Search Results

This chapter describes how, since the 1980s, policymakers have managed to reduce and control inflation without unacceptably adverse welfare impacts by changing the monetary policy regime in a way that subjects policy to an external rule. The record in this period suggests that policymakers and economists have arrived at a better understanding of monetary policy and on how to keep the price level low and stable, while at the same time keeping real growth high and stable. This understanding incorporates three key beliefs. First, there is a natural rate of unemployment at which inflation is stable. Second, there is a transmission mechanism through which monetary policy actions affect the economy. Third monetary policymakers face trade-offs.

This chapter examines how the EU has imposed external rule of law constraints on the Member States both as regards their domestic and foreign policies; and how both EU law itself internally, and international law externally, have imposed rule of law constraints on the EU. The discussion is organized as follows. It first sets out the core of the rule of law. It then explains how European integration has used a particular method, that is, the “Community method” or what could now be called the “ordinary Union method,” to enhance the observance of the rule of law among the nations of Europe. It then explores how that method explains both the undeniable success and some of the failures of the EU project. In particular, it is argued that that particular choice of method for European integration has led to a failure of the imposition of rule of law constraints on the area of “high politics” foreign policy. The lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice within the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is used to illustrate that shortcoming, which considers the ordinary Union method as the only option for subjecting Member States' behavior to the rule of law, leaving other alternatives unconsidered. At the same time, the possibility of extending the Court's jurisdiction to the CFSP is used to illustrate how the rule of law can be advanced outside the original Community paradigm. The chapter argues that such advancement is only possible if the Union simultaneously strives for a reinforcement of the rule of law at the international level. It concludes that the cornerstone of European integration is not the ordinary Union method as the particular method chosen to subject Member States' behavior to the rule of law, but the rule of law itself.

Tod’s deliberate choice to simultaneously defend the Rajputs as a historically grounded people capable of moving into the modern world, while also upholding the beneficial effects of prolonged British rule in India can explain his political efforts to incite respect among the British authorities for the Rajputs’ sense of honour, with the intention of preventing Rajput rejection of any humiliating imposition of external British Rule. This political message of tolerance, which went against the dominant British way of thinking at the time, also situates Tod as an individual who refused to conform to simplistic, binary oppositions of powers, or races, or nations. A few comparisons of Tod’s trajectory with other scholarly British traveller-philanthropists, in the Middle East for example, highlight the particularities of Tod’s role concerning knowledge constructions about the Rajputs and the Gujaratis.