Informating policy and administration a comparative perspective on terrorism

The cliche that ‘one man's terroirist is another man' freedom fighter’ represents the major dilemma of anti-terrorism policymakers and administrators. The conceptual confusion is further complicated by the ideological orientations and policy interests of the observers. The comparative study of terrorism, however, has provided a conceptual underpinning and does provide the tools for sorting out the biases. This article compares the six principal models of political terrorism and suggests that each in fact describes a distinct form of political violence depending upon the perspective of the observer. Each of the forms of terrorism, moreover, may require a unique set of remedies. Using the widely publicized TWA bijacking during the summer of 1985 as an example, the analysis examines the differences in the American, Israeli, and Lebanese government perspectives and how those differences influenced policymaking.     

Teaching public policy in a public administration program

An overlooked aspect of academic concern in public administration is the realm of public policy. Policy intrudes into administration at a number of crucial points; administration influences the direction and emphasis of policy in various ways. These interrelationships warrant more attention in the training of public administrators. Regrettably, they have remained largely off-limits in the training of public administrators. Why and how we should proceed to alter this state of affairs is the essence of the symposium that follows.     

Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean

Land grabbing has gained momentum in Latin America and the Caribbean during the past decade. The phenomenon has taken different forms and character as compared to processes that occur in other regions of the world, especially Africa. It puts into question some of the assumptions in the emerging literature on land grabbing, suggesting these are too food-centered/too food crisis-centered, too land-centred, too centred on new global food regime players – China, South Korea, Gulf States and India – and too centred on Africa. There are four key mechanisms through which land grabbing in Latin American and the Caribbean has been carried out: food security initiatives, energy/fuel security ventures, other climate change mitigation strategies, and recent demands for resources from newer hubs of global capital. The hallmark of land grabbing in the region is its intra-regional character: the key investors are (Trans-)Latin American companies, often in alliance with international capital and the central state. Initial evidence suggests that recent land investments have consolidated the earlier trend away from (re)distributive land policies in most countries in the region, and are likely to result in widespread reconcentration of land and capital.     

Promises to keep: Enforcement of prepublication agreements and first amendment rights

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Cohen v. Cowles Media, several courts have found that prepublication agreements are legally binding promises between journalists and their sources of information, and that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from civil sanction for the breach of such agreements. An agreement between a journalist and a private individual not to disclose a source's information or the source's identity might constitute a legally binding commitment, especially if the plaintiff is able to show that a clear and specific commitment was made not to reveal certain information and that as a result of the breach of promise the plaintiff suffered specific harm.

However, the Court's analysis of enforcement of confidentiality promises as having merely incidental effects is flawed. Because it did not balance the enforcement of prepublication agreements against the First Amendment interests in nonenforcement of the agreements, the Court in Cohen departed from its compelling interest analysis of prepublication agreements in Snepp v. United States as well as its previous standards in finding incidental effects of generally applicable laws.