Exam 4

Balance of Power Theory

- Peace results when states use alliances to balance one another and block expansionists. When power shifts decisively to one side, it has incentives to go to war in order to further its power and territorial possessions. According to the proponents, this explains a long period of relative peace in Europe after the Napoleonic wars until World War I. Balance of power between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War period also led to relative peacefulness (at least, there was no major great power war, like World War I or II).

Vital vs. secondary

- a vital interest potentially threatens the state's survival, such as the threat posed to the US by Soviet missiles in Cuba; a secondary interest is more distant and less urgent - nations more inclined to negotiate secondary interests

World Government

- some argue that sovereignty is the real problem, as it keeps states from submitting to an overarching global authority. Peace might therefore arise if states gave up some sovereignty. But few states are willing to surrender their interests to the care of an outside authority; certainly the US wouldn't. The UN can only cajole; it can't force nations to cooperate.

Temporary vs. permanent

- temporary interests are of fixed duration, such as US support of Iraq in its war with Iran in the 1980s; permanent interests may last for centuries, as in the US determination to keep foreign powers out of Western Hemisphere

Collective Security

- the League of Nations (1920-1945) tried to prevent aggression by "collective security," where states would band together to punish aggressors. All threats to international security were to be considered equally grave. But in reality, not all threats are equal and states were unwilling to enter distant conflicts where they had no interests, such as stopping Japan from seizing Manchuria (1931). Even when the threats were grave, such as Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland, League of Nations failed to act due to the fact that different states defined their national interests differently.The UN collective security works similarly to that of the League of Nations. Most of the time, it does not work as envisioned (due to the lack of great powers' commitment), but sometimes it does work as intended (e.g., 1991 Gulf War; when great powers' national interests are threatened).

Diplomacy

- the oldest approach to peace is through diplomatic contact, sending envoys to negotiate a compromise For diplomacy to work, there must be willingness to compromise; Israeli-Palestinian talks continually break down due to areas where neither side will compromise, such as the status of Jerusalem.

Number of of standing committee in the us house and us senate

21 in house and 20 in the senate

Britain committee

5

Supervision and criticism of government

A major role of legislature is oversight of executive branch actions. Such monitoring can protect the national interest fight corruption and inefficiency. The British question hour allows members to grill ministers sometimes pointing out serious errors which can damage the majority for the next election. Investigation by the US Congress can raise questions about executive policies and potentially force the executive to change them as critiques about the chaos in Iraq helped bring about the surge approach

Psychological Disadvantages

A president can have charisma, but a legislature cannot. Thus, the public tends to have much more respect for the president, and disdain for Congress. Television gives much more air time to the president than Congress, enhancing the president's image of being powerful and effective. The president or prime minister as viewed as a parental figure, guiding the nation, particularly when times are perilous. At the same time, legislators are seen as continually squabbling.

- Be familiar with the different styles of leadership (of US presidents) and be able to associate each time with the respective president

American presidents have various styles of leadership. Carter was a hands-on, detail-oriented person who tried to supervise too much; this tends to exhaust and diffuse the president's energies Eisenhower, most of whose career was as a military bureaucrat, tried to look hands-off, but was involved much more behind the scenes (what Fred Greenstein called the "hidden hand" presidency; link). FDR's administration has often been called "deliberate chaos" - he set up many agencies and advisors, often working at cross purposes, to produce creative options, then decided important issues himself. Reagan was very hands-off, letting subordinates handle most of the administration and providing only vague guidance - this led to a major scandal, the Iran-Contra Affair.

Hierarchy of Power (Theory of Hegemonic Stability)

An alternative view is that calculations of power are uncertain, but peace can be maintained because states know where they stand relative to other states. When hierarchy is clear, and the world is dominated by a single superpower, peace will persist. In transitional times, when the power hierarchy is blurred, states are tempted to go to war to improve their relative position. Proponents of this view argue that relative peacefulness of the 19th century was due to British superpower status (Pax Britannica), not due to the balance of power. And, as long as the US remains the sole superpower (Pax Americana), argue proponents, World War III will be averted.

European/Continental Court System

Based on the French Code Napoléon, European courts do not separate civil and criminal cases. Instead, they have separate systems of regular and administrative courts, each with a specialized high court. In addition, there is a separate Constitutional Court (CC), which is not a part of the ordinary judiciary. It only hears cases related to the constitutional law.

Structural disadvantages

Because of strong party discipline in parliamentary systems members obey their leadership almost completely and legislating is very efficient. This means members do little snd Parliament conveys little excitement and becomes powerful. The US Congress with weak party discipline has a tendency to deadlock with executive and this is thus inefficient.

Bureaucracies in Comparison: Great Britain

Britain has strong traditions of local self-government and dispersion of authority, making its bureaucracy more responsive to the concerns of local communities However, the bureaucracy was rife with corruption in the mid-19th century, so Britain began to create a merit civil service based on competitive exams. Every ministry now has a "permanent secretary" who reports to the cabinet minister and has the real bureaucratic power, supported by lower-level civil servants. British control over the bureaucracy tends to be tighter than in America. British bureaucrats pride themselves on being apolitical and on faithfully carrying out the political government's policies.

force

" is a specific application of military might

The Trouble with Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy tends to be a pejorative term in the US, partly because recent presidential candidates often campaign "against the bureaucracy" US Republican administrations, heavily allied to business, want drastic deregulation of private industry. Republican deregulation efforts led to serious disasters - in the savings and loan industry in the 1980s and to the financial collapse of 2008. Efficiency and productivity criteria often hard to apply to government programs, as they're mandated by statute to serve many goals, with many legal restrictions - The Case FOR Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy and corruption are often intertwined: officials can use position to benefit friends by throwing contracts their way; nepotism is rife in many developing countries Some countries with strong public service ethos - Finland and Singapore - aren't corrupt. Institutional culture of the bureaucracy matters In the US, industries capture agencies by arguing that only an industry's specialists can monitor that industry - a practice that contributed to the 2008 meltdown Some civil service theorists thought that bureaucrats would never make policy, but merely carry out laws. That was naïve, for in carrying out laws, judgments need to be made that have a policy character. And in some countries, bureaucrats have strong and explicit policymaking roles (e.g., METI in Japan). Making bureaucracies flexible, creative, and accountable is an important - perhaps, the most important - task of the modern political systems.

