Status and Leadership on the Korean Peninsula

This article examines both South and North Korea's search for status in international relations. By exploring how these countries seek status for themselves, how states define status for themselves and others, and also what status they are willing to grant other regional states, this paper concludes that crafting a stable regional status hierarchy will be as important to future stability on the Korean peninsula as will be the crafting of a stable balance of power or deepening economic interdependence.     

Security governance in the maritime commons: The case for a transatlantic partnership

Power distribution in the maritime commons is changing. The inevitable relative decline of U.S. sea power provides an opening not only for China as a rising challenger but also for the European Union as a cooperative security provider. Although such a claim may have seemed farfetched a few years ago, the performance of the European Union in the counter-piracy Operation Atalanta off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden, illustrates the possibility that the European Union will prove to be an unexpected player in the maritime commons in the twenty-first century. This possibility suggests a renewed transatlantic dialog over the governance of the maritime commons.     

Harvey Sicherman: An Appreciation

In this appreciative tribute, a vice chairman of FPRI's Board of Trustees assesses Harvey Sicherman's work in government and as President of a leading foreign policy think tank.     

Cheap Hawks, Cheap Doves, and the Pursuit of Strategy

The post-9/11 threats to American security require a complete revision of American national strategy. For too long, presidents have had to favor quick, cheap solutions to crises, unable to count on support from the “homebody” public for long, drawn-out conflicts. “Cheap hawks” among them have hoped that apocalyptic rhetoric will suffice when resources fall short; “cheap doves” hope that by ignoring the threat, it will go away. But with the war on terror, the revival of geopolitics, and ever-accelerating globalization, the U.S. tradition of bellicose rhetoric backed by underwhelming force is a recipe for failure. To effectively manage its threats, America needs a new catechism and to make sure its economic, energy, and military policies support this.     

Can We Win a War If We Have to Fight by Cosmopolitan Rules?

After months of bombing, NATO achieved only a stalemate in Libya. That disappointing result may reflect NATO's commitment to respect “international humanitarian law,” now understood to impose severe limits on military operations that might harm civilians. This body of rules is a departure from traditional understandings of the law of war. The embrace of these inhibiting rules raises serious questions about whether western nations are now prepared to fight and win actual wars.     

Testing Social Support Theory: A Multilevel Analysis of Recidivism

Purpose

Tests of social support theory have relied on aggregate crime rates as the outcome of interest, but such a focus ignores the potentially important macro-level processes and effects on individual-level behavior We thus perform the first multi-level investigation of social support theory.

Methods

Multilevel modeling is used to explore whether the two varieties of county-level social support - the presence of charitable organizations and AFDC expenditures - are associated with recidivism in a sample of Florida prison releasees.

Results

Results show that while social support explains little variation in individual-level recidivism, a combination of private and public social support may reduce the likelihood of reconviction for drug offenses.

Conclusion

Findings provide mixed evidence for the prospect that social support—whether governmental or nongovernmental—is associated with recidivism among recently-released inmates.     

POSTAL 2 plays in US court - Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association

In an unprecedented legal development, the case of violence in video games has now reached the highest American court. The US Supreme Court is set to decide whether states can restrict minors from buying violent video games in the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The decision could have serious implications on the future of First Amendment rights and children’s ’welfare. To resolve Schwarzenegger, the Justices will need to decide how much First Amendment protection should be extended to violent video games and whether minors have a greater constitutional right to violence than they do to obscenity.     

Setting the stage: Arnold Schwarzenegger and video games prepare for battle in the United States Supreme Court

Video games often feature a character that evolves into an iconic superhero. In a strange twist of fate, the video game medium will have the opportunity to become a superhero itself. The recording, comic book, and movie industries have rallied around video games as the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association reaches the Supreme Court of the United States. The case concerns a 2005 California ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. The law was later overturned by the District Court and the 9th Circuit Court on appeal. At issue is whether the law violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. Do video games deserve the full protection of the Constitution as a legitimate form of speech, or should it be limited due to its alleged effects on the psychological well-being of minors? This Article will look at the impact this case may have when it reaches the Supreme Court, an analysis of the issues that will be argued, and the history of legislation involving violent video games.