Strategic Moral Diplomacy: Mandela, Qaddafi, and the Lockerbie Negotiations

Understanding and mitigating the consequences of clashing moral perceptions should be a primary goal of diplomacy and foreign policy analysis. Personal interviews and primary documents about the Lockerbie negotiations are used to illustrate the dangerous collision of different moral claims in the international arena, the mistakes made by the United States and United Kingdom in handling this aspect of the negotiations, and South African President Nelson Mandela's use of strategic moral diplomacy to resolve the stalemate between Libya, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Mandela's strategy in these negotiations is an example of how an intelligent and pragmatic moral position, rather than the conventional image of an enemy as evil, can produce the desired strategic results—in this case, Colonel Qaddafi's handover of the two Libyan citizens accused of the Lockerbie bombing.     

Miscarriage of Justice? Postcolonial Reflections on the ‘Trial’ of the Maharajah of Baroda, 1875

This article revisits the Baroda Incident 1875, providing a detailed examination of the Enquiry or ‹trial’ for the first time, and locating that examination in the wider socio-cultural context of the nineteenth century British Empire (especially the Raj) and the exporting of the ‹British’/English legal culture to the Empire. The implications of the establishing of British principles of justice, including the value placed upon Indian-generated evidence and testimony by the courts, are explored, in order to establish the Baroda Incident as a significant miscarriage of justice. Using historical methodologies as well as postcolonial insights, it demonstrates that the concepts of justice on which the British prided themselves were intrinsincally racialised as well as gendered, with profound modern resonances. Dr. Judith Rowbotham is a Reader, School of Arts and Humanities, Nottingham Trent University.     

Dominance and Domestic Abuse Among Mexican Americans: Gender Differences in the Etiology of Violence in Intimate Relationships

Gender differences in dominance and aggressive behavior in intimate relationships among Mexican Americans were examined. Three hundred and sixteen Mexican American men and women took the Dominance Scale and the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2). Results showed that power and possessiveness were associated with all types of aggressive behavior. Dominance was, however, expressed differently by men and women. High power and possessiveness were associated with all types of aggressive behavior. Decision-making power was also associated with physical assault, and high devaluation with inflicting injury among men. Among women, high power was only associated with physical assault, whereas possessiveness was associated with psychological aggression and physical assault. Devaluation was also high among women who inflicted injury on their male partners.