Who Should Rule? traces the ambitious imperial reform that empowered new and competing political actors in an era of intense imperial competition, war, and the breakdown of the Spanish empire. Mónica Ricketts examines the rise of men of letters and military officers in two central areas of the Spanish world: the viceroyalty of Peru and Spain. This was a disruptive, dynamic, and long process of common imperial origins. In 1700, two dynastic lines, the Spanish Habsburgs and the French Bourbons, disputed the succession to the Spanish throne. After more than a decade of war, the latter prevailed. Suspicious of the old Spanish court circles, the new Bourbon Crown sought meritorious subjects for its ministries, men of letters and military officers of good training among the provincial elites. Writers and lawyers were to produce new legislation to radically transform the Spanish world. They would reform the educational system and propagate useful knowledge. Military officers would defend the monarchy in this new era of imperial competition. Additionally, they would govern. From the start, the rise of these political actors in the Spanish world was an uneven process. Military officers became a new and somewhat solid corps. In contrast, the rise of men of letters confronted constant opposition. Rooted elites in both Spain and Peru resisted any attempts at curtailing their power and prerogatives and undermined the reform of education and traditions. As a consequence, men of letters found limited spaces in which to exercise their new authority, but they aimed for more. A succession of wars and insurgencies in America fueled the struggles for power between these two groups, paving the way for decades of unrest. Emphasizing the continuities and connections between the Spanish worlds on both sides of the Atlantic, this work offers new perspectives on the breakdown of the empire, the rise of modern politics in Spanish America, and the transition to Peruvian independence.

This pamphlet is for anyone alarmed by the present British government. It argues that the component nations of the United Kingdom can become true democracies only by declaring themselves republics. The authors are Alasdair Gray, writer of fiction and pamphlets such as Why Scots Should Rule Scotland, and Adam Tomkins, Professor of Public Law in the University of Glasgow and author of Public Law and Our Republican Constitution. Both are committed republicans.

Alsadair Gray wrote the first edition of this book for the 1992 general election. In it he showed the poor state of present-day Scotland; gave a concise, elegant history of the Scottish people and their relations with the rulers of England; argued that Scotland should have a strong government elected by its own people. Five years later Scotland still does not have that and its state has worsened. The original chapters have been revised and largely rewritten. New chapters dealing with Scottish education, land owning, and law and the Labour Party bring the argument to date. This is a more openly political book than the first edition, written to persuade people who feel their vote does not much influence how their country is managed that Scottish independence matters, and that only one political party is honestly working to achieve it.

What if something as seemingly academic as the so-called science wars were to determine how we live? This eye-opening book reveals how little we've understood about the ongoing pitched battles between the sciences and the humanities--and how much may be at stake. James Brown's starting point is C. P. Snow's famous book, Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, which set the terms for the current debates. But that little book did much more than identify two new, opposing cultures, Brown contends: It also claimed that scientists are better qualified than nonscientists to solve political and social problems. In short, the true significance of Snow's treatise was its focus on the question of who should rule--a question that remains vexing, pressing, and politically explosive today. In Who Rules in Science? Brown takes us through the various engagements in the science wars--from the infamous "Sokal affair" to angry confrontations over the nature of evidence, the possibility of objectivity, and the methods of science--to show how the contested terrain may be science, but the prize is political: Whoever wins the science wars will have an unprecedented influence on how we are governed. Brown provides the most comprehensive and balanced assessment yet of the science wars. He separates the good arguments from the bad, and exposes the underlying message: Science and social justice are inextricably linked. His book is essential reading if we are to understand the forces making and remaking our world.

What constitutes the study of philosophy or physics? What exactly does an anthropologist do, or a geologist or historian? In short, what are the arts and sciences? While many of us have been to college and many aspire to go, we may still wonder just what the various disciplines represent and how they interact. What are their origins, methods, applications, and unique challenges? What kind of people elect to go into each of these fields, and what are the big issues that motivate them? Curious to explore these questions himself, Dartmouth College professor and mathematician Dan Rockmore asked his colleagues to explain their fields and what it is that they do. The result is an accessible, entertaining, and enlightening survey of the ideas and subjects that contribute to a liberal education. The book offers a doorway to the arts and sciences for anyone intrigued by the vast world of ideas.

The obligations stemming from international law are still predominantly considered, despite important normative and descriptive critiques, as being 'based' on (State) consent. To that extent, international law differs from domestic law where consent to the law has long been considered irrelevant to law-making, whether as a criterion of validity or as a ground of legitimacy. In addition to a renewed historical and philosophical interest in (State) consent to international law, including from a democratic theory perspective, the issue has also recently regained in importance in practice. Various specialists of international law and the philosophy of international law have been invited to explore the different questions this raises in what is the first edited volume on consent to international law in English language. The collection addresses three groups of issues: the notions and roles of consent in contemporary international law; its objects and types; and its subjects and institutions.

The key ideas on authority of a powerful and historically important thinker.

A collection of 6 volumes of Oakeshott's work: Notebooks, 1922-86, Early Political Writings 1925-30, The Concept of a Philosophical Jurisprudence, Vocabulary of a Modern European State, Lectures in the History of Political Thought, and What is History?