Stanford University

Don't Take Our Allies for Granted, Even Japan

Authors
Kiyoteru Tsutsui
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This op-ed by Kiyoteru Tsutsui was originally published in The Hill.

With the specter of a cold war with China arising, allies in Asia-Pacific are increasingly important for the United States, whether in fighting pandemics, negotiating trade deals, or containing territorial disputes. Japan historically has been one of the most important partners for American interests in the region and a steadfast ally in the post-World War II era. 

For Japan, too, the U.S.-Japan security alliance has been the cornerstone of its foreign policy for decades, and the Japanese public clearly understands that. Reflecting this understanding, every new security decision in Japan, from the relocation of a U.S.-base in Okinawa to the recent cancellation of Aegis Ashore deployment, spurs intense public debates about the future of the U.S.-Japan alliance. (Continue reading the full article at The Hill.)

[Subscribe to our newsletters to get the latest commentary from APARC scholars.]

Read More

South Koreans participate in a rally to denounce Japan's new trade restrictions and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on August 24, 2019 in Seoul, South Korea.
News

Japan and South Korea on the Brink: International Affairs and Trade Relations Experts Elucidate the Conflict between the Two U.S. Allies

Japan and South Korea on the Brink: International Affairs and Trade Relations Experts Elucidate the Conflict between the Two U.S. Allies
U.S. Navy Patrols Philippines Sea
News

Experts Discuss Future of the International Order in East Asia

Experts Discuss Future of the International Order in East Asia
Hero Image
Prime Minister Shinzō Abe of Japan and President Donald Trump of the United States walk alongside the White House in Washington D.C.
Prime Minister Shinzō Abe of Japan and President Donald Trump walk alongside the White House in Washington D.C.
Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

As political tensions in the Asia-Pacific increase, Kiyoteru Tsutsui, senior fellow and Japan Program director, cautions the United States from taking long-standing economic and military allies like Japan for granted.

Fight fire with finance: a randomize field experiment to curtail land-clearing fire in Indonesia

Paragraphs

This paper presents one of the rst randomized evaluations of collective pay-for-performance payments for ecosystem services. We test whether community-level scal incentives can curtail the use of land-clearing re, a major source of emissions and negative health externalities. The program was implemented over the 2018 re season in Indonesia with three parts: (a) awareness raising and training on re prevention, (b) a small capital grant to mobilize re ghting resources, and (c) the promise of a large conditional cash transfer at the end of the year if the village does not have re, which we monitor by satellite. While program villages increase re prevention eorts, we nd no evidence of any large or statistically signicant dierences in re outcomes. Our results appear to be driven by a combination of the payment not being large enough and a failure of collective action, and oer a cautionary tale on the importance of measuring additionality when evaluating payments for environmental services and other conservation programs.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
American Economic Association Registry
Authors
Rosamond L. Naylor

Exploring Potential “Solutions” to Online Disinformation

-

Avi Tuschman, Adam Berinsky, David Rand

Please join the Cyber Policy Center for Exploring Potential “Solutions” to Online Disinformation​, hosted by Cyber Policy Center's Kelly Born, with guests Adam Berinsky, Mitsui Professor of Political Science at MIT and Director of the MIT Political Experiments Research Lab (PERL) at MIT, David Rand, Erwin H. Schell Professor and an Associate Professor of Management Science and Brain and Cognitive Sciences, and Director of the Human Cooperation Laboratory and the Applied Cooperation Team at MIT, and Avi Tuschman, Founder & CIO, Pinpoint Predictive. The session is open but registraton is required.

REGISTER

 

Adam Berinsky is the Mitsui Professor of Political Science at MIT and serves as the director of the MIT Political Experiments Research Lab (PERL). He is also a Faculty Affiliate at the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS). Berinsky received his PhD from the University of Michigan in 2000. He is the author of "In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq" (University of Chicago Press, 2009). He is also the author of "Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America" (Princeton University Press, 2004) and has published articles in many journals. He is currently the co-editor of the Chicago Studies in American Politics book series at the University of Chicago Press. He is also the recipient of multiple grants from the National Science Foundation and was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

David Rand is the Erwin H. Schell Professor and an Associate Professor of Management Science and Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT Sloan, and the Director of the Human Cooperation Laboratory and the Applied Cooperation Team. Bridging the fields of behavioral economics and psychology, David’s research combines mathematical/computational models with human behavioral experiments and online/field studies to understand human behavior. His work uses a cognitive science perspective grounded in the tension between more intuitive versus deliberative modes of decision-making, and explores topics such as cooperation/prosociality, punishment/condemnation, perceived accuracy of false or misleading news stories, political preferences, and the dynamics of social media platform behavior. 

Avi Tuschman is a Stanford StartX entrepreneur and founder of Pinpoint Predictive, where he currently serves as Chief Innovation Officer and Board Director. He’s spent the past five years developing the first Psychometric AI-powered data-enrichment platform, which ranks 260 million individuals for performance marketing and risk management applications. Tuschman is an expert on the science of heritable psychometric traits. His book and research on human political orientation have been covered in peer-reviewed and mainstream media from 25 countries. Previous to his career in tech, he advised current and former heads of state as well as multilateral development banks in the Western Hemisphere. Tuschman completed his undergraduate and doctoral degrees in evolutionary anthropology at Stanford.

Anat R. Admati

0
George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business
Director of the Corporations and Society Initiative, Stanford Graduate School of Business
Director of the Program on Capitalism and Democracy, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research
Senior Fellow (by courtesy), Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
anat_admati-stanford-2021.jpg

Anat R. Admati is the George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at Stanford University Graduate School of Business (GSB), a Faculty Director of the GSB Corporations and Society Initiative, and a senior fellow at Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. She has written extensively on information dissemination in financial markets, portfolio management, financial contracting, corporate governance and banking. Admati’s current research, teaching and advocacy focus on the complex interactions between business, law, and policy with focus on governance and accountability.

Since 2010, Admati has been active in the policy debate on financial regulations. She is the co-author, with Martin Hellwig, of the award-winning and highly acclaimed book The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It (Princeton University Press, 2013; bankersnewclothes.com). In 2014, she was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world and by Foreign Policy Magazine as among 100 global thinkers.

Admati holds BSc from the Hebrew University, MA, MPhil and PhD from Yale University, and an honorary doctorate from University of Zurich. She is a fellow of the Econometric Society, the recipient of multiple fellowships, research grants, and paper recognition, and is a past board member of the American Finance Association. She has served on a number of editorial boards and is a member of the FDIC’s Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee, a former member of the CFTC’s Market Risk Advisory Committee, and a former visiting scholar at the International Monetary Fund.

Hide publication sections
Off
Date Label

Q&A: The Data Delusion

News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

Marietje Schaake

 

  

DOWNLOAD THE PAPER 

 

The European Union is often called a ‘super-regulator’, especially when it comes to data-protection and privacy rules. Having seen European lawmaking from close by, in all its complexities, I have often considered this qualification an exaggerated one. Yes, the European Union frequently takes the first steps in ensuring principles continue to be protected, even as digitization disrupts. However, the speed with which technology evolves versus the pace of democratic lawmaking leads to perpetual mismatches.  

Even the famous, or infamous, General Data Protection Regulation does not meet many essential regulatory needs of the moment. The mainstreaming of Artificial Intelligence in particular, poses new challenges to concepts of the protection of rights and the sustaining of the rule of law. In its White Paper on Artificial Intelligence, as well the Data Strategy, the European Commission references to the common good and the public interest, as well as societal needs as opposed to an emphasis on regulating the digital market. These are welcome steps in acknowledging the depth and scope of technological impact and defining harms not just in economic terms. It remains to be seen how the visions articulated in the White Paper and the Strategy, will translate into concrete legislation. 

One proposal to make concrete improvements to legal frameworks, is outlined by Martin Tisné in The Data Delusion. He highlights the need to update legal privacy standards to be more reflective of the harms incurred through collective data analysis, as opposed to individual privacy violations. Martin makes a clear case for addressing the discrepancy between the profit models benefitting from grouped data versus the ability of any individual to prove the harms caused to his or her rights. 

The lack of transparency into the inner workings of algorithmic processing of data further hinders the path to much needed accountability of the powerful technology businesses operating growing parts of our information architecture and the data flows they process.  

While EU takes the lead in setting values-based standards and rules for the digital layer of our societies and economies, a lot of work remains to be done. 

Marietje Schaake: Martin, in your paper you address the gap between the benefits for technology companies through collective data processing, and the harms for society. You point to historic reasons for individual privacy protections in European laws. Do you consider the European Union to be the best positioned to address the legal shortcomings, especially as you point out that some opportunities to do so were missed in the GDPR?