Shadow cabinet

Cabinet members have to answer to the whole parliament at questions hour on their governance typically questions come only from the oppositions parties or from the members.

Impact of legislative act of 1970

Chairs chosen by a secret ballot giving committee members meetings. Allowed a majority of committee members to call committee meetings. Gave minority committee members the power to call witnesses. Required that committees have written rules. Required that all committee roll call votes be made public. Allowed radio and tv coverage of committee hearings.

The role and impact of subcommittees in the us

Changes in the 70s we can do sometimes tyrannical powers of committee chair person's by making it easier to establish subcommittees. Chairpersons weaker than they used to be but now subcommittees and their chairpersons have decentralize and fragmented power too much weakening Congress as an institution

- Know how cohabitation works in France and why it was adopted

Charles De Gaulle designed a semi-presidential system with a working president and prime minister (premier), which the French electorate approved in a referendum in October 1962. The president is popularly elected and has a fixed term of office. He typically names a like-minded premier, who provides a link with the parliament. The president and premier both have important and independent executive powers. Sometimes, however, an odd situation develops where the parliament elected is of a different party than the president. In these cases, the president chooses a PM from the dominant party in parliament (a situation that arose in 1986-87 for the first time). Under this divided executive control of the government, the president is responsible for foreign policy, while the PM oversees the domestic policy. This is called "cohabitation" and helps prevent deadlock in the French government.

Presidential systems

Clearest separation of power between exective and legislative branches. President is elected by the people, as much power and can easily be removed from power by the legislature ( both president and legislayor are elected for fixed terms of office in separate elections. In president systems, president choose their cabinet from any able individuals who share their policy views from outside the legislature. Legislature simultaneously. Because the branches of government cannot dissolve or control one another presidential system have high government stability but the potential flipside is regime instability

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutions are usually written in general terms, and hence need interpretation by courts. High courts (Supreme Court or Constitutional Court) are the final arbiters of what the constitution means.Judicial review is a power used by the courts to ensure that statutes and administrative regulations are in accord with the Constitution Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other federal courts operate on the principle of stare decisis, meaning that prior court decisions on legal and constitutional principles should be honored. Occasionally, however, SCOTUS will overturn an earlier decision that doesn't reflect its current make-up or the Court's view of the changes in our society Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954 and 1955) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which had permitted racial segregation. In Brown, SCOTUS declared that separate public schools for whites and blacks are inherently unequal, even if physically alike because they stigmatized black children and deprived them of the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

inter partes

Court decisions usually apply only and (in relation to the parties in the case),

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Covers regulatory orders written by federal agencies to interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. For example, federal statute prohibits "unfair and deceptive act" in commerce. The Federal Trade Commission determines what business practices should be considered "unfair" or "deceptive." Those who feel that the regulations do not reflect the intent of the law may sue the agency in federal courts. And, the regulations and case law build up to provide guidelines for how agencies and the public may interpret statutes.

Know the criticism against the use of judicial elections, which are used in some US states

Critics say that election of judges produces crowd-pleasing politicians with shaky judicial skills and questionable ties to interest groups (particularly law firms) through campaign donations.

Parliamentism

Dual executive- separate heads of state and government, fusion of executive and legislative power, no fixed executive, United government policy making

FEDERAL JUDGES

Federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. They have life tenure to free them from political pressure, though they may be impeached and removed. The American Bar Association (ABA) ranks potential judicial nominees (from "not qualified" to "well qualified"). Presidents often use ABA ratings to help select nominees. GWB announced in 2001 that he would not cooperate with ABA at all. However, Obama resumed the use of ABA rankings. Senate approval used to be routine, but is now very contentious, as the opposition party tries to shoot down candidates it views as too much in line with majority's policies by blocking their confirmation Today, presidents nominate judges who tend to reflect their ideology - Clinton appointed liberal judges; GWB appointed more conservative judges.

lack of expertise

Few legislators are experts on the myriad topics they deal with - they tend to rely on executive branch experts, giving advantage to the executive With so much executive branch input, resulting legislation gives the executive much discretion in applying the law Most parliaments have virtually nothing in the way of independent research capabilities The US Congress is better endowed than most legislatures. It has its own special agencies: Congressional Research Service (CRS), General Accountability Office (GAO), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which give it independent advice to offset somewhat the executive branch's advantage in information.

Bureaucracies in Comparison: Germany

Frederick the Great of Prussia pressed for effective administration, establishing special universities to train administrators. When Germany was unified under Prussian leadership, the Prussian system of government, including loyalty to the monarch, was imposed on all German territories. The bureaucracy helped undermine the short-lived Weimar Republic and flocked to Hitler. Now, most German administration occurs at the Lander (provincial) level, and civil servants are committed to democracy Most German bureaucrats are trained in law and like legislation and regulations neatly organized into elaborate and detailed codes (e.g., Criminal Code, Administrative Code, Tax Code, etc.)

Presidentialism

Fused executive- head of state and head of government, separation of executive and legislative power, fixed terms of office for chief executive, possibly divided government immoblism, inefficient policy making

Constructive Vote of "No Confidence" in Germany

Governments in the 1919 Weimar Republic were usually very unstable. One reason was that a Chancellor (Reichskanzler) would frequently be voted out of office without his successor having sufficient backing in Parliament. This led to quick succession of many Chancellors in office. This instability was also seen as contributing to the rise of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. To overcome this problem, 1949 German constitution provided for the constructive vote. The chancellor (Bundeskanzler) may be removed from office by majority vote of Parliament (the Bundestag) only if a prospective successor also has the support of a majority. In other words, the motion of no confidence in the current Chancellor must at the same time be a motion of confidence for a new candidate. In addition, a chancellor can be removed only if Bundestag votes in an entire replacement cabinet. As this is very difficult to do, this "constructive no confidence" vote has happened only once. Thus, German cabinets have very long tenures. Constructive vote is also used in Hungary, Slovenia, Poland, Spain, and Israel (since 2001). Certeris paribus, motions of no confidence (simple or constructive) are more common in multiparty systems in which a minority party must form a coalition government. This can result in the situation in which there are many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to break a government without means to create a government. This has widely been regarded as the cause of instability for the French Fourth Republic (1946-1959). To deal with this situation, the French placed large amount of executive power in the office of the President of France, which is immune to motions of no confidence. In presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, as was done against U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s and was contemplated against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in late 2006, but these motions are of symbolic effect only Presidential systems usually have the procedure for impeachment by which an executive official or judicial officer can be removed. In certain parts of the United States, Canada, and Venezuela, the recall election fills a similar role of removing an unpopular government, but, in contrast to a motion of no confidence, this vote involves the entire electorate.

INTERNATIONAL LAW (IL)

IL consists of treaties and established customs recognized by most nations IL differs from domestic law in that compliance is largely voluntary by countries; enforcement is less coercive than at the national level Key mechanisms of IL are reciprocity (most states observe it because they want other states to observe it regarding them) and consistency (states try to keep their dealings consistent to avoid accusations of applying differing standards to different countries). In addition, there are reputational costs - failing to abide by IL or respecting international courts' rulings may cost the country greatly in foreign trade, investments, tourism, and in other forms of international cooperation (countries and private investors are apprehensive to work with states who shirk their international responsibilities) The US Constitution provides that treaties - once ratified by Congress - are fundamental law of the US, and therefore US states must observe treaty provisions. Same is true of other countries (some also require the constitutional court to review the treaty before its ratified for its consistency with the country's constitution).

why it is useful for foreign policy makers to know other countries' national interest

If you know a country's national interest, or at least how it defines it, you can understand its behavior. This makes IR partly intelligible.

self-help"

In IR, due to "anarchy" (i.e., a lack of one world government), each state has to rely on "self-help" to ensure survival - anarchy creates uncertainty about others' intentions and causes states to accumulate power, security, and wealth.

Lack of Turnover

In democratic legislatures, members tend to make a career as a legislator, meaning little fresh young blood enters the system In US House contests, usually over 90% of incumbents get reelected unless there's a scandal; because of gerrymandering, only a handful of seats are competitive Many US HoR seats don't even have an opposition candidate Parliaments have similar problems: more senior party members are at the top of the electoral party lists, and so they almost always get returned to office, while younger members lower on the lists may lose their seats from one election to the next But proportional representation allows new parties (with younger politicians) to gain seats that may be held by fresh faces - a major asset of PR in parliamentary democracies

Presidents and Prime Ministers

In parliamentary systems, the chief executive (PM) is chosen from the ranks of the majority party in parliament. Thus, PM has great power and can pass legislative programs quickly. A prime minister and his cabinet can be ousted by a vote of "no confidence" (relatively rare in some countries, such as Britain and Germany).

do the principles of the international relations work?

In practice, all of these principles have been repeatedly violated by the powerful states (the so-called "great powers"). Great powers constantly interfere in internal affairs of other, weaker states: Russia sent tanks into Georgia in 2008 and annexed Crimea in 2014; the US toppled Saddam's regime in Iraq and Taliban regime in Afghanistan (as well as 50 regimes in Latin America over the 1898-2004 period; many more in sub-Saharan Africa, SE Asia, and the Middle East) Small, poor countries are routinely dominated by more powerful states. There are several forms of dominance - political, economic, military, and cultural.

- Know what impeachment means in the US and how the impeachment proceedings work. Also know the names of two presidents who were impeached.

It is much more difficult to remove a US president. The method is called impeachment and removal whereby charges are brought against the president by the House of Representatives, passed as a bill of impeachment. Impeachment is thus simply an indictment. The Senate then holds a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then votes on the House charges. If the Senate passes any of the charges by a two-thirds vote, the president is removed and the vice president steps into the presidency. Only two US presidents - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton - have been impeached; none have been removed.

