Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

American Journal of International Law: October 1997, New YorkAuthor(s): Jessie LiuSource: Foreign Policy, No. 109 (Winter, 1997-1998), pp. 171-172Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLCStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149475 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 18:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MOSCOW CAIRO ROME

LONDON PARIS

N WSST AHAD4 D TOKYO BEIJING

JOHANNESBURG WASHINGTON, D.C.

TEL AVIV BUENOS AIRES MEXICO CITY

Selected s(illimaries ()I Some of the main imil-lials of illtel-lialional affilirs research. allak'sis. and collilliviltarv from al-mlild III(. Nvorld.

American Journal of International Law October 1997, New York

This edition's lead articles on the subject of personal liberty illustrate how debates over freedom of expression and religion have intensified in an increasingly global age.

New York University law professor Thomas M. Franck steps into the fray by asking the always provocative if hardly original question, "Is per- sonal freedom a Western value?" Franck answers "no," at least with respect to religious autonomy. He argues that Islam, an "Eastern" reli- gion that many Westerners see as authoritarian and repressive, is gov- erned by a variety of religious authorities, many of whom take increasingly liberal positions on individual rights. On the other hand, England, Sweden, and the United States, the countries that appear to offer the greatest protection for personal freedom, were surprisingly intolerant of religious differences until just a few decades ago; even today restrictions on religious (and expressive) freedom remain.

Approaching freedom of expression from another angle, White House fellow Jamie Frederic Metzl argues that the United States should bring its stance on international freedom of expression in line with its domes- tic views. Although the United States enjoys a long tradition of protect- ing freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has ruled that speech directed toward inciting listeners to imminent lawless action may be pro- hibited. Strangely, the U.S. government remains considerably more tol- erant of foreign broadcasts that urge mass violence. Metzl traces this

WINTER 1997-98 171

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Global Newsstand

attitude to the Cold War years, when the United States, wary that com- munist countries might use any exception to free speech to justify political repression, was reluctant to join international agreements that allowed governments to jam broadcasts meant to instigate violence. Now that the Cold War is over, Metzl writes, the United States should block radio programs that, like the broadcasts of Radio-Television Libres des Milles Collines in Rwanda, urge their listeners to commit genocide.

-Jessie Liu

Capitulos del SELA October-December 1997, Caracas

Founded in the mid-1970s, the Latin American Economic System (SELA) was the progeny of European Union-sized ambitions. SELA's architects envisioned a committee of nations that might collectively secure favor- able loan terms from "the North." Though the institution never achieved the scope envisioned by its founders, it did emerge as a sponsor of impor- tant conferences and lectures and as the publisher of a journal that is a prominent voice in debates over economic reform in Latin America.

In general, Capftulos del SELA hews faithfully to the three holy "iza- tions" of reform-privatization, liberalization, and globalization. But a new study published in this edition by the International Labor Organi- zation (ILO) raises questions about their cost, showing that the capaci- ty of Latin America's private sector to generate new jobs has in fact failed to keep pace with the region's needs. Since 1990, despite govern- ment layoffs and a labor market benefiting from resumed economic growth, large- and medium-sized private firms have failed to absorb new workers. Where have these workers gone? According to the ILO, more than 56 percent held jobs in informal sectors in 1995, up from 51.6 per- cent in 1990. The rest are simply unemployed.

All of this suggests that something is wrong-or at least missing- in the region's recent reforms. These findings, however, will not leave reform advocates at a loss. They can argue that the goal of the reforms was not to inflate employment in the private sector. In fact, the stag- nation in the share of workers employed by large- and medium-sized firms could signal a positive economic trend-rising productivity. The ILO study documents that countries with the longest-sustained reforms eventually experience declines in unemployment.

172 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.38 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions