Search

Moral panics are conventionally associated with the interpretations of youthful action imposed by powerful state or media forces. However, the concept is also useful in understanding more generally how social problems are constructed and presented. In this paper, we consider how a vague term such as 'organized crime' has emerged as a vehicle for exclusionary rhetorics in both the United States and Britain. While the origins of the organized crime moral panic in the United States can be located amongst moral entrepreneurs, the British version is marked by the outpourings of a right-wing media, and the influence of American foreign policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analysis the political leadership approaches of U.S. Presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, on the issue concerning the U.S. desire to achieve naval parity with Great Britain. It states that the approach of Coolidge to settle the naval problem has worsened the Anglo-American relationship, in which Coolidge used a diplomatic blackmail to force Great Britain to concede to the U.S. demands. On the other hand, Hoover resolve the naval question through compromise. During the London Naval Conference in 1930, he was able to achieve Anglo-American cooperation. According to the author, there might have irritations at the British attitude. However, the reality of international politics has led to ignore such things for the national interest.

The article focuses on the rivalry between Great Britain and the U.S. in colonizing China in early and midnineteenth century. According to historians, the inception of U.S. China policy occurred in the nineteenth century during the proclamation of the Open Door policy and the possession of the Philippines as means to access the China market. The federal government colonized China to improve its economy and to increase its international influence in East Asia.

Research into cyber-conflict, public opinion, and international security is burgeoning, yet the field suffers from an absence of conceptual agreement about key terms. For instance, every time a cyberattack takes place, a public debate erupts as to whether it constitutes cyberterrorism. This debate bears significant consequences, seeing as the ascription of a "terrorism" label enables the application of heavy-handed counterterrorism powers and heightens the level of perceived threat among the public. In light of widespread conceptual disagreement in cyberspace, we assert that public opinion plays a heightened role in understanding the nature of cyber threats. We construct a typological framework to illuminate the attributes that drive the public classification of an attack as cyberterrorism, which we test through a ratings-based conjoint experiment in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel (N = 21,238 observations). We find that the public (1) refrains from labeling attacks by unknown actors or hacker collectives as cyberterrorism; and (2) classifies attacks that disseminate sensitive data as terrorism to a greater extent even than physically explosive attacks. Importantly, the uniform public perspectives across the three countries challenge a foundational tenet of public opinion and international relations scholarship that divided views among elites on foreign policy matters will be reflected by a divided public. This study concludes by providing a definitive conceptual baseline to support future research on the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the history of U.S.-Pakistan relations during the Cold War. Use of Pakistan of its strategic importance in bargaining with the U.S.; Problem experienced by the U.S. in formulating a foreign policy that would be favorable to both Pakistan and India; Conflict between the U.S. and Great Britain caused by Pakistan and India.

THERE is now a substantial body of historical literature concerning nineteenth-century development and technical change.[2] This literature relies, of course, upon detailed discussion of events in particular industries, but its objective is in some sense macro-economic. That is, it aims at making comparisons of levels and rates of change in techniques for groups of industries or even countries. This objective requires the aggregation of results about individual industrial operations. All aggregation suppresses information about the variables being combined, and it is important to inquire about the consequences of aggregation in analysis of this particular sort. This paper analyses a particular historical event, the establishment of the Enfield Arsenal, in the context of the literature cited. The British Government committed itself to the construction of the Enfield Arsenal in 1854 because it wished to be able to make large numbers of rifles for an impending war with Russia (now known as the Crimean War). The event is important because it marked the beginning of the movement of mass-production techniques from the United States to Europe. Technical changes in gunmaking in the nineteenth century were a major source of new machine techniques; and industrialisation in the nineteenth century is overwhelmingly the history of the spread of machine making and machine using. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author discusses the results of a study by Great Britain's Royal Society of London titled "Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century," which investigated the global progress of science. He notes that the conclusion that drew the most interest was the competition between the U.S. and China for global scientific dominance and discusses three areas in which the report fails in its analysis regarding China's scientific dominance.

Since the height of the Cold War, major democratic arms suppliers have claimed that they take into consideration the human rights records of existing and potential purchasing states. After the Cold War, supplier policies suggested an increased focus on matters of human rights. But do their records match their rhetoric and their formal policies? We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009. We argue that, if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, because the global interests of these suppliers shift over time, we expect some transfers of major weapon systems to states that violate human rights, but not of the types most implicated in human rights abuses. Thus, we build on the existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976 to 2009 show that the major democratic suppliers generally do not account for human rights violations in the importing state, with the one exception being the United States transfer of land weapon systems. This research is important not only to arms and human rights research, but to foreign policy scholars in general. The patterns of supply and the continued preference of states to provide major conventional weapons to states with poor human rights records reveal important policy priorities for these democratic states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discuses the methodological considerations for clinical guidelines developers in addressing particular physical therapy-related issues when developing guidelines for physical therapy diagnosis and treatment. It cites the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines. It proposes a collaboration for the production of international evidence statements for physical therapist practice based on the growth of knowledge in the field.

The extensive literature on the Anglo-American 'special relationship' revolves around an observation that Britain and the US tend to cooperate more closely than any other comparable pair of states. I argue that this cooperation pattern originates in the construction of a 'racialized peace' between the American and British empires at the fin-de-siècle. My argument builds on constructivist theorizations of the links among state/national identity, foreign policy, and international conflict/cooperation. Beginning with a discourse analysis of representative texts from the period leading up to the Venezuela crisis of 1895-96, I show how American and British elites succeeded in framing themselves as the vanguards of civilization and how the idea that two Anglo-Saxon entities could not fight each other in a global political system defined by race had significant consequences in world politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Great Recession has brought a structural break in international economic and political order. The geography of power is at present being dramatically transformed, notably by the rapid economic rise of China. What makes international order legitimate in a world in which political and economic foundations are rapidly shifting? This article examines analogies and lessons from a previous transition, from a world order centered on Britain, to a US dominated global order. That transition saw two moments of crisis, or turning points, the 1931 financial crisis at the height of the Great Depression, and the diplomatic and military catastrophe of Suez. The article looks at two interpretations of the transition, one by E. H. Carr focusing on the destruction in the Great Depression of a liberal economic and political order and its replacement by a world of brutal Great Power politics; the other by Charles Kindleberger, stressing the need for a benevolent hegemonic power to provide public goods for the world economy and the world political system. China is beginning to behave in the way expected of a Kindleberger hegemon, but also sees the possibilities of asserting power in a world that in the aftermath of 2008 looks much more like the chaotic and crisis-ridden interwar period as interpreted by E. H. Carr. The challenge for the management of the new international order will lie in the ability of China to embrace the universalistic vision that underpinned previous eras of stability, in the nineteenth century and in the late twentieth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questions positive claims about the state of high-level Anglo-American relations during the premiership of Harold Macmillan between 1957 and 1963. Period between two eras of threatened alliance; Failure of the Suez Canal collusion brought about by the swift American diplomatic and financial response; Thrust of literature that portrayed Post-Suez Anglo-American relations over the Middle East.

The article addresses the role of public health practitioners and researchers in the rise of far-right politics in Europe and North America. Topics include the implications of Brexit or the exit of Great Britain from the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as president of the U.S., and ways in which globalization is impacting the economy.