Search results

This article quantitatively investigates several possible foundations for environmental sustainability, as measured across countries with varying geography, development patterns, social customs, and political arrangements. Two central hypotheses about the roles of democracy and federalism, as well as other hypotheses about economic development, religion, and demographics, are tested. The study provides moderate evidence that sustainability levels depend on democratization, but little evidence that it depends on the presence of federalism. In addition, it is found that the effects of environmental interests, development paths, and religious orientations vary across different measures of sustainability. Adapted from the source document.

This article quantitatively investigates several possible foundations for environmental sustainability, as measured across countries with varying geography, development patterns, social customs, and political arrangements. Two central hypotheses about the roles of democracy and federalism, as well as other hypotheses about economic development, religion, and demographics, are tested. The study provides moderate evidence that sustainability levels depend on democratization, but little evidence that it depends on the presence of federalism. In addition, it is found that the effects of environmental interests, development paths, and religious orientations vary across different measures of sustainability.

Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham, Thomas L. Pangle,
Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, pp. 263In the beginning was Leo Strauss with his trailblazing Platonizing
exegeses of Genesis, "On the Interpretation of Genesis" and
"Jerusalem and Athens." Strauss begat many strong and
independent minds who commented on the text. Hillel Fradkin and Robert
Sacks were two of the earliest, as was Leon Kass. Kass recently published
a hefty commentary on the entirety of Genesis, The Beginning of
Wisdom (New York: Free press, 2003).

"American Grand Strategy and Political Economy Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

AbstractIn most Western democracies, non‐institutionalized political activities such as political consumerism often represent the only accessible means of political expression for foreign residents. However, the few studies available to date show that foreign residents consume significantly less politically than national citizens. This study examines how the key political resources education, political interest, and organization membership may account for this gap. By means of original survey data from Switzerland, I find that (i) organization membership is the strongest predictor for political consumerism but does not explain the participation gap; (ii) political interest is the most important resource to explain why foreign residents consume less politically than Swiss citizens; and (iii) the three resources work similarly for both groups, whereas political interest and education act as partial mediators. The results of this study suggest that political resources mediate rather than moderate political consumer differences based on citizenship status.

This article provides insight into Turkey's strategic pursuit of a more active and influential role as a mediator in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Turkey, positioning itself as a middle power, seeks to elevate its global standing. This involves a delicate diplomatic balancing act in its foreign policy approach towards both Russia and Ukraine. The equilibrium thus achieved positions Turkey as a natural mediator, serving as a catalyst for brokering a peace initiative among the conflicting parties. Ankara's diplomatic activism is not just a tactical move but also a manifestation of Turkey's broader global ambitions, underlining its commitment to playing a more significant role in shaping international affairs. These aspirations clash with a rising penchant in Turkey to pursue a more militaristic and coercive foreign policy, which stands in contradiction to the role of a benign power.

This paper aims to open up high-level waste management practices to a political philosophical questioning, beyond the enclosure implied by the normative ethics approaches that prevail in the literature. Building on previous insights derived from mediation theory (in particular the work of Verbeek and Dorrestijn), Foucault and science and technology studies (in particular Jasanoff's work on socio-technical imaginaries), mediation theory's appropriation of Foucauldian insights is shown to be in need of modification and further extension. In particular, we modify Dorrestijn's figure of "technical determination of power relations" to better take into account the (literal and figurative) aspects of imagination, and complement Dorrestijn's work with the figures of techno-scientific mediation, and the inherently political figures of socio-technical and state-technical mediation, both based on Foucault's notion of governmentality. Our analysis implies that the practical implementation of a high-level nuclear waste (HLW) management strategy will require the "stitching together" of these different mediations, which is an inherently political task.

Since Bosnia and Herzegovina's declaration of independence in 1995, its path has been a rocky one. Unwillingness by the international community to stand by the central government and stand in the way of the neighboring states of Serbia and Croatia's territorial pretensions, produced a succession of ceasefire agreements, culminating in the final, Dayton Peace Agreement. Each of these agreements espoused the ethnic principle as the guiding philosophy for the organization of the state. The post-war period demonstrates that despite the passage of time, the principle of organization of multi-ethnic state along ethnic lines presents a stumbling block to the functioning of the political, economic and social life in the country. The political history of post-independence Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) therefore reads as a history of protracted political paralysis, with no hope of rectifying the problems without another forceful intervention of the international community.

There are at least two politically salient senses of "representation"—acting-for-othersandportraying-something-as-something. The difference is not just semantic but also logical: relations of representative agency are dyadic (xrepresentsy), while portrayals are triadic (xrepresentsyasz). I exploit this insight to disambiguate constructivism and to improve our theoretical vocabulary for analyzing political representation. I amend Saward's claims-based approach on three points, introducing the "characterization" to correctly identify the elements of representational claims; explaining the "referent" in pragmatic, not metaphysical terms; and differentiating multiple forms of representational activity. This enables me to clarify how the represented can bebothprior to representationandconstituted by it, and to recover Pitkin's idea that representatives ought to be "responsive" to the represented. These points are pertinent to debates about the role of representatives, the nature of representative democracy, and the dynamics of revolutionary movements.