Class warfare and socio-economic exclusion: the political-institutional consequences of left-wing terrorism

Previous literature has analyzed entrapment in post-9/11 jihadi terrorism cases, but has neglected similarly compelling entrapment claims among left-wing terrorism defendants. The Article bridges this gap through an in-depth analysis of the four post-9/11 left-wing terrorism cases involving an informant or undercover agent. Based on a review of these cases, the Article concludes that at least three of the four cases had strong entrapment claims, and that realistically, none of the defendants in the four cases would have committed any terrorist offense without government prompting. A comparative analysis of different types of domestic terrorism finds broad similarities in the characteristics of entrapment claims in jihadi, left-wing and right-wing terrorism cases. However, jihadi entrapment cases are far more numerous, left-wing and jihadi entrapment claims are considerably stronger and more prevalent than right-wing claims, and left-wing terrorism cases feature certain informant tactics rarely if ever found in other cases. The Article situates the left-wing entrapment claims in the context of wider government attempts to target left-wing activists, and provides an initial analysis of the main factors leading to questionable sting operations in left-wing terrorism cases.

This paper traces the history of modern terrorism from the end of the Second World War to the beginning of the twenty-first century. It divides that history into three stylized waves: terrorism in the service of national liberation and ethnic separatism, left-wing terrorism, and Islamist terrorism. Adopting a constitutional political economy perspective, the paper argues that terrorism is rooted in the artificial nation-states created during the interwar period and suggests solutions grounded in liberal federalist constitutions and, perhaps, new political maps for the Middle East, Central Asia and other contemporary terrorist homelands.

Homesteading and Property Rights; Or, "How the West Was Really Won"

PRICE or rent control is but one of many forms of legislative action which interfere with private contracting in the market place. To delimit the scope of my analysis, I shall use the term "price control" to refer only to any set of regulations which satisfies the following three conditions. First, the control must fix the price (or income)' terms of private contracts; this categorically excludes any laws which regulate the distribution of income among the contracting parties on a share or percentage basis.2 Second, the control must involve no appropriation of proceeds to or from the government; taxation and subsidization are thus excluded. Finally, the fixing of price must not be associated with direct government sales, purchases, or manipulation of resources so as to maintain the regulated price;3 by this stipulation, price "support" is also excluded. Even on such terms, legal regulations to control price are still many and varied. To evaluate our understanding of the class of phenomena which we seek to explain it is essential that we discover implications refutable by facts. By this criterion the available body of economic theory pertaining to price control is deficient indeed: the massive literature on the subject offers few such implications.4 An alternative approach to analyzing the observable effects of price control is presented here.

Previous literature has analyzed entrapment in post-9/11 jihadi terrorism cases, but has neglected similarly compelling entrapment claims among left-wing terrorism defendants. The Article bridges this gap through an in-depth analysis of the four post-9/11 left-wing terrorism cases involving an informant or undercover agent. Based on a review of these cases, the Article concludes that at least three of the four cases had strong entrapment claims, and that realistically, none of the defendants in the four cases would have committed any terrorist offense without government prompting. A comparative analysis of different types of domestic terrorism finds broad similarities in the characteristics of entrapment claims in jihadi, left-wing, and right-wing terrorism cases. However, jihadi entrapment cases are far more numerous, left-wing and jihadi entrapment claims are considerably stronger and more prevalent than right-wing claims, and left-wing terrorism cases feature certain informant tactics rarely if ever found in other cases. The Article situates the left-wing entrapment claims in the context of wider government attempts to target left-wing activists, and provides an initial analysis of the main factors leading to questionable sting operations in left-wing terrorism cases.

