Labour or Conservative
Does it Matter in Anglo-American Relations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10076304 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alan P Dobson (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1990 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 387-407 |
| Publication date | 1990-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Contemporary History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-0094 • E-ISSN: 1461-7250 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/002200949002500401 |
| OpenAlex | W2086312913 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 4 |
In the political tradition of the Western liberal democracies, both moral convention and prudence dictate that one state should not interfere by either comment or action in the internal political affairs of another. Respect for the individual, and by extension for an independent nation-state, has much to do with the moral aspect of this, especially when one is dealing with a properly elected democratic government. The values of free government and individualism necessarily complement each other. Both demand the kind of respect which will allow their unique integrity to remain intact. The prudential grounds for avoiding involvement in the domestic affairs of another state, for example by expressing a clear preference for one political party over another, are twofold. First, by doing so a state invites retaliation in kind. Secondly, bilateral affairs may be rendered more difficult if the party for which a preference has been expressed does not gain power. Thus, in relations between states, certain kinds of fictions have come into being: namely that all are of equal standing in the state system; and that diplomatic relations can be carried out in a non-partisan way. The Soviet Union might condemn the US for its exploitative capitalism, but it would regard it as improper openly to express a preference or to promote the electoral fortunes of one American political party at the expense of another. Such conventions have an even stronger binding power between friendly states like the US and Britain. Since 1940, Britain and the US have been very close, and despite periodic difficulties have had, and continue to have, the closest cooperation of any two states in the fields of intelligence and nuclear technology. Also, for much of the post-war period they have worked together in managing the international economy. Quite clearly these
Convention · Democracy · Economics · Individualism · Law and economics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Preference · Prudence · Sociology · State (computer science · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,56 |
| Citation span | 2017 - 2023 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |