The Curious Incident of the Dog that Didn't Bark in the Night‐Time: Structure and Agency in Britain's War with Iraq

As one of the most contentious and far‐reaching foreign policy decisions in Britain's political history, the Blair government's participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq has attracted a considerable amount of analysis, commentary, and debate. To date, however, the focus of this debate has tended to attribute primary causality for the decision to invade Iraq to individual agency, and to downplay the role that was played by broader structural factors. Although the decision was driven by the attitudes, beliefs, and values of senior government figures, and principally, on the British side, by those of Tony Blair himself, the role of structures in shaping these subjective views, and in providing senior figures with the scope, freedom, and autonomy to pursue this policy goal, has been largely overlooked. This study argues that, in this regard, a key and defining influence was exerted by the contextual environment of the British political system.

Unmodern Men in the Modern World: Radical Islam, Terrorism and the War on Modernity – By Michael J. Mazarr

Just between Friends: Bilateral Cooperation and Bounded Sovereignty in the “Global War on Terror”

The “Global War on Terror,” led by the United States, emphasizes the role of international alliances in tackling terrorist threats. By their very nature, international counterterrorism efforts challenge state sovereignty by requiring changes to both foreign and domestic policies. This, in turn, creates complex sovereignty issues and raises some interesting questions for closer examination. How has cooperation in counterterrorism altered the perceptions and behavior of allies of the United States? Has the post‐9/11 security environment constrained the sovereignty of other nations? This article explores these questions in the context of Canada's cooperation with the United States. The study argues that Canada's sovereignty has been bounded, but not determined, by U.S. demands. Examining the relationship between the United States and Canada can help us understand both the limitations and the continuing relevance of the traditional concepts of power, sovereignty, and interdependence in international relations. La “Guerra Global contra el Terrorismo,” encabezada por los Estados Unidos, enfatiza el rol de las alianzas internacionales para afrontar las amenazas terroristas. Por su propia naturaleza, las acciones contra el terrorismo ponen a prueba la soberanía de los estados al requerir cambios tanto en su política exterior como en la interna. Esto, a su vez, genera complejos problemas de soberanía y crea algunas preguntas interesantes para ser examinadas. ¿Cómo ha alterado la cooperación contra el terrorismo la percepción y el comportamiento de los aliadosde Estados Unidos? ¿Ha restringido la soberanía de otras naciones el ambiente de seguridad posterior a 11/9? Este artículo explora estas cuestiones en el contexto de la cooperación Canadiense con los Estados Unidos. El estudio argumenta que la soberanía Canadiense ha sido limitada, pero no determinada, por las demandas estadounidenses. Examinar la relación entre los Estados Unidos y Canadá puede ayudarnos a comprender tanto las limitaciones y la continua relevancia de las concepciones tradicionales de poder, soberanía, e interdependencia en las relaciones internacionales.

Nigeria's Christian Revolution: The Civil War Revival and Its Pentecostal Progeny (1967‐2006) – By Richard Burgess

Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism – By Angela M. Lahr

Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace – By Roland H. Bainton

Comment on “Politics of Trade in the USA and in the Obama Administration: Implications for Asian Regionalism”

Comment on “US and East Asian Security under the Obama Presidency: A Japanese Perspective”

Trend data do support the sequential nature of pinniped and sea otter declines in the North Pacific Ocean, but does it really matter?

TheSequentialMegafaunalCollapseHypothesis(SMCH)positsthatdecimationofgreat whales in the North Pacic Ocean in the 1950s and 1960s, by Russia and Japanfollowing the end of World War II, removed an important source of prey for marinemammal eating killer whales in southwest Alaska (the Aleutian Islands, southernBering Sea, and western and central Gulf of Alaska). The killer whales subsequentlybroadened their diets to include a larger proportion of other, much smaller species—harbor seals, Steller sea lions, fur seals, and sea otters—driving them into steepdecline. In the preceding letter, Wade, Ver Hoef, and DeMaster present informationand analyses that purportedly refute the SMCH. But, as explained below, we takeexception to their analytical procedures, use of data, and the strong claims they haveemployed in their continuing attempts to discredit the hypothesis.

From September 11th, 2001 to 9‐11: From Void to Crisis 1

This paper draws on interviews conducted in the days and weeks after the events of September 11th, 2001, analyzing the transition from “September 11th, 2001” to “9‐11.” That is, from the discursive void that immediately followed the acts of terrorism in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania to the apparently self‐evident crisis that the events came to represent in the following days and weeks. First, the paper redresses persistent oversights of discourse‐oriented work by recognizing and investigating both the agency of the US general public and the context that official responses were articulated in. Second, the paper serves to denaturalize the construction of 9‐11 as crisis, questioning the first and pre‐requisite stage of the emerging discourse of the “War on Terror.” Theorizing void, crisis and their relationship enables an understanding of how the War on Terror was possible and opens a critical space for its contestation.