The increasing impacts of climate change have created a global humanitarian crisis. Growing populations, unstable political structures, and competition over scarce resources are generating unprecedented levels of insecurity. Capitalising on these complex situations, terrorist organisations are using the environment as a weapon of war, exploiting the strains and grievances exacerbated by climate change to increase support, aid recruitment, and incite violence. Often neglected within contemporary analyses is the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on left-wing terrorist organisations. Consequently, the research presented in this paper takes an interdisciplinary approach, combining terrorism studies with disaster management to examine a specific type of security crisis that exists in this overlapping relationship between climate change and left-wing conflict. Three regional case studies of terrorist groups and activity are examined in detail—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the Shining Path in Peru, and Naxalites in India. The article reveals the complex issues that underlie climate disasters, focusing on the impact hazards such as deforestation, rising sea levels, extreme weather, glacial retreat, drought, famine, water scarcity, and migration have on left-wing terrorist recruitment and activity.

The physical, economic, and sociocultural displacement of local peoples from protected areas generates intense discussion among scholars and policy makers. To foster greater precision and clarity in these discussions, we used a conceptual framework from the political economy literature to examine different forms of human displacement from protected areas. Using marine protected areas (MPAs) to ground our analysis, we characterized the 5 types of property rights that are reallocated (lost, secured, and gained) through the establishment of protected areas. All forms of MPA "displacement" involve reallocation of property rights, but the specific types and bundles of rights lost, secured, and gained dramatically shape the magnitude, extent, and equity of MPA impacts--positive and negative--on governance, economic well-being, health, education, social capital, and culture. The impacts of reallocating rights to MPA resources vary within and among social groups, inducing changes in society, in patterns of resource use, and in the environment. To create more environmentally sustainable and socially just conservation practice, a critical next step in conservation social science research is to document and explain variation in the social impacts of protected areas.

ABSTRACTHow does the inclusion of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) framework in free trade agreements impact property rights and the contested terrain between the public and the private? Authorizing foreign investors and corporations to bring disputes against governments for the costs associated with regulations negatively impacting future profitability or market share, ISDS has become highly controversial in debates over trade agreements. This article surveys the constellation of early investor-state disputes arbitrated under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to provide analysis of the politico-juridical ideology articulated by this regime and the nature of the class struggle underlying it. The evidence presented suggests that arbitrators have selectively chosen from a body of unsettled US jurisprudence to expand the boundaries of expropriation and, thus, property rights. Such a development has dramatic theoretical and practical consequences. Concretely, it impacts political accountability and has the potential to generate regulatory chill. Theoretically, it illuminates the class struggle unfolding in the current era of de-centered capitalism characterized by transnational production and financial flows. This article asserts that ISDS dispossesses citizens of the ability to successfully translate popular demands for social protection into regulations when such measures conflict with corporate profitability.

Despite renewed interest in republicanism as a political and theoretical alternative to liberalism, much of contemporary republican scholarship emphasizes the ways that republican principles - liberty, rule of law, political participation - fit within a liberal framework, sharing its institutions and commitment to individual liberty. This project, in contrast, extracts a radically democratic republican theory of politics from two founding republican thinkers - Aristotle and Machiavelli. Using an analytical approach, I argue that a concept of human excellence or flourishing is central to a democratic interpretation of these texts. I show, in an analysis of the Ethics and Politics, that Aristotle demonstrates a significant interest in the excellence of all citizens, though his commitment to the mean and his rejection of conflict as a political mechanism for change limit his ability to achieve that excellence for his citizens. In an analysis of the Discourses, I show that Machiavelli places conflict at the center of his politics and, even though he attempts to excise moral virtue and character from that politics, I argue that he actually articulates a Roman form of excellence in the form of virtù, which is just as central to his republican theory as flourishing is to Aristotle's. This project, at its core, is a critique of the value pluralism which both contemporary liberal and republican thinkers ascribe to. I argue that these two concepts, eudaimonia and virtù, while theoretically opposite, are politically intertwined. Together, they offer a new model for republican citizenship, one that does not fit within the procedural bounds of liberalism, but which embraces a substantive view of the good and which requires that conflict between the few and the many - class conflict - be central to democratic politics.

