Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Why do human rights INGOs choose to work on some issues and not others? This article contends that, since the 1990s, the proliferation of issues within the remit of human rights INGOs has increased the moral opportunity costs of selection decisions. Growth in the number and diversity of issues has led to a "selection dilemma" where decision-makers face onerous ethical choices among a significant menu of options. To explain how decision-makers deal with this dilemma, the article builds on existing theoretical work on INGOs, primarily by constructivists, proposing that heuristic-led judgment on the part of key decision-makers is a central determinant in the (non-)adoption of issues. This explanation is examined empirically using a within-case paired analysis of decision-making in Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The article's findings provide preliminary evidence that heuristics shape selection outcomes in INGOs, adding further weight to IR scholarship, which stresses the influence of psychology and leaders in organizational and group decision-making.

Theories of decision-making grounded in political psychology have experienced a dramatic rise in the study of International Relations. There is widespread recognition of the benefits of incorporating insights from the behavioural sciences into analyses of political behaviour. However, some scholars have argued that the theoretical and empirical scope of these perspectives remains hampered by an unresolved issue: aggregation. While the fundamental unit of interest in psychology is the individual, most International Relations models concern patterns of collective decision-making in aggregate units such as states, bureaucracies, armed groups, transnational networks and institutions. This article contributes to the aggregation debate by providing a more optimistic portrait of its implications for interdisciplinary work. I argue that aggregation may be an overstated problem in International Relations and that a disciplinary preoccupation with it may hinder rather than pave the way for interdisciplinary theorizing.

Abstract
How should rapid developments in digital and cyber technology shape our understanding of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? And in operationalising the doctrine, how might insights on the impact of technology be integrated within key tools of R2P implementation, such as the United Nations Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes? Although prior literature has produced rich discussion of R2P as a norm, and of the politics surrounding it, analysts have paid 'far less attention to what R2P looks like in practice', especially with regard to advances in new technology. In this article we contend that, whether we look at the future of R2P through a normative/legal lens, or from a policy/operational perspective, grappling with the impact of technology on the practical realities of mass atrocity situations is of critical importance. To explore this argument, we empirically engage with one of the primary tools through which the implementation of R2P has benefited, the UN Framework of Analysis on Atrocity Crimes (unfaac).

How does the oil wealth of a potential target state affect the likelihood of the US public favoring the use of military force? Recent studies suggest that public opinion on foreign policy is responsive to the core characteristics of target states, such as regime type and majority religion. This article advances this research agenda by examining the effects of intra-regime heterogeneity in respect of an important characteristic of target states: their oil wealth. To examine the relationship between oil wealth and US public opinion on war, we fielded a conjoint experiment with US citizens. Respondents chose between hypothetical pairs of target states that varied across seven different intra-regime characteristics. We found that that the oil wealth of a target exerts a statistically significant (albeit small) effect on public support for the use of force, independent of the effects of other regime characteristics.

How does the oil wealth of a potential target state affect the likelihood of the US public favoring the use of military force? Recent studies suggest that public opinion on foreign policy is responsive to the core characteristics of target states, such as regime type and majority religion. This article advances this research agenda by examining the effects of intra-regime heterogeneity in respect of an important characteristic of target states: their oil wealth. To examine the relationship between oil wealth and US public opinion on war, we fielded a conjoint experiment with US citizens. Respondents chose between hypothetical pairs of target states that varied across seven different intra-regime characteristics. We found that that the oil wealth of a target exerts a statistically significant (albeit small) effect on public support for the use of force, independent of the effects of other regime characteristics.

Historians have generally argued that the feudal system in the later Middle Ages in England had declined into obsolescence, at least as far as the aristocracy were concerned, and little has been written in the last half-century on the subject. Yet not only were the greater landowners assiduous in keeping records of tenants holding land from them by knight's service, serjeanty and socage, but evidence from these sources suggests that feudal rights and duties remained important. Revenues from feudal incidents (honorial courts, escheats, wardships and feudal aids) were fluctuating but often lucrative sources of income, though they had declined from thirteenth-century heights and were subject in the later fourteenth and fifteenth century to both political fluctuations and variability in quality of lordship. Lords also continued to insist on the personal performance of homage; the numbers involved, the high-status buildings in which the ceremony was performed (usually before important witnesses) and the solemnity of the ceremony itself suggest that homage was more important in the later Middle Ages than is generally acknowledged. Feudal tenants, indeed, played a significant part in aristocratic affinities. Defined in narrow terms as a system of relationships, feudalism was not moribund.

AbstractThe use of torture by the US armed forces and the CIA was not limited to "a few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib but encompassed a broader range of practices, including rendition to third countries and secret "black sites", that the US administration deemed permissible under US and international law. This article explores the various legal avenues pursued by the administration to justify and maintain its coercive interrogation programme, and the response by Congress and the courts. Much of the public debate concerned defining and redefining torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. While US laws defining torture have moved closer to international standards, they have also effectively shut out those seeking redress for mistreatment from bringing their cases before the courts and protect those responsible from prosecution.

Paper read before the Royal institute of public administration, London, Nov. 30, 1953.

Founded in eastern Arkansas during the Great Depression, the Southern Tenant Farmers Union (STFU) has long fascinated historians, who have emphasized its biracial membership and the socialist convictions of its leaders, while attributing its demise to external factors, such as the mechanization of agriculture, the repression of wealthy planters, and the indifference of New Dealers. However, as James Ross notes in this compelling revisionist history, such accounts have largely ignored the perspective of the actual sharecroppers and other tenant farmers who made up the union's rank and file.