• Be familiar with the brief discussion of the Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts

LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT In a series of decisions in 1962 and 1964, the Warren Court mandated that districts for the House of Representatives had to be of equal population; previously many of them overrepresented rural districts - Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Lucas v. Forty-fourth Colorado General Assembly (1964), Baker v. Carr (1962) The Warren Court (1953-1969) decisions angered many: segregationists who didn't want to share public facilities with blacks, police who felt hampered in getting criminal convictions, and rural people who wanted a more-than-equal vote. The Warren Court was perhaps the most ground-breaking court in America's history The subsequent Courts (the Burger Court, 1969-86; the Rehnquist Court, 1986-2005; and the Roberts Court, 2005-present) modified rather than repudiated the Warren Court. Although there was a conservative drift during the post-Warren Courts, their overall record is mixed. Burger Court declared that abortion was protected by the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade (1973), but overturned quotas for black applicants to medical school in Regents of the UC v. Bakke, but then found quotas OK to help black workers attain skilled positions, in United Steelworkers v. Weber.The Rehnquist Court, generally considered a "conservative" court, also made some "liberal" rulings (e.g., ruled that burning the American flag was legal in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, and upheld university affirmative-action programs to promote diversity in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003) The Roberts Court put more limits on Roe v. Wade (a "conservative" shift), but also allowed federal authority to curb greenhouse gases (a "liberal" shift) and upheld the right of habeas corpus for terrorist suspects in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 (liberal? conservative?) Remember that "liberal" and "conservative" labels are hard to define and apply to judicial decisions!

CRIMINAL LAW

Largely statutory (codified in legislative statutes) Offenses that are considered social evils and threats to the community - thus, the state rather than the victim is the plaintiff, or prosecutor Petty offenses - Minor crimes usually punished by a fine, such as traffic violations Misdemeanors - More serious crimes, such as gambling or prostitution, punishable by larger fines or short jail sentences Felonies - Major crimes, such as robbery, murder, rape, or extortion, punished by imprisonment In the US, some criminal offenses are federal (e.g., interstate car theft, kidnapping); others are mainly state concerns, such as murder, unless they occur on federal property or the victim is a federal official.

Constituency work

Legislator and their staffs spend much time helping constituents answering their letters showing they care. Often this involves helping constituents get a government benefits such as a disability check by acting as an intermediary or ombudsman with an agency. Constituency service is a major help in getting legislators reelected they use their office to maintain contact with voters back home

Education

Legislators inform Citizenry about the operations of government and create mass demands by calling public attention to problems. In democratic counties the press attends hearings and holds interviews with legislators giving feedback to the public the executive branch becomes more responsive when it perceives attitude changes by the public

Bureaucracies in Comparison: The United States

Less than 15% of civil servants are federal (2.84 million under Obama administration); most serve in states and localities providing education, police, fire protection, etc. (state-level administration size in 2004 - 15.8 million) Most federal civil servants work in departments that are headed by political appointees who are not bureaucrats. Because laws tend to be general, bureaucrats have leeway to fine tune policy. The US tends to have a relatively small bureaucracy compared with Europe and Latin America, which have strong statist traditions.

CIVIL LAW

Marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children, contracts, bankruptcy and the like are governed by civil law statutes Provides redress for injuries suffered by private plaintiffs, who bring most of the cases. The decisions are in money, not jail time.

The Absentee Problem

Members of parliament or Congress are seldom in the chamber unless there's a critical vote - they're probably in committee session, or dealing with constituent issues in home district. Speeches in Congress are often made to a half-empty chamber (for the press) Some parliaments don't even require members to be present for a vote (example from Ukraine); in the French National Assembly a few members will flip the voting switches for the multitude of absent members This absence, especially in parliamentary systems, may imply that the legislators think that legislating is no longer important Weakening party discipline may rejuvenate the legislative process, but legislating would become more chaotic and unpredictable

- Know when the modern international system emerged

Modern international system first emerged in 1648 after the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia

Know how semi-presidential systems differ from the parliamentary systems and the presidential systems

More generally, semi-presidentialism differs from a parliamentary system in that it has a popularly elected head of state who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead. Semi-presidentialism also differs from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence. The term "semi-presidentialism" was first coined by Maurice Duverger in 1978 to describe French Fifth Republic (1959-present) created under de Gaulle.

Advantages of parliamentary systems

No executive legislative deadlocks as the majority party controls both institutions, if governing party members disagree with their cabinet leaders they can vote no confidence and the government must be replaced by a new leadership, when a different party wins an elections the old cabinet resigns and is replaced by leaders of the winning party this no long term disagreement between the two institutions can occur.

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was critical in the Cold War in preventing a Soviet takeover of Europe and balancing Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. But in the post-Cold War period, NATO's functions aren't clear, and its defensive provisions don't apply outside the alliance - that is, in the Middle East, Africa, and so on. Without the Soviet threat, and with the increasing integration of Europe, it's unclear whether NATO has much purpose any more (peacekeeping?).

The US Court System

Our system is comprised of the federal system plus 50 state systems, which overlap; federal courts may hear many cases of state law in which parties are from different states ("diversity jurisdiction"); states may hear cases that may be appealed to federal courts that involve constitutional issues

Committee hearings

Presidential systems the president cabinet officials may be summoned to testify before legislature or specific commuters on their governance.

- Be familiar with the executive terms discussion (length of term, term limits), as well as the Russian example I gave in class.

Presidents serve fixed terms, typically ranging from four to six years. Without term limits, presidents may remain in office a long time become corrupt and dictatorial (e.g., Mugabe has served for three decades and has killed opposition members and destroyed Zimbabwe's economy). In parliamentary systems, prime ministers can serve indefinitely so long as they keep winning elections - German Chancellor Helmut Kohl won four elections in a row and served 16 years (1982-1998). Prime ministers generally tend to call elections when things such as the economy are doing well, or when the governing coalition breaks up. Italian PMs often serve only a few months, as their coalitions are fractious and unstable.

