Immigration politics Italian style: the paradoxical behaviour of mainstream and populist parties

This article explores the role of electoral politics in managing immigration as a policy option in Italy. Italy was late in passing its first comprehensive immigration legislation (1990). A small, liberal party waged a campaign against the proposed immigration law. A party known for right-wing posturing did not mobilize against the law. These political postures were not anticipated by conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom suggests that immigration should not be an electoral issue and that consensus solutions should be sought. It is argued that the Italian response supports the view that in a fragmented, multi-party system, minor parties will be more likely to mobilize. Two mass media studies were used as the basis for this article's analysis. The studies provide detailed evidence on party willingness to publicly discuss immigration and the ways the issues are framed. The Italian case illustrates the tendency for mainstream, pro-system parties to politicize the issue and extremist, anti-system parties to depoliticize it. The DC and PCI, as mass parties, behaved traditionally and supported moderately open immigration policies, but in closed forums. The minor parties had a stake in shifting electoral support, so the PSI took an outspoken stand and the PARI publicized its exclusion from the policy-making process and its support for more restrictive policies. It was the constituencies and the leadership structure that facilitated these strategies. The author differs from Betz's party analysis by arguing that party ideology may not be a useful guide for predicting stands on immigration, and that it is difficult to generalize about immigration.     

Problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 and How to Remedy Them: Is a Bill of Rights the Answer?

Recently there has been much discussion of the prospect of replacing, or supplementing, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a British bill of rights. The Government, opposition Conservative Party and others have published detailed plans and research reports. Whilst there has been some limited examination of the alleged failures of the HRA in providing effective legal protection for human rights, the debate has not been accompanied by a thorough examination of these types of problems with the HRA, free from political criticisms. Drawing on research concerning aspects of the HRA carried out over the past ten years, it is possible to identify concrete problems which have prevented the HRA from meeting the objectives originally set for it. But given the limitations of the present debate, future plans do not adequately address many of these problems making it uncertain how effective any new bill of rights will actually be.     

United nations resolutions against international terrorism

Abstract

Nine years after the Munich Massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and after a request by the Secretary‐General for the General Assembly to act on the problem, the General Assembly reached a general consensus on a terrorism resolution. The resolution endorses a UN committee's recommendations to refrain from assisting terrorism in any way and to cooperate in the final elimination of terrorism. Negotiation of the resolution was difficult because third world countries did not want to weaken opposition to “colonial, racist, and alien regimes,” and they have held back from approving an international convention that would require trying or extraditing those accused of terrorist crimes. Problems of constitutional protection to individuals in democracies and of political asylum also stand in the way of an overall convention. Nevertheless, the General Assembly resolution has been useful in promoting cooperation among states to eliminate terrorism and in encouraging support for conventions against specific types of terrorism such as hijacking, taking of hostages, attacking diplomatic targets, and supporting nuclear terrorism.