New version of the Kirkpatrick doctrine in the post-Soviet space

A growing number of political scientists notice worrying deficiencies of new democracies in Georgia and Ukraine. Looking for possible reasons they usually focus on internal factors. However, external factors may have also played their part. This article draws attention to the US foreign policy which, it is argued, did not further democratic consolidation goals in post-revolutionary Georgia and Ukraine. The Bush administration's policy towards these two countries is described as a manifestation of a new version of the Kirkpatrick doctrine which instructed US foreign-policy makers to choose the lesser evil of the two: unconsolidated, yet pro-American, democracies in the post-Soviet space.     

Criminal Justice and the Liberal Polity

There are several reasonable conceptions of liberalism. A liberal polity can survive a measure of disagreement over just what constitutes liberalism. In part, this is because of the way a liberal order makes possible a dynamic, heterogeneous civil society and how that, in turn, can supply participants with reasons to support a liberal political order. Despite the different conceptions of justice associated with different conceptions of liberalism, there are reasons to distinguish the normative focus of criminal justice from other aspects of justice in a liberal polity. Given the fundamental commitments of liberalism—of whatever variant—there are reasons for criminal justice not to be assimilated to wider conceptions of justice overall. Such assimilation risks undermining some of liberalism's distinctive commitments concerning the standing of individuals as voluntary, responsible agents. Criminal justice is not independent of other aspects of justice but has a distinct focus in a liberal polity.     

The Strategic Timing behind Position-taking in the US Congress: A Study of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act

Roll call voting by members of the US Congress has been frequently studied. In contrast, the various decisions leading up to roll call voting are relatively unexplored. This article analyses one of those decisions: when senators announce their final passage vote intention. The authors use the same set of variables to analyse both the timing of the announcement and the final passage vote. They find that different independent variables predict these two different decisions, though the constituency and the senator's institutional setting matter in both. Furthermore, this study corroborates an assumption in the rational choice literature that those members with the most information are the first movers.     

Parliamentary Rule: The US Senate Parliamentarian and Institutional Constraints on Legislator Behaviour

This article analyses the extent to which institutional rules constrain member behaviour in the United States Senate by examining the evolution of its parliamentarian. Interestingly, the US Senate parliamentarian has received surprisingly little scholarly attention given the important role she performs in the legislative process. The subsequent analysis thus provides a new understanding of the parliamentarian's role in the legislative process and the interplay between institutional rules and member behaviour in the Senate. To this end, the following analysis is situated within the context of the two primary theoretical approaches to understanding how institutional rules constrain member behaviour: path dependency and majoritarianism. These contrasting approaches provide expectations about the extent to which members will defer to the parliamentarian's interpretation of Senate rules rather than exercising their own discretionary control over those rules. Examining the evolving relationship between the parliamentarian and individual members affirms the centrality of institutional rules as a constraint on member behaviour over the past several decades. Yet such an examination also yields two surprising, and potentially contradictory, observations. First, individual senators in both parties have increasingly deferred to the parliamentarian to interpret the Senate's rules. This is surprising given that the Senate has simultaneously become more individualistic, partisan, and ideological over the same period. Second, the majority party has recently disregarded the norm of parliamentary constraint reflected in past practice and demonstrated a willingness to ignore Senate rules when doing so was necessary to achieve legislative success. This could signify a potential shift in how majorities view the constraints imposed by Senate rules if current trends of legislative dysfunction continue.     

THE MEANING OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Prevailing paradigms of macro‐economic management and levels and distributions of poverty in some rich countries suggest that economic and strategic self‐interest rather than poverty reduction in poor countries are likely to be the primary objectives of much development assistance. The incommensurability of the paradigms of development discourse makes it unlikely that strongly held ideologically based positions on these matters will change quickly or easily. Moreover, non‐altruistic positions can be maintained more readily by virtue of the loose construction of international declarations such as the Paris Declaration. Based on different interpretations of the Paris Declaration, empirical evidence from Cambodia and Indonesia of donor opportunism that is designed to maximise aid control and aid distinctiveness for non‐altruistic purposes is presented. Recent sharp declines in donor legitimacy have made this more difficult to do, but even so, there have been no concomitant reductions in donor self‐assurance concerning their exclusive possession of the moral and technical high ground. Such behaviour is, however, increasingly resented particularly by government officials in lower middle‐income countries like Indonesia. Resulting relationships lack trust and are therefore unlikely to contribute optimally either to the realisation of non‐altruistic purposes or to poverty reduction. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

美国国家反恐战略的分析框架与历史演进

美国全球反恐行动已持续近十八年,理解当下特朗普政府的反恐战略和未来走向离不开对美国反恐战略历史演进的梳理,而对三届政府反恐战略的比较则需基于统一的分析框架。美国国家反恐战略包括四个基本组成部分：对恐怖主义的威胁认知、指导反恐的基本原则、预设的战略目标和实施的政策手段。对比分析小布什政府、奥巴马政府与特朗普政府的反恐战略,特朗普政府延续了上一任政府持续收缩的全球反恐态势,具体表现为对恐怖主义的威胁认知更趋符合客观现实,“美国优先”的指导原则凸显了利己和激进的态度,预设的战略目标则相对具体和务实。在政策手段上,特朗普政府缩减反恐武力规模、减少外交关注和发展投入,但通过加大军事打击力度以向外界传达其反恐的强硬态度。以“美国优先”为原则的反恐收缩战略进一步表现出美国对全球反恐行动感到疲乏且失去信心,并以此为由试图摆脱原有约束美国对外行为的一系列因素。特朗普政府的反恐战略并不能使美国彻底摆脱全球反恐的尴尬境地,并将对全球反恐形势和国家间关系产生重要影响。