Attributions of Negative Partner Behavior by Men Who Physically Abuse Their Partners

This study investigated the association between family violence and the attributions made for negative partner behaviors in an Australian context. Three groups of men were classified as physically violent (in counseling), non-physically violent (in counseling), and non-physically violent (in the community). The Relationship Attribution Measure was used to assess the attributional dependent variables of locus, stability, globality, intent, motivation, and blame. Significant differences between violent and nonviolent men on each of the attributional dimensions were found. Physically violent men were more likely than non-physically violent men (counseling) to attribute the negative behavior of their partners to unchangeable, intentional rather than unintentional, selfishly motivated, and blameworthy causes. However, these differences disappeared when marital satisfaction was controlled. The implications of this work for domestic violence intervention programs are discussed, along with a number of methodological issues and directions for future research.     

Rational Choice and Interpretive Evidence: Caught between a Rock and a Hard Place?

Following Green and Shapiro's critique, debate about the value of rational choice theory has focused upon the question of its relationship to what we call 'external', largely quantitative, empirical evidence. We argue that what is most striking about rational choice theory is, however, its neglect of interpretive evidence. Our survey of 570 articles, published in the American Political Science Review and the American Journal of Political Science between 1984 and 2005 employing rational choice theory, revealed that only 139 made even the most cursory use of interpretive evidence. Does this matter? We argue that the absence of interpretive evidence undermines rational choice's explanatory credentials. However, we also argue that the admission of interpretive evidence risks rendering redundant the rational choice element of any explanation. This is the rock and the hard place between which rational choice is caught. In the final part of the article we distinguish those cases where rational choice may prove useful, namely those circumstances in which interpretive evidence either cannot be relied upon or does not subsume that which an explanation is intended to achieve.     

Calling on Jefferson: the ‘custodiary’ as the fourth estate in the Democratic Project

Aimed at reinforcing the democratic values of freedom of speech and increased diversity in civic access to the means of communication, this paper examines the concept of democracy within an information and communication technology-mediated context. Discussion proceeds with an analysis of orthodox views adopted by Jefferson and the architects of the American Constitution. Building on the Jeffersonian tradition, a critique is presented of present-day, non-transparent constraints on the democratic values of freedom of speech, information access and the structural constrains mitigating unfettered public access to critical information and debate on fundamental social and political issues of the day. The proposed ‘custodiary’ model for the new Democratic Project is premised on the development of a constitutional framework which encourages information diversity and freedom of access and expression as a way of bringing back ‘discourse’ into democratic praxis.     

Civil Liberties and the Korean War

This article addresses the unsuccessful attempts to suppress free speech during the Korean War, and in particular explains the attempts to silence three reporters of alleged atrocities by United Nations forces. In the absence of carefully targeted legislation, the three individuals – Alan Winnington (a journalist), Monica Felton (a women's movement activist) and Jack Gaster (a solicitor) ‐ were threatened with or investigated for prosecution for treason or sedition, and Winnington was unable to renew his passport until 1968. Drawing heavily on archival sources (including MI5 files, which unusually fail to redact the identity of one of the lawyers who was reporting to Special Branch about Gaster's activities), the article explores the threat to civil liberties from the administrative as well as the legislative and the judicial power of the state. The article concludes by drawing contemporary parallels, and highlighting the continuing relevance of the writings of Winnington, Felton and Gaster.     

Democratically consolidated,externally threatened,and NATO aligned: finding unexpected deficiencies in civilian control

It has long been presumed in the literature that consolidated democracies that face serious external threats or are NATO-aligned should feature strong, civilian control institutions and personnel. This study of Israel, India, Taiwan, Spain and Poland reveals otherwise. Utilizing biographical data compiled by the authors, we researched civilian personnel within each country’s defence ministry – the organizational hub of civil-military relations. Rather than finding evidence of strong civilian control, what we found instead were ministries with serious deficiencies: they did not have effective power; they failed to engage in defence planning or provide strategic guidance to the armed forces; they were led by military personnel and staffed by civilian employees not properly qualified to handle defence affairs. To explain these discrepancies, we argue that long-standing deficits in civilian expertise spur the delegation of ministerial defence positions to more knowledgeable officers. Comparisons are made with benchmark states that have achieved civilian ministerial control.