 Responsive regulation responds to the context of unlawful behaviour by drawing on different levels of the regulatory pyramid. Looking at passive smoking and his peace-building-compared fieldwork on sexual crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the founders of the regulatory pyramid, Professor John Braithwaite, explains how responsive regulation works in practice. Responsive regulation means being responsive to the environment within which regulation occurs, including being responsive to the community within which responsive regulation is embedded, but perhaps most importantly at all it means being responsive to the actors who are being regulated. How responsibly a business, for example, is behaving in response to the things that an environmental regulator is asking them to do. The responsive regulatory pyramid has been the most common way that responsive regulation has been applied by Australian environmental regulatory agencies, Occupational Health and Safety, various kinds of financial consumer affairs regulators in this country in the way. Each regulator designs its regulatory pyramid in a different way, but generally they'll have less interventionist strategies at the base of the pyramid and the idea is you start with them, with self-regulation, with education and persuasion, try to solve problems not only cheaply but voluntarily so that the regulated actors, the business decides to take responsibility for its environmental stewardship, for example. But then when that fails, as it often does, you escalate to more deterrent and tougher and tougher regulatory interventions until you get to the peak of the pyramid where you might have a very tough sanction, like corporate capital punishment, like withdrawing the license of a company to do business. So the idea is that you have that pressure from tough stuff at the top of the pyramid driving most of the regulatory action down to the base of the pyramid and if you lock the top of the pyramid off, you lose that capacity. So the paradox of the pyramid is through being able to escalate up to tough stuff, you can have a more volunteeristic regulation in practice. If you think of the passive smoking case that started here in this very garden here in Canberra where the decision was made by the consumer movement to launch a case against the Tobacco Institute of Australia, now it had been trying at the base of its collaborative regulatory pyramid as a non-government organisation to persuade the tobacco industry to stop putting out this message that passive smoking was harmless. The tobacco industry was running advertisements in the women's weekly saying, do you mind if I smoke? Like, you know, won't do you any harm? And this was false. It made complaints to the Advertising Standards Council, to the Trade Practices Commission, the ACCC, failed in those complaints, failed to persuade the industry to engage in self-regulation and the Trade Practices Commission actually ordered a remedial advertisement that said, oh, what you're saying about passive smoking is not quite right. But it was a misleading advertisement as well. So the consumer movement was the people power organisation representing consumers making a further complaint, took the regulator to court and won the case that said even the remedial advertisement was misleading. It was the first court, the Federal Court in Australia, Justice Mauling, it was the first case to decide that from throughout the world that passive smoking was dangerous to human health. But then the real work was not done in the courts. The work was done by the public health movement, the consumer movement globally, approaching corporate risk managers and saying, hey, if you allow passive smoking inside your chain of restaurants, in your discos, in your shopping malls, you will make yourself liable to a lawsuit that will be citing the Mauling judgement in the Federal Court of Australia. And that's how change occurred from that pressure. But in the United States, the people power story is very interesting because people in the US said, oh, no one's going to take any notice of an Australian court decision that happened in Canberra. Well, they did and in particular they said, well, look, Americans going to the baseball, can you imagine sitting in an open sporting grounds and they're going to be persuade risk managers, grid iron matches and so on to for Americans to give up their freedom to smoke? Well, actually, within a year or two, there was 100% compliance at baseball grounds in the US, at football grounds in the US and it wasn't enforced by the police. It was enforced by people power, by ordinary people as it were raising their eyebrows when someone would start lighting up a smoke as soon as that court decision had globalised in its impact. The idea of responsive regulation is relevant to the regulation of war as well. And so I've just come back from the Democratic Republic of Congo where I was working on a mass rape case in Lavungi in eastern Congo where 387 people are confirmed as having been raped. Many of them are children, majority of them gang raped on multiple occasions across a three-day period. So a really terrible crime. And then what happened was that there was escalation up to the criminal enforcement option, a mobilisation of pressure from international criminal law so that there were those who gave the orders for the mass rape, including one Colonel Checker, were indicted and there was an attempt to arrest them. They were tip-off, they fled and then they came back and threatened those who had given testimony to the rape investigator say, unless you recant, you will be raped again. And some of those women were raped again. So here's a case where just being willing to escalate as far as criminal enforcement and an attempt to arrest is not enough. It needs, in that case, there's a need to pursue that armed group and say, if you surrender, we will pursue you in the bush and we will defeat you militarily if necessary. That is needed to prevent the re-victimisation of those initial rape victims.