Martin Tisné: Europe is well positioned but perhaps not for the reasons we traditionally think of (strong privacy tradition, empowered regulators). Individual privacy alone is a necessary, but not sufficient foundation stone to build the future of AI regulation. And whilst much is made of European regulators, the GDPR has been hobbled by the lack of funding and capacity of data protection commissioners across Europe. What Europe does have though, is a legal, political and societal tradition of thinking about the public interest, the common good and how this is balanced against individual interests. This is where we should innovate, taking inspiration from environmental legislation such as the Urgenda Climate Case against the Dutch Government which established that the government had a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change, in the name of the public interest. 

And Europe also has a lot to learn from other political and legal cultures. Part of the future of data regulation may come the indigenous data rights movement, with greater emphasis on the societal and group impacts of data, or from the concept of Ubuntu ethics that assigns community and personhood to all people. 

Schaake: What scenario do you foresee in 10 years if collective harms are not dealt with in updates of laws? 

Tisné: I worry we will see two impacts. The first is a continuation of what we are seeing now: negative impacts of digital technologies on discrimination, voting rights, privacy, consumers. As people become increasingly aware of the problem there will be a corresponding increase in legal challenges. We’re seeing this already for example with the Lloyd class action case against Google for collecting iPhone data. But I worry these will fail to stick and have lasting impact because of the obligation to have these cases turn on one person, or a class of people’s, individual experiences. It is very hard for individuals to seek remedy for collective harms, as opposed to personal privacy invasions. So unless we solve the issue I raise in the paper – the collective impact of AI and automation – these will continue to fuel polarization, discrimination on the basis of age, gender (and many other aspects of our lives) and the further strengthening of populist regimes. 

I also worry about the ways in which algorithms will optimize on the basis of seemingly random classifications (e.g. “people who wear blue shirts, get up early on Saturday mornings, and were geo-located in a particular area of town at a particular time”). These may be proxies for protected characteristics (age, gender reassignment, disability, race, religion, sex, marriage, pregnancy/maternity, sexual orientation) and provide grounds for redress. They may also not be and sow the seeds of future discrimination and harms. Authoritarian rulers are likely to take advantage of the seeming invisibility of those data-driven harms to further silence their opponents. How can I protect myself if I don’t know the basis on which I am being discriminated against or targeted? 

Schaake: How do you reflect on the difference in speed between technological innovations and democratic lawmaking? Some people imply this will give authoritarian regimes an advantage in setting global standards and rules. What are your thoughts on ensuring democratic governments speed up? 

Tisné: Democracies cannot afford to be outpaced by technological innovation and constantly be fighting yesterday’s wars. Our laws have not changed to reflect changes in technology, which extracts value from collective data, and need to catch up.  A lot of the problems stem from the fact that in government (as in companies), the people responsible for enforcement are separated from those with the technical understanding. The solution lies in much better translation between technology, policy and the needs of the public.  

An innovation and accountability-led government must involve and empower the public in co-creating policies, above and beyond the existing rules that engage individuals (consent forms etc.). In the paper I propose a Public Interest Data Bill that addresses this need: the rules of the digital highway used as a negotiation between the public and regulators, between private data consumers and data generators. Specifically: clear transparency, public participation and realistic sanctions when things go wrong.

This is where democracies should hone their advantage over authoritarian regimes – using such an approach as the basis for setting global standards and best practices (e.g. affected communities providing input into algorithmic impact assessments). 

Schaake: The protection of privacy is what sets democratic societies apart from authoritarian ones. How likely is it that we will see an effort between democracies to set legal standards across borders together? Can we overcome the political tensions across the Atlantic, and strengthen democratic alliances globally?

Tisné: I remain a big supporter of international cooperation. I helped found the Open Government Partnership ten years ago, which remains the main forum for 79 countries to develop innovative open government reforms jointly with the public. Its basic principles hold true: involve global south and global north countries with equal representation, bring civil society in jointly with government from the outset, seek out and empower reformers within government (they exist, regardless of who is in power in the given year), and go local to identify exciting innovations. 

If we heed those principles we can set legal standards by learning from open data and civic technology reforms in Taiwan, experiments with data trusts in India, legislation to hold algorithms accountable in France; and by identifying and working with the individuals driving those innovations, reformers such as Audrey Tang in Taiwan, Katarzyna Szymielewicz in Poland, and Henri Verdier in France. 

