Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: There is a popular assumption that congressional voting against acts of war will lead to electoral retaliation. In The Electoral Consequences of Voting to Declare War (1995), Regens, Gaddie and Lockerbie attempted to shed light on this “cost of war” assumption. They also sought to test the durability of the “rally-round-the-flag” phenomenon and determine how the two hypotheses interacted.
They reviewed the elections following the Mexican American War, World War I and the Persian Gulf War to determine the effect of a “no” vote. The authors found that only the electoral results following the declaration of war in World War I was significantly related to congressional votes against the war. Neither the Mexican American War nor the Persian Gulf War yielded statistically significant results. There results were mixed. “The evidence presented here offers some support for the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon as well as the costs-of-war model and its impact on elections” (Regens et. al 1995, 180). Their study questions the strength of the war vote assumption, but calls for more investigation.
This paper will further the research done by Regens, Gaddie and Lockerbie in two ways. It will reexamine the Persian Gulf War to determine if the election following the war was unique. The authors determined “we do not find support for either the rally hypothesis or the cost-of-war hypothesis in the 1992 elections” (Regens et. al. 1995, 180). Strengthening statistical analysis on the Gulf War will help determine if the Persian Gulf War was different and why that was the case.
Additionally, the original analysis will be updated, by considering the electoral effects of the War on Terror. It is important to examine more recent war resolutions; to consider individual vote choice by voters and to asses the effect of a more politicized war environment. Were the Gulf War results unique or were they indicative of a new trend? What effect the War on Terror had in the 2002 mid-term elections and the recent presidential elections will add to the contemporary literature on the cost-of-war and rally hypotheses.
Roll call votes on the “war” declarations will be reviewed and compared to election results. Additional variables will be controlled for, these include: effects of redistricting, rate of retirement and overall incumbent win/loss ratio. Proximity of war vote to general election will also be considered.

Regens, James, Ronald Keith Gaddie, Brad Lockerbie. March 1995. “The Electoral Consequences of Voting to Declare War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 39 No. 1:168-182

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In 1985, in the wake of several initiatives inside and outside the United Nations, the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations began preparing a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2006, the Draft Declaration has been discussed for more than 20 years in different UN working groups; it has attracted more than 2?000 organizations and institutions; and it has brought thousands of people from all parts of the world together at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. Yet, the Draft Declaration project has repeatedly been called a failure. Indigenous Peoples? organizations, support NGOs, States, as well as the academic community have deplored the hitherto meager results of the exercise, if for different reasons. Until recently, only two articles (out of the 20 preambular paragraphs and 47 articles) have been agreed upon for adoption; indigenous organizations voiced frustration over diluted wording of an originally strong draft; and some States seem eager for ?failure? ? which would justify abandoning the drafting process and abolishing the vital forum.My paper, by contrast, argues that the drafting process has led to achievements and advances. It considers the Draft Declaration process as an exemplary site where global pressures, appearing in the formation of transnational networks involved in international standard-setting processes, exert a normative influence on international governance and local politics. I will examine how the transnational network advocating the ?indigenous cause? is constructed for and at the same time shaped by this standard-setting process, and how it relates to and influences global and local discourses.In a first step, I analyze what kind of network emerged during the Draft Declaration process at the UN, explore its structural and functional characteristics, and examine how it spread geographically, as well as across different actor categories. Secondly, I study the international pressures it created ? among others which norms were agreed upon in the network; how ?principled issues? were elaborated and promoted in and beyond the network and how these found their way into related processes of international governance, policies addressing Indigenous Peoples, international and/or national legal decisions, and NGO and activist groups? campaigns and propaganda.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The basic argument of the paper is that the success of the Bologna Process is not due to state actions such as legislation, but to the actions of civil society and market forces. The theoretical argument is thus that the successful progress of the Bologna Process is not a result of top-down efforts, but of bottom-up mechanisms.

The paper is a contribution to the debate on the identification of the forces which are driving European integration; while many argue that efforts of national governments and their legislation are leading to the successful development of the European-level policies of higher education, there are just as many who argue that these successes are not due to the state governments’ efforts, but rather to neoliberal market forces which were effectively unleashed through policies resulting from intergovernmental agreements and cooperation, effectively arguing that governments’ efforts are only indirectly responsible for the successful coordination and development of European-level higher education policies. To support the argument of the latter, this paper will focus on the activities of national and European accreditation agencies and their role in the realization of the European Higher Education Area.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: International law gives states who are otherwise duty-bound to protect human rights a loophole to disregard this duty via declaration of a state of emergency in times of national emergency. However, some human rights (non-derogable rights) have been deemed by international law to be so important as to demand full respect in all circumstances, declared public emergencies notwithstanding. In this paper, we examine the relationship between a government’s actual declaration of “state of emergency” and that government’s respect for non-derogable rights. Studies examining the relationship between constitutional provisions regulating state of emergency and government respect for various human rights have uniformly found a reliable association, although yielding mixed results regarding whether these provisions are likely protective or corrosive of respect for human rights (Davenport 1996, Keith and Poe 2004). What we do not know, however, is (a) how often these provisions are actually used and (b) what is the actual effect of this use on government respect for non-derogable rights. To examine these issues, we use create and analyze several measures of declared states of emergency in approximately 195 states, 1996-2006. For best specification, we also use updated data from Keith and Poe to account for that body of scholarship investigating constitutional guarantees. Preliminary results support those who fear that legal guarantees of non-derogability, alone, domestic or otherwise, are insufficient for protection of these rights, and who argue that a monitoring regime may be necessary for those states under a declared emergency.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In 1905, Ivy Lee issued a notice to a number of city editors an explanation of his new agency’s method of operation. Dubbed the “Declaration of Principles” by journalist Sherman Morse, Lee’s handout has been called the “starting point of modern public relations.” But what did Lee’s remarks mean in the context of his time? This study examines newspaper and magazine discussion of publicity and press agentry in relation to business and industry. An analysis of 159 articles published from 1865 to 1904, identified through database keyword searches, finds that “corporate publicity” had a very different connotation from “press agentry.” It was linked to President Theodore Roosevelt’s call for “publicity” as part of his trust-busting initiatives, and it referred to the release of financial information in the public interest. The paper confirms Robert E. Brown’s contention that our understanding of public relations history is flawed, and that such misunderstanding has misinformed public relations theory, and it shows that government action was an important factor in the rise of corporate public relations.