In the closing months of the Nigeria-Biafra Civil War and for about two and one-half years thereafter, the American voluntary agency CARE (Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere) operated a rehabilitation program in Nigeria's East-Central State. With funds largely provided by USAID, it concentrated on rebuilding or extending basic structures, like bridges and water systems, and on distributing badly needed planting material. During much of that period, while the war for Bangladesh's independence still raged, the British voluntary agency Oxfam also sought, in timely fashion and on its own initiative, to improve the condition of refugees who had fled to camps within India. Its major emphases were on supplementary feeding, medical assistance, sanitation, shelter, and clothing.

Canadian anxiety about increasing involvement with the American economy is partly based on a deeply rooted conviction that economic dependence necessarily brings political dependence in its wake. That conviction was at the bottom of the Canadian rejection of proposals of reciprocity with the United States in the general elections of 1891 and 1911. It has also been explicitly recognized as an underlying rationale of Canadian policy toward the United States in the Department of External Affairs's recent paper on Canadian-American relations.

As events since October 1973 have again underscored, security of supply and price of energy resources have enormous strategic and economic implications for any industrialized country. Nevertheless, trade in energy resources between Canada and the United States has not always been closely managed by the central governments that are responsible for national security and economic development. In fact, the energy trade involves a wide variety of actors that continually seek transnational contacts and alliances of opportunity to further their own self-interest almost as if the national border did not exist.

Messrs. Laitin and Lustick make a useful advance in conceptualizing the components of leadership skill. It is quite obvious that such a venerable but often ill-conceived topic cannot be exhausted, even conceptually, within the space of a short article. I should like here to make three qualifying remarks, which are intended not to detract from the advance made by the two authors but to situate their contribution within a somewhat wider perspective. These remarks are directed toward the impact or consequences of leadership. They concern: (1) the relationship of leadership skill to leadership effectiveness; (2) pathological leadership, producing negative outcomes; and (3) the Tolstoyan question about the extent to which “A king is the slave of history,” i.e., whether political leadership does have room for maneuver and can significantly affect outcomes.

Transnational relations involving parent companies of United States multinational enterprises with subsidiaries in Canada have begun to interest not only the social scientist but also the politician and businessman. What is the effect of such transnational relations on the economic resources and performance of each country? What political means are used to influence corporate behaviour? What is the effect of the constitutional system on such transnational relations? What are the ways in which the countries reacted to resolve certain related interstate conflicts?

Multinational private enterprise is perhaps the most prominent transnational organization active in world politics today. Increasing attention has been paid to the challenge to state sovereignty posed by multinational enterprise, either as an autonomous actor or as an instrument in interstate conflict. This question is of particular relevance to Canadian-American relations, because of the central role of foreign-owned (and especially American-owned) firms in the Canadian economy. This essay assesses the impact on the host Canadian government of the 27 identifiable cases of politicized conflict that have been generated in Canada by the activities of United States-owned multi-national enterprise from 1945 through 1971, and which are publicly known to have occurred.

The governments of Canada and the United States are playing very active roles in negotiations to define the law of the sea, which has been the subject of international conferences in 1958, 1960, and that beginning in December 1973. These provide the framework for a study of US-Canadian relations in the uses of the sea. Three perspectives may be adopted to understand the political processes involved in law of the sea relations: (1) the state-to-state model, (2) the bureaucratic politics approach, and (3) the transnational systems perspective.