There is almost unanimous agreement that civilians should be protected from the direct effects of violent conflict, and that the distinction between combatant and non-combatant should be respected. But what are the fundamental ethical questions about civilian immunity? Are new styles of conflict making this distinction redundant? Eloquently combining theory and practice, leading scholars from the fields of political science, law and philosophy have been brought together to provide an essential overview of some of the major ethical, legal and political issues with regard to protecting civilians caught up in modern inter- and intra-state conflicts. In doing so, they examine what is being done, and what can be done, to make soldiers more aware of their responsibilities in this area under international law and the ethics of war, and more able to respond appropriately to the challenges that will confront them in the field. 'Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict' presents a clear-eyed look at the dilemmas facing regular combatants as they confront enemies in the modern battlespace, and especially the complications arising from the new styles of conflict where enemy and civilian populations merge.

George Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty Four that 'If there is hope, it lies in the proles.' A century earlier Marx was unequivocal: the future belonged to the proletariat. Today such confidence might seem misplaced. The proletariat has not yet fulfilled Marx's expectations, and seems unlikely ever to do so. How could Marx have entertained the notion that the proletariat would emancipate humanity from capitalism and from class rule itself? This book, first published in 1988, attempts an explanation by examining the sources and development of Marx's concept of the proletariat. It contends that this was not only a crucial element in Marx's theory but a significant departure in socialist thought. By examining this concept in detail the book uncovers a major contradiction in Marxian thought: although the proletariat is assigned a momentous task it is chiefly depicted as the class of suffering which is why, historically, it has preferred security to enterprise.

There is almost unanimous agreement that civilians should be protected from the direct effects of violent conflict, and that the distinction between combatant and non-combatant should be respected. But what are the fundamental ethical questions about civilian immunity? Are new styles of conflict making this distinction redundant? Eloquently combining theory and practice, leading scholars from the fields of political science, law and philosophy have been brought together to provide an essential overview of some of the major ethical, legal and political issues with regard to protecting civilians caught up in modern inter- and intra-state conflicts. In doing so, they examine what is being done, and what can be done, to make soldiers more aware of their responsibilities in this area under international law and the ethics of war, and more able to respond appropriately to the challenges that will confront them in the field. 'Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict' presents a clear-eyed look at the dilemmas facing regular combatants as they confront enemies in the modern battlespace, and especially the complications arising from the new styles of conflict where enemy and civilian populations merge.

George Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty Four that 'If there is hope, it lies in the proles.' A century earlier Marx was unequivocal: the future belonged to the proletariat. Today such confidence might seem misplaced. The proletariat has not yet fulfilled Marx's expectations, and seems unlikely ever to do so. How could Marx have entertained the notion that the proletariat would emancipate humanity from capitalism and from class rule itself? This book, first published in 1988, attempts an explanation by examining the sources and development of Marx's concept of the proletariat. It contends that this was not only a crucial element in Marx's theory but a significant departure in socialist thought. By examining this concept in detail the book uncovers a major contradiction in Marxian thought: although the proletariat is assigned a momentous task it is chiefly depicted as the class of suffering which is why, historically, it has preferred security to enterprise.

This study is a contribution to the debate, begun just after the October Revolution, concerning the relationship between Marx's project and Soviet society. It focuses, however, only on the political aspects of the matter: to what extent was early Soviet authoritarianism the necessary outcome of Marx's works? Since Lenin's practice and theory largely determined and justified the early political character of the Soviet state, we may ask whether Lenin was implementing Marx's project or a project of his own design. Lenin, influenced by debates within Social Democracy and by the experience of the Russian revolutionary tradition, used a one-sided interpretation of Marx's work to build and defend a 'transition' which was fundamentally authoritarian. Marx was not causally responsible for the theoretical foundation of Soviet authoritarianism.

Despite being described as 'a remarkably successful partnership' by John Howard and a 'triumph of trust' by his counterpart, Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, the art of coalition government is a delicate (and sometimes difficult) balancing of policy, politics and personalities. The relationship between the Liberal and Nationals parties ensured the Howard Government's stability and provided a solid foundation for its legislative program between 1996 and 2007. While the Coalition partnership has been pivotal to Australian politics since the Second World War, under the Howard prime ministership - despite occasional tensions - the two parties changed key aspects of Australian life through gun control, telecommunications and taxation reform, and balancing the budget. In The Art of Coalition, Joel Fitzgibbon, Zareh Ghazarian, Tom Frame, Linda Courtenay Botterill, Paul Davey, Tony Abbott and others convey the complexities of maintaining a strong political partnership, and the importance of trust in an effective coalition.