Do Ministers Do What They Say? Ministerial Unreliability, Collegial and Hierarchical Governments

This paper is concerned with the extent to which individual members of governments reliably implement the decisions of the governments to which they belong, a matter which is rarely discussed, if ever, and yet can be critical for the operation of national executives. After a general presentation of the problem, the paper examines the reasons why members of collegial governments are more likely to be reliable than members of hierarchical governments. As 'cabinet' governments tend to be more collegial while 'presidential' governments tend to be more hierarchical, unreliability seems also more likely to take place in presidential governments, to the extent that these are indeed hierarchical. Progress in this area has been hampered so far by the absence of a tight operational definition of collegial and hierarchical governments: such a definition is presented here, opening the way for the empirical testing of the impact which the distinction may have on the reliability of members of governments.     

Faith in forgiveness? Exploring conversions to Christianity within a former Khmer Rouge community

This article explores stories of former members of the Khmer Rouge who have converted to Christianity. It sheds light on the intersections of patterns of religious change in Cambodia, which implicates peace-building, redress, and development trajectories in the wake of conflict and atrocities. The case raises important questions about why former members of the Khmer Rouge convert to Christianity and the social, political, and ethical implications of their conversions. We explore these questions to show that, while transitions and attendant redress efforts in Cambodia have been principally explained at the level of the state, we should pay closer attention to the granular experiences of former Khmer Rouge members as they navigate Cambodia’s changing post-conflict terrain, and the social and cultural sites through which they have made their experiences of the past meaningful.     

The Polish underground organization Wolność i Niezawisłość and anti-Jewish pogroms, 1945–6

Tokarska-Bakir’s paper considers the deep-rooted cognitive habits among informers and reporters belonging to the Polish post-war, anti-Communist underground organization Wolno?? i Niezawis?o?? (Freedom and Independence) with regard to their perception of Polish Jews. The organization's archive is preserved in the National Archives in Krakow in Poland, and it thoroughly documents its members' social beliefs and fears. A theory of pogroms formulated by Senechal de la Roche understands the pogrom as an act of social control. Using the archival documents with that theory in mind, Tokarska-Bakir analyses Wolno?? i Niezawis?o?? in relation to the anti-Jewish pogroms that took place in Rzeszów, Krakow and Kielce in the years immediately following the Second World War.     

The ‘Heathrow’ Case: Polycentricity,Legislation, and the Standard of Review

The recent Court of Appeal decision in the ‘Heathrow’ case, Plan B Earth v Secretary of State for Transport is an illustration of the challenges of reviewing polycentric and expert decision-making. The issues raised in the case concerning the Planning Act 2008 are an illustration of a court's expository role in such contexts. The Court tackled directly a series of interpretive questions concerning the Planning Act 2008's obligations regarding the consideration of climate change. The Habitats and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive issues raised in the appeal, in contrast, were presented with the question of the intensity of review foregrounded in legal argument. The Court therefore sought to articulate the ‘standard of review’ and to apply it to the government's decisions. This way of framing the issue unfortunately sidelined the courts’ expository role in relation to intepreting the Habitats and SEA Directives, leaving key provisions under-analysed.