The politics of suffering: Progress, modernity and the adolescent crisis

A concern for progress is central to the public agendas of modern societies. Political actors compete with one another mainly with regard to their respective claims to bring about a better future, particularly in the economic and technological spheres. The focus on progress has, however, deeper roots which date back to the aspirations of the Enlightenment. Around that time, the belief arose that systematic improvements are made possible by the structural features of modern society and culture, improvements that will gradually release humanity from much of the suffering characterising its historical past. This article argues the persistence of a culture of progress, rather than easing suffering, in fact enhances and mobilises it for the pursuit of superficial forms of gain. It is also claimed the attempt by Habermas' critical theory to develop a broader and more satisfactory conception of progress fails to address this problem. The article suggests an alternative and more fundamental critique of progressive ideas is required. It reflects upon these abstract theoretical questions in connection with the concrete example of the 'adolescent crisis' and the role ideas of progress play within it.

ANZUS - Alive and well after fifty years

Marking its fiftieth anniversary in late 2001, the ANZUS alliance remains Australia's primary security relationship and one of the United States' most important defence arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region. It is argued here that ANZUS has defied many common suppositions advanced by international relations theorists on how alliances work. It thus represents an important refutation of arguments that they are short-term instruments of mere policy expediency and are largely interest-dependent. Cultural and normative factors are powerful, if often underrated, determinants for ANZUS's perpetuation. ANZUS may thus constitute an important test case for expanding our understanding of alliance politics beyond the usual preconditions and prerogatives normally associated with such a relationship.

Commonwealth of Australia: July to December 2001

The six-month period from July to December 2001 was an extraordinary phase in Australia’s political history. Until 26 August, when 460 asylum seekers were rescued from their sinking vessel off the Western Australian coast, there was nothing to suggest that politics in Australia would be any different from the usual round of policy pronouncements, routine attacks by the opposition, and the occasional headlinegrabbing scandal. It seemed, as the Australian’s international editor Paul Kelly wrote, that tax would dominate the 2001 federal election campaign (21-22 July 2001). Once the asylum seekers had been rescued by the Norwegian freighter Tampa and refused entry to Australia, however, tax declined in significance. The ramifications of the Tampa incident and its aftermath were still engaging the Australian polity when, on 11 September, terrorists hijacked four passenger jets in the United States and flew two of them into the World Trade Centre in New York, one into the Pentagon, and crashed another in Pennsylvania, killing, it was estimated, more than 6000 people. Both incidents changed Australian politics. The extent and significance of the changes remain to be fully seen, but one short-term effect was to boost significantly the government’s chances of re-election.

McCabe v Goliath: The case against British American tobacco Australia Services Ltd

Significance of the decision in McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd - ramifications for the possibilities for success of future litigation of this nature in Australia and overseas - ethical and public policy issues regarding the duties of lawyers to the courts and to their clients - whilst a lawyer's implication in the destruction of documents to prevent a fair trial ultimately involves stricter duties, it exposes a need for vigilance against the possibilities for corporations to act outside the public interest, if not the justice system.

'The utility of human security': Which humans? What security? A reply to Thomas & Tow

Thomas & Tow's evaluation of the utility of human security is an important contribution to an ongoing debate about what security is and for whom security should be provided. In particular, the authors' engagement with the human security agenda is important given the centrality of this approach to recent attempts to rethink security. This article argues, however, that Thomas & Tow's approach to the human security agenda is problematic for two central reasons. First, their attempt to narrow security to make this approach amenable to state policymakers risks reifying the sources of insecurity for individuals everywhere. Second, the conception of human security they put forward appears largely inconsistent with the normative concerns inherent in the human security agenda.