Collateral Damage? “Marigold,” Franco–American Relations,and Secret Vietnam Peace Diplomacy, 1966–1967

The Vietnam War exacerbated the already tense relationship between Charles de Gaulle and Lyndon B. Johnson; and Franco–American relations reached a nadir in winter 1966–1967 when de Gaulle vetoed a proposed visit to Hanoi by Jean Sainteny, a former colonial official, who Washington had desired to probe North Vietnam’s position. This analysis adds a new wrinkle to the story. Building on research for Marigold: The Lost Chance for Peace in Vietnam (2012), the author reveals that French knowledge of only the Polish version of that peace initiative’s failure, fully blaming the Americans, further soured de Gaulle’s view of Johnson’s handling of the war and American sincerity in seeking peace. The analysis also unveils a new dimension of Henry Kissinger’s involvement in Vietnam diplomacy—prior to the Nixon White House—missing from earlier accounts.     

Globalization,risk-taking and violence: too much too soon in the late Roman Republic and pre-Renaissance Italian cities

Past research has found that globalization and political violence have been linked in both modern and less modern times. Normally, groups that have been disadvantaged or displaced by globalization are seen as responsible for these outbreaks of violence. In the case of the Late Republic of Rome and medieval Italy before the Renaissance, violence was actually prompted by major increases in wealth among those who benefited when control of the political system became much more valuable. The increased value raised the stakes of political control and underlay the resulting higher levels of violence.     

Is the Russian federation becoming more democratic? Moscow‐regional relations and the development of the post‐Soviet Russian State

This article addresses the condition of Russian democracy by focusing on the developing political relations between the central government and regional governments. A situation of profound ambivalence and ambiguity has evolved since ratification of the Russian Federation Constitution in December 1993. Regional governments have found it possible to gain a degree of political autonomy uncharacteristic of Russia's long historical experience, yet increasingly in line with global trends toward decentralization of governmental authority. Two political patterns in the current Russian Federation are explored, both of them promising broad and enduring significance. First, the political ambiguity of relations between the national government and regional authorities may provide the context in which divided government serves to enable democracy, despite the appearance of authoritarian rule in many regions themselves. Second, the nature of the interaction between the centre and regional authorities may be breaking new ground, in terms of flexible solutions to intra‐state relations among different levels of government. Because certain aspects of centre‐regional relations in the Russian Federation replicate comparable issues elsewhere (particularly regarding the ethnic‐territorial dimension of politics), the Federation's approaches and solutions to this aspect of state‐formation could suggest useful lessons for other parts of the world.     

‘Indirect amendment’: how the federal department of justice unilaterally alters the text of the constitution of Canada

Since 1957, the Department of Justice of Canada has regularly altered the wording of some sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 in its consolidated versions of the Constitution of Canada, even though neither the Westminster Parliament nor the Parliament of Canada had ever amended these provisions themselves or delegated to the executive the authority to make changes on their behalf. The Department of Justice refers to its practice of altering the text of the Constitution of Canada as ‘indirect amendment’. However, since the Constitution Act, 1982 states categorically that the Constitution of Canada can only be validly amended through one of its five amending formulas, the Department of Justice’s technocratic approach to ‘indirect amendment’ is almost certainly unconstitutional.?Either the Department of Justice should restore the original wording of the text of these sections in its subsequent consolidations of the Constitution Acts and relegate the updated figures or other commentary to explanatory footnotes. Alternatively, the Parliament of Canada should update these sections itself, directly, as a Section 44 Constitutional Amendment. The rule of law depends upon following the Constitution of Canada's amendment procedures properly.