Britain and Japan: Long-Range Images, 1900-52

The Anglo-Japanese Alliance signed in 1902 was revised substantially in 1905 and 1911. It survived the First World War and did not lapse until 1923. For two decades, it enabled Britain to withdraw its navy from East Asia, leaving its commercial interests to the protection of Japan. Meanwhile it enabled Japan to expand its influence in Korea and China. There was not an immediate breach of the alliance, but interests clashed in China in the difficult world of economic collapse in the 1930s. When they failed to come to an accommodation, Japan declared war on Britain in 1941. After the war, Britain shared with the United States the task of policing the military occupation of Japan. But when that occupation came to an end in 1952 during the anxious days of the Korean war, the vast majority of Japanese believed that their country's future rested with Washington.     

A missed opportunity

Conclusion By focusing on the narrow question of the proper contractual interpretation of the extradition treaty, the Court missed the crux of theAlvarez-Machain case. The weakness in the decision, therefore, is not that the Court adopted the wrong contractual interpretation but rather that it failed frankly to address the real issue. Determining the appropriate role of the Court in formulating an international order in the post-cold war era is a difficult and complex problem. It raises delicate questions of foreign policy, separation of powers, and institutional competence. There are no easy answers. But the problem is not one that will—or should—go away. The issue must be debated in the courts, as well as in the political and academic arenas. By failing to confront this issue openly, the Supreme Court lost a valuable opportunity to start the debate and to begin to define the Court's role in forging the new world order.The authors would like to thank Detlev Vagts, Bemis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, for his insightful comments on an earlier draft.     

“Constructive” vs. “Destructive” deviance in adolescent health-related behaviors

Previous literature suggests that the adolescent at risk to engage in substance use and other negative health-related behaviors is deviant in a negative sense (i.e., rebellious, antisocial, and alienated from traditional institutions). However, some researchers have distinguished between two types of deviance-a true autonomy and independence that is more positive and constructive, and a reactant anticonformity that is more negative and destructive. The current study assessed the roles of both constructive and destructive deviance in adolescent cigarette smoking and positive health-related behaviors. Adolescents who were constructively deviant engaged in higher levels of health-protective behaviors. Moreover, constructive deviance was an independent predictor of both cigarette smoking and positive health behaviors over and above the effects of traditional negative deviance indicators. These data suggest that constructive deviance is not a competing model to more traditional notions, but that it is an additional possible pathway into adolescent positive and negative health behaviors.This research was supported by Grant No HD13449 from ther National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the three authors, and by Grant DA05227 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the first author.Received Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Columbia University Teachers College. Current research interests include adolescent substance use and health risk behaviors.Received Ph.D in Developmental Psychology from Columbia University Teachers College. Current research interests include spatial cognition and adolescent health behaviors.Received Ph.D. in Social Psychology from University of Michigan. Current interests include social cognition and adolescent health behaviors.