Another Mars–Venus divide? Why Australia said ‘yes’ and Canada said ‘non’ to involvement in the 2003 Iraq War

Why did Australia fight in Iraq, while Canada did not? In this paired comparison, we go beyond explanations centered on the role of leaders to consider three alternative factors—ruling party opinion, public opinion and strategic culture. We argue that in both countries the Iraq decision followed the dominant views within the ruling party as well as the dominant strategic culture among the elites. As for the public opinion, its impact was significant in Canada, especially concerning the province of Quebec, while in Australia its impact was mostly neutral. This type of explanation, we suggest, is not only more historically grounded, but it can also illuminate broader patterns of Australian and Canadian foreign policy behaviour.     

The ABC and Anti-Americanism: The Case of the 2003 Iraq War and Minister Alston

With noted protagonists on either side, the debate about anti-American bias within the Australian national broadcaster was one of the more obvious examples in the so-called ‘culture wars’ of the Howard era. This article aims to transcend the claims and counter claims of this ongoing debate by analysing a case study that not only documents both sides of the argument but also provides evidence to judge the veracity of claims of anti-Americanism. The case study used is Minister Richard Alston's claims of anti-American bias by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in their coverage of the 2003 Iraq War. Examining Alston's allegations and the three subsequent inquiries they initiated offers an opportunity to distinguish between anti-Americanism and criticism.     

"The Defendant Has Seemed to Live a Charmed Life": Hopt v. Utah: Territorial Justice, The Supreme Court of the United States, and Late Nineteenth-Century Death Penalty Jurisprudence

On March 7, 1887, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Fred Hopt's fourth appeal to that Court. The Utah Territory murderer's conviction had been reversed three times over seven years-his "charmed life"-but this time both his luck and his legal argument had run out: his fourth conviction was upheld. Justice Stephen J. Field dismissed Hopt's four major claims: that several members of the jury were improperly seated in spite of bias; that a doctor's evidence of cause of death was beyond the scope of his expertise; that the trial judge's "reasonable doubt" jury instruction was inadequate; and that the prosecutor's reference to the "many times the case had been before the courts" was prejudicial. Five months later, on August 11, Hopt was executed by a firing squad in the yard of the Utah Penitentiary. Hopt was only one of over two thousand convicted criminals, mostly murderers, who were legally executed in the United States in the two decades between 1880 and 1900. However, his defense team of court-appointed Salt Lake City lawyers had kept him alive for seven years. During that time he had four jury trials, four appeals to the Supreme Court of Utah Territory, and four appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only death penalty litigant ever to be the subject of four full opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.     

Advancing Policy Theory with Cultural Theory: An Introduction to the Special Issue

Cultural Theory (CT) is a constructivist theory, developed by Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavsky, and others, that seeks to participate in the positivist project of discovering, explaining, and predicting regularities in human behavior. Special Issue contributions and this introduction suggest some ways in which this theory can help advance policy studies. One way CT can help is by further specifying other approaches to policy theory. Thus, Hank Jenkins‐Smith and his collaborators argue (and with respect to belief systems demonstrate) that the theory can be used to specify belief systems, coalitions, and causes of policy change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF); Rob Robinson uses CT to specify further both sources of resistance to policy change and sources of dramatic policy change in Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET); and Christopher Weare, Paul Lichterman, and Nicole Esparza use the theory to specify sources of collaboration in policy networks as well as sources of network dissolution. Other contributors argue and/or demonstrate that CT can help specify the culturally pluralized conditions for successful policy deliberation, the cultural sources of policy narratives, and how cultural biases are likely to interact with policy frames. This Special Issue invites policy scholars to consider how the theory might help advance their research interests and the field.