Explore the vast range of titles available.

James Ron uses controversial comparisons between Serbia and Israel to present a novel theory of state violence. Formerly a research consultant to Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross, Ron witnessed remarkably different patterns of state coercion. Frontiers and Ghettos presents an institutional approach to state violence, drawing on Ron's field research in the Middle East, Balkans, Chechnya, Turkey, and Africa, as well as dozens of rare interviews with military veterans, officials, and political activists on all sides. Studying violence from the ground up, the book develops an exciting new framework for analyzing today's nationalist wars.

What shapes the transnational activist agenda? Do non-governmental organizations with a global mandate focus on the world's most pressing problems, or is their reporting also affected by additional considerations? To address these questions, we study the determinants of country reporting by an exemplary transnational actor, Amnesty International, during 1986-2000. We find that while human rights conditions are associated with the volume of their country reporting, other factors also matter, including previous reporting efforts, state power, U.S. military assistance, and a country's media profile. Drawing on interviews with Amnesty and Human Rights Watch staff, we interpret our findings as evidence of Amnesty International's social movement-style \"information politics.\" The group produces more written work on some countries than others to maximize advocacy opportunities, shape international standards, promote greater awareness, and raise its profile. This approach has both strengths and weaknesses, which we consider after extending our analysis to other transnational sectors.

\"Paul Jenkins, one of the most cerebral writers in comics, delves deep into Banner's head--and reveals the full horrors within! Bruce is dying--but when he breathes his last, what will be left behind? One of the Hulks we know? Or something far worse? Meanwhile, a ruthless new enemy unleashes an array of deadly threats--including his gamma-powered dogs of war! And Banner seeks revenge on the man who killed Betty in a blockbuster battle between the Hulk and the Abomination! Collecting Jenkins' complete exploration of all aspects of the Jade Giant--from his classic \"Hulk Smash\" self to his Professor persona, Joe Fixit and more--plus startling stories of the era from an array of talented creators!\"--Jacket.

In the spring of 2014, a group of prominent commentators slammed the New York–based organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) for maintaining a “revolving door” with the U.S. government. Exhibit A, the critics said, was Tom Malinowski, a senior staffer who had joined HRW in 2001 after seven years working in the U.S. government, returned to government service from 2013 to 2017, and then was elected as a New Jersey congressman in 2018. This and similar cases, the critics said, made HRW appear overly cozy with U.S. officialdom. Given “the impact of global perceptions on HRW's ability to carry out its work,” the letter writers opined, even the “appearance of impropriety” undermined the organization's credibility. To counter these and similar views, HRW has ramped up its criticism of U.S. policies, opened new offices outside North America, and hired more international staff. Other international human rights organizations (IHROs) have done the same, including Amnesty International, another well‐known group whose “moving closer to the ground” strategy has relocated portions of its International Secretariat from London to cities in the Global South. Major private funders, including the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation, have financially supported these globalization efforts. The foregoing letter criticizing HRW is only one of many such exchanges in a lengthy debate ongoing since the 1970s, when human rights groups first began participating in debates over international politics: whose geopolitical interests do human rights groups really serve? When HROs chastise governments, are they geopolitically impartial neutrals advancing universal principles, furthering U.S. geopolitical interests by delegitimizing rivals and promoting liberal‐capitalist ideology, or engaging in global “soft balancing”? All actors in this debate must assume that public opinion is generally on their side; to believe otherwise would be to suggest that HROs have systematically deceived publics worldwide. Until now, however, there has been little systematic investigation of global publics’ actual perceptions of HROs’ relations with the United States. To be sure, survey researchers do regularly ask publics worldwide about their views of the United States. A handful, moreover, have asked the public for their opinions toward human rights principles. The surveys conducted for the current study, however, are the only ones we know of to simultaneously ask about attitudes toward HROs and the U.S. government. As a result, we know little of the relationship between the two. To investigate, we administered our Human Rights Perceptions Poll to 9,380 people through face‐to‐face interviews in six countries in Latin America, North Africa, sub‐Saharan Africa, and South Asia. In India, Morocco, and Nigeria, we surveyed adults living in and around major financial and political centers (Mumbai, Rabat/Casablanca, and Lagos). In Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico, by contrast, our surveys were nationally representative (see Appendix B). We hypothesize that publics do not regard HROs as allies of U.S. foreign policy; instead, we expect them to view rights organizations either as geopolitical neutrals or as counterhegemons. Statistical analysis of our survey data offers support for this claim; in four of the six locales we investigated and in our pooled, all‐country sample, public trust in local HROs (LHROs) is negatively and significantly associated with trust in the U.S. government. The same is true for IHROs in our three Latin American cases and in the pooled sample. As our hypothesis predicted, in none of our cases across world regions is public trust in HROs positively associated with public trust in the U.S. government. These findings cumulatively support our expectation that publics do not view HROs as “handmaidens” of U.S. imperialism. We begin by demonstrating the statistical association between public trust in HROs and mistrust in the U.S. government in Latin America. This is a “most likely” case, as HROs working in and on Latin America have historically opposed U.S.‐supported state repression by right‐wing authoritarians. If people anywhere are likely to view HROs as neutral or opposed to U.S. primacy, they will do so here. Controlling for other relevant factors, we find exactly that: public mistrust in the U.S. government in Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico is indeed significantly associated with greater trust in both LHROs and IHROs. The relationship between trust in HROs and in the U.S. government, in other words, is inverse. Extending our investigation to three other world regions offers a more demanding test, given their broader array of cultural, religious, historical, and geostrategic conditions. Still, even outside Latin America we found no positive associations between trust in the U.S. government and trust in HROs. To be sure, HRW's critics may, or may not, be correct in alleging the organization has been closely connected to the U.S. government; our surveys cannot shed light on this question. As far as public opinion goes in our six cases, however, rights organizations have little cause for concern on this count, as the general public does not perceive them as U.S. government allies. Proponents of U.S. soft power, however, should be concerned; if you believe the U.S. government really is a global rights promoter, it should be discomfiting to learn that this view is not widely shared in these six countries.

What if Peter Parker and Mary Jane had a daughter? The ever-amazing answer is, she'd be May \"Mayday\" Parker -A.K.A. Spider-Girl! Spinning out of the pages of WHAT IF? into her very own universe, the teenage Mayday inherits spider-powers and dons the red-and-blues of her retired father! Now follow her adventures from the very beginning, as Mayday learns about Spider-Man's legacy and wrestles with whether to follow in his footsteps! She'll face threats old and new - from the Venom symbiote and Kaine, to Crazy Eight and the Dragon King - and meet some of the incredible faces of the future Marvel Universe, like Darkdevil, Wild Thing, the Fantastic Five and the newest roster of the mighty Avengers! Discover a friendly neighborhood hero for a new generation!

Argues that the growing number of international organizations and international nongovernmental organizations within a given transnational sector increases uncertainty, competition, and insecurity for all organizations in that sector, and that use of competitive tenders and renewable contracting generates incentives that produce dysfunctional outcomes; based on case studies of transnational assistance in Kyrgyzstan, Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Bosnia.

Local human rights organizations (LHROs) are crucial allies in international efforts to promote human rights. Without support from organized civil society, efforts by transnational human rights reformers would have little effect. Despite their importance, we have little systematic information on the correlates of public trust in LHROs. To fill this gap, we conducted key informant interviews with 233 human rights workers from sixty countries, and then administered a new Human Rights Perceptions Poll to representative public samples in Mexico (n = 2,400), Morocco (n = 1,100), India (n = 1,680), and Colombia (n = 1,699). Our data reveal that popular trust in local rights groups is consistently associated with greater respondent familiarity with the rights discourse, actors, and organizations, along with greater skepticism toward state institutions and agents. The evidence fails to provide consistent, strong support for other commonly held expectations, however, including those about the effects of foreign funding, socioeconomic status, and transnational connections.

What influences the Northern media's coverage of events and abuses in explicit human rights terms? Do international NGOs have an impact, and, if so, when are they most effective? This article addresses these questions with regression analysis of human rights reporting by The Economist and Newsweek from 1986 to 2000, covering 145 countries. First, it finds that these two media sources cover abuses in human rights terms more frequently when they occur in countries with higher levels of state repression, economic development, population, and Amnesty International attention. There is also some evidence that political openness, number of battle-deaths, and civil societies affect coverage, although these effects were not robust. Second, it finds that Amnesty Internationsl's press releases appear to have less impact on media coverage when discussing abuses in countries that are central to the media's zone of concern. Indeed, Amnesty's press advocacy may be more effective when addressing violations in lesser-noticed countries. The article attributes this to the saturation of coverage of abuses in highly mediatized countries. Cumulative attention by multiple journalists and others raises a country's media profile but also makes it more difficult for any one voice to be heard. The authors conclude that Amnesty's press advocacy may have greater media impact when focusing on abuses in countries located away from the media's core areas of concern. Overall, the authors are encouraged by the Northern media's sensitivity to actual patterns of repression and to Amnesty's lobbying, since both indicate that the media is potentially a useful ally in efforts to combat abuses worldwide. Yet, the discouraging effects of poverty on the media's human rights coverage are cause for concern.