Epilogue

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padraic Kenney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Self Organization ◽  
Guantanamo Bay

The detention of about 800 men by the United States at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 fits the description of a political prison. The authorities used torture and disorientation to make inmates uncertain of their place and to bring an end to terrorism by neutralizing these men. Prisoners, however, engaged in self-organization and collective action, and made themselves into a political community. Although the United States, like all the regimes before it, could impose its will, it could not impose a narrative upon its prisoners. Instead, the prisoners themselves have created narratives of control and of illegibility. Those stories, still very much in development, will in the end be more powerful and enduring than the story the regime tried to write.

War without Citizens

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-38
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Rosow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Consumer Culture ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Public ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Advanced Technologies

Contestation over war memorialization can help democratic theory respond to the current attenuation of citizenship in war in liberal democratic states, especially the United States. As war involves more advanced technologies and fewer soldiers, the relation of citizenship to war changes. In this context war memorialization plays a particular role in refiguring the relation. Current practices of remembering and memorializing war in contemporary neoliberal states respond to a dilemma: the state needs to justify and garner support for continual wars while distancing citizenship from participation. The result is a consumer culture of memorialization that seeks to effect a unity of the political community while it fights wars with few citizens and devalues the public. Neoliberal wars fought with few soldiers and an economic logic reveals the vulnerability to otherness that leads to more active and critical democratic citizenship.

Parades, Picketing, and Demonstrations

2021 ◽  
pp. 368-388
Author(s):  
Timothy Zick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Civic Engagement ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Collective Modes ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
The Government

This chapter focuses on parades, pickets, and demonstrations, which are forms of civic engagement that communicate aspirations, ideas, and, quite often, dissenting opinions to fellow citizens, governments, and broader audiences. For many, gathering together in public, in these and similar forms, is a cathartic act of self-fulfilment and a demonstration of solidarity. Collective action in the form of public gatherings is an integral part of any system of communicative freedom. In the United States, in addition to the freedom of speech, rights to ‘peaceably assemble’ and to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ are explicitly provided for in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Ultimately, parades, pickets, and demonstrations all further basic expressive values relating to self-governance, the search for truth, and individual autonomy. Nevertheless, Americans seeking to engage in collective modes of expression face a variety of doctrinal, legal, social, and political challenges. The chapter then details how digital connectivity has facilitated expressive opportunities by connecting individuals and supporting new forms of associational activity.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Habeas Case Brought by Guantánamo Bay Detainee Challenging His Continuing Detention

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-855
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Past Time ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
September 11 Attacks ◽  
The U.S

On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the D.C. Circuit held that the United States could continue to detain an individual at Guantánamo Bay until the cessation of the hostilities that justified his initial detention, notwithstanding the extraordinary length of the hostilities to date. The case, Al-Alwi v. Trump, arises from petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his continued detention at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by a statement by Justice Breyer observing that “it is past time to confront the difficult question” of how long a detention grounded in the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks can be justified.

scholarly journals Collective Action and the Origins of the American Labor Movement

2018 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 744-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan Schmick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Labor Movement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Union Formation ◽  
Establishment Size ◽  
Large Employer ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
American Labor Movement ◽  
American Labor

This article examines the relationship between collective action and the size of worker and employer groups in the United States. It proposes and tests a theory of union formation and strikes. Using a new county-by-industry level dataset containing the location of unions, the location of strikes, average establishment size, and the number of establishments around the turn of the twentieth century, I find that unions were more likely to form and strikes were more likely to occur in counties with intermediate-sized worker groups and large employer groups.

scholarly journals State Responsibility for “Targeted Sanctions”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 135-139
Author(s):  
Antonios Tzanakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Legal Entities

The United States and other actors such as the European Union impose “targeted sanctions” against foreign officials for acts carried out in their official capacity, or against legal entities of targeted states. This mirrors the practice and experience of the United Nations. The Security Council's practice of imposing comprehensive sanctions in the early 1990s quickly evolved into a practice of “targeted” or “smart” sanctions, to both improve effectiveness and to alleviate the significant effects of sanctions on the population of targeted states. However, the legal regime for resorting to sanctions is different when it comes to states acting unilaterally than it is for collective action within the framework of the UN Charter. This essay first clarifies some terminological issues. It then delves into the legality of the practice of unilateral “targeted sanctions,” and concludes that the most legally difficult aspect of these measures is their purported extraterritoriality.

scholarly journals WHEN DO CITIZENS TAKE COSTLY ACTION AGAINST GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION? EVIDENCE FROM EXPERIMENTS IN AUSTRALIA, SINGAPORE, AND THE UNITED STATES

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Fiona Yap
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Threshold Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Theoretical Argument ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Government Corruption ◽  
Survey Experiments ◽  
Stag Hunt Game

AbstractWhen do citizens take costly collective action against government corruption? When citizens act in concert, their demands are credible and not easily discounted by governments, which should be more likely to respond. In this study, we use the stag-hunt game, supplemented by Granovetter's threshold model of collective action, to investigate the conditions under which citizens coordinate to collectively act against government corruption. We use survey experiments in laboratory settings in Australia, Singapore, and the United States. The results show several conditions motivate participants to pursue collective action; using the wellspring of the theoretical argument, they clarify that information that others pursue collective action, together with clear mutual benefits as measured by rewards, are primary motivators of the individual's choice. Correspondingly, other considerations, including initial costs or final potential penalties, do not bear on the individual's choice. The findings have implications not only for the empirical literature on policy but also for policy debates on how to control it.

An Agenda for Comparing Local Governance and Institutional Collective Action in Canada and the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 858-886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric S. Zeemering
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Local Governance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Reform ◽  
Institutional Collective Action ◽  
And Performance ◽  
International Border

As neighboring federal systems, Canada and the United States provide an opportunity to compare institutional collective action (ICA) by proximate local governments. After explaining the importance of understanding local governance in Canada and the United States in comparative context, the ICA framework is used to highlight propositions along two paths of inquiry. First, the ICA framework can be used to compare responses to ICA dilemmas in two distinct systems of local governance, focusing on the comparative instance of use and performance of ICA mechanisms. Second, the ICA framework can be used to analyze collaboration and paradiplomacy across the international border. Deploying the ICA framework for comparative research can improve our understanding of local governance and local government reform in both countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document