Suchergebnisse

THE AUTHOR ASSESSES THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO POLITICAL SCIENCE SCHOLARSHIP BY "LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL SCALES: SOME EXPERT JUDGMENTS," WRITTEN BY FRANCIS CASTLES AND PETER MAIR. IN THEIR ESSAY, CASTLES AND MAIR PROVIDED THE EMPIRICAL FOUNDATION FOR CROSS-NATIONAL LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL SCALES.

Social and economic, or welfare rights, as an expansion of human rights. Differences between social and political rights relating to costs, universality, and the correlativity of rights and duties.

Formal models of political bargaining generally emphasize the importance of the allocation of prerogatives such as proposal & veto rights among the bargainers. However, despite the importance of these arguments for the study of political institutions, little work has been done to clarify precisely what general roles each of these prerogatives play in generating political outcomes. In this article, I develop a sequential-choice bargaining model that incorporates very general allocations of both proposal & veto rights. The model helps clarify the important strategic distinctions between these rights & identify the conditions under which they have substantial impacts on outcomes. My analysis demonstrates how these prerogatives interact & how the failure to account for this interaction can lead to mistaken inferences about their individual effects. Finally, the model suggests that the value of these rights is heavily influenced by a number of other features of the institutional bargaining environment. 2 Tables, 1 Appendix, 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of political readings of the right to have rights. The gist of the argument is that this right only comes into being in the act of claiming or taking it. At the same time, the political reading suffers from a normative lacuna which is difficult to ignore if right is not to collapse into might. The present article seeks to show that this normative lacuna can be accounted for if one situates the political reading in relation to a certain form of government. Acknowledging Montesquieu's influence on Arendt's resort to the principles which guide political action, the article offers a new interpretation of the normative basis of the right to have rights. It argues, first, that this right is democratic, not political, and second, that the principle which sets the right in motion is responsibility, not freedom. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

THIS ARTICLE DEVELOPS A SEQUENTIAL-CHOICE BARGAINING MODEL THAT INCORPORATES VERY GENERAL ALLOCATIONS OF BOTH PROPOSAL AND VETO RIGHTS. THE MODEL HELPS CLARIFY THE IMPORTANT STRATEGIC DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THESE RIGHTS AND IDENTIFY THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS ON OUTCOMES. THE ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES HOW THESE PREROGATIVES INTERACT AND HOW THE FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS INTERACTION CAN LEAD TO MISTAKEN INFERENCES ABOUT THEIR INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS. FINALLY, THE MODEL SUGGESTS THAT THE VALUE OF THESE RIGHTS IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY A NUMBER OF OTHER FEATURES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL BARGAINING ENVIRONMENT.

Rather than addressing the dated debate of Iraq's 'artificiality', this article analyses the evolution of the term 'Iraq' and by extension the evolution in frames of self-definition in the years 1914-20. I use three key events (the anti-British jihad of 1914, the Najaf rebellion of
1918 and the rebellion of 1920) and examine the discourse that accompanied the events to analyse the changing categories of self-identification on the mid-Euphrates. A clearly discernible ontological evolution of 'Iraq' in the popular imagination is revealed thereby clarifying and explaining
the rapid rise and adoption of Iraqi nationalism in the early twentieth century.

AbstractIn the past century, the notion of human rights has expanded significantly to include a variety of social rights. The introduction of this new category of human rights inspired a lively debate concerning the authenticity of such claims, focussing particularly on the ways in which social rights differ from political rights. This article examines the major points at issue in the debate. The important differences emphasized to date are those relating to costs, universality, and the correlativity of rights and duties. In each of these major areas of dispute, analysis indicates that the allegedly fundamental distinctions between social and political rights are in fact differences of degree, not of kind and, in fact, social rights conform both to the broad logic and the established practice of human rights.