Vote of no confidence

Prime minister are answerable to parliament and can be removed from office at any time ( no fixed term of office) simple vote of no confidence makes it easier for the dissatisfied legislative majority to remove the prime minister. Constructive of confidence on the other hand makes it more difficult as it requires the legislative majority to have enough votes in a replacement cabinet and a new prime minister before the vote of no confidence is taken

Review Roskin et al. discussion of the "presidentialization" of prime ministers in parliamentary systems

Prime ministers with stable majorities start acting like presidents with little accountability to parliamentary members. These PMs are confident there won't be a "no confidence" vote against them - they mainly have to worry about the next election. Although technically there is no electoral candidate for a prime minister in parliamentary elections, the party's leader runs on his position as the preeminent leader of the party, as presidential candidates do in a US presidential elections. European elections feature TV ads of party chiefs as if they were running for president. As is the case in the US, personality often matters more than policy, party, or ideology.

Iran-Contra Affair

Reagan administration secretly facilitated the sale of arms (through Israeli arms dealers) to Iran, the subject of UN arms embargo. A portion of the money received from the Iranians were then funneled to the anti-communist guerillas (Contras) in Honduras to topple a democratically-elected (but communist) Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua. At least some US officials (esp. lieutenant colonel Oliver North of the NSC, the National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger) hoped that the arms sales to Iran would help secure the release of Hezbollah-held hostages and allow the CIA to fund the Contras, despite a law that banned such practices. Under the Boland Amendment (1984), further funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration had been prohibited by Congress (and backed by a strong support of the American public). Congressional and public distaste for Reagan policy was due to the fact that the Contras' tactics were described by the human rights NGOs as "consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping." To this day, it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when. 14 high-ranking Reagan administration officials were investigated. Several were convicted but were pardoned by George H. W. Bush once he was elected president (he served as VP under Reagan and was clearly involved in the Affair

British Legal System

Selection and Tenure of Judges Judges are nominally appointed by monarch, but the choice is really the prime minister's. Judges have lifetime tenure and are apolitical. Formally, the British judiciary is part of the executive. In practice, British judges are largely independent of executive's influence.

The Views of Judges: Influences on SCOTUS Decision-Making

Socioeconomic and ethnic status of judges: Critics claim that the WASP judges dominating the Court do not appreciate the situation of poor or racially oppressed people. The appointment of minorities (e.g., Justice Thomas, a conservative) has not necessarily changed the situation. Prior experience of justices also influences decisions on the Court. Life tenure may also impact justice's votes in unpredictable ways. Conservative justices may turn liberal with time; liberals may become more conservative, the longer they serve on the Court. Public opinion may indirectly influence justices' decisions. Some argue that Brown decision was prompted by an increasingly widespread public view that racial segregation is immoral and illegal; justices simply responded to the mass public attitude. Another influence is colleagues' opinion. Earl Warren, for example, was able to sway some of his colleagues by force of personality and his judicial reasoning. Political pressure may also matter, but indirectly. Justices are strategic actors - if they know that their decision will not be complied with or that there is enough support in Congress to overturn the Court's decision, justices may decline to hear a controversial case altogether or decide in favor of the elected branches. Justices' law clerks can have an important impact. Justices rely heavily upon their clerks to review certiorari applications, and to assist them in researching and writing their judicial opinions. Clerks often act as advisers in deciding how to vote on the merits of case.

Be familiar with how the labels "conservative" and "liberal" are used to describe SCOTUS justices (as well as the potential problems with the use of these terms)

Southern justices have been more conservative on racial issues (i.e., less willing to give preferential treatment to minorities) Former corporation lawyers may be more favorable to business interests rather than labor Some justices were civil rights activists (e.g., Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall) and brought their liberalism to the bench Justices' ideology and conceptions of judicial role seem to be the most important influences on their stands. Republican-nominated justices are more likely to take conservative stands and generally favor judicial restraint. The so-called "attitudinal model" of judicial decision making holds that the Supreme Court decides disputes in light of the facts of the case vis-à-vis the ideological attitudes and values of the justices. Simply put, Scalia votes the way he does because he is extremely conservative; Warren voted the way he did because he was extremely liberal.

STATE COURTS

State courts handle about 90% of the nation's legal business. Most cases are civil, not criminal. Most state trial courts operate at the county level and have original jurisdiction in almost all civil and criminal cases (state courts organization chart)

STATE JUDGES

State judges are either elected or appointed for specified terms (interesting summary from ABA). Sometimes both parties nominate the same slate of judges so that judicial elections are nonpartisan. Critics say that election of judges produces crowd-pleasing politicians with shaky judicial skills and questionable ties to interest groups (particularly law firms) through campaign donations.

Know the differences between Anglo-American adversarial/accusatorial judicial process and (the role of judges and lawyers)

The Anglo-American adversarial process has two sides (plaintiff and defendant) who present their arguments and evidence for a favorable decision from an impartial court. The judge acts as an umpire during trial, ruling on the validity of evidence and testimony, on legal procedures, and on disputed points. After both sides have presented their cases, the judge rules on the basis of facts and relevant law. If jury is hearing the case, the judge instructs its members on the weight of the evidence and relevant law. In jury trials, judges almost always accept jury's verdict. Criminal cases are similar save that the state is the plaintiff. One weakness of the adversarial system is that the wealthy can afford better legal defense, which tends to give them better outcomes. Thus, money may tilt the scales of justice.The Lawyer's Role Britain has no professional prosecutors; government hires private lawyers to prosecute crimes. British solicitors handle all legal work except representing clients in court (courtroom advocacy), which is done by specialized lawyers, the barristers. Judicial Review Powers British legal system does not permit judicial review, but once Britain adopted European Convention on Human Rights in 2000, judges acquired limited power to review statutes and police conduct.

