"Since January 2019, U.S. policy toward Venezuela has centered on [President Nicolas] Maduro's removal. The United States has advocated for a transitional government to facilitate a return to democracy," writes Council on Foreign Relations Fellow for Latin America Paul J. Angelo in a new Council Special Report, The Day After in Venezuela: Delivering Security and Dispensing Justice. "The best-case scenario-and one that the United States endorses in its 'Democratic Transition Framework for Venezuela'-would be a provisional government replacing Maduro and overseeing the transition to fresh presidential and legislative elections." Angelo maintains that international actors have not planned enough for stabilizing the security environment and fostering transitional justice in a post-Maduro Venezuela. "Quickly establishing public order and reinstating the rule of law would be crucial for [U.S.] support to be effective. And only after it has revived institutions to credibly deliver security and dispense justice could Venezuela restore democratic governance," Angelo explains. "The immediate aftermath of Maduro's departure could see conflict among armed factions, unstable political coalitions, incentives for corruption and criminality, a divided international response, and an outflow of migrants and refugees," he cautions. "U.S. policymakers would need to anticipate the fallout from a transition, even under the most auspicious conditions, and identify opportunities to ensure that the transitional context begets the restoration of democracy," he writes. These include: "The United States should focus first on activities aimed at building trust with the Venezuelan authorities and people. . . . U.S. authorities should condition their support on the transitional government's commitment to a democratic transition and to alleviating humanitarian suffering, while seeking points of entry that engender goodwill and create opportunities for deeper U.S. involvement in the country's reconstruction." "In addition to working through the United Nations and [Organization of American States], the U.S. government should negotiate with potential spoilers of the transition outside Venezuela," including China, Cuba, and Russia. "The U.S. government should use its relationships with other governments in the hemisphere and in Europe that have sustained less hostile relations with Maduro to ensure that international assistance has a multilateral brand." "Maduro will leave behind a legacy of oppression, economic ruin, and raging insecurity," Angelo warns. "Whether post-Maduro Venezuela devolves into anarchy and conflict, like Afghanistan, or follows the path to full democracy, like Chile, will depend on how Venezuelan authorities and its international partners manage the transition in its earliest days."

The book is devoted to the subject of Venezuela's politics and the different dimensions of its longstanding crisis, with various researchers exchanging ideas on the current problems affecting the country. It is the first comprehensive overview on the dimensions of Venezuela’s current crisis written in English, thus filling an important research gap. Especially the participation of international, well-known scholars make it a global enterprise. The book covers historical and theoretical facts surrounding the case of Venezuela and also focuses on the parties and actors that play decisive roles in the conflict. Subjects include the military, public administration, ideology, the opposition, the party landscape along with its crisis and Venezuela's oil policy. Furthermore the book touches upon international and regional aspects: Venezuela's diplomatic relations with the EU, the USA, Cuba and Colombia, respectively. The volume addresses a wider audience, such as scholars on Latin American and especially Venezuelan Politics, International Relations, as well as an interested public, including journalists and politicians.

A survey of the state of human freedom around the world investigates such crucial indicators as the status of civil and political liberties and provides individual country reports.

Traditional separation of powers theories assumed that governmental despotism will be prevented by dividing the branches of government which will check one another. Modern governments function with unexpected complicity among these branches. Sometimes one of the branches becomes overwhelming. Other governmental structures, however, tend to mitigate these tendencies to domination. Among other structures courts have achieved considerable autonomy vis-à-vis the traditional political branches of power. They tend to maintain considerable distance from political parties in the name of professionalism and expertise. The conditions and criteria of independence are not clear, and even less clear are the conditions of institutional integrity. Independence (including depolitization) of public institutions is of particular practical relevance in the post-Communist countries where political partisanship penetrated institutions under the single party system. Institutional integrity, particularly in the context of administration of justice, became a precondition for accession to the European Union. Given this practical challenge the present volume is centered around three key areas of institutional integrity, primarily within the administration of justice: First, in a broader theoretical-interdisciplinary context the criteria of institutional independence are discussed. The second major issue is the relation of neutralized institutions to branches of government with reference to accountability. Thirdly, comparative experience regarding judicial independence is discussed to determine techniques to enhance integrity.