THIS essay is about economics, anthropology, and law. I use the historical context of the Southern Kwakiutl (kwaikd[y]uid'l) Indians following contact with European civilization to test the relevance of economic theory to primitive societies. When recorded contact with the Southern Kwakiutl was first made along the north Pacific coast of North America, they were found to have established a curious reciprocal exchange system called potlatching. Since that time, potlatching has received considerable attention from ethnographers and anthropologists but virtually none from economists. I argue in this essay that the Southern Kwakiutl Indians used the potlatch system to maintain exclusive property rights in their most important capital asset and main source of wealth, the salmon fishery. In so doing, I demonstrate that recognizing the structure of property rights as endogenous-that is, at the discretion of the participants greatly enhances our understanding of primitive societies. In general, economic theory has a great deal of power in explaining the institutions and behavior of primitive man. The Kwakiutl potlatch has been described as "the ostentatious and dramatic distribution of property by the holder of a fixed, ranked and

THIS paper derives and tests some implications about differences in behavior resulting from differences in property right arrangements, and in particular, between proprietary for-profit and nonproprietary not-for-profit hospitals (hereafter referred to as proprietary and nonproprietary hospitals respectively) . The arrangements in nonproprietary nonprofit enterprises are different from those in proprietary profit-seeking organizations because (1) certain rights or claims to benefits in nonproprietary organizations are not transferable by sale as they are in proprietary organizations, and (2) managers or workers in nonprofit organizations do not have exclusive claim on residual products (the current flows of money and nonmoney benefits) that is characteristic of for-profit enterprises.

THE principal rationale for public policy intervention lies in the inadequacies of market outcomes. Yet this rationale is really only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for policy formulation.1 Policy formulation properly requires that the realized inadequacies of market outcomes be compared with the potential inadequacies of nonmarket efforts to ameliorate them. The "anatomy" of market failure provides only limited help in prescribing therapies for government success.2 That markets may fail to produce either economically optimal or socially desirable outcomes has been elaborated in a well-known and voluminous

PurposeThis paper develops a conceptual framework that is applicable in various compensation settings vis-a-vis relevant legal frameworks, compensation processes and practices, compensation outcomes and adequacy of resultant compensation by using a common evaluative framework, to address the lack of such a conceptual framework in the compensation literature. Also, by developing a new conceptual framework, this paper provides a platform and an analytical tool for anchoring and analysing future research on compensation for expropriation of various property rights.Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual paper is based on original thought and review of literature on compensation for expropriation.FindingsA critical analysis of existing literature on compensation for expropriation of customary properties reveals that most studies are inadequately informed by relevant compensation theories and that each study uses its own tailor-made analytical framework. This entails that there is no general conceptual framework for anchoring new studies in compensation and aid in extrapolating their results to similar populations and contexts.Originality/valueThis paper makes novel contribution to knowledge by developing a new conceptual framework for analysing compensation for expropriation of customary property rights, which is not there currently. Essentially, by developing the new conceptual framework, this paper provides a basis for anchoring new research works in compensation and their analyses, thereby making a further contribution to knowledge.

Strategizing actors and agents in the functioning of informal property Rights: The tragicomedy of the extralegal housing market in China

The theory that property rights increase household income among low-income households is widely acknowledged, yet empirical studies find scarce evidence of this effect. These studies encounter theoretical deficiencies and methodological challenges of endogeneity and selection bias in making causal inference. This paper examines effects of property rights on income using a control group design and propensity score matching. It employs the continuum of property rights as a conceptual framework, applying it to the case of Zango I social housing project and Paraiso, a slum, in Luanda. Results show the likelihood that property rights increase tenure security and income through the mechanism of home business activities but not through labour market participation or credit access. In contexts where housing projects for low-income groups depend on the informal sector and are located far from city centres, home business activities can be an important mechanism through which property rights may alleviate poverty.