- Know the important cases decided by SCOTUS (those that are in bold and blue font in the "The Political Impact of the Court" lecture slides)

The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) decision triggered a revolution in American race relations that Congress had been unwilling to touch, by desegregating schools, finding separate facilities by race inherently unequal This decision helped spur the civil rights movement; Congress would subsequently follow the Court by passing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court ruled that evidence seized without a warrant (and thus, in violation of the 4th Amendment) may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court ruled that state courts are required by the 6th Amendment to provide legal counsel in criminal cases for indigent defendants, those unable to afford their own attorneys. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) determined that arresting police had to inform the arrested person of his right to remain silent and to have counsel present during questioning

U.S. Foreign Policy: Involved or Isolated?

The Cold War system was bipolar - the US and its allies facing off against the USSR and its allies: dangerous but relatively predictable and stable. Some describe the current system as multipolar - complex with many competing entities: more dangerous, unpredictable, and unstable. Historically, the US viewed its interests as mainly in the Western Hemisphere and Europe; Pearl Harbor changed all that.After World War II, it was clear the US couldn't ignore what was going on in the rest of the world if we wanted to be safe, and we got massively involved. Post-Cold War, lack of major threats, and budgetary constraints, have shrunk US armed forces; Afghan and Iraq conflicts have stretched forces thin and disenchanted the US public about engagement abroad. These swings in the US foreign policy are common. US foreign policy tends to swing between interventionism and isolationism. Historically, we seem to overreact in both directions. To be sure, the US was never truly isolationist. The issue has always been more about the degree of involvement. Some periods of American history (e.g., 1930s) can be characterized as periods of noninterventionism, a reluctance to use US military forces overseas. After Vietnam, the US public didn't want any military involvement abroad; by the time of the Yugoslav breakup, we were reluctant to get involved, but finally did so. On the top of that, the US remained very active abroad covertly and overtly (e.g., Latin America, Afghanistan, Lebanon) despite public's distaste for foreign engagements. With Bush 41 and success against Saddam in Kuwait, US confidence grew; eventually turning into excessive overconfidence with Bush 43 and the Iraq mess. Neoconservatives prominent in Bush 43's administration convinced him he could attack Iraq without our allies if they didn't agree, an exercise in unilateralism. But, as history shows, exercising too much power can turn our allies against us, causing us to lose power to influence others in the future.Foreign policy is the most difficult area of governance, as policy makers need to take into account abilities and intentions of other states as well as our own. American public and our foreign policy makers cannot afford to underestimate or overestimate the dangers; the costs of doing so are too high. To avoid these extremes, it is important to be well informed about the world around us, and calmly and deliberately assess options available - we need to avoid oversimplification and panicked responses. We should also take note of Hippocrates' advice: "Make habit of two things - to help, or at least to do no harm."

Bureaucracies in Comparison: France

The French kings had established a highly bureaucratized and centralized state, and Napoleon restored it after the French Revolution. France's top civil servants are graduates of elite schools such as the Ecole Nationale d'Administration With the instability of French governments going back to 1871, the French bureaucracy acquired power because there was little legislative or executive guidance.

discretionary jurisdiction

The Supreme Court can choose what cases it wants to hear (), usually cases involving an "important" constitutional question.

Bureaucracies in Comparison: Communist States

The USSR was one of the most bureaucratic nations Because the Soviet government wanted to control all aspects of society, a large managing bureaucracy was required, increased by Stalin's five-year plans Top Soviet bureaucrats, the nomenklatura, were an elite with nice apartments, dachas, and access to special stores. Bureaucratic positions were typically filled by party members at all levels, making the bureaucracy very conservative and almost impossible to reform. China's officials are also party members, but its bureaucracy is decentralized to provincial and local levels which makes corruption and graft easier, such as permitting poisoned milk on the market. Because these officials are depended on for China's economic growth, it's unlikely that they'll easily be reformed.

FEDERAL COURTS

The base of the federal court system is 94 district courts (trial courts). Their decisions may be appealed to the 13 US Courts of Appeal. They consider whether the district court process was appropriate and whether the district court interpreted law correctly (oral arguments are limited; decisions made mainly on legal briefs submitted by the attorneys and the lower court ruling). SCOTUS hears appeals from the courts of appeal, and acts as a trial court for cases between states or between a state and the federal government. Most SCOTUS decisions are national law only indirectly.

Parliamentary systems

The executive is selected from the legislature by the majority party or majority coalition-voters can't split tickets between legislative and executive. The prime minister choose cabinet members from the legislature. In coalition governments, some cabinet seats go to each party comprising the majority coalition. Prime ministers are answerable to parliament and can be removed from office at any time no fixed term of office by a vote of no confidence

- Know the differences and similarities in cabinet formation between the US and parliamentary systems

The major executive divisions are called departments (headed by a secretary) in the US, and ministries (headed by a minister) most everywhere else. In parliamentary systems, chief executives can add, delete, combine, and rename ministries at will. The US expands the number of departments slowly via an act of Congress. The US is now getting close to the size of European cabinets. The US tends to create new departments when there is some major issue pushing national policy, such as the "energy shocks" that led to the creation of Dept. of Energy, or significant political pressure, as veterans' push for Dept. of Veterans Affairs. In parliamentary systems, ministers are drawn from the parliament and also keep their parliamentary seats - they're both legislators and executives. Their ministerial jobs often reflect the parliamentary committees they served on - the defense minister probably served as head of the defense committee. In presidential systems, cabinet officers may not necessarily be working politicians, but can come from business, the law, and academia - indeed, few have been elected officials. European cabinet members are often knowledgeable on politics and the subject area; they know important members of parliament well, having worked closely with them. Outsiders are often appointed to US cabinets. They may not have experience working with Congress and may be politically naïve, but they may also bring fresh perspectives. Roskin et al. argue that US cabinets count for less and less, used mostly for photo ops. This has developed because cabinet secretaries are typically not well-known political figures, and their main function is administrative, not generating ideas.

