American Militarism and Blowback: The Costs of Letting the Pentagon Dominate Foreign Policy

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of covert operations against foreign nations and governments. The suicidal attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were instances of blowback from American clandestine operations in Afghanistan. They have greatly accelerated tendencies toward militarism in the United States, which is defined as the phenomenon in which a nation's armed services come to put their institutional preservation ahead of effectiveness in achieving national security or a commitment to the integrity of the governmental structure of which they are a part.     

Changing the Face of Advocacy? Explaining Interest Organizations’ Use of Social Media Strategies

Social media have increasingly been recognized as an important and effective tool for advocacy. A growing body of research examines the use of social media in grassroots and social movements as well as issues related to civic engagement, social capital, and voter turnout. The extent to which organized interest groups have adopted social media as an advocacy tool, however, has been relatively ignored. This article examines the determinants of the use of social media tools by a broad range of interest organizations. We argue that social media use needs to be understood as part of an interest organization’s larger set of news media lobbying strategies. We explain social media use as a function of two factors: first, the importance organizations place on trying to shape lobbying debates through the news media; second, the importance they place on shaping their public image via the news media. We test this argument using a unique data set of interest group advocacy in the European Union. Controlling for a host of competing explanations, regression results provide evidence supporting our central argument.     

Psychosocial comparison of carers and noncarers

Abstract

Limited exploration of young carers’ (YCs) impacts includes noncaregivers, thus reducing our understanding of YCs’ unique characteristics. Secondary comparative analyses of 124 YCs (n?=?72 females, Mage?=?12) and 124 noncarers were conducted to examine family, individual, and social contexts. Statistical analyses revealed YCs were different from non-YCs, suggesting caregiving could be a contributing factor in altering temperament and family dynamics as well as lowering self-esteem and raising the incidence of depressive symptoms. A comprehensive YC profile resulted from the findings. This profile may help promote identification and recognition of YCs.     

Unity and conflict: Explaining financial industry lobbying success in European Union public consultations

This article examines the contingent nature of financial industry lobbying power in the context of the policy formation stage of six European Commission regulatory proposals. I argue that lobbying success is a function of how well finance is able to speak with a unified voice. Building on existing studies, I examine industry unity as explicit preference alignment between actors but also in terms of actors abstaining from stating preferences. Staying silent on an issue sends signals to policymakers about issue saliency and industry support. Using a novel dataset derived from document coding and interviews, I examine the impact of industry unity on lobbying success in shaping six financial regulatory proposals in the context of the European Union. My findings show that lobbying success is partially contingent on the extent to which finance is united behind a common position. Critically, however, lobbying success is also related to the nature of that position, whether supporting the proposal or whether in favor of strengthening or weakening regulatory stringency.     

'Food for Thought': Reconciling European Risks and Traditional Ways of Life

The European Food Safety Authority marks a new stage in European Union governance. It has no direct regulatory powers, but is entrusted with developing norms of food safety, which are to inform the material content of EC food law. The hope is that its independence and expertise will restore popular confidence both in the EU and in the food we eat. The irreducible nature of lay-expert conflicts about hazard suggests that a more likely scenario is that such disputes become recast as opposition to EC law. Such conflict is most likely to manifest itself in national courts through challenges to or non-compliance with EC law. The current principles for resolution of such conflicts are hopelessly outmoded. The article, therefore, argues for a constitutional resettlement, which sets out principles germane to the nature of the EC regime, namely that of a multi-level regulatory State. It argues for a new defence of regulatory balance. Individuals could argue for the disapplication of EC norms where these violated a valued local regime which had given consideration to the issues raised in the EC legislation and whose positive value to its subjects exceeded its negative impact on the interests protected by the EC legislation.     

When Should a Retrial be Permitted After a Conviction is Quashed on Appeal?

The power to permit a retrial after a conviction has been quashed on appeal is an established part of criminal procedure, with over a third of successful appeals against conviction in England and Wales now resulting in a retrial being ordered. Despite this, relatively little attention has been paid to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for such permission to be granted. This article reviews the practice of the courts, offering a rational reconstruction of the reported cases. It argues that appeal courts have improperly entered into consideration of matters which should properly be reserved to prosecutorial discretion. While retrial after a quashed conviction should only be possible with the permission of the appeal court, such permission should – where sought – always be granted unless insufficient competent evidence was led at the first trial or a second prosecution would be an abuse of process.