John Braithwaite

This special issue demonstrates that regulatory studies and criminology both have virtue. Regulatory criminology has neglected virtues that exceed the sum of its parts. The editors did a splendid job of pointing out in their introduction that criminology created a number of theoretical traditions that have had moments of passing value and relevance to regulatory studies. In both fields, and at their intersections, one of these traditions, an economism of rational choice, even enjoyed periods of domination. At times, this narrowed scholarly imagination has won Nobel Prizes in economics. Today economists are less present at criminology, law and society, and regulation and governance conferences. Economists must be attracted back so that intellectual renewal on offer from regulatory studies and criminology might broaden their imaginations, and they ours. Regulation and governance can benefit greatly from noting how criminologists integrate insights from micro and macro levels by fine‐grained studies of the modus operandi of lawbreakers that are connected to a historical imagination for the longue durée and a sociological imagination of macrostructures.

Ecological collaboration is a path to rebuilding collaboration between old enemies. One theoretical perspective is that building restorative capital can deliver environmental benefits for enemies that also induces a peace dividend. Two case studies are discussed to this end: (1) the work of the NGO EcoPeace toward delivering a renewable energy for desalinated water swap between renewables-rich Jordan and water-rich Israel, with a trickle down to impoverished Palestinians in the Jordan River Valley; (2) Non-Chinese scholars collaborating on climate projects with Chinese universities is a restorative diplomacy step toward renewing peace via environmental restoration. A related theoretical framework to restorative capital building for this work is widening the contracting zone for peacebuilding by one adversary gifting in a domain where it has comparative advantage to induce reciprocal, complementary gifting that the second adversary is better placed to gift.

Virtuous path dependency of regulatory preparedness, welfare preparedness, and market preparedness are needed for crisis responsiveness. Acting alone, strong markets that put a price on carbon fail to tame climate change without prosecution of carbon fraud and without state closures of power plants and carbon-intensive production lines. Responsive regulation of powerful interests is imperative because of gaming catastrophe through organizational power. The military-industrial complex games war to sell weapons. High finance games tax and market rules to make the fabric of law more complex, widening gaps between rich and poor. Industrial capital games environmental enforcement and carbon pricing by carbon fraud, offsets fraud, and greenwashing. Big pharma games patents, monopolizing profiteering from pandemics, widening rich–poor health gaps.

War cascades to economic crises, environmental crises, and epidemics. There have been three major spikes in risks of nuclear war: the Kennedy-Krushchev spike (early 1960s); the mid-1980s (Reagan-Gorbachev); and the Biden-Putin-Xi spike today. Tangible steps were taken with the first two toward nuclear weapons elimination. Prospects of that with the current spike are mired in failures of Ukraine peacemaking. Extradition law reform is a strategy for deterrence of WMD ban violators. When nuclear powers frustrate disarmament, regional disarmament treaties can be grown. Progressively dismantled mutual assured nuclear destruction (MAD) can be steppingstones to prevent Mutual Assured Digital Destruction (MADD). Invading other countries is rare today. It does not pay. Recent empirics of warmaking effectiveness have reduced the explanatory power of realist international relations theory.

AI weapons and space war must be more transparently and responsively regulated by nuclear surety regulatory regimes that embrace audit by foreign technical teams. Head-of-state and head-of-military hotlines between adversary states are keys to last resort diplomatic paths from war. Meddling in the politics of other countries induces blowback, terrorism, war. Many states do not meddle in the politics of other states; all states should commit to never doing so, especially not by violent means like assassinations, plotting coups, arming insurgents. Respecting democracy development by never interfering in another country’s elections is in the long-run national interests of states.

This book is optimistic in explaining why simple institutions and principles societies can strengthen to help humankind control complex catastrophes that endanger the planet. Security realities of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) do compel pessimism. Yet my argument is that it is possible to abolish WMDs. The journey of a revived peace movement can grow institutional capability to conquer climate catastrophe, pandemics, economic crises, and to secure peace from smaller wars. The book develops a dialectics of alternating between understanding complex ways of grappling with complexity and simple principles that are generative of nuanced response to complexity.

Restorative diplomacy outperforms realism at preventing war, climate change, financial crises, pandemics, and at accomplishing national interest objectives. Peacebuilding Compared finds narratives of the broken promise have been impediments to peace in 41 out of 73 armed conflicts. Restorative diplomacy requires promise-keeping that learns from American Indigenous wisdom on ritualizing peace agreements, with regular commemorations at which statecraft speaks from the heart, apologizes, forgives, ritualizes collective memory, and builds new commitments atop growing architectures of peace. Learn restorative diplomacy lessons from the Marshall Plan. Put deposits, financial and emotional, in the banks of old adversaries. Learn restorative diplomacy lessons from South African spymaster Niël Barnard. South African nuclear weapons destruction, Africa as a nuclear weapons-free continent, and Apartheid abolition illustrate the possibilities of restorative diplomacy.

Relentless civil society activism is a remedy to the ritualism of states promising big and delivering poorly on crisis amelioration. Regulation must be a human, relational craft. Centralized bureaucracies that over-prioritize desk audits and risk measurement that dates quickly as it feeds into algorithmic regulation are a risk. Detective skills and relational skills of street-level inspectors must be re-prioritized.

Regulators achieve more if they learn to collaborate with one another at being cosmopolitan. Regulators can use national enforcement threats to demand global compliance improvements under the shadow of the axe of deferred prosecutions. Early detection and early response are imperative with fast-moving risks. Principles for a dialectics of requisite variety are: (a) Prune and strengthen rules; (b) Transform jurisprudence so fundamental principles justify rules, yet trump rules; (c) Shift away from automaticity of enforcement of rules, algorithmic or human, to a restorative diplomacy of rule enforcement of peace agreements, environmental stewardship, virus containment, and stewardship of financial systems; rally behind front-line workers of crisis-prevention institutions before burnout spreads.