Forming a Government" in UK

The monarch, or the head of state, formally invites the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to become prime minister and "form a government" - that is, take office with a cabinet The prime minister appoints about 2 dozen ministers from among his parliamentary members, chosen to represent significant groups within the party. The prime minister can dismiss ministers at will. Ministers who oppose government policy are expected to resign and return to parliament.

Representation

The most elemental function of legislators is to represent the people. Legislators in democracies place great importance on protecting the interests of constitutes and if people don't feel represented they resent the government which Louis is legitimacy.

European inquisitorial judicial process (the role of judges and lawyers)

The prosecutor forwards evidence to the magistrate (investigating judge) who makes a preliminary determination of guilt before sending the case to trial. The decision to indict (formally charge) is made by a judge, not the prosecutor. The weight of evidence is controlled by the court (not by the plaintiff and defendant), which can take initiative in acquiring needed evidence. In code-law countries, the accused bears the burden of having to prove the investigating judge is wrong. In the US, on the other hand, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Lawyer's Role - European lawyers don't question witnesses; the court does that. Instead, the lawyer tries to show logical or factual mistakes in the opposition's argument or case and sway the jury in the summation argument. For the most part, the role of European lawyers is less vital to the case outcome than that of an American lawyer.

Beyond Sovereignty?

The world community increasingly acts in ways that infringe on nation's internal workings: the IMF tells countries how to organize their financial systems; these countries may fume at IMF advice, but they have to take it to receive loans. International law (following the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials) now indicts and tries national leaders for their crimes, such as Milosevic of Serbia. Following Iraq's eviction from Kuwait in 1991, Iraq was forced to accept UN inspectors infringing on its sovereignty in their search for WMDs. There seems to be an emerging world community view that tyrants cannot be allowed to terrorize neighbors or their own citizens. Still, the UN has not been able to halt Sudan's genocide against its citizens in Darfur, although International Criminal Court indicted Sudan's president on war crimes. To have effective action in situations like Darfur typically requires cooperation from all great powers (like Russia, the US, and China), which has not often been forthcoming. Cold War was a more "orderly" period. During the Cold War the two superpowers could reign in allies and client states. Now, the US is the only superpower and its leadership is needed in any serious crisis such as war in Bosnia or genocide in Rwanda. Other states may follow if the US leads them through persuasion, negotiation, and compromise. At the same time, the US cannot solve all the world's problems by itself. Global problems require global solutions; reciprocity is necessary. One thing is for certain - for now, sovereignty is here to stay and international action will work only if it supports national interests of many states.Theoretically, the UN should be a key arena for resolving issues and for further global integration. But the UN can only act forcefully if the five permanent members of the Security Council agree. The US, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China often veto each other's proposals, leading to the UN's inaction. Many conclude that since the UN lacks its own military and financial capabilities and enforcement powers, it is mainly a "talking shop." It is important to remember, however, that the UN can work. When it fails, most of the time we should blame one of the great powers, not the UN itself.

Disadvantage of parliamentary systems

There's little compromise or bargaining with opposition as they're not needed to pass legislation. Party discipline is so strong the individual members of the ruling coalition must vote as instructed by their parties whips you can't bowl against something you don't like if you want to stay in the party rank and file party members equal rubberstamps. Passage of legislation is rational and speed and efficient but parliament can't make independent inputs to the legislation approved by the cabinet. Parliamentary systems May have several parties with non-having a majority so coalitions are needed to govern equal and unstable situation when partners quarrel which can cause frequent falls of government and immobilize government from taking necessary action also my Minoroty governments are possible but undesirable

in peace enforcement

Third parties may also become involved in peace enforcement missions. The US did so by bringing the warring Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs to negotiate at Dayton.

Peacekeeping

Third-party military forces and observers can be used to keep hostile groups or states apart from conflict.UN forces have helped stabilize truces between Arabs and Israelis, and between Greeks and Turks on Cyprus. However, peacekeeping forces cannot enforce peace by stopping an ongoing conflict; a truce has to be negotiated first, often by third parties pressuring the combatants to the negotiating table. The peacekeepers also need robust rules of engagement to dissuade aggressive elements from conflict after the truce is negotiated.

- Be familiar with the fallacies/mistakes in Roskin et al. "The Role of Courts" section

