War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization

Studies of signaling in international relations reveal how punishing bluffing ex post through domestic audience costs or opposition groups facilitates credible ex ante communication among states and reduces the impetus toward war. Global integration of economic markets may also reduce uncertainty by making talk costly ex ante. Autonomous global capital can respond dramatically to political crises. To the degree that globalization forces leaders to choose between pursuing competitive political goals and maintaining economic stability, it reveals the intensity of leaders' preferences, reducing the need for military contests as a method of identifying mutually acceptable bargains. Asymmetric integration can dampen the pacific effects of globalization, but asymmetry does not in itself exacerbate dispute behavior. We present the theory and offer preliminary corroborative tests of implications of the argument on postwar militarized disputes.     

Prerequisities and Consequences of Ethnic Mobilization in Modern Society*

There are abundant observations of a revival of ethnic feelings among linguistic, territorial minorities in advanced, industrialized societies. Less is known about the nature and intrinsic qualities of this revival. An assessment of the implications of the renaissance of ethnicity requires an analysis both of changes in the nature of ethnicity and of basic organisatory principles in the modem society. The increasing importance of categorizations and labeling performed by the minorities themselves has important implications for policies concerning ethnic and linguistic minorities.     

Conceptualizing Politics: Strategic or Communicative Action?

Following the "behavioral revolution" in the social sciences, analyzing political behavior as strategic action has become a dominant paradigm in political science. However, many political processes become incomprehensible from a purely strategic angle. Only a concept of politics as communicative action can explain how people reach mutual agreements on factual and normative matters. Some analysts seem to assume that whenever actors take a position in a debate that coincides with their own interest, the employed arguments must be understood as a strategic device to promote this self-interest But this explanation in most cases seems too simplistic and, from a communicative perspective, beside the point. In an open debate it will still be the rational weight of the arguments that matters, not the eventual strategic interests of the participants. Rational communication is a precondition for civilized conflict resolution as well as for the stability and durability of the political order.
Max Weber provided us with a typology of goal-oriented behavior which included, along with the rational self-interest variety, which he called Zweckrationalität , or instrumental behavior, Wertrationalität , or absolute value-oriented behavior, traditional or habitual behavior, and impulsive behavior. From this perspective we can see what a small part of the reality we, as social scientists, want to explain is captured by the rational choice model (Almond 1991, 49).     

The psychiatrist's guide to right and wrong: judicial standards of wrongfulness since M'Naghten

In insanity defense litigation, the precise legal definition of wrongfulness is often critically important. References in the M'Naghten Rules to the appropriate standard of wrongfulness were ambiguous, resulting in a divergence of judicial opinion as to whether wrongfulness means legal wrong, subjective moral wrong, or objective moral wrong. This article reviews and analyzes these three judicial standards of wrongfulness in the context of case law from jurisdictions that follow each of the respective standards. The evolution of knowledge of right and wrong tests of criminal responsibility is traced back to its philosophical roots. Most psychiatrists claim no expertise in matters of morality or law. The American Psychiatric Association would bar psychiatric expert testimony on the ultimate issue of insanity, on the grounds that there are "impermissible leaps in logic" when psychiatrists opine on the probable relationship between medical concepts and moral-legal constructs. Whether or not they testify on the ultimate issue, psychiatrists should ascertain the applicable standard of wrongfulness in order to properly relate their findings to the relevant legal criteria for insanity and thereby enhance the probative value of their testimony.     

Splenic rupture as a cause of sudden death in undiagnosed chronic myelogenous leukemia

A 35-year-old man died suddenly in a clinic waiting area after repeated visits for flu-like symptoms. At autopsy, hemoperitoneum, splenic capsular rupture, and splenomegaly were found. Microscopic examination, special stains, and immunoperoxidase studies revealed findings consistent with chronic myelogenous leukemia. Spontaneous splenic rupture is an unusual presenting feature of chronic myelogenous leukemia. The symptoms of leukemia may mimic those of other "benign" disorders and misdiagnosis may lead to catastrophic consequences in some instances.     

Litigious paranoids and the legal system: the role of the forensic psychiatrist

Forensic psychiatrists should be aware of the many ways that paranoid individuals may present within the legal system. Litigious paranoids often utilize the legal system as a vehicle to act out their fantasies and delusional preoccupations. Imaginary grievances, accusations based on delusional ideation, and irrational vindictiveness toward imagined persecutors may find full expression in any number of legal contexts. They can defeat the rational and legitimate objectives of the legal system, enmesh innocent and unsuspecting victims in nightmarish legal entanglements, and subvert the process of justice. The forensic psychiatrist can assist the court by alerting it to the presence of paranoid illness in parties or witnesses and by clarifying what the effects of such psychopathology are and what the most favorable response should be. Three legal contexts wherein paranoid individuals may present within the legal system are discussed: the "hypercompetent" defendant, the paranoid party in a divorce proceeding, and the paranoid complaining witness. Case illustrations are presented for each legal context. Two issues are discussed: the dividing line between paranoid ideation (and its impact on the legal process) and so-called "normal" thinking (and its objective to use the legal process to obtain certain ends); and the degree to which psychiatric opinions in this area should influence the way an individual's case is handled by the legal system. The author concludes that, despite the costs involved, it is preferable that even paranoids have their "day in court."