These reformers need a home, a base to influence policymakers and technologists, to get those people responsible for enforcement working with those with the technical understanding. The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence may be that home but these are early days, it needs to be agile enough to work with the private sector, civil society as well as governments and the international system. I remain hopeful. 

 

 

All News button
1
Subtitle

Protecting Individual Isn't Enough When the Harm is Collective. A Q&A with Marietje Schaake and Martin Tisne on his new paper The Data Delusion.

The Data Delusion

Paragraphs

city skyline

The Data Delusion: Protecting Individual Data Isn't Enough When The Harm is Collective

DOWNLOAD (PDF)

 

Author: Martin Tisné, Managing Director, Luminate

Editor: Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director, Cyber Policy Center

The threat of digital discrimination

On March 17, 2018, questions about data privacy exploded with the scandal of the previously unknown consulting company Cambridge Analytica. Lawmakers are still grappling with updating laws to counter the harms of big data and AI.

In the Spring of 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic brought questions about sufficient legal protections back to the public debate, with urgent warnings about the privacy implications of contact tracing apps. But the surveillance consequences of the pandemic’s aftermath are much bigger than any app: transport, education, health systems and offices are being turned into vast surveillance networks. If we only consider individual trade-offs between privacy sacrifices and alleged health benefits, we will miss the point. The collective nature of big data means people are more impacted by other people’s data than by data about them. Like climate change, the threat is societal and personal.

In the era of big data and AI, people can suffer because of how the sum of individual data is analysed and sorted into groups by algorithms. Novel forms of collective data-driven harms are appearing as a result: online housing, job and credit ads discriminating on the basis of race and gender, women disqualified from jobs on the basis of gender and foreign actors targeting light-right groups, pulling them to the far-right. Our public debate, governments, and laws are ill-equipped to deal with these collective, as opposed to individual, harms.

Read the full paper >

 
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
White Papers
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake

Stop Hate for Profit

-

Image of Marietje Schaake, Jessica Gonzalez and David Sifry, speaking on stopping hate for profit
Tech companies are not doing enough to fight hate on their digital social platforms. But what can be done to encourage social platforms to provide more support to people who are targets of racism and hate, and to increase safety for private groups on the platform?

Join host Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director at the Cyber Policy Center, as she brings together experts from the space, to speak about what can be done to encourage platforms like Facebook to stop the spread of hate and disinformation. 

The event is open to the public, but registration is required:

REGISTER

 

Maritje Schaake: Marietje Schaake is the international policy director at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center and international policy fellow at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. She was named President of the Cyber Peace Institute. Between 2009 and 2019, Marietje served as a Member of European Parliament for the Dutch liberal democratic party where she focused on trade, foreign affairs and technology policies. Marietje is affiliated with a number of non-profits including the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Observer Research Foundation in India and writes a monthly column for the Financial Times and a bi-monthly column for the Dutch NRC newspaper. 

Jessica Gonzalez: An accomplished attorney and racial-justice advocate, Jessica works closely with the executive team and key stakeholders to develop and execute strategies to advance Free Press’ mission. A former Lifeline recipient, Jessica has helped fend off grave Trump administration cuts to the program, which helps provide phone-and-internet access for low-income people. She was part of the legal team that overturned a Trump FCC decision blessing runaway media consolidation. She also co-founded Change the Terms, a coalition of more than 50 civil- and digital-rights groups that works to disrupt online hate. Previously, Jessica was the executive vice president and general counsel at the National Hispanic Media Coalition, where she led the policy shop and helped coordinate campaigns against racist and xenophobic media programming. Prior to that she was a staff attorney and teaching fellow at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation. Jessica has testified before Congress on multiple occasions, including during a Net Neutrality hearing in the House while suffering from acute morning sickness, and during a Senate hearing while eight months pregnant to advocate for affordable internet access.

David Sifry: As Vice President of the Center for Technology and Society (CTS), Dave Sifry leads a team of innovative technologists, researchers, and policy experts developing proactive solutions and producing cutting-edge research to protect vulnerable populations. In its efforts to advocate change at all levels of society, CTS serves as a vital resource to legislators, journalists, universities, community organizations, tech platforms and anyone who has been a target of online hate and harassment. Dave joined ADL in 2019 after a storied career as a technology entrepreneur and executive. He founded six companies including Linuxcare and Technorati, and served in executive roles at companies including Lyft and Reddit. In addition to his entrepreneurial work, Dave was selected as a Technology Pioneer at The World Economic Forum, and is an advisor and mentor for a select group of companies and startup founders. As the son of a hidden child of the Holocaust, the core values and mission exemplified by ADL were instilled in him at an early age.

Panel Discussions

The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism: China, AI and Human Rights

-

The rise of digital authoritarianism banner advertisement

There will be four events, with the first on September 29th; all dates listed below

REGISTER 

  • September 29th, 9-11am PST
  • October 1st, 9-11am PST
  • October 6th, 9-11am PST
  • October 9th, 9-11am PST

 

 

The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism: China, AI and Human Rights

Day 1- September 29, 2020

Welcome Remarks

Larry Diamond | Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and FSI, Principal Investigator, Global Digital Policy Incubator

Glenn Tiffert | Research Fellow, Hoover Institution

Jenny Wang | Strategic Advisor, Human Rights Foundation

Opening Remarks

Condoleezza Rice | Director, Hoover Institution, Former U.S. Secretary of State, Denning Professor in Global Business at the Graduate School of Business

 

Panel 1: How AI is powering China's Domestic Surveillance State - How is AI exacerbating surveillance risks and enabling digital authoritarianism? This session will examine both state-sponsored applications and Chinese commercial services.

Panelists

Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian | China Reporter, Axios

Paul Mozur | Asia Technology Correspondent, New York Times

Glenn Tiffert | Research Fellow, Hoover Institution

Xiao Qiang | UC Berkeley & Editor-in-Chief, China Digital Times

Moderator

Melissa Chan | Foreign Affairs Reporter, Deutsche Welle Asia

 

Day 2- October 1, 2020

Panel 2: The Ethics of Doing Business with China and Chinese Companies

Eric Schmidt | Former Executive Chairman and CEO, Google//Co-Founder, Schmidt Futures
Conversant: Eileen Donahoe, Executive Director of GDPI

 

Panel 2: The Ethics of Doing Business with China and Chinese Companies - What dynamics are at play in China's effort to establish market dominance for Chinese companies, both domestically and globally? What demands are placed on non-Chinese technology companies to participateWhat dynamics are at play in China's effort to establish market dominance for Chinese companies, both domestically and globally? What demands are placed on non-Chinese technology companies to participate in the Chinese marketplace? What framework should U.S.-based companies use to evaluate the risks and opportunities for collaboration and market entry in China? To what extent are Chinese companies (e.g..,TikTok) competing in Western markets required to comply with Chinese government instructions or demands for access to data?

Panelists

Mary Hui | Hong Kong-based Technology and Business Reporter, Quartz
 
Megha Rajagopalan | International Correspondent and Former China Bureau Chief, Buzzfeed News
 

Alex Stamos | Director, Stanford Internet Observatory & Former Chief Security Officer, Facebook

Moderator

Casey Newton | Silicon Valley Editor, The Verge

 

Day 3- October 6, 2020

Panel 3: China as an Emerging Global AI Superpower

Keynote & Conversation

Competing in the Superpower Marathon with China

Mike Brown | Director, Defense Innovation Unit

Conversant: Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and FSI, Principal Investigator, Global Digital Policy Incubator

Panel 3: China as an Emerging Global AI Superpower- How should we think about China's growing influence in the realm of AI and the attendant geopolitical risks and implications? This session will explore China’s bid through Huawei to build and control the world's 5G networks, and what that implies for human rights and national sovereignty and security; China's export of surveillance technology to authoritarian regimes around the world; China's global partnerships to research and develop AI; and the problem of illicit technology transfer/theft.

Panelists

Steven Feldstein | Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

Lindsay Gorman | Fellow for Emerging Technologies, Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund 

Maya Wang | China Senior Researcher, Human Rights Watch

Moderator

Dominic Ziegler | Senior Asia Correspondent and Banyan Columnist, The Economist

 

Day 4- October 9, 2020

Panel 4: How Democracies Should Respond to China’s Emergence as an AI Superpower

Keynote

Digital Social Innovation: Taiwan Can Help

Audrey Tang | Digital Minister, Taiwan

Panel 4: How Democracies Should Respond to China's Emergence as an AI Superpower- How should the rest of the world, and especially the world's democracies, react to China's bid to harness AI for ill as well as good? How do we strike the right balance between vigilance in defense of human rights and national security and xenophobic overreaction?

Panelists

Christopher Balding | Associate Professor, Fulbright University Vietnam

Anja Manuel | Co-Founder, Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel

Chris Meserole | Deputy Director of the Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative, Brookings Institution

Moderator

Larry Diamond | Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and FSI, Principal Investigator, Global Digital Policy Incubator

 

Closing Keynote & Conversation

Strengthening Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence

Fei-Fei Li | Co-Director, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) Conversant: Eileen Donahoe, Executive Director of GDPi

Closing Remarks: Alex Gladstein & Eileen Donahoe

Seminars

Former Doctoral Students Win Prestigious Dissertation Awards

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

APARC is pleased to share that Stanford alumnae Shiran Victoria Shen and Lizhi Liu have won prestigious awards for best dissertation in their fields. Both Shen and Liu earned their doctoral degrees in Political Science in 2018 and worked with Jean Oi, director of the China Program at APARC, during their tenure as doctoral students.

Shen, who is currently an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, has won the 2020 Harold D. Lasswell Award for her dissertation The Political Pollution Cycle: An Inconvenient Truth and How To Break It. The award is given annually by the American Political Science Association for “the best doctoral dissertation in the field of public policy.” Using a wide array of data, techniques, and research designs, Shen’s work explains how environmental change influences and is shaped by politics and policy. It centers on the critical case of air pollution control policies and uses China as a natural experiment.

Liu, whose doctoral research focuses on the political economy of e-commerce in China, has won the 2020 Ronald H. Coase Best Dissertation Award from the Society for Institutional and Organizational Economics. Her study proposes that China has devised a novel solution, that is, institutional outsourcing, to the central question of how developing states build market-supporting institutions. She is currently an assistant professor in the McDonough School of Business and a faculty affiliate of the Department of Government at Georgetown University.

Congratulations, Shiran and Lizhi, on your excellent work and prestigious awards!

Read More

encina 2x1
News

Ninth Annual Korean Studies Writing Prize Awarded

Won-Gi Jung (BA '20) is awarded the ninth annual Writing Prize in Korean Studies for his paper, "The Making of Chinatown: Chinese migrants and the production of criminal space in 1920s Colonial Seoul."
Ninth Annual Korean Studies Writing Prize Awarded
Portrait of Young Kyung Do, Winner of the 2020 Rothman Epidemiology Prize
News

Asia Health Policy Program Alum Wins Rothman Epidemiology Prize

Dr. Young Kyung Do, an expert in health policy and management at the Seoul National University College of Healthy Policy and the inaugural postdoctoral fellow in Asia health policy at APARC, has been awarded the 2020 prize for his outstanding publication in the journal Epidemiology last year.
Asia Health Policy Program Alum Wins Rothman Epidemiology Prize
Hero Image
Shiran Shen (left) and Lizhi Liu (right)
Shiran Shen (left) and Lizhi Liu (right).
All News button
1
Subtitle

Interdisciplinary environmental scholar Shiran Victoria Shen is the recipient of the Harold D. Lasswell Award and political economist Lizhi Liu is the recipient of the Ronald H. Coase Award in recognition of their outstanding doctoral dissertations.

Are We Back to Square One with North Korea?

-

Panel discussion on U.S.-North Korea relations co-sponsored by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center​

This event will take place on Zoom. Register here: https://stanford.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_F-MOOfvpSxWbYwfYRa1phQ

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have intensified sharply in recent weeks, exposing the volatility of the region’s political and security conditions. No progress in denuclearization talks has been made since "no deal" in Hanoi early last year and inter-Korean relations have soured. Pyongyang abruptly cut off all communication lines with Seoul in protest against anti-DPRK leaflets sent across the border, demolished a joint liaison office in the border town of Kaesong, and vowed to redeploy troops to frontline areas. At the same time, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding in the DPRK, as its economy shrinks under pressure from international sanctions and coronavirus-constrained China trade.

As part of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies’ (FSI) summer seminar series, this event offers an expert analysis of where we stand with North Korea after active summit diplomacy under the Trump administration and where we are heading amid the growing friction on the Korean Peninsula and the approaching U.S. presidential election. Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and Korea Program, will moderate the conversation with panelists Robert Carlin, a visiting scholar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Victor Cha, professor of government at Georgetown University and Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Oriana Mastro, Assistant Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and an FSI Centre Fellow starting August 2020, and Siegfried Hecker, senior fellow emeritus at FSI and professor emeritus in the Department of Management Science and Engineering.

 

Panel Discussions
Subscribe to Asia-Pacific