Theoretically refining the multiple streams framework: An introduction

This introduction to the forum section on the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) developed by John W. Kingdon argues that the conditions under which policy making takes place today increasingly resemble the assumptions upon which Kingdon built his lens. At the same time, while the framework is extremely successful with regard to citations and has been applied in various contexts that often differ remarkably from those for which the framework was originally developed, a systematic theoretical debate about the Multiple Streams Framework is still lacking. It is the intention to spark such a debate with this forum section.     

Global democracy in a society of peoples

This paper explores the political structures suitable for the realization of John Rawls’ The Law of Peoples (1999). In particular, it explores whether Rawls’ principles and fundamental foundations recommend establishing global institutions and, if so, whether, and in what sense, these institutions should be democratic. It is often suggested, either implicitly or explicitly, that The Law of Peoples would operate through the bilateral and multilateral interactions of, ideally conceived, nation-states. This paper argues, on the contrary, that it would advise a series of democratic global institutions. The case is developed with respect to the idea of a global institution with the remit of regulating international trade and applied, in the contemporary context, to the World Trade Organization (WTO).     

Australia's Handling of Tensions between Islam and the West under the Howard Government

This article examines the impact of international conflicts involving the Muslim world upon Australia's multicultural society by studying the Howard government's responses to tensions between Islam and the West since September 11. Specifically, it surveys the Howard government's participation in the ‘War on Terror’, other aspects of Australia's foreign and security policies, including the relationship with the United States, the emergence of immigration and refugee flows as national security issues, and the subsequent impact of all this on multiculturalism and in particular on Australia's Muslim community. At a broader level, the article challenges the argument that foreign policy is inconsequential for social policy, intercommunal, inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations. The internalization of the ‘War on Terror’ has reinforced a negative portrayal of Islam and Muslims in Australia by blurring the dividing line between ‘Islam’ on the one hand and ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism’ on the other. The evidence suggests that government statements and policies, more generally had provoked apprehension amongst a wide cross-section of the Australian Muslim community. A major finding of this article is that unless care is taken, it is not inconceivable that the hitherto harmonious relationship between Muslims and other sections of Australia's community could be unnecessarily endangered.     

The meanings,origins and implications of 'the Howard Doctrine'

This article examines the background to the so-called 'Howard Doctrine' of 1999 in response to the problems that Australian diplomacy and defence policy encountered during the East Timor crisis. The article begins by examining the critical reaction both in Australia and abroad to the doctrine which appeared to imply Australia's increased reliance on the 'special relationship' with the US and its role as a 'deputy' of its ANZUS partner in the East Asia region. The article then demonstrates the historical origins of the doctrine's thinking in Australia's reliance since the post-war period on a system of serial bilateralism and special relationships with first the UK, the US and then Indonesia. However, the article also points out the essential vulnerabilities inherent in this type of serial bilateralism and its relative inability to respond effectively to the East Timor crisis. Finally, the article considers the systemic risk in Australian policy as manifested in the doctrine, and the future viability of serial bilateralism in dealing with Australia's regional diplomatic and security agenda.     

Consensus to Contestation: Reconfiguring Democratic Representation in the European Union in the Light of 19th Century United States Democratization

This article explores how proposals for democratizing the European Union (EU) according to a supranational, contestational model are likely to disrupt its existing political system. The current EU is characterized by a dual system of representation that combines the representation of member states with that of individual citizens. Democratization typically entails enhancing the representation of individuals at the expense of state prerogatives. It is thus possible to make a pertinent analogy with the antebellum United States, which also featured dual representation, and where a great wave of democratization took place following Andrew Jackson's presidency (1829–1837). As the system of representation there became more majoritarian, John C. Calhoun led the calls for introducing new anti-majoritarian constitutional safeguards. A transatlantic comparison suggests the contestational system born of EU democratization will require institutional innovation in order to prove viable. In this context, Calhoun's theory of nullification, an ex post political mechanism wielded by the units to stymie federal legislation, appears more appropriate as an anti-majoritarian bulwark and better able to engender constitutional debate over competences than is the EU's stillborn judicial principle of subsidiarity. In similarly Calhounian fashion, a bottom-up procedure of constitutional amendment originating in the units is further proposed as a way of establishing unit acquiescence to greater supranationalism.