2: 277–310. doi: 10.1017/S0020818312000069.Google Scholar
Poast, Paul. 2013. “Can Issue Linkage Improve Treaty Credibility? Buffer State Alliances as a ‘Hard Case.’” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57, no. 5: 739–64. doi: 10.1177/0022002712449323.Google Scholar
Posner, Elliot 2009. “Making Rules for Global Finance: Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation at the Turn of the Millennium.” International Organization 63, no. 4: 665–99. doi: 10.1017/S0020818309990130.Google Scholar
Quaglia, Lucia. 2013. “The European Union, the USA and International Standard Setting by Regulatory Fora in Finance.” New Political Economy 19, no. 3: 427– 44. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2013.796449.Google Scholar
Rees, Wyn. 2006. Transatlantic Counter–Terrorism Cooperation: The New Imperative. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.Google Scholar
Risse–Kappen, Thomas. 1995. Bringing Transnational Actors Back In. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenau, James N., and Singh, Jaswinder P.. 2002. Information Technologies and Global Politics: The Changing Scope of Power and Governance. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne, and Zysman, John. 1989. “1992: Recasting the European Bargain.” World Politics 42, no. 1 (October): 95–128. doi: 10.2307/2010572.Google Scholar
Schaar, Peter. 2015. “Safe Harbor – No Future? How the General Data Protection Regulation and the Ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Will Influence Transatlantic Data Transfers.” Address to the conference, New Directions in Cyber Security, Berlin, October 1. At https://www.eaid–berlin.de/?s=changed+dramatically+after+9%2F11+2001, accessed July 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Paul M., and Peifer, Karl–Nikolaus. 2017. “Transatlantic Data Privacy Law.” Georgetown Law Journal 106: 115–79. At https://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/249/transatlantic–data–privacy–law/pdf.Google Scholar
Sheingate, Adam D. 2003. “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development.” Studies in American Political Development 17, no. 2: 185–203. doi: 10.1017/S0898588X03000129.Google Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn. 2005. “Patterns of Dynamic Multilevel Governance and the Insider–Outsider Coalition.” In Donatella della Porta and Sidney Tarrow, eds., Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Landham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P. 2008. Negotiation and the Global Information Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2013. “Preface: International Relationships in the Information Age.” International Studies Review 15, no. 1: 1–4. doi: 10.1111/misr.12027.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne–Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Statewatch. 2001. “A Statewatch Analysis, No. 2: US letter from Bush to EU.” October 16. At http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/feb/useu.pdf, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Stepanovich, Amie. 2017. “US Congress Finally Moves on Surveillance Reform, but It May Be Too Little, Too Late,” AccessNow. October 24. At https://www.accessnow.org/u–s–congress–finally–moves–surveillance–reform–may–little–late/, accessed April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec, Sandholtz, Wayne, and Fligstein, Neil. 2001. The Institutionalization of Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stroup, Sarah, and Wong, Wendy. 2017. The Authority Trap: Strategic Choices of International NGOs. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Swire, Peter P., and Litan, Robert E.. 1998. None of Your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Communication, and the European Privacy Directive. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
Swire, Peter P., and Steinfeld, Lauren B.. 2001. “Security and Privacy after September 11: The Health Care Example.” Minnesota Law Review 86, no. 6: 1515–40.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1989. “Struggle, Politics, and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements and Cycles of Protest.” Western Societies Program Occasional Paper, no. 21. Ithaca, N.Y.: Center for International Studies, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 2001. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4, no. 1: 1–20. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.1.Google Scholar
Tollison, Robert D., and Willett, Thomas D.. 1979. “An Economic Theory of Mutually Advantageous Issue Linkages in International Negotiations.” International Organization 33, no. 4: 425–49. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300032252.Google Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A., Theocharis, Yannis, Roberts, Margaret E., and Barberá, Pablo. 2017. “From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 28, no. 4: 46–59. doi: 10.1353/jod.2017.0064.Google Scholar
US Congress. 2016. “H.R. 1428 (114th): Judicial Redress Act of 2015.” Manuscript. Washington, D.C. At https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1428, accessed on April 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Weeks, Jessica L. 2012. “Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 106, no. 2: 326–47. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000111.Google Scholar
Williams, Katie. 2015. “EU: No Safe Harbor for US Firms.” October 6. The Hill.Google Scholar
Zarate, Jessica L.. 2015. Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare. First trade paper edition. New York, N.Y.: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Zito, Anthony R. 2001. “Epistemic Communities, Collective Entrepreneurship and European Integration.” Journal of European Public Policy 8, no. 4: 585–603. doi: 10.1080/13501760110064401.Google Scholar
Zysman, John, and Newman, Abraham. 2006. How Revolutionary Was the Digital Revolution? National Responses, Market Transitions, and Global Technology. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar