Analysis reveals differing human rights obligations create tension in intelligence cooperation, suggesting implications for reputations.
Intelligence cooperation between the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) is perceived as exemplary. Yet, tensions occur within the partnership. Scholars frequently attribute tensions within intelligence partnerships to strategic divergence, technical interoperability, and security concerns. An analysis of post-9/11 UK-US intelligence cooperation points to an alternative explanation: differential human rights obligations. In this paper, I propose a general typology of allied intelligence-sharing, where states navigate their differing human rights obligations based on considerations of reputation and threat levels. Such a discussion provides a unique perspective to the intelligence cooperation scholarship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ernesto Jimenez-Hope (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: