The Sword and the Scales is the first in-depth and comprehensive study of attitudes and behaviors of the United States toward major international courts and tribunals, including the International Courts of Justice, WTO, and NAFTA dispute settlement systems; the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and all international criminal courts. Thirteen essays by American legal scholars map and analyze current and past patterns of promotion or opposition, use or neglect, of international judicial bodies by various branches of the United States government, suggesting a complex and deeply ambivalent relationship. The United States has been, and continues to be, not only a promoter of the various international courts and tribunals but also an active participant of the judicial system. It appears before some of the international judicial bodies frequently and supports more, both politically and financially. At the same time, it is less engaged than it could be, particularly given its strong rule of law foundations and its historical tradition of commitment to international law and its institutions.

This dual biography of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King upends longstanding preconceptions to transform our understanding of the twentieth century's most iconic African American leaders. To most Americans, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. represent contrasting ideals: self-defense vs. nonviolence, black power vs. civil rights, the sword vs. the shield. The struggle for black freedom is wrought with the same contrasts. While nonviolent direct action is remembered as an unassailable part of American democracy, the movement's militancy is either vilified or erased outright. In The Sword and the Shield, Peniel E. Joseph upends these misconceptions and reveals a nuanced portrait of two men who, despite markedly different backgrounds, inspired and pushed each other throughout their adult lives. This is a strikingly revisionist biography, not only of Malcolm and Martin, but also of the movement and era they came to define.

"As digital media becomes more omnipresent in our lives, it becomes ever more important for political scientists and communication scholars to understand its influence on all aspects of the political process--from campaigning to governance. Catie Snow Bailard seeks to determine the Internet's influence on citizens' evaluations of their governments' performance, particularly whether the Internet influences their satisfaction regarding the quality of democratic practices available in their nation. While itis clearly important to understand how the Internet can streamline political organization once people are moved to action, the discipline has afforded less attention to whether the Internet influences citizens at this more foundational, antecedent stage of political action. Bailard originates two theories for democratization specialists to consider: mirror-holding and window-opening. Mirror-holding explores how accessing the Internet allows citizens to see a more detailed and nuanced view of their own government's performance, dirty laundry and all. Window-opening, on the other hand, enables those same citizens to see how other governments' perform in general, particularly in comparison to their own. The author offers a theory of the impact of Internet use on evaluations of government, as well as tests of that theory at the country and individual levels based on survey data collected in 73 countries and two field experiments conducted in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Tanzania"--