The European Parliament is The First Directly Elected international parliament in history. June 1994 marks the beginning of its fourth term of five years. The Treaty on European Union, which came into force on 1 November 1993, strengthens the powers of the Parliament in a number of significant ways. Now is a good time, therefore, to reflect on the development of the European Parliament, and to speculate on its potential.

It is Part of Conventional Wisdom That Organized interests have a considerable impact on European policies and that economic interests in particular have had a greater influence on EC affairs than the European Parliament. Nevertheless, they have attracted relatively little academic attention in comparison with that devoted to parliamentary interest representation. This is even more astonishing if we take account of the leading role given to interest groups by the neo-functionalistic approach, which has dominated integration theory for a long time.

The expression post-globalization was chosen here because it is more comprehensive than the now much more popular ‘post-cold war’. While the latter has the advantage of offering a chronological turning point (the formalities of the end of the 1980s), in reality it is only the ideologico-military effect of a series of simultaneous changes in the world brought about in the last decade by the still ongoing and unpredictable information revolution. These changes affect all information and kinds of communication in the whole world and therefore justify the name of globalization - and for the transitional era which follows, of post-globalization in which we now live.

A Discussion of Last Autumn's Debate over Candidate selection in the British Labour Party and a consideration of the party's links with the trade unions may seem inappropriately provincial in an international journal of comparative politics. However, when viewed as an example of the continued search for political relevance by socialist parties in opposition, the issues raised by Labour's struggle to modernize take on more general interest. During long periods in the wilderness parties characteristically try to revive their fortunes by reforming organizational structures, ideological platforms and electoral strategies. For Labour, this started under the leadership of Neil Kinnock and continued with John Smith. The party has moved cautiously towards the centre ground, streamlined its election machine, modernized its communication strategy, and produced a more unified and moderate image. Labour's reforms of its relationship with the union movement are clearly part of this general attempt to reverse its electoral fortunes.

‘Cometh The Hour, Cometh The Man’ . . . in This Case two men, in the unlikely figures of the British Prime Minister, John Major, and the Irish Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds. Neither is a charismatic personality and each presides over a government with more than its fair share of problems. Yet with one leap they have agreed on an issue which removes them from the mundane realities of domestic politics and offers them a place in the sun. Already the Irish Council of the European Movement has awarded Mr Reynolds (alongside the SDLP leader, John Hume ) its ‘Man of the Year’ award. Can a Nobel Peace Prize be far behind? The Prime Minister has not been slow to exploit the huge potential in the peace process. He informed the Commons on the day that the Joint Declaration was signed, 15 December 1993, that when he met the Taoiseach at Downing Street ‘two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and in the Republic . . . we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it a personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement’.

The Success of The Movement For Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) is too recent an event to permit any firm assessment of changes taking place in the Zambian political system. These are, however, probably weighted in favour of a more democratic regime. A situation has arisen in which the powers of the President and those of a parliamentary opposition hang in the balance. In Africa presidents have tended to gain the upper hand but this may prove not to be the case in Zambia.

There are at Least Three Possible Types of View about the justifiability of the use of force by states or private individuals on behalf of other private individuals or groups who are the victims of brutal and gratuitous coercion by another state. The first type of view is that no human being, and a fortiori no state, can be justified in using force under any circumstances and for any purpose, because (and only because) force is an intrinsic evil. This unflinchingly deontological view is generous but practically absurd. The second type of view is that states (or even private individuals) can be, and often arc, justified in using force against the brutally coercive actions of another state when, but only when, the latter is acting outside its own territorial jurisdiction. At least in the case of states what grounds that justification is their entitlement to defend themselves against foreign (as against domestic) aggression, and to defend also any other states with whom they have linked themselves either by standing alliances or by solemn common undertakings to secure each other's safety and sovereignty within the bounds of international law. In the case of private individuals, the corresponding justification would lie in their several personal entitlements to defend themselves as best they can against aggression.