Progress in the debate over rational deterrence has always depended on the ability of scholars to identify a body of evidence that would be appropriate for testing a wide range of propositions derived from the theory. Notwithstanding the tremendous amount of time and energy spent on producing a suitable list of cases, and several noteworthy surveys of the literature, cumulative knowledge about deterrence, both as a theory and as a strategy, remains elusive. It still is unclear whether decision makers have acted according to the logic derived from standard applications of the theory. Moreover, the most prominent testing strategy, originally designed by Paul Huth and Bruce Russett, and later criticized and revised by Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein, continues to be plagued by ongoing disputes over methods and case listings. Although debates over the accuracy of historical accounts are constructive, lingering divisions over coding of deterrence successes and failures have become counterproductive, primarily because each side has produced evidence to support their interpretation of events. Very little effort, by comparison, has been directed towards (a) developing alternative testing strategies that lie outside the success/failure framework, or (b) looking at a wider range of propositions derived from the theory. This analysis attempts the task, analyzing in the aggregate 28 cases of superpower rivalry.

The 50 texts which make up Max Weber's “Early Writings” have been largely ignored by analysts of his works. Yet there are important differences between Weber's positions in those texts and the more familiar positions he exposed later. In the Early Writings, there is a nearly complete absence of epistemological preoccupations on themes which will later become central. One also notes the essential primacy of the political sphere over the scientific, in the form of the German Nation's transcendence as the condition for the protection of ethical ideals. This article argues that Weber's nationalist aggressiveness in his Early Writings is conditioned by the relative poverty of their theoretical basis.

Canadian broadcasting is characterized by a tradition of public debate over policy issues that takes place through a range of formal and less formal consultation mechanisms. In a study of the broadcasting policy review process of 1985–1991, the transparency of public debate was seen to be essential in giving access to social groups who would otherwise have little influence on the process.

Most treatments of the problem of dirty hands in politics assume that merely holding a position of great political power will require a political actor to violate important moral standards. They assume that the successful political leader must inevitably be morally corrupted by the iniquitous choices that must inevitably be made, and, further, that this casts a shadow upon political life as a moral enterprise. This article argues, instead, that the conventional dirty hands problem is not particularly significant and that a much more serious test of the moral quality of public life in a given polity is how it makes its arrangements for formal public retrospection upon and judgment of the inevitable episodes of unwise, intemperate or immoral political action by leaders. In short, it is the deliberate corruption of democracy that should attract our scrutiny, not the condition of the soul of the supra-ethical or maverick leader.

In his examinations of the ecological parties of Belgium and West Germany, Herbert Kitschelt argues that he has found a new form of political representation that defies patterns of behaviour outlined for political parties by all previous scholarly work. These parties, which Kitschelt calls “left-libertarian,” are unique because they lack the organizational structures common to traditional parties, and include in their membership constituencies that are normally more comfortable in social movements. This article compares the political platforms of these parties and the sociological characteristics of their activists with those of the Montreal Citizen's Movement (MCM) and concludes that the MCM is indeed a left-libertarian party. However, an examination of the MCM reveals that although Kitschelt has found a new form of political representation in the left-libertarian party, this new form does not actually defy the developmental patterns outlined by the classical studies of political parties.