Exploring the Terrorist Nature of Political Assassinations: A Reinterpretation of the Orsini Attentat

This paper reassesses the suggestion, advanced among others by David George, that the 1858 failed attentat by the Italian patriot Felice Orsini against Napoleon III can be considered as a paradigmatic instance of “terrorist assassination.” Drawing on a new interpretation of the acts of Orsini's trial, the paper argues that Orsini's motivations were to a large degree “idiosyncratic”; however, it also discusses evidence suggesting that the significant collateral damage caused by the attack was, in Orsini's mind, one of the aims of the action and cannot be portrayed as unintended.     

U.S.—Soviet relations: The global village and the free flow of information∗

For the past sixty‐seven years, the Council on Foreign Relations has dedicated itself to enlarging the public dialogue on matters affecting U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. This effort is to be commended. It stands as a testimony to your strong sense of civic responsibility, and it illustrates yet another way in which America's private and public sectors cooperate in matters of national concern.

Forty‐one years ago, Foreign Affairs published the landmark article—"Mr. X"— calling for a bold new approach to the challenges of the post‐war world. At that time, the international structure and order inherited from the nineteenth century had collapsed, and attempts to replace it were directed from two philosophically distinct and antagonistic power centers. This was the era of the Cold War.

America met those challenges with a sense of daring and determination. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, NATO—these stand as testimonials to imaginative leadership and effort. The renewed vitality of Western Europe and Japan—protected by the shield of a strong and effective deterrence—are a measure of its success.

Today, America faces another historic challenge occasioned neither by war nor post‐war dislocations. Rather, it results from changes set in motion by a new and powerful dynamic which in recent years has exploded onto the world scene—the grand spectacle of the Information Revolution.     

Conservative Party Modernisation and David Cameron's Politics of the Family

A key feature of David Cameron's electoral appeal is his carefully cultivated image as a ‘family man’. Cameron has repeatedly stressed the importance of the family to his political views and stated his desire to see marriage rewarded through the tax system. At the same time, Cameron has presented himself as a modernising leader, keen to demonstrate that he and his party are in touch with contemporary society. Central to this effort to detoxify the Conservative brand has been an emphasis on social liberalism. The potential conflict between these two objectives reflects the division in the party between social liberals and traditionalists, which has become increasingly apparent over the past decade. This article examines Conservative party policy and rhetoric on social and moral issues since 1997, particularly gay rights and family policy. It notes that a significant divide remains in the Conservative party between social liberals and traditionalists, so in this respect Cameron's modernisation project remains far from complete.     

Falling into the justice gap? Between duties of social and global justice

The literature on cosmopolitan justice has yet to address what principles to adopt when duties of global justice and duties of social justice are in conflict. In this paper, I address David Miller’s contention that some may fall into the justice gap since we need to prioritize duties of social justice in cases of conflict. I argue that Miller’s analysis depends on three stipulations: the incommensurability of the values underlying duties of social justice and those of global justice; the need to justify duties of justice to their holders; and the need to consider the necessary institutions to realize and implement justice obligations. I argue against the incommensurability clause by showing that both conceptions of justice pursue moral equality as the underlying and commensurate value. Instead, I propose that the currencies of justice we employ in the two contexts of justice are different. Discussing the justifiability clause I agree with the stipulation that we have to justify decisions that affect the realization of justice to those who have to carry the burden of realizing them. This implies, however, that we may have to accept that some prioritize duties of global justice over duties of social justice. If this is the case, it seems as though the state has little recourse to prioritize duties of social justice. Finally, discussing Miller’s institutional clause I ask why the justice relevant institutions can only be those of the state. It is plausible to say that in our current world, institutions of humanitarian aid are effective means to satisfy duties of global justice.     

The Effect of Advice on Negotiations: How Advisors Influence What Negotiators Do

Studies of negotiations often overlook, or at least do not fully account for, the important role played by people who advise negotiators. Often deliberately hidden from view, advisors have important but unrecognized influence on the negotiation dynamic. In this article, I explore the roles and methods of advisors in the negotiation process, drawing on role theory and survey research conducted in 2013 among approximately seventy advisors at the European Union Council of Ministers. I define advice as “a communication from one person (the advisor) to another (the client) for the purpose of helping that second person determine a course of action for solving a particular problem” and consider the nature of this advice and the range of relationships that may exist between advisors and their clients. Advising is much more than the mere transmittal of information from advisor to negotiator and that for advice to be effective a relationship must exist between the two parties. I then identify three models of the advisor–negotiator relationship. The first is the advisor as director, wherein the advisor tends to take control of the negotiating process, directing the negotiator toward actions that she or he should take to achieve success at the negotiation. The second is the advisor as servant, in which the advisor merely responds to the demands of the client for help and guidance in the negotiation. And the third is the advisor as partner, wherein advisor and negotiator jointly manage the process and solve the problem together. Finally, I explore the factors that lead advisors and negotiators to adopt each of these three models, the various advising styles that advisors use, and the differing effects on the negotiation process that these elements may have, drawing on historical examples as well as survey data from the EU Council of Ministers.     

Getting Tough on International Child Abduction

International child abduction, typically undertaken by one of the child's parents, has become an increasing problem in recent years, particularly in the United States. Parents have encountered serious difficulties in repatriating an abducted child. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, signed by the U.S. and many other countries, establishes an international procedure for pursuing claims of child abduction. The Office of Children's Issues of the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. Department of State is the Central Authority that administers the Convention and its implementing legislation for the United States. In the author's view (and his alone), the Office of Children's Issues has not been sufficiently vigorous in seeking sanctions against countries that do not comply with the Convention. Even after Congress passed legislation in 2014 specifically directing the State Department to apply increasingly severe sanctions against noncompliant countries (the Sean and David Goldman Act), the State Department has still essentially failed to do so. Brazil is one signatory to the Hague Convention that the State Department itself has determined to be consistently noncompliant with the Convention since 2013. Yet the State Department has failed to impose significant sanctions on Brazil, among other countries.     

Is unauthorized immigration an immoral act? On David Miller’s ‘weak cosmopolitan’ defense of the right to exclude

While immigration is attracting increasing attention in political theory, there are as yet, few political theorists who adopt a restrictionist stance. With very few exceptions, the most political theorists have offered so far are pragmatic, not principled, defenses of the right to exclude. Looked at in this light, David Miller’s engagingly thoughtful book is surely a welcome and distinctive addition to the burgeoning literature on immigration. But readers who are looking for a normative counterpart to Joseph Carens’ Ethics of Immigration might be disappointed. In fact, the two books display more similarities than one would expect. Most notably, they share a common methodological ground: both reject top-down approaches, which proceed from abstract normative principles and apply these principles to immigration and integration policies. Yet, Miller’s realism reaches farther, giving greater weight to empirical evidence and focusing on institutions instead of on how individuals should act. This institutional focus is a key-defining feature of Miller’s political philosophy of immigration as distinct from an ethics of immigration. However, as I shall argue in the first part of this paper, Miller does not remain faithful to this distinction. He blames unauthorized migrants for acting ‘unfairly.’ But his criticism of irregular migration lacks a sufficient normative and empirical basis. The second part of the paper deals with the question whether legal coercion gives rise to a right to stay. My focus is in particular on the costs that irregular immigrants must bear when they are forced to go back to their countries of origin. These costs tend to be much higher than one expects.     

English Radicalism and the Annihilation of the ‘Progressive Dilemma’

The rise of political nationalism in the early twenty‐first century threatens to subsume the ‘progressive dilemma’ as identified by David Marquand. The labourist tradition is collapsing culturally, the liberal tradition intellectually. In the face of a new politics of nativism across Europe and America, the labour movement needs to put the debate over the progressive dilemma behind it and find a new source of philosophical inspiration in the English radical tradition.     

“Those who know don’t tell”: David Hammons c. 1981†

Drawing on original archival research, as well as discourses in post-WWII art history, performance studies, and black studies, this article maps the use of rumor closely associated with David Hammons, with regard to two performative actions enacted in downtown Manhattan in 1981, now known as Pissed Off and Shoe Tree. These two performances occurred on and around the public sculpture T.W.U. (1980–81) by Richard Serra. Taking up how these works consider the specificity of social life pertaining to historically marginalized bodies and neighborhoods, this article argues that Hammons’s work in this period employs obscurity as a resistance to knowledge as it is codified and legitimized in institutional discourses within and beyond art institutions.