This section is full of fallacies and mistakes. Roskin et al. - "Court structures in other Western democracies parallel the US system, but they do not do as much." WRONG! In the vast majority of countries, the judiciary is structured substantially different (Roskin et al. say as much in other parts of the chapter). Judiciaries are also no less active in Western democracies than the US judiciary, if we take into account the country's population size. Roskin et al. - "Judicial review is more highly developed in the United States [than in Europe]." WRONG! European judicial review is FAR more sophisticated and intrusive into the work of government officials than the US judicial review. Roskin et al. - "[German Constitutional Court's] decisions do not have the impact of US Supreme Court decisions, which under the common law are literally the law of the land." WRONG! When German CC issues a decision, it has the same impact as the decision by the US Supreme Court (unconstitutional law is considered automatically null and void) In addition, European CCs constantly apply abstract review (i.e., there need not be any real damages from unconstitutional law; law is challenged and declared void on its face); SCOTUS applies abstract review very rarely. European CCs hear and dispose of several hundred cases every year. SCOTUS rarely hears more than 100 cases a year. Roskin - "Judicial review is an American invention." WRONG! It is an ancient Athenian invention. Judicial review was also used in France, Portugal, and German princedoms centuries before American colonies adopted the practice. However, the US does stand out as a country with the longest continuous use of the judicial review in the world. Roskin et al. - "Unlike other countries, the Supreme Court's rulings often become political issues." WRONG! European-style CCs are political creatures far more deeply embroiled in the political process than SCOTUS. Opposition parties can submit a proposed law to the CC for preliminary review of constitutionality (known as "advisory opinion") even BEFORE it is passed. In a sense, European-style CC functions as an additional legislative chamber.

Legislating function law making

While legislatures pass laws, few originate laws. In parliamentary systems The cabinet originates laws: in the us the executive originates much legislation. In the parliamentary system party discipline assures that party members vote for the legislation supported by the pm and the cabinet. US Congressional discipline is more lax. Sometimes members book their own party because they know their constitutes dislike the legislation members from tobacco going to states seldom support lost to Curb smoking. Even regarding budgets where Congress has power of the purse Congress reacts to the presidents budget request adding the pork in the process

anarchy

a lack of one world government)

National self-determination

all nations should have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference

Legal equality of states

all sovereign states are inherently equal in their dealings with one another

power

encompasses military, economic, political, psychological, and demographic factors, and is thus harder to calculate.

Complementary vs. conflicting

having important goals in common is complementary (e.g., the 1991 Gulf War was in the interest of Europe, the US, and Arab states). When interests conflict, allies pull apart (e.g., when the US proposed putting anti-missile systems on Russia's borders was not in line with French and German interests).Two countries, even allies, seldom have identical national interests. The best one can hope for is that their interests will be complimentary. Complimentary interests are what makes alliances and promotes international peace.

Functionalism

having states first cooperate in specialized, or "functional," areas may promote peace as they see that cooperation gives them many benefits such as disease control, civil aviation coordination, etc. Thus, functionalism produces a "spillover" effect, helping states to cooperate in other, more difficult areas.But if nations remain hostile, due to serious underlying problems the spillover effect will be null. Critics point out that war has not yet been reduced by functionalism

erga omnes

in relation to eveyone

"hurting stalemate

in which neither side could win militarily and, therefore, had more incentives to negotiate in good faith with their adversaries.

"conversion factor

matters greatly - how quickly and easily can a country convert its latent economic, demographic, and natural resources into military capabilities - but is hard to know in advance.

There are several forms of dominance

political, economic, military, and cultural.

Macro Theories

rooted in history, these theories argue that states, not individuals, are key actors: states try to expand through conquest until they are stopped by countervailing power. macro theories are superior.

Third-Party Assistance

sometimes a neutral third party not involved in a dispute can help contending parties reach agreement. In 1978, Carter brought Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to Camp David to negotiate, eventually producing a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.But the contending parties have to want peaceful resolution for third parties to be successful.

- Know the guiding principles of the international relations

sovereignty, mutual recognition, legal equality of states, non-intervention into affairs of other states, national self-determination)

Specific vs. general

specific interest focuses on a single problem, like China's keeping its currency undervalued or Japanese trade barriers to US goods; general interest might be universal respect for human rights. Typically, specific interests are pursued more intensely than general (and, therefore, inherently vague) interests.

Theory of Misperceptions

state may misperceive a situation, seeing hostility and threats from another country, which sees itself as merely defensive. Misperceptions exaggerate threat and create a security dilemma - attack first (even if it is premature or not clearly necessary) or risk a possibility of attack or invasion by a potential adversary. As countries get caught in this security dilemma, they begin amassing weapons and mobilizing troops, which is seen as inherently threatening by the other countries (who also begin mobilizing for war). As both sides mobilize for war, a tipping point is reached, where a slightest mistake can lead one country to attack another (again, due largely to misperceptions). Neither country may want war, but both feel so threatened and insecure that they are willing to start a war to maximize the element of a surprise attack and achieve relative gains.This also is due to another misperception - a flawed belief that offensive action will always be more successful than defensive action. GWB was convinced Iraq had WMDs, even though they were dismantled under UN supervision in 1990s - in the context of 9/11 fears, he led the American public to accept Iraq War. The role of misperceptions is important both the theory of hegemonic stability and the balance of power theory.

Know what bureaucracy means (civil service; merit-based appointments, permanent government employees, mostly non-partisan and apolitical)

the career civil service that staffs government executive agencies, implementing laws and policies Ideally, it operates under stringent set of rules, with a chain of command or hierarchy of authority, that allows the government to operate with rationality, uniformity, predictability, and supervision - a good bureaucracy can make good administration of government - Max Weber's conception of bureaucracy Bureaucracy is also the permanent government, staying when elected officials come and go Bureaucrats know much more about their specialized area than their political bosses do and have seen bold ideas come and go, and thus are inherently conservative. Bureaucracy comes with any large organization, from a church to big corporations.

Mutual recognition

the need for all units of the international system to recognize each other as sovereign

Sovereignty

the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, called a "state;" sovereign state is not subordinate to any other state

Micro Theories

war is explained by human biology and psychology (e.g., "territorial imperative" - - an innate biological drive to gain, protect, and defend territory). If so, why aren't humans always at war? Clearly, micro theories are deficient.

National Interest

what's good for a nation as a whole in world affairs