Russia,the death penalty,and Europe: the ambiguities of influence

Studies of capital punishment worldwide investigate how international influence affects the death penalty. We analyze European influence on the death penalty in Russia over the imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet periods, using two parameters: the changing mechanisms of influence in each period and the death penalty's significance in the broader spectrum of punitive violence. On the first parameter, in the tsarist period, European influence on Russian policy was “productive” – exercised through prestige, moral suasion, and “diffusion.” In the Soviet period, European influence was blocked. In the post-Soviet period, European influence is coercive, as the Council of Europe has unsuccessfully sought to compel Russia to abolish its death penalty. On the second parameter, the death penalty in Russia has always been only one of many forms of state-sanctioned punitive killing. In consequence, the Council's involvement in Russia's death penalty has produced an incoherent policy outcome and has entangled the Council in Russia's authoritarian politics. Russia thus exemplifies the hazards of external involvement in death penalty abolition.     

Personalization and Institutional Constraints: Pinochet, the Military Junta, and the 1980 Constitution

The standard account of military dictatorship in Chile (1973–1990) portrays the case as a personalist regime, and uses the dynamics associated with this type of regime to explain General Pinochet's control of the presidency, the enactment of the 1980 Constitution, and the longevity of military rule. Drawing on records of the decisionmaking process within the military junta, this article presents evidence for a different characterization of the dictatorship. It shows that Pinochet never attained the supremacy commonly attributed to him, that the commanders of the other branches of the armed forces retained significant powers, and that the 1980 Constitution was not enacted to project Pinochet's personal power. More generally, this study suggests that personal power is not a necessary condition for regime longevity; collective systems can also produce cohesion and stability.     

Back to the Future, Again: Reagan, Bush, and Nader

Books reviewed in this article:
Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson and Martin Anderson, (eds.) Reagan, in his own hand: The writings of Ronald Reagan that Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America
Elizabeth Mitchell, W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty
Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush
Nicholas Lemann, Sons: George W. Bush and Al Gore
Ralph Nader, Cutting Corporate Welfare     

Settler Colonial Strategic Culture: Australia,AUKUS, and the Anglosphere

Australia's history as a settler colony within the British Empire fundamentally shapes its sense of security within the Indo-Pacific region. Australia has consistently looked outside of its region for security and sought partners on the explicit basis of political, cultural, and ethnic similarity. What role does Australia's history play in shaping its foreign policy? We argue that these choices in foreign policy are inextricable from Australia's history as a settler colony on the farthest reaches of the British Empire. The AUKUS Agreement (AUKUS) is an example of how Australia operates to preserve racial hegemony in the face of non-white threat — real or perceived. This research utilises critical discourse analysis to interrogate elite-level discourse around AUKUS to ascertain the dominant narratives that inform its creation, the issues it seeks to address in Australian security policy, how it is structured by historical narratives of security, and how it functions to structure those narratives going forward. This article seeks to participate in the growing push to decolonise International Relations by illuminating the way Australia is ontologically and epistemologically invested in the preservation of racial hegemony.     

Japan-Asia economic relations: Trade, investment, and the economic crisis

Japan has been and will continue to be an important economic player in the Asian region through its internationalization policy involving trade, foreign investments, aid, technical and other forms of economic cooperation. More recently, despite its own domestic problems, Japan has extended financial and other forms of assistance and support to the Asian economies which have been hit by the economic crisis. As it is in its interests that the Asian region survives and recover, Japan will indeed continue to lend a helping hand to Asia, either through unilateral or multilateral forms of assistance or both. Due to growing interdependence, Asia needs Japan and Japan needs Asia. This article analyzes Japan's economic relations with Asia. In particular, it hopes to present an overview of Japan’s involvement in Asia through trade and investments prior to the Asian economic crisis which began in July 1997. Moreover, this article provides an assessment of the crisis and identifies Japan’s responses and involvement towards the economic recovery of the crisis-hit economies in the region. The article draws from earlier versions of various papers presented at conferences and seminars in Washington, D.C. (1997), Japan and Mexico (1998), and Singapore and Thailand (1999).