In one of the splendid essays brought together in his Personality in Politics, published just after World War II, British politician and civil servant Sir Arthur Salter speculates about why the USA failed to ratify the League of Nations Covenant, the brainchild of US President Woodrow Wilson. First, Sir Arthur suggests, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a one-time supporter of the idea behind the League, was embroiled in “bitter personal enmity” with Wilson, for reasons that have long remained unclear. Sir Arthur suggests that Lodge’s support could have made a decisive difference: it would most likely have resulted in further support by seven more senators, which would have been enough to secure the required two-thirds majority in the US Senate. But the personal relationship between Lodge and Wilson was such that this never happened.

The chapter focuses on how the European Union (EU) and European powers have struggled to navigate between transatlantic alliance and growing Eurasian connectivity, which is energized recently by China’s rise. When first proposed by the EU in 2016, “strategic autonomy” was about the European search for independent capacity to militarily balance against the Russian power. When applied to Asia, the concept is mainly about Europe’s choice in a region, which is fast becoming the center of the global political economy but is increasingly dominated by US-China competition. With the EU labeling China “a systemic rival,” the multipolarization behind European strategic autonomy has hardly unfolded as envisioned by Beijing. The chapter first examines Europe’s limited presence in Asian security and addresses the unfulfilled transatlantic potential under the US rebalance towards Asia during the Obama administration. Next it analyzes the European search for strategic autonomy amid the emerging great-power competition in the Indo-Pacific. Finally it examines the geoeconomics associated with the Belt and Road Initiative and Europe’s broad relationship with China.

The chapter looks at China’s approach to regional and global institutions. It starts with a quick review of Asian regionalism first led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Japan, focusing on how Asian regionalism facilitated China’s socialization in the 1980s–1990s. The chapter then explores China’s multipronged strategy in dealing with its evolving institutional environment. First, China has pursued a latent regionalism, which is centered on East Asia, relies on the BRI, and takes advantage of ASEAN-led mechanisms to mitigate geopolitical trends harmful to its interests. Second, China has undertaken limited institutional innovation, opting instead to promote its targeted reformist agenda towards the Bretton Woods economic order. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the only institution China created and has led, demonstrates its preference of reform over innovation concerning the global economic order. Finally, to project influence, China has relied on its leadership positions in regional organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the United Nations system, including the World Health Organization. Taken together, China’s institutional tactics show that instead of offering an alternative Chinese order, China has been mainly interested in reshaping the institutional settings of its international environment.

The intellectual historian John Pocock once observed that with the rise of commercialization, the status of citizens was no longer seen as a function of their actions and their virtues but came to be constructed in juridical terms, in terms of rights and of ownership of things. He posits an opposition between virtue (part of a political way of life) and rights (part of a commercial way of life) that was eventually bridged with the help of the social notion of manners – and this might help explain why we associate the virtue of prudence with a certain kind of prudishness.

Chapter 6 focuses on how the effects of foreign interventions depend on the identity of the intervener. It shows that in Tunisia and the United States, the presence of capable and unbiased monitors (not any monitors) increased election credibility. In Georgia, an unusually certain electoral environment, the same was true when the analysis focused only on individuals with significant uncertainty in their beliefs about election credibility. Intriguingly, in Tunisia, the monitors perceived as capable and unbiased were those from the Arab League. Returning to meddlers, Bush and Prather find that most respondents did not believe meddling was likely to affect the election results. If they did believe meddlers were capable, however, then they observe the predicted negative relationship with election credibility. Moreover, in a hypothetical scenario in which a foreign actor successfully meddled in a future election in Georgia, they find the expected decrease in election credibility. This chapter shows how dependent the effects of foreign actors are on beliefs about the actor’s capabilities and biases.

This chapter briefly discusses the gay rights/queer movement, LGBTQ+/Queer studies, and queer theory. It reviews the concept of LGBTQ+ and the status of LGBTQ+/sexual minorities under international and regional human rights law. In particular, rights related to transgender people and intersex people, and the issue of same-sex marriage are explored in the regional contexts.

An additional role the virtues can play involves helping to evaluate (and thereby possibly even guide) conduct. It is here in particular that responsibility or accountability mechanisms often come up short or can at least be said to be naturally limited. Typically, such mechanisms focus on single instances of conduct, divorced from what preceded or inspired them, or then conduct might be such that it can hardly be caught by rules. Some have pleaded strongly for “intelligent accountability,” but the combination of having rules and organs or agents to apply and enforce them as they relate to particular facts makes such an idea well-nigh impossible. In the typical accountability scheme, the act under review usually gets simplified and stylized. This has heuristic benefits in that it simplifies what actually goes on, but these benefits may come at the cost of proper understanding.