No abstract

The profusion of conspiracy theories in recent social and political discourse is alarming. As a response to this increasingly concerning problem, there is a rapidly growing multidisciplinary literature on conspiracy theories and conspiratorial thinking. In this article, I review the state of the scholarship on conspiracy theories and its related concepts. I begin with a definition of conspiracy theories and key terms related to their communication and belief. Then, the article turns to the research on the spread, correlates, and consequences of conspiratorial beliefs, highlighting important findings and trends in research. Lastly, I discuss areas where research is lacking and future scholarly efforts should be placed. Altogether, this text provides a much-needed assessment and sorting of a rapidly evolving field of research that spans across several disciplinary boundaries.

The recurrence of intelligence operations has grown significantly since the beginning of the twenty-first century. This growing popularity has increased the need for public and legislative oversight as well as intelligence parliamentary review. The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the intelligence accountability framework in Canada. This assessment will argue that the expansion of intelligence capabilities in the late 20th and early 21st century has not been followed by an adequate expansion of the oversight and review framework. In order to support this argument, the paper will conduct a comparative analysis of the Five Eyes (FVEY) members and examine the evolution of Canadian intelligence accountability structures from the Cold War until 2020. The paper will conclude by proposing literature-supported changes to improve the oversight and review process.

No abstract

This article uses the Trudeau Government’s decision not to nominate General Jonathan Vance to the position of Chair of the Military Committee (CMC) as a basis to examine the extent to which states should fear alliance contributions. The authors examine if the decision could have been based on fears of expected yet “tacit” pressures to accept greater responsibilities and costs within the overall alliance framework. By analyzing “traditional” NATO alliance contribution data from 2002–2020 through six previous CMCs, this research examines whether incumbency in the CMC position is linked to an increase in material contributions to the alliance. The results of the analyses show that there is no direct relation between an alliance member holding the CMC position and increased alliance contributions. Nonetheless, this study contributes to the field of collective defence through an acknowledgement that states may not fear unstated alliance commitments and obligations as